Sitting of 27 February 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Andrew Miller: If he will make a statement on the money allocated in the spending review 2002 for the voluntary sector. [99461]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Home Secretary and I plan to publish a paper on future policies for the voluntary sector. In addition to matching £400 million in gift aid with money for the active community unit and £125 million for the futurebuilders fund, the spending review gave priority to, and targeted extra resources on, voluntary sector participation in sure start, children's services, IT centres, community economic regeneration and the new deal. We also plan to introduce proposals to encourage gap year voluntary service by young people.
  Mr. Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments about sure start, which has been amazingly successful in my constituency, affecting 788 families. It is an example of the charitable and voluntary sectors and the Government working together. I urge him to do three things in respect of that superb project: to provide more investment; to join me in urging all parties to support it; and to consider allowing greater local flexibility, so that boundaries, which are rigid at the moment, could be bent a little to provide help to families who need it but who just happen to live across a boundary.
  Mr. Brown: I know that my hon. Friend has a sure start scheme in his constituency that has had capital funding and helped 770 children in the area. We are very pleased that as a result of the engagement of the voluntary sector in every sure start project—it now runs 10 per cent. of the projects as the lead manager—we have managed to increase sure start child care and early-years budgets from £973 million last year to £1.5 billion by 2005–6. We are determined to improve provision in every area of the country where sure start projects are
  382
  needed. The best way forward is to engage the voluntary sector, but that would not be possible if there were a 20 per cent. cut in public spending.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Government promised an extra £50 million for specialist palliative care, including additional support for voluntary sector hospices, and that that commitment was underlined by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), as recently as 21 October last year, how does the Chancellor explain the fact, which infuriates the hardworking hospice movement, that it has so far received only 8 per cent. of the money first promised two and a half years ago?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman knows that the funding has been made available from the Treasury. Arrangements with individual hospices must be addressed locally, based on the view of local palliative care services. We are determined to put extra money into the hospice movement to help it, but I repeat that that would not be possible if the Flight plan for a 20 per cent. cut in public services were introduced.
  David Taylor: Northwest Leicestershire is fortunate in having a flourishing and independent voluntary sector. What plans does the Chancellor have to encourage greater corporate support for the voluntary sector and, in particular, for individual businesses to be able to give financial backing to those in their local community?
  Mr. Brown: The Chief Secretary has been leading the way from the Treasury in trying to engage the corporate sector in several new initiatives that would increase the amount of money available for, and the numbers of people engaged in, voluntary, community and charitable work. It would be welcomed on both sides of the House if we could increase the amount of corporate giving and corporate engagement in some of our voluntary and community projects. I look forward to publishing with the Home Secretary proposals on how we can move the process forward in the next few years. I remind my hon. Friend that gift aid is available for companies as well as for individuals, that it is the most generous system of tax relief for charities that has been made available in this country, and that it surpasses what is available in most other countries. I hope that the £400 million that we are now devoting to gift aid will increase over the next few years, from increases in both corporate and individual giving. I hope that we will have all-party support for that.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Given the pressure that the Chancellor has put on the funds of the voluntary sector, with the decline in charities' income—such as that experienced by hospices—from his removal of the advance corporation tax dividend credit and the imminent imposition of his jobs tax through the increase in the national insurance levy, can he find the resources to refund the £500 million per year of irrecoverable VAT

  383
  to charities? If he can, we will back him every step of the way and fully co-operate on the issue during the passage of the forthcoming Finance Bill.
  Mr. Brown: I find it amazing that the Conservative party, which raised VAT and then put it on fuel, is now claiming that these measures have harmed charities. On help for charities, we have the best regime for individual and corporate giving, with tax reliefs higher than they ever were under the Conservatives, and an active community unit budget that has been increased massively. At the same time, the futurebuilders programme, led by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, is putting £125 million extra into charities. None of the problems of charities could be solved if the Flight plan cut 20 per cent. from their expenditure.

  International Debt Relief
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: What plans he has to extend the scope of international debt relief. [99463]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question together with Questions 14 and 16.
  I am pleased to announce that, following the G7 meeting in Paris last weekend, all G7 members have agreed to examined how, in the short term, we can do more to help countries where, because of the decline in commodity prices and for other reasons, they have yet to achieve a sustainable exit from debt from our debt relief programmes. We shall also examine how, in the longer run, we can together provide a new international finance facility, so that instead of poor countries having to pay higher debt interest payments, they will have additional resources to invest in tackling illiteracy and disease.
  I have been grateful for all-party support for these initiatives. We hope to make further progress on all these matters at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in April this year.
  Mr. Dhanda: On behalf of trade justice campaigners in Gloucester and around the country, may I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on providing 100 per cent. debt relief to 26 developing countries? At the same time, however, does he share my concerns about the activities of private companies, of which those of Nestlé in Ethiopia offer one example? Such companies are pursuing litigation against heavily indebted poor countries, which often hampers our efforts to provide debt relief.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I thank him for the work that he does in his constituency to promote the debt relief campaign and the pursuit of the millennium development goals.
  I gather that Nestle is now settling the issue with Ethiopia. I met the Prime Minister of Ethiopia only two days ago, and I promised him, on the issue of debt relief, that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development would try to find a means at the international meetings in April to do more to help his country with the debt relief programme that he
  384
  wants to carry out. In the longer term, the issue is less what we do on debt relief than how much more resources, tied to reform, we can put into education and health programmes for countries such as Ethiopia and others. That is why the international finance facility, a British initiative gaining support among other countries, is so important. It is the long-term means by which we can guarantee that, instead of the poorest countries having to rely on debt relief, they will receive additional resources.
  Mr. Speaker: I call Phyllis Starkey.
  Hon. Members: Where is she?
  Mr. Speaker: Not here. I call Helen Jackson.
  Hon. Members: Where is she?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Chancellor investigate whether Phyllis Starkey and Helen Jackson were notified? I call Sir Patrick Cormack.
  Mr. John Bercow: He is always here.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: May I add my thanks and congratulations to the Chancellor? What steps are being taken to ensure that corrupt and tyrannical regimes are not the beneficiaries of what he is doing?
  Mr. Brown: The whole House appreciates the hon. Gentleman's work in respect of Commonwealth countries. If we are to provide additional help for health, education and anti-poverty programmes, we must have a guarantee that the money will go not to corrupt elites, wasteful military expenditure and prestige projects by bureaucracies, but to the people. That is why the IMF's poverty reduction strategy programmes are so important, and why the initiatives that we have taken on transparency for fiscal and monetary policies in the highly indebted countries are important. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to learn that we are offering help to those countries to build up their capacity to run transparent financial policies, and thereby ensuring that everything possible is done to prevent the corruption to which he referred.
  Mr. John McFall: Does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor recall the UN development programme head who stated that the reason for 11 September was not Islam but the failure of Governments? Will my right hon. Friend continue to articulate the view that the world's long-term stability lies in easing the deep resentments in many developing countries? Will he work with the trade justice campaign and other campaigns to ensure that trade barriers are reduced, that the common agricultural policy is reformed, and that the World Trade Organisation fulfils its remit in respect of people in developing countries?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury and he is absolutely right: a world that is divided between people who have plenty and those who are denied basic necessities can be neither just nor stable. That is why it is so important that we

  385
  move forward to build a better relationship between developed and developing countries. As well as the actions that I have set out—on corruption and on providing extra aid resources—that better relationship includes the opening up of trade. Therefore, I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. One of the biggest boosts to tackling poverty in the poorest countries will be progress at the WTO talks in Mexico in September.

  National Insurance
  Mr. James Gray: What estimate he has made of the effect on employment of the national insurance rises due in April. [99464]
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): In line with long-established practice, the Government do not forecast employment. However, estimates by independent analysts show that the impact on employment from an increase in national insurance contributions is likely to be close to nil.
  Mr. Gray: Perhaps it is just as well that the Paymaster General does not predict the effects on employment. May I remind her of the words that the Government used in a press release that tried to justify the climate change levy after the 2000 Budget? They said:
  "The lower National Insurance Contributions will act to promote employment opportunities".
  Does she accept that the opposite also applies and that higher national insurance contributions will act to the detriment of employment opportunities, so that this is in a very real sense a tax on jobs?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that the reform of national insurance for the low paid removes the barrier that existed for so many people in taking jobs and being employed in the economy. He will remember that he put out a press release calling for more funds to be made available to the national health service. The national insurance rise that provides for that money is supported by people such as Anthony Goldstone, who says that business can benefit from it. If we are to have a first-class health service, we must pay for it. The national insurance rise is the best way to do so and will save money for business, which is currently losing about £11 billion a year in sickness days. It will ensure a healthier work force as well as a more just nation.
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when we introduced the national minimum wage the comments made by Conservative Members were very similar to those that we are hearing this morning about the increases in national insurance contributions? I remind my right hon. Friend that we were told that unemployment would go up by hundreds of thousands and that it would be the end of civilisation as we knew it. I do not think that any Conservative Member would criticise the national minimum wage today.
  Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) forecast repeatedly over a number of years that the introduction of the national minimum
  386
  wage would lose 2 million jobs. In fact, since the election of this Government, there have been more than 1.5 million new jobs in the economy, unemployment is at its lowest rate and employment is at its highest rate. When we compare that with the record of the previous Government— 2 million jobs lost, 1 million of which were in manufacturing, and 1.4 million disappearing from the economy—we can see the effect of their proposal for a 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure. That would have a real impact on employment, not the national insurance—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I say to the Minister that her answers are getting overlong and bordering on matters that are outside her responsibilities?
  Sir Michael Spicer: Does the Paymaster General accept that, typically, low-taxed economies are dynamic and high-taxed economies are static?
  Dawn Primarolo: To be brief, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he supports this Government, who, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, have created one of the lowest tax environments in the world, certainly lower than any of our European competitors, and the soundest economy of our European partners. What is more, we are paying for a national health service that this nation wants to be the best health service in the world, so that his constituents will get the treatment that they need.
  Miss Anne Begg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all the money raised by the national insurance rises will be invested in the national health service and that the largest proportion of money will go towards employing extra staff, extra nurses and extra doctors, thereby helping employment?
  Dawn Primarolo: I can confirm that the rises in national insurance have led to approximately £40 billion more for the national health service. They have meant more nurses, more doctors and more patients being treated, including Conservative Members' constituents, who would not be treated if the Conservative party cut public expenditure by 20 per cent. under the Flight plan.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Why is the Chancellor tightening his fiscal stance by increasing national insurance contributions when the growth rate is declining? Does he expect the Bank of England to accommodate his spending plans through further reductions in interest rates? What is the point of pursuing conflicting fiscal and monetary policies?
  Dawn Primarolo: We are increasing public expenditure at a time when it is vital to do that; the Conservative party wants to cut it.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she has the full support of Labour Members for the increases that will take place in April to ensure that we have a properly funded national health service that is financed through taxation?

  387
  I remind her that, in my constituency, expenditure on the health service has more than doubled in the past five years. We will get a new hospital, and the primary care trust's budget has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms. The new hospital will stimulate employment in the constituency—the Opposition often forget that point.
  Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right. There are 20,000 more nurses, 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 new GPs and 60 new hospitals. Those developments create jobs and services in our constituencies. The Conservative party would cut all that through the Flight plan.
  Mr. Michael Howard: May I invite the Paymaster General to return to the real world for a moment? Will she confirm that the tax on jobs and pay, which comes into force 38 days from today, will cost a typical family £440 a year? Will she also confirm that, at the same time, massive council tax increases—even greater than the huge rises forecast in the pre-Budget report—will take effect? Is it any wonder that the Health Secretary recently said that there would be
  "one hell of a lather about taxes rising",
  and that many people would conclude that the Government's approach "actually … isn't working"? Does the Paymaster General agree with the Health Secretary's comments?
  Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should return to the real world in his constituency, where he calls for more expenditure on health. He needs to tell hon. Members where he would find the extra money. He should explain to the House and his constituents why he supports the Flight plan, which would cut public expenditure by 20 per cent.
  Mr. Howard: The Paymaster General and the Chancellor can dissemble all they like about our policies, but we will tell the truth about theirs. Has the Paymaster General forgotten the Labour party's 1997 election manifesto? It stated:
  "The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government action".
  The sad truth is that the Government's failure to reform public services has left the Chancellor with no option but to levy increasingly higher taxes. Are not the Government locked in a vicious cycle of ever higher taxes and ever failing public services?
  Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has selective amnesia. He does not remember that he has called for more GPs in his constituency. He says one thing to his constituents about wanting more money and another in the House, where he proposes the Flight plan and 20 per cent. cuts. The Government's record on employment, job creation and funding the NHS and public services forms such a contrast to the economic policies of the Government of whom he was a member. They had the highest unemployment, lost the most jobs and had the highest interest rates.

  Travel Insurance
  Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement on his forthcoming report on travel insurance regulation. [99465]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I presume that my hon. Friend is asking about the recent consultation on whether travel insurance sold as part of a package with a holiday should be regulated by the Financial Services Authority. The Government are currently analysing the responses to the consultation on "Regulating Insurance Mediation". The consultation closed on 31 January. I will make an announcement on the outcomes of that consultation, including whether or not travel insurance sold with a holiday should be included in the scope of FSA regulation, in the second quarter of the year.
  Tony Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given that in 2001 the financial ombudsman said that one in eight of all insurance complaints related to travel insurance, and that last year complaints about travel insurance increased by 14 per cent., does my hon. Friend agree that we need to regulate to protect the consumer buying travel insurance, wherever it is bought from?
  Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There has been an intense debate on this subject with those respondents who have come back to the consultation with diametrically opposite views. Many bodies are in favour of FSA regulation; many are against. We have to strike the right balance between, for example, the perceived benefits of creating a level playing field for firms selling the same product and the evidence that my hon. Friend puts before the House today against the perceived regulatory costs placed on travel agents, for whom travel insurance forms a very small part of turnover. I shall certainly take into account my hon. Friend's evidence when making the decision, which I shall announce in due course.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: What changes there have been to his projections for economic growth since (a) the 2002 Budget and (b)the 2002 pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [99466]
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): UK gross domestic product grew by 1.6 per cent. in 2002, as projected in the pre-Budget report, and we will update our forecasts for the UK and world economies in the forthcoming Budget as normal.
  Mr. Rosindell: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he accept that the reality is that the Chancellor got his figures wrong and that sustainable growth in this country is not compatible with high taxes? Bearing that in mind, will he now reverse the irresponsible increases, particularly in national insurance, that will come into force in April?
  Mr. Boateng: We will do no such thing. Those increases fund a health service that is delivering to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and that is widely supported on this side of the House, even if it is undermined by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: Predicting growth is particularly difficult at present. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should recognise that. Many factors are affecting spending in the shops across the world. May I ask for an assurance that the Government's spending plans will be maintained, because if they are not, growth in this country could be put at risk?
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend, who studies these matters in great detail and whose contribution to the Treasury Committee is much appreciated, is absolutely right about the uncertainty in the time in which we live. One thing we can be certain about, however, is that our projections for public finances are based on reasonable and cautious assumptions, with built-in margins for the very uncertainty and shocks to which my hon. Friend rightly draws our attention. They are and remain fully affordable. That includes our proposals for the NHS and the increase in national insurance contributions that funds them.
  Matthew Taylor: Is it not extraordinary that, important as the voluntary sector and overseas aid undoubtedly are, the Chancellor ducks responding on the rather more fundamental issues of tax rises and the fall in economic growth currently taking place in this country? Can the shadow Secretary [HON. MEMBERS: "Shadow?"] I am sorry. Can the Chief Secretary, the Chancellor's shadow, explain—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House for calm. The Liberal Democrat spokesman should be heard.
  Matthew Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government seek to continue to blame world recession for problems where Britain is clearly doing worse, with investment now falling faster than in any other OECD country, with the exception of Iceland? Are the Government now pinning their reputation on beating Iceland?
  Mr. Boateng: The shadow Chancellor from Truro is, I fear, in a bit of a muddle, and not for the first time. The fact remains that GDP growth in the United Kingdom was higher than that of any of our major EU partners and competitors in the last two years, and it is predicted to remain so in the next.
  Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has no plans to change our published growth rates from pounds to euros? I note that the French growth rate last year was 1.2 per cent. in real terms, and the British growth rate was 1.6 per cent., but that the growth rate in euros was much greater in France due to currency fluctuations. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the House will
  390
  look at the real growth rates and continue to underline the success of our economy compared with those of our economic neighbours?
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend, who represents the interests of Croydon so very well, will understand if I do not go down the euro path, but I can assure him that we have done better than France in terms of growth over the past two years and that we are predicted to do so in the next.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Has the Chief Secretary forgotten that barely two weeks ago the Chancellor was boasting, on the Frost programme, that his November forecast for growth had been exceeded? Will the Chief Secretary acknowledge that yesterday's figures show that even that boast, based on the Chancellor's downgraded forecast of barely two months ago, was false? How many profit warnings does the Chief Secretary think the Chancellor can survive?
  Mr. Boateng: The amnesia is on the side of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He seems to have forgotten that, at the last time of global downturn, inflation peaked at almost 10 per cent. and he faced interest rates that had doubled for four years. That is the Conservative record; ours is one of sustained growth and stability. That is something of which we are proud and which the Conservatives should be applauding.

  Fuel Tax
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: What effect on fuel tax revenues will result from changes that he has made in the taxation of green fuels. [99467]
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The Government are committed to using duty incentives to promote increased use of alternative and green fuels to improve the environmental performance of road transport. In the next financial year, the wide range of existing duty incentives to use green fuels will be worth approximately £1.4 billion.
  Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which demonstrates the Government's commitment to encouraging the development of alternative fuels. Does he accept that tax signals need to be stable and long term to assist that development? Does he intend to relate reductions to the need and opportunity for development, such as the tremendous opportunities for the development of biofuels as blends to existing fuels at the pumps?
  John Healey: My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable about these matters, makes an important point. At each stage since we introduced measures on duty discounts for fuels, we have both weighed the evidence available to us and signalled in good time the changes that we plan to bring in—the very point that my hon. Friend makes. We have done that both with the new cut on biodiesel that we introduced in July last year

  391
  and in the pre-Budget report, when we announced ahead of time our intention to introduce a 20p per litre cut on bioethanol.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware of the experimental station near Selby, which was looking into making biofuels from willow produced by many farms in the Vale of York and which, regrettably, closed, despite the measures that the Government introduced? Looking ahead to the coming year, what representations has the Minister received about the extension of the lower rate of duty to biofuels? That would obviously be beneficial to the farming community, but how would he square it with the long term interests of the oil companies in this country?
  John Healey: We have received a wide range of representations and I have held meetings with a wide range of interest groups on our policies for biofuels, as the hon. Lady would no doubt have anticipated. On her point about farmers, we have set our discount duty rate at 20p per litre for biodiesel and announced our plans for bioethanol. Although the Government recognise the wider importance of the biofuel industry and the diversification potential for farming, the principal policy purpose of the biofuel duty cuts is to improve the climate change performance and to reduce climate change gases in this country. We believe that the cuts that we are proposing are sufficient to recognise the environmental benefits that we shall gain while providing good value for public money.

  International Finance Facility
  Mr. Ernie Ross: What assessment he has made of the impact of his proposed international finance facility on education in developing countries. [99468]
  11. Kali Mountford: What talks he has had with the European Union on the proposed international finance facility. [99472]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The international finance facility is designed to provide additional funds, and it is estimated that at least $10 billion will be needed for education alone to meet the 2015 development target that every child across the world will have access to primary school education by that date. I have discussed those proposals with a number of European Union Finance Ministers. At the G7 meeting at the weekend, we decided that further work should be done on a joint approach to the facility. The European group of Finance Ministers, ECOFIN, will consider this issue at the meeting in March.
  Mr. Ross: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that initiative. It was fairly obvious to many involved in international development that we were unlikely to meet our development goal targets under existing arrangements. Once again, my right hon. Friend has demonstrated his commitment to helping to alleviate illiteracy, poverty and underdevelopment. Does he agree that getting every child into school is part of that
  392
  programme and that, unless we can get that message across and deliver that, all the work that we are doing on debt is liable to run into the sand?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. He has taken up those issues in Scotland and in his constituency, working with Churches and faith organisations, and he is absolutely right. I was sorry that the shadow Chancellor from Truro said that it was wrong that I should be answering these questions today because half of Africa's children do not go to school. The development aid for Africa has fallen from $30 per head to only $18 per head over the last period of years. This is the first period in which international aid will rise to enable more young people to go to school, but there are still 115 million children who will not be going to school this week, or any week, as a result of the failure to fund education properly, and it cannot be done unless there is a breakthrough in long-term funding for countries to develop their education systems. That is why we need international support from America, France, Germany and other European countries to build that finance facility, and I hope that there will be all-party support not just for that initiative, but for the importance of publicising it and gaining support around the world.
  Kali Mountford: My right hon. Friend has been congratulated by me already on that marvellous initiative, but will he press on his colleagues at the ECOFIN meeting in March the fact that economic development is the best route to peace and prosperity? In these troubled times, we all ought to be aware of that. Will he ensure that his partners will share with him the long-term commitment that is needed to make sure that the peace that we all strive for can come from economic growth?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. She, too, has been active in those issues, and the important thing that she is saying is that the poverty that exists around the world and the lack of access to education and health offends not only our basic values that there should be dignity for every individual, but the national security interests of every country. That is why, for all those reasons—enlightened self-interest, as well as altruism—it is necessary to make a breakthrough on those issues. I believe that, over the next few months, working with our partners, we can make progress, and I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the facility and the move for primary education, but is there not a possibility that—just as congestion charges may cause congestion elsewhere—if we do not have a plan to lead on to secondary and tertiary education, we will short-change those young people? The experience in Malawi recently is that Chancellor university has not the facilities even to provide up-to-date education to provide leadership in that country.
  Mr. Brown: I agree that simply to spend money on primary education, not on secondary and tertiary education, will not be sufficient, but the key to this issue lies not only in developing new systems with the capacity

  393
  to deliver education, but in money. It is true that we are setting down conditions about the use of aid, transparency, avoiding corruption and opening up to trade and investment, but at the end of the day we must face up to the fact that if we are to solve those problems in the poorest countries, or to help them to solve their problems, we must provide additional aid. That is why using private as well as public funding to do so is the way forward, and I believe that we can move the international community on this project over the next few months.

  National Insurance
  Tim Loughton: What estimate he has made of the effect of the national insurance rises due in April on (a) individuals, (b) corporate profitability and (c) voluntary organisations. [99469]
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Employees, employers and the self-employed will pay an additional 1 per cent. of their earnings above the national insurance threshold following the increases in contributions due from April, which will raise revenue to pay for the national health service additional funding. For employers, it is estimated that the changes will increase pay costs by an average of 0.7 per cent. next year. All employers, including those in the voluntary sector, have an interest in an efficient and effective national health service and one that is properly funded.
  Tim Loughton: Will the Paymaster General take more seriously than the Chancellor the impact of her jobs tax on hospices? Does she acknowledge that they stand to suffer a shortfall of more than £2 million because of her jobs tax at a time when their share of NHS funding is shrinking? In the case of many children's hospices in particular, that share is at zero. In addition, will she acknowledge the impact that that is having on many voluntary organisations, such as the Alzheimer's Society, in relation to their professional staff, and that those costs come on top of the significant extra training standards costs arising from the Care Standards Act 2000? How would she advise those essential voluntary organisations to make up the revenue shortfall from her jobs tax? Alternatively, what front-line services should they cut?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman and the whole House would want to pay tribute to the work that is done particularly by the hospice movement. He will also know that, as a result of the national insurance rises, some £40 billion extra will be available for spending by the national health service, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, on care in the community and to assist specifically with palliative care. I find it breathtaking that Conservative Members continue to ask for more money while advancing proposals either for cuts in public expenditure or for an imposition of charges and the use of private medical insurance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have said to the Paymaster General that she has been verging over the boundaries of her responsibilities. I repeat that little message.
  Mr. George Mudie: I think that the Paymaster General is being a little unfair to the Conservatives about their opposition to national insurance charges and the subsequent expenditure on the health service. To let the House judge whether that is so, will she conduct an exercise to see the effect on the health service of a 20 per cent. cut, and another exercise to see the financial effect on the typical family, as quoted by the shadow Chancellor, of having to meet medical costs through private insurance?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Lady should answer that question.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Paymaster General look again at my hon. Friend's plea on behalf of the voluntary sector? It is her Government's policy—one that I support—that health and social services should have a much closer working relationship. In the voluntary sector, those services are delivered by organisations such as Age Concern and many mental health charities. We know that local authority social services are cutting contracts to the core because they can now only afford to commission statutory packages of support. The additional national insurance charge will add to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Here comes the question: what will she do about the reduction in services in the community that do not have the hallmark of a Government target behind them?
  Dawn Primarolo: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's work in this area, as I know that she has been very involved. I am sure that she would join me in congratulating the Government on the complete reform, including additions through gift aid, and the support to charities and the voluntary sector. On her specific point, I am sure that she will welcome the £125 million futurebuilders scheme, involving the voluntary and community sector, to address the questions that she poses in the House today. I am sure that she is sad that, after years of being in government, she had to wait for the election of a Labour Government to deal with that issue.
  John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the high unemployment rate among my constituents—double the national average. In addition, the number of people on benefit is well above average. They require help to get back into work and many of them are disabled. What will she do to ensure that the 1 per cent. burden on earnings will not be a disincentive to getting those people back into employment?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he will join me in congratulating the Government on, I think, halving unemployment in Glasgow since 1997. I remind him of the reforms—the new deal, the national minimum wage, the welfare-to-work improvements and the investment

  395
  in the national health service—that we have introduced to tackle health inequality, from which communities such as his suffer. A national insurance rise based on the Beveridge principles is the right, just and best way forward.

  Euro
  Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on the work being undertaken on the background studies associated with the five economic tests for UK entry into the euro. [99470]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): As I reported to the Treasury Committee this morning, 18 studies are being undertaken, including four that I announced in detail this morning, as part of our technical and preliminary work for our assessment of the euro tests.
  Norman Lamb: I thank the Chancellor for that answer and I had the great pleasure of listening to his evidence in the Treasury Committee over the past two hours on the studies and background tests. Is it not the case, however, that while the Prime Minister remains passionate about joining the euro, the Chancellor remains deeply sceptical about the economic case? No matter how many background studies we have—I do not know whether there will be more than the 18 already in place— they will not be sufficient to paper over the yawning chasm between the two men.
  Mr. Brown: There are those, like the Liberals, who would join the euro as a matter of principle without looking at the economic tests. There are those, represented by the shadow Chancellor, who would never join under any circumstances. There are those, like me, who believe that we should join the euro in principle but must get the national economic interest assessed properly by the five economic tests that we have laid down. It is precisely on that basis that I gave evidence to the Select Committee this morning to set out that the Prime Minister and I both believe in the principle of the euro, but that we must get it right economically for Britain.
  Hugh Bayley: One of the five tests is on whether joining the euro would create conditions to encourage investment in Britain. When the Treasury looks at the studies that are being undertaken, will it take account of the consequences on inward investment of not joining the euro as well as the consequences of joining it?
  Mr. Brown: Absolutely. One of the five tests is what effect being part of the euro will have on investment. Clearly, we have to consider both sides of the debate. Our studies are yielding a great deal of information about what motivates inward investment and what is happening to investment as a whole. Although I cannot tell my hon. Friend the results of an assessment that has not yet been completed, I am sure that he will be
  396
  interested in the full and detailed results as they affect the economy as a whole and the inward investors that he mentions.
  Mr. John Redwood: When making the assessment, is the Chancellor going to agree with those private sector forecasters who think that the irresponsible housing boom under the Government will be followed by a housing bust in many areas, showing that we have not converged with the continent and should not accept a one-interest-rate-fits-all policy?
  Mr. Brown: Those issues are part of one of the studies that is being undertaken. The right hon. Gentleman should wait to see the results of that study on both housing itself and its implications for the rest of the economy. Again, detailed work, which I am sure he would agree is necessary, is being done, but I am not going to take any lectures on the housing market from a member of a Government who put inflation at 10 per cent. and interest rates at 15 per cent., and who caused such unnecessary damage to millions of home owners in this country.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: If the five tests are satisfied, what is the likely timetable before the United Kingdom joins the European monetary union?
  Mr. Brown: That matter will be addressed in the assessment that I will bring before the House after we have completed our work. If the answer is yes, we would move for a vote in Parliament on the issues and hold a referendum in the country. The people would make the final decision. If the answer is no, then I would set out the details of what will happen then.
  Adam Price: Is the Chancellor aware of the Swedish proposal on the creation of a buffer fund to protect employment in the event of that country's entry into the euro? Does he see any merit in the idea of a stabilisation fund for the UK, and does he accept that there would be savings if another study were commissioned? Will he agree to meet representatives of the TUC, which has developed detailed proposals for this country based on the Swedish model?
  Mr. Brown: I do not know of the TUC's detailed proposals, but obviously if it wants to put them to me, I shall look at them. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a proposal that is similar not only to the Swedish proposal but to practice in Finland. Of course, we will look at all those details, because that is part of the assessment that we are carrying out.
  Caroline Flint: It is absolutely right that the people of Britain should have the final say. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying:
  "I am for keeping the Pound. If you want a leader who may one day vote to abolish the Pound, I am simply not your man."
  Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Opposition are willing to wait that long?
  Mr. Brown: The issue on the single currency is this—those who would rule it out on principle are saying that even if it were in the national economic interest to join they would not do so because of dogma, which is clearly the wrong position for our country.
  Mr. Howard FlightYesterday, in a speech to CBI London, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury advised that in addition to the Chancellor's five existing tests, the Government's decision on the euro would depend on the European Union reforming its labour and capital markets further. Does the Chancellor seriously believe that, whatever labour and capital reforms he wants, they will be in place by June so that he can assess whether their aims have been achieved? Does he have the Prime Minister's agreement on the new additional test that the Chief Secretary announced in public yesterday?
  Mr. Brown: Once again, the hon. Gentleman should do his research.
  Mr. Flight: I was there.
  Mr. Brown: The shadow Chief Secretary should do his research. To be there is not necessarily to interpret things correctly, as we have found with him on previous occasions. If he looked at the second test, he would see that it is about flexibility and is asking whether there is sufficient flexibility in economies to cope with shocks. That is exactly what the Chief Secretary was talking about yesterday. We will take lectures from the shadow Chief Secretary once he has sorted out the problem of publishing his report on 20 per cent. cuts in public spending.

  Friendly Society Savings
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What his policy is on the taxation of friendly society savings products. [99471]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The Government recognise the contribution of friendly societies in encouraging regular savings, particularly among the less well-off, and want a thriving friendly society sector in future. The Sandler report recommended a change to the tax rules that, if adopted, would affect some of the insurance policies sold by friendly societies, particularly their tax-exempt savings products. As announced in the pre-Budget report, we are considering that recommendation as part of the Budget process.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. When considering the proposals, will she bear in mind the fact that the abolition of tax-exempt savings products could well result in the devastation of the friendly society movement? The Association of Friendly Societies has estimated that some 50 per cent. of their members could close to new business if the proposals proceed. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out the importance of the friendly society movement in
  398
  encouraging people on low incomes to save, I hope that she will realise the consequences of implementing the proposals as they stand.
  Ruth Kelly: I know of my hon. Friend's deep interest in those issues. Of course, we are fully aware of the representations and concerns about possible implications that are regularly raised by the Association of Friendly Societies and other interested parties. However, as I said, we want to see a thriving sector in future. If my hon. Friend looks at the pre-Budget report, he will note that when designing the child trust fund another method of encouraging savings, the open market option, was preferred to licensed providers precisely because it would allow institutions such as friendly societies to offer an alternative, distinctive channel of distribution and encourage saving among the less wealthy.

  Business Environment
  Mr. Mark Field: What discussions he has had in advance of the Budget with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the effect of his microeconomic policies on the business environment. [99474]
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers regularly meet ministerial colleagues across Government in advance of the Budget statement. Treasury Ministers and officials have also been conducting a programme of regional visits to listen to the views of businesses throughout the country.
  Mr. Field: May I respectfully suggest to the Minister that in those discussions special attention is paid to the financial burden of our increasingly inflexible labour laws on small businesses in particular? Does he agree that one of the reasons that unemployment has been so low in this country over the past 10 years compared with Germany, for example, is the fact that we have had flexible labour laws, and that that competitive advantage of the UK is fast being undermined?
  Mr. Boateng: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely, and I well recall his contributions on the matter in the Committee that considered last year's Finance Bill, but he might usefully follow the speeches of his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor, who, as recently as last month, was opining:
  "Our labour market is still more flexible than that in other EU countries."
  We intend that that should continue to be the case.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week Mr. Adair Turner, no less, suggested that labour market flexibility had gone far enough, and that it was not the way forward for the future if we want a high investment, high growth economy?
  Mr. Boateng: We need to make sure that we get the balance right. We make no apology, however, for introducing measures dealing with fairness at work. We

  399
  make no apology for introducing the minimum wage. All those contribute to a high wage, high skill economy in which we maximise the productivity of all employees and managers.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister accept that the micro-economic effects of an increase in employers national insurance must be to reduce employment, cut wages or increase prices? Which of those three does he expect to happen?
  Mr. Boateng: I am afraid I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's simplistic analysis. He should tell us how he would explain not only to his hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but to all the readers of "Focus"—a diminishing band, I am happy to say—how the improvements in the health service are to be paid for without the increase in national insurance contributions.

  Welfare Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the consequences of the changes to VAT charges for welfare services provided by state-regulated private welfare agencies. [99476]
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): From 31 January, all state-regulated private welfare agencies have been able to exempt their welfare services, including home care, from VAT. That means that 60,000 sick, elderly and disabled people will no longer have to pay VAT on their home care costs. Those least able to look after themselves should find it easier to remain independent and to remain in their own home.
  Mr. Cunningham: Has my hon. Friend any plans to extend the exemption from VAT to welfare companies?
  John Healey: The VAT exemption applies to state-regulated welfare agencies that provide commercially delivered services. It covers home care agencies, foster
  400
  agencies and adoption agencies. It puts them on the same VAT-exempt footing as public agencies and charities have always been. It has been widely welcomed because of that. When we announced that, the chairman of the United Kingdom Homecare Association said:
  "This exemption will make services more affordable for more people."
  He went on to say that the chosen route of a simple exemption
  "will be straightforward for providers to implement and readily understood by care users."

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: What discussions he has had in advance of the Budget with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding new taxes and regulations affecting small businesses. [99478]
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Chancellor regularly meets my right hon. Friend, at which time he discusses a full range of relevant issues, including the Government's success in reducing corporation tax on companies and introducing such reforms as the research and development tax credit and improvements to the capital gains tax regime.
  Mr. Mitchell: When those Ministers meet, why do they not hang their heads in shame at the dreadful effect of their policies? On tax, have they not put £37 billion on businesses? On regulations, have there not been 3,866 every year under this rotten Government?
  Dawn Primarolo: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but this Government have cut small business tax and cut corporation tax. We have reformed capital gains tax so that we have the most competitive system and introduced research and development tax credits. As the Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation has pointed out, we have an entrepreneurial base and the best environment of any economy.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will he as follows:
MONDAY 3 MARCH —Motion to approve the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of Sections 21 to 23) Order 2003, followed by debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee report on the terrorist bombings in Bali on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 4 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Communications Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
THURSDAY 6 MARCH—Debate to mark international women's day on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will take an acute interest in that debate.
FRIDAY 7 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 10 MARCH— Conclusion of remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
TUESDAY 11 MARCH—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. Subject to be confirmed by the Liaison Committee.
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
WEDNESDAY 12 MARCH Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, followed by debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 13 MARCH—The day will include a debate on flood and coastal defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House that was delayed from today.
FRIDAY 14 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for March will be:
THURSDAY 6 MARCH —A debate on weekend voting and increasing voter turnout.
THURSDAY 13 MARCH—A debate on the report from the Treasury Committee on the financial regulation of public limited companies.
THURSDAY 20 MARCH—A debate on the convention on the future of Europe.
THURSDAY 27 MARCH—A cross-cutting question session on older people, followed by a debate on the joint report of the Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Trade and Industry Committees on strategic export controls.
Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the news, as far as it goes. However, why is there still complete silence from the Government on the Budget date? When will we hear the Budget day? One has to ask whether the Chancellor is Exchequer is so ashamed of what will be in his Budget that, in the spirit of Jo Moore, he will have to bury bad news under a war? Is that what is up? If it is not, surely it is time the Government and the Leader of the House came clean about what is going on and what is in the Chancellor's mind. When will we be told the Budget day? Not only do we in the House have to know, but everyone outside who is vitally interested in what is in the Budget should have time to prepare, to make representations to us and to be ready for the announcement. Please may we hear today when the Budget will be?
On 24 February, the Leader of the House was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) whether the Prime Minister would attend the debate on Iraq, which we held yesterday, so that he could listen to Members of Parliament and, not least, to Government Back Benchers. Rather to my astonishment, the Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister
"may have more important things to do over six hours than simply to sit in this place."—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 25.]
Do we now have a definitive statement about the Prime Minister's attitude to the House of Commons? Do we now, at last, have on the record what we have always suspected—that the Prime Minister does not see it as any part of his role to participate in the debate and to listen to his Back Benchers? I hope that the Leader will tell us that the Prime Minister will have another opportunity to come and listen to his own Back Benchers.
When we debated reform of the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor told us that the genius that would give us the answers to the problems of Lords reform was the Joint Committee. The Leader said that he hoped that the Joint Committee would take up the matter and provide solutions that this House, sadly, had not been able to provide. I now hear—although I can scarce believe it—that the Joint Committee may be about to commit hara-kiri very shortly, by crashing itself on the rubble of the Government's policies on Lords reform. What will the Leader do, and what will he bring to the House, if the Joint Committee no longer exists by Easter? Given the emphasis that the Government have placed on the work of the Joint Committee, we need to know how its work will continue if it decides that it no longer has anything relevant to offer?
On 24 February, a reply was given to parliamentary question 637, which had been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). He had asked the Prime Minister which Minister had given final approval for the publication of the dodgy dossier. Well, the question actually calls it the
"UK dossier on Iraq of September 2002."
The answer given to my hon. Friend was:
"This was a Government document cleared in the normal way."—[Official Report,24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 254W.]

403
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will agree that was not a full or satisfactory answer. My hon. Friend has tabled another question:
"To ask the Prime Minister, what the procedure was for approving and publishing the dossier entitled Iraq—Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation; and which minister had ultimate responsibility for its contents."
If the Leader cannot answer that question today, will he provide an opportunity—urgently—for the House to pursue this matter, so that we may ask, yet again, on whose authority this crucial document, on which the Government place so much emphasis in their policy on Iraq, was published? We are surely entitled to know. Was it the Prime Minister? Was it the Foreign Secretary? Or was it Alastair Campbell? At the very least, we must be told what is going on.
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that
"we are not seeking"
a mandate for military action
"today, because the Government have not yet got to that point. If we do reach that point, we will come back and seek a vote, through a debate in this House, on a substantive motion."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 270.]
On Radio 4 this morning, I was astonished to hear the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, no less—she had presumably been put up by the Government to speak on their behalf—waffle when asked by John Humphrys the specific question:
"Will there be an explicit prior vote before military action?"
She said:
"We will try to keep in touch with the Commons."
She then said:
"There is no precedent for explicit prior votes."
She went on to make references to Churchill and Thatcher, which I found flattering and reassuring. She then said:
"We must give no prior notice to the enemy,"
and referred to troops in action and so on.
There is a key question on which we need clarification—and if we cannot get that clarification, we will need a re-run of the debate so that we can find out the answer. What is the Government's view on this matter? We have the Foreign Secretary saying one thing one day and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs saying something quite different the following day. Is there a Government view on this crucial matter? If so, what is it?
Mr. Cook: Let me deal with the last point first, as it a matter of the gravest concern.
Mr. John Bercow: Speak up.
Mr. Cook: I am very sorry. I would not wish any hon. Member on the Opposition Benches to miss a word of what I say.
There is no doubt whatsoever about where the Government stand on this question. I have in front of me the transcript of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food
404
and Rural Affairs. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote the continuation of what she said, which was:
"We will continue to consult with the House of Commons."
This Government have a good record in coming back to the House repeatedly on questions to do with Iraq or any other security issues. I also have in front of me what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday.
Mr. Forth: I have just quoted from it.
Mr. Cook: I merely anticipated that this was a matter most likely to be raised by the right hon. Gentleman and, as always, I was correct. In terms of predicting the points that he will raise, I am happy to tell the House that we usually are correct. What the Foreign Secretary said yesterday was:
"It is as much in the Government's interest as it is in the paramount interest of the House that we should do that"—
that is, come to the House with a substantive motion—
"before the start of any ostilities."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 265.]
That could not be clearer, and I hope that it will give reassurance to the House. It is certainly our intention that we shall come back to the House and that the House will have further opportunities to vote on any second resolution that may emerge from the Security Council or on the need for military action by the Government.
I do not think that it assists the right hon. Gentleman in what I understand to be the support of the Opposition for the Government's strategy constantly to snipe from the sidelines.
Mr. Forth: Aw!
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind. Does his party support the Government's strategy or is it trying to score party political points at every possible opportunity?
On the issue of the Budget, we have just had one hour of questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Bercow: Too short.
Mr. Cook: It could quite possibly be too short. We shall look again at whether we can have two hours rather than one. The point remains, however, that in the course of that full hour with the Chancellor not a single Member raised the question of the date of the Budget, from which I draw the conclusion that those Members who are most interested in Treasury matters have a more mature approach to this than the right hon. Gentleman. I also recall that the Opposition undertook to send to the Chancellor their full statement on how they were going to achieve their 20 per cent. cut in public spending. I reminded the right hon. Gentleman of that when he last asked this question. I shall do a deal with him. When the Opposition convince us that they have a credible plan for cutting public spending by 20 per cent., we shall certainly make sure that there is a Budget for them to grouse about.
On the issue of the Prime Minister's attendance at the debates on Iraq, he has made a full statement on the matter and has answered questions for more than an

405
hour in this place. It was absolutely right that he should do so, and he was keen to do so. He also addressed the House at Prime Minister's questions, as is normally the case. In addition, just before the last recess, he took two hours with the Liaison Committee, and their deliberations were predominantly on Iraq. There can be no suggestion whatever that the Prime Minister has in any way ducked his responsibility to brief the House and to face scrutiny in the House on the question of Iraq.
My response on Monday was to the proposal that he should stay here for the full six hours of the debate. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if we are honest about this, neither he nor I sat here for the full six hours. Indeed, I believe that I am right in saying that the Leader of the Opposition did not do so either. We fully understand why the Leader of the Opposition might have been busy in the course of those six hours, and we would very much welcome a full account of just how many of his Back Benchers he had to stroke during that time.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Joint Committee on House of Lords reform might be about to commit hara-kiri. The prospect of Lord Howe or the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) committing hara-kiri is too awful to contemplate, and I am therefore happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is mistaken on this matter. The Committee will meet again in four weeks' time, and may then consider producing a report. We shall wait and see what the outcome is, and I suggest that it might be premature for the Government to offer a view in anticipation of that.
Mr. Paul Tyler: There is a widespread view in all parts of the House that we need an urgent debate on the so-called special relationship between Britain and the United States and, specifically, the Bush Administration. That relationship seems to have become a one-way street, by contrast with previous such relationships. We all know that the healthiest relationships are two-way. May I draw to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, in case he did not note them—and I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not hear them—the powerful concerns expressed yesterday by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe? He said:
"I am not alone in having heard and met American politicians of great distinction who gave the impression that a change of regime in Iraq was determined upon long ago and that the use of military force in a pre-emptive strike was justified in order to achieve that."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 294.]
Does the Leader of the House recognise that a preemptive strike in the interests of regime change is a dangerous new doctrine that, if applied elsewhere in the world, would cause complete international chaos? Does he not see an apparent contradiction between the views of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and what the Prime Minister told the House on Tuesday in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy)? He said:
"The argument about regime change has not changed. I have always said that the purpose of any action has got to be the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report,25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 130.]s
Yesterday, in answer to an intervention, the Foreign Secretary made a similar point. He said that:
406
"the focus of 1441 is not regime change per se, but the disarmament of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 2721
I am sure that, as a former Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the House read the text of last night's address by President Bush with care. It was all about regime change: it spelled it out in awful detail. It would seem that President Bush is bent on a course that is completely at odds with the proposals put to us, and the reassurances given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
I wonder, too, whether the debate I have requested might give us an opportunity to examine carefully the reliability of US intelligence sources. Given the extraordinary mistaken identity case of Mr. Derek Bond, the Leader of the House might care to speculate whether the FBI is now mistaking either the Archbishop of Canterbury or him for Osama bin Laden in disguise.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I followed that last sentence, but I am sure the whole House will feel for Derek Bond after his ordeal. I understand that he is considering what legal remedies are available to him, but it would not be appropriate for us to comment on that.
The Government's policy on Saddam is absolutely clear. The Government are responsible for their position and not for any other position—their position being that force must be only a last resort, but must be available if a last resort is needed.
I think the question that the hon. Gentleman's party will have to face some day is this: in the event that the inspectors do report that they are not receiving adequate co-operation, and in the event that that is followed by a second Security Council resolution, will the Liberal Democrats remain willing to support the position they appeared to take last autumn when resolution 1441 was passed—that the will and authority of the United Nations must be upheld, even if that requires the use of force as a last resort? That is our position; it is perfectly clear, and we would welcome similar clarity from the hon. Gentleman's party.
I personally found much to welcome in what President Bush said yesterday about the middle east peace process. I hope that after the Iraq crisis is resolved substantial priority will be given to making progress in the middle east, based on the two important requirements mentioned by President Bush yesterday—the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state, and an end to all settlement construction.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I raise the question of the dossier—dodgy or otherwise, but deemed sufficiently important to be praised by general Colin Powell in his worldwide television broadcast? Yesterday I asked the Foreign Secretary:
"As a question of fact and before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of documents, did the dossier that owed so much to that Californian student have the authority of Peter Ricketts and the Joint Intelligence Committee? Did the Joint Intelligence Committee authorise that dossier?"—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 266.]
My right hon. Friend replied that Peter Ricketts had not been there for two years, but the Library supplied me with a document that confirmed that he was certainly

407
there in September 2002—and confirmed, before I mentioned it, that he was still responsible for the Joint Intelligence Committee.
Be that as it may, let me now ask a direct question. Was this document authorised by John Scarlett and other members of the Joint Intelligence Committee? Did it have their imprimatur?
Mr. Bercow: Yes or no? Now!
Mr. Cook: It is terribly kind of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to back up my hon. Friend, but I am not a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee. I no longer see its papers, nor would I expect to do so. I have the highest personal regard for both John Scarlett and Peter Ricketts, with whom I have worked in the past and who are men of integrity and intelligence. I am not in a position to say one way or the other whether the document was cleared by the committee, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and invite him, if he can, to add to what he said in the House yesterday.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Transport this morning unveiled a consultation paper on aviation and airport development. It is based on the discredited "predict and provide" approach to planning and, incidentally, threatens massive and unsustainable environmental damage to my constituency and to the area surrounding Gatwick airport. Will the Leader of the House promise an early opportunity for the House to debate this important consultation paper, so that all opinions can be aired?
Mr. Cook: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the initial consultation document did not include Gatwick and the surrounding area because an undertaking was given to the residents of Gatwick some time ago that we would not return to the expansion of Gatwick. The courts ruled against the Government on that question, which is why we have been obliged to reissue the consultation document with the inclusion of Gatwick. However, I do not anticipate that the final policy judgments will be made by the courts that gave that ruling; they will be made within the Government, and will be subject to all the various considerations, including previous commitments given to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and to those living around Gatwick.
It is very important that we look at this issue in the round, and that we achieve a strategic perspective on where future aviation provision should be. I fully endorse what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said this morning on the radio. The one thing that must unite all the communities affected by the consultation is that we need to reach a decision—as quickly as we reasonably can, and consistent with that consultation—and remove the blight that may otherwise affect many of those areas.
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Bearing in mind the fact that some £80 million of European Union
408
money and a further £10 million of British Government money has gone into Palestine and the occupied territories in the past 12 months to help humanitarian projects, is it not time that we considered an urgent statement in the House on whether some of that money has effectively been destroyed by military incursions by the Israeli military, and whether, as a result, we need to approach the Israeli Government to get compensation for the European Union and the British Government?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that compensation would offer a fruitful avenue of dialogue. However, we certainly have maintained considerable dialogue with the Israeli Government, through the European Union and bilaterally, on the importance of responding to the humanitarian position in the Palestinian territories, and of assisting the Palestinian Authority in the economic development of its people. All Members of the House must be acutely concerned at the very serious and mounting evidence of the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories. It cannot assist the peace process if the people of Palestine find that their own lives are becoming increasingly difficult in economic terms, and if there is increasing evidence of malnutrition among their children. We are more likely to achieve progress towards peace if the local people themselves can see that progress is being made on the ground in terms of their quality of life.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I should remind the House that questions to the Leader of the House should relate to the business that has been announced for the next fortnight. Some of the questions are straying much wider than that, so I offer that reminder on this occasion.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I wonder whether, despite the very busy schedule that the Leader of the House has announced, he can find a little time for a debate entitled "Government websites and their role in the democratic process". In 2000, the Prime Minister came to my constituency and announced that the Government would resurface the A30 between Honiton and Exeter—an issue that I have raised in three separate parliamentary debates, exchanged correspondence on and tabled written questions about. I recently received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). He informed me that I must scan the Highways Agency website, apparently at random, in order to find out as and when the Government decide to answer this question. That is unacceptable, and I have told him so. I hope that the Leader of the House is as concerned as I am that the random scanning of Government websites is now part of our democratic process.
Mr. Cook: May I first thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your ruling to the House, which, if observed, would indeed be a procedural innovation on Thursdays? I should like, if I may, to look at the detail of what the hon. Lady says, but I would plainly want

409
Members of the House to have a full and helpful reply. Sometimes Government websites can themselves be a source of great information and assistance—
Mr. Forth: No, never!
Mr. Cook: I am not quite sure with what authority and personal experience of websites the right hon. Gentleman expresses his view, but I shall certainly try to ensure that the hon. Lady receives as full a reply as possible.
David Winnick: Did not yesterday's debate again demonstrate that all those who say that the House of Commons is no longer important are talking nonsense and have been proved wrong? Is it not important that, during future debates on the same subject, we avoid giving the wrong signals to the bloody tyrant in Baghdad about our determination, as part of the international community, that disarmament must take place or he must face the consequences?
Mr. Cook: It is very important that Saddam Hussein fully understand that all who took part in yesterday's debate, however they may have voted at the end of it, want him to comply with his obligations under the United Nations Security Council; indeed, there would be a very substantial body of support in the House for making sure that the authority of the United Nations is upheld.
I agree with my hon. Friend about yesterday's debate demonstrating to the world outside the importance of Parliament as the crucible in which the major issues of the nation, and the major challenges of international affairs, are fought out. Although not every article that appeared in this morning's papers would necessarily have been written by the Government Information and Communications Service, it is worth noting that those acres of comment and editorial were possible only because we moved the vote forward to seven o'clock in the evening.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I ask the Leader of the House to have a look at column 257 of yesterday'sHansard, where the Prime Minister says:
"What is more, people should go to university based on their merit, whatever their class or background."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 257.]
The right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) said a few days ago:
"I approve of the actions of Bristol university and others who are trying to attract students who have potential to learn."
He appears to be completely out of control: he is a bull in a china shop, and is still fighting the class war. Will the Leader of the House have a word with him and ensure that he talks to the Prime Minister, so that the Government have a coherent policy on this very important issue?
Mr. Cook: Of course, it is very important that the Government have a coherent policy, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all members of the Government are united in our determination to ensure that we widen access to university for people of all social classes. There is an issue that does need to be addressed.
410
On entry to the top universities in Britain, it is interesting to note that 7 per cent. of entrants came from the state school population, and 39 per cent. came from independent schools. I do not believe that the relative balance between entry from independent schools and from state schools actually matches—
Mr. Forth: Merit?
Mr. Cook: I do not believe that the small proportion of the population who go to independent schools actually account for 40 to 50 per cent. of the merit of our young population. That is why we have said that it is very important that we widen access and ensure that people are admitted on merit, but admitted fairly on merit.
I should also point out to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) that this Government have widened access to universities for all social classes. Whether in terms of independent schools or state schools, access has increased under this Government. It is not this Government but his party that is proposing that entry to university be capped for everybody.
John McDonnell: I express to my right hon. Friend my regret that today's business was not adjusted to allow for an oral statement on the runway capacity consultation paper that was published today. Can we adjust the business of the House over the next fortnight accordingly? The House was given an undertaking that the new document would contain information on Gatwick, which it does. However, we were also told that it would be updated to include, for example, information from the royal commission on environmental pollution—the Government's own commission—which identified the air pollution risk to my constituents and others. We also believed that the new material would take into account the terrorist threat of surface-to-air missile attacks on aircraft, particularly on those landing and taking off at Heathrow, which would have an impact on the entire capital. However, today's document takes neither of those issues into account. May I ask for a statement in the House within the next fortnight, or, failing that, a commitment to a statement in June, at the end of the consultation period?
Mr. Cook: I know the enormous importance of the issue to my hon. Friend's constituents and I fully understand the close interest that he therefore takes in the matter. That will not be the last word from the Government on the subject. We will publish further papers and documents in which some of those matters can be covered. As I said earlier, it is important for those in all the areas affected by the consultation process that we should move to a decision—consistent with the consultation process that we have extended—and for that reason it would not have been welcome in those communities if we had delayed the White Paper for further work of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred.
I wish to clarify the figures that I mentioned earlier. Some 7 per cent. of the school population attend independent schools, but those pupils make up 39 per cent. of entry to the top universities. I am all in favour

411
of ensuring that entry to university is based on merit, but I am not sure that the vast difference between those two percentages reflects merit and no other consideration.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I would like to bring to the attention of the Leader of the House early day motion 561.
[That this House notes that community pharmacists offer their local communities convenient access to NHS services; recognises their role in reducing the burden on local general practitioners; notes the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading that pharmaceutical dispensing should be made open to free market competition; is concerned that supermarkets would use their market power to undermine and eliminate small local pharmacies and thereby effect a net loss of NHS provision; and urges Her Majesty's Government not to accept this recommendation of the OFT.]
The motion urges the Government not to accept the recommendation from the Office of Fair Trading that pharmaceutical dispensing should be made open to free-market competition. Deregulation would be disadvantageous to those who are already disadvantaged in our society. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the report to be debated in the House before the Government act on it?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the report from the director general of the OFT is not a Government report. It is now with us and we are considering it. The Department of Trade and Industry will make its response in the fullness of time. I would just point out that all Members, including Ministers, fully value the importance of the pharmaceutical industry and the service that it provides to local communities. We must ensure that that is fully reflected in any judgment that we reach on the report.
Mr. Jim Marshall: My right hon. Friend will recall that a few weeks ago I raised with him the consequences of the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. He will also recall that some days ago the High Court decided that section 55 infringed the human rights of asylum seekers. My understanding is that the Home Office is likely to appeal against that decision, and that the appeal will probably be heard the week after next. In view of that timetable, will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on section 55 specifically so that the House may give its view on its operation and advise the Home Secretary whether to pursue the appeal procedure?
Mr. Cook: I am not able to offer a debate within the next two weeks in view of the business that I have already announced. I can see difficulties ahead if I changed that business, given that it has already been announced and covers areas of considerable interest to many right hon. and hon. Members. However, it would also be difficult for the House to have a debate on a matter that is very much before the courts, in this case the Appeal Court. In the event that the Appeal Court upholds the existing ruling, consultation will have to take place on the Government's intentions, but in the
412
meantime the matter is before the courts. As soon as judgment has been reached, I am sure that the Home Secretary will wish to make the Government's position clear to the House.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Uncharacteristically, the Leader of the House did not answer all the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I ask the Leader of the House again just which Minister or official cleared the dodgy dossier. As this now looks like a cover-up, can he ensure that a statement is made next week by the Minister concerned?
Mr. Cook: I understand that the paper was not issued as a Command Paper and, therefore, the process of ministerial accountability for White Papers would not necessarily apply. The right hon. Gentleman heard me respond to the shadow Leader of the House and my central point remains true—if the Opposition wish to support the Government strategy and to be identified with the firm position being taken by the Prime Minister, they must resist the opportunity to try to score political points at every twist and turn.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the question of the changed hours? They are causing many problems, and not only for Members of Parliament. Many staff are anxious about the future of their employment and I understand that it is difficult to find Members to serve on Committees. As a northern MP, I now have only Monday mornings free for school parties. I have encouraged schools to visit to watch debates and to look round. It is part of our democracy to visit the House, but the present arrangements are causing difficulties because they mean that Northern MPs have to give up visits in their constituencies on Monday mornings. May we have an urgent debate on the hours and how they are working, or not working? After all, we should not be trying to accommodate newspaper editors. This House is more important than they are.
Mr. Cook: I am not in favour of accommodating newspaper editors in any way, but I am in favour of accommodating our constituents, who have every right to be informed about what happens in this place. As a result of the vote yesterday taking place at 7 o'clock, they had a much fuller account of what happened here than they would have had if we had divided at 10 o'clock. Although I can well understand why that argument might not necessarily appeal to all my colleagues on the Front Bench, I had hoped that it would appeal to my hon. Friend.
On the question of access for schools, I am fully seized of the importance of reaching out and making contact with schools. For that very reason, the Modernisation Committee is considering how we may improve access to the House and ensure that we strengthen our education service and reach out to schools around Britain. However, it is a matter of fact that the overwhelming preponderance of schools that visit this place have a relative geographic proximity to it, and

413
there are other ways in which we can provide a parliamentary link to schools at some distance, which would be of great value to all regions of Britain.
Mr. Bercow: May we please have an urgent debate, in Government time, on the Government's plans for a massive increase in house building across the south of England? Given that the Milton Keynes south Midlands study envisages a further 59,000 houses in the Aylesbury vale area between now and 2031 and that there is an estimated associated cost for infrastructure of £8.5 billion—there seems little prospect that we shall meet that cost—does the Leader of the House understand that my constituents are concerned about air pollution, traffic congestion, pressure on school places and access to medical facilities, and that they need to have their concerns urgently addressed and allayed?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct that any house building must be accompanied by an appropriate level of public service and physical infrastructure to ensure that the quality of life marches in step with the increase in housing volume. I fully understand the importance of that. It is also important that we minimise the pressure on greenfield sites, which is why I am proud that the Government have achieved their target of 60 per cent. development of residential accommodation on brownfield sites. Having said that, we face acute demand for additional housing in the south-east and that is one reason why we face a substantial rise in house prices in the area, which I am sure will be of concern to many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are looking for a new home for the first time. We cannot hope to address that concern if we do not provide substantial numbers of additional homes for those who want to live in the south-east.
David Taylor: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the report of the Commission for Health Improvement on the Government's private finance initiative flagship, the Cumberland infirmary, which is a document as critical and coruscating as I have ever seen? Has he noted that it reports raw sewage bubbling out of scrub sinks, doors hanging off, and more leaks than Cardiff city centre on St. David's day? Will he find time in the next 14 days for a Government statement on the future of the PFI policy, which is seriously and fundamentally flawed? It damages patients' and public confidence in the NHS. Finally, will he recall—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is sufficient. There is too much embellishment of questions.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct that the picture painted in the report is very serious and I understand that the chief executive of the health trust has departed its service, partly as a result of the report. It focused on the way in which the PFI was managed. Before my hon. Friend erects a general case of principle based on this matter, I note that the same body has also produced reports on the PFI projects at Durham and Dartford, which were very positive in their conclusions and stated that those projects worked well. That should be set against the report on the Cumberland project.
Dr. John Pugh: During the recess, a resident from my area was shot dead by terrorists in
414
Saudi Arabia. Two years ago, another constituent was maimed in a similar outrage. British subjects are currently languishing in Saudi jails, having been tortured and deprived of sleep. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a statement on the Floor of the House about the security of British citizens in Saudi Arabia and the threat of terrorism there?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that our advice about travel to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere is constantly updated and kept under review. I am familiar with the background to a number of cases involving British citizens detained in Saudi Arabia because, sadly, they go back for more than two years. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government—through local embassies, and through Ministers—repeatedly express concern about UK citizens involved in such cases, and that we seek to achieve a proper system to ensure that those people can be brought to trial or released.
Mr. Tony Colman: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to early-day motion 667 on the demise of wide-based share option schemes in the UK as a result of the new accounting regulations to be agreed shortly?
[That this House notes the great benefits to employees and employers of broad-based employee shares schemes which have been promoted by this and previous Governments and from which millions of UK employees have benefited to the extent of over £35 billion; registers its grave concerns over the impact on such schemes of the International Accounting Standards Board and the Accounting Standards Board proposals on accounting for share-based payments; notes the calls by the TUC, Pro Share and others that broad-based schemes should be excluded from this new accounting charge; calls on the Government to add its voice to the calls for such an exclusion; and further calls upon the International Accounting Standards Board and the Accounting Standards Board to draft wording which, while abiding by the general principle of the proposed standard, would exclude broad-based schemes from an accounting charge.]
That change would adversely affect millions of constituents, and is also worrying the TUC, the Confederation of British Industry and National Association of Pension Funds. Does he agree that an early debate is needed so that the House can express its own concerns before the accounting standards come into force later in March?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his detailed early-day motion, although I have not yet had time to read it fully and to the end. The Government fully understand the benefits of employee share schemes. We would not want to do anything that made it impossible to maintain those benefits or schemes. I am sure that the matter that my hon. Friend has raised will be explored fully by the Treasury, with an understanding of the points that he has made.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Leader of the House will know that the US is holding a number of UK citizens at Guantanamo bay.

415
It is suggested that they are terrorists. I know nothing about the truth or otherwise of that, but may we have an early statement or debate so that the Government can say what is being done to get the status and future of the people defined properly? Surely they should have the full protection of the law. Surely they should be either charged or released. They have been held for 18 months or so. That cannot be right.
Mr. Cook: I have great sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's general point. I assure him that our consuls in the US have paid a number of visits to those British citizens, and that the issue has been raised repeatedly with the US Administration. Plainly, we will continue to take a close interest in the welfare and legal rights of British citizens there.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Now that France has threatened to use its veto on a second UN resolution on Iraq, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a debate in the next fortnight to consider France's business interests in Iraq? Those interests go back to the 1975 French-Iraqi nuclear co-operation treaty signed by Jacques Chirac, when he was Prime Minister, and Saddam Hussein. The treaty marked the beginning of the supply of French equipment to Iraq to build up a nuclear arsenal in exchange for extensive support for French business commitments.
Mr. Cook: The Government's position is that there should be a second resolution. We are actively seeking to promote a second resolution, with support from close European partners such as Spain. I am not entirely confident that pursuing the argument outlined by my hon. Friend would assist in the process of building consensus around the resolution. However, I assure her that we will do all we can to achieve common ground with France in a way that enables the resolution to proceed.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The Leader of the House announced that, next week, a day each will be spent on the respective Report stages of the Local Government Bill and the Communications Bill. That means that the Report stages of those Bills will have been examined on the Floor of the House for two days each, at least. I was not a member of the Standing Committees examining those Bills, but I was a member of the Committee scrutinising the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned that only a small proportion of that Bill's clauses and schedules were examined in Committee? Will he assure the House that at least two days will be spent on the Report stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill?
Mr. Cook: We will, of course, carefully consider the volume of amendments tabled on Report, and the progress made in Committee. However, the hon. Gentleman is correct; there will have been two days for the Report stages of both the Local Government Bill and the Communications Bill. With respect, I suggest
416
that that demonstrates that the Government are committed to ensuring that legislation gets adequate time for scrutiny on the Floor of the House.
Miss Anne Begg: The long-awaited Energy White Paper was published on Monday. Will my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity in the coming weeks to debate the issues raised in the White Paper, and the implications for constituencies such as mine?
Mr. Cook: I am very aware of the House's strong interests in energy matters. The White Paper to which my hon. Friend refers is very important. It sets out a perspective for reducing carbon gases, meeting our commitment to halt and reverse global warming, and making sure that we tackle other issues such as fuel poverty, which is a matter of concern in all constituencies. I am sure that it will be important for the House to consider these matters at some stage. I shall certainly bear the matter in mind for the future.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: The Prime Minister is having discussions today with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. More discussions are scheduled to take place between them and parties in Northern Ireland on Monday next. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an early statement from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on those discussions? Current negotiations with IRA-Sinn Fein on a list of concessions in return for things that the IRA should have done years ago should also be covered. Those concessions are causing great concern for people in Northern Ireland. May we have an early debate on those matters, so that the views of those people can be heard by the Government?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that intensive discussions are under way to see how we can restore momentum to the Northern Ireland peace process. I hope that that will command the support of all hon. Members. It is very important that we try to keep that process going. In that context, I do not know how helpful it is to describe any proposal on the table as a concession to one side or the other. There has to be compromise on all sides, especially by the paramilitaries, whether loyalist or republican. There must be real acts of completion if we are to restore the necessary momentum to the peace process. Plainly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make sure that the House is informed. The House will accept that my right hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the peace process, and that he has honourably sought to keep the House informed about its progress. If progress is made, I am sure that the House will be the first to be informed.
Mr. David Chaytor: Has my right hon. Friend followed the increasingly vitriolic campaign waged by extreme right-wing newspapers against some of our leading universities that are trying to improve their admissions procedures by basing entry on merit? Has my right hon. Friend seen this week's statement from the group Universities UK, criticising some schools in the Headmasters Conference for applying exceptional pressure on universities—and especially on Bristol and Edinburgh universities—and will he find

417
time for a debate in the next two weeks on the subject. The issues need to be considered on the basis of fact and evidence, and not of myth and hysteria.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and articulates a real concern expressed by a number of universities. It is to Bristol university's credit that it has responsibly made sure that it is the academic staff and tutors who make admission decisions, based on merit. The university has made genuine attempts to make sure that the population basis of Britain is more fairly reflected, and that admission is open and accessible to all schools.
Apparently, one factor in admissions is whether people from state schools are applying to certain universities. Some universities seem to be rather poor at attracting applications from state schools. That matter is in their hands, and they could remedy it. Also, some universities seem to have a bias in the acceptance that follows applications. It is interesting that some figures show that even among pupils with comparable A-level results there is a higher success rate for those from independent schools than for those from state schools. Those do not in any way trench on the importance of admitting students on the basis of merit, but they reflect issues that universities could put right. Those universities that have tackled them and put them right deserve to be praised not pressurised.
Dr. Julian Lewis: While we are rightly focusing on Iraq, may I nevertheless ask for a further debate on Zimbabwe? That would enable me to raise the case of the family of my constituent Hilary Parsons, whose son and daughter-in-law have been forced off their farm at Karoi, whose daughter-in-law and grandchildren were attacked by a mob of 30 so-called war veterans when they returned to see if the remaining animals were all right, who were told that an official of the Zimbabwe Football Association, one Temba Mliswa, now owns the farm—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not give the contents of the speech that he would make if such a debate were to be granted. I think that the Leader of the House may have got the point.
Mr. Cook: I welcome the fact that regularly on a Thursday hon. Members raise their concerns about Zimbabwe, because it is very important that the Government of Zimbabwe should be under no illusion about the depth and breadth of feeling on the issue in this House. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that the appalling things taking place in Zimbabwe are wholly deplored on both sides of the House, in particular the forcible land settlement of people who have contacts with the regime at the expense of people who previously owned and farmed that land. That is not only wholly unacceptable, but partly contributes to the appalling malnutrition and food shortages in Zimbabwe.
Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the welcome boost given to the British shipbuilding industry by the recent announcement on the building of aircraft carriers. It is to be hoped that other independent yards such as
418
Fergusons in Port Glasgow will also benefit from that. May I ask him to make time for an important debate about industries such as electronics that have a major impact on local economies but where thousands of people are losing their jobs not through their own fault but because employers are choosing to take advantage of the low wage economies in eastern Europe?
Mr. Cook: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks about the stimulus to the shipbuilding industry that has resulted from Government decisions. I understand his concerns about the electronics industry. Representing as I do a constituency where many thousands of people work in the electronics industry, I am well aware of the pressures that it faces and the troubled times for those who work in it.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about transfers to lower-wage economies, but the only way in which we can be confident that we can beat that trend and ensure that we have secure employment in our own country is to continue to improve the skills of our people and to invest in education so that we can provide higher added value than any cheaper-wage economy. The signs are, from the overall employment figures, that we are succeeding in that, and I am pleased to say that there are now almost 1.5 million more people at work than there were in 1997 when we took office.
Mr. Mark Francois: May I bring the Leader of the House back to the question that my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House asked about the delay in the announcement of the Budget, in reply to which all we got was a lot of party political knockabout? May I ask in a very straightforward manner what is really the reason for that delay?
Mr. Cook: I thought that I responded to the question in the terms in which it was put to me. I have never got the impression that the right hon. Gentleman would complain about party political knockabout. On the Budget, it is still February, which is early days as far as the Budget is concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Well, I think that I am correct in saying that it is still February. I am always acutely aware of when February ends, because 28 February is my birthday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] It is a matter of great regret to me that we are having this exchange on 27 February, not 28 February. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that the Budget normally takes place in the spring, and I have no reason to believe that it will be different this year.
Hugh Bayley: I wish my right hon. Friend many happy returns for tomorrow and thank him for so promptly reinstating the debate about flooding that we were to have had today.
It is now more than two years since the devastating floods hit York. The Environment Agency has been carrying out a major study of the Ouse catchment, the larger of the two rivers that flow through York, to enable it to predict more accurately the risk of flooding in future. Hundreds of householders in York whose houses were flooded two years ago are waiting for that study, because on it hangs the cost-effectiveness of improving flood defences that would protect them from further floods. Does the Leader of the House know

419
whether the Environment Agency intends to publish that report before we have our debate on flooding in two weeks' time?
Mr. Cook: It was with regret that we had to postpone the debate on flood defences, but all hon. Members will understand that we had an important House matter to resolve today. I am very pleased that we have restored the debate to take place within the next two weeks. My hon. Friend's comments demonstrate that it will feature speeches of quality. I cannot say whether the report will be published by then, but I shall draw the Environment Agency's attention to my hon. Friend's request that it should be.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make a particular appeal for brevity so that I can try to accommodate all hon. Members who are rising?
Mr. Michael Weir: May I take the Leader of the House back to the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) on the pharmacy report? May we have an urgent debate on that report to Government? It not only threatens to undermine small town and rural pharmacies, but endangers moves by Scottish community pharmacies to create new services, especially in relation to chronic pain management. It is important that the matter is dealt with urgently to end the uncertainty.
Mr. Cook: I understand the great interest in that matter on the part of the industry and of the customers and communities that it serves. I am not sure whether it would necessarily be in the interests of a favourable outcome to have an urgent debate, but I shall certainly make sure that the Department of Trade and Industry is aware of the interest that has been expressed during today's and previous business questions. It is evident that there is considerable constituency interest in the matter. I am sure that when the Government have reached their view the House will wish to hear it and, if appropriate, to consider it further.
Mr. Russell Brown: Yesterday, in reply to a question on Iraq by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), the Prime Minister stated that
"the House will have the opportunity to vote on this issue many times".—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 258.]
I am reassured by my right hon. Friend's response to the shadow Leader of the House, but can I ask him to give serious consideration to a further debate on Iraq on the day after the UN Security Council votes on the second resolution, even if it means debating the matter on a non-sitting day?
Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we will keep the matter under close review and that we will want to give the earliest practical opportunity to the House to debate the outcome of any second resolution. I am not at present clear whether that will necessarily require the kind of emergency procedure that my hon. Friend suggests, but it is perfectly plain from the
420
statements of the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself that the Government want the House to have the opportunity to endorse a future second resolution in the Security Council as soon as possible. As the Foreign Secretary said, it is as much in the interests of the Government as of the House that that should be done before any military action.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Leader of the House find time in the next two weeks for the introduction of a Government Bill to amend the Human Tissue Act 1961? The Leader of the House may be aware that Alder Hey has expressed its profound apologies to the families, but I know from talking to the family support group at Addenbrookes hospital in my constituency that their distress would be at least partly mitigated by the knowledge that the Government are acting speedily to amend the 1961 Act, as the chief medical officer recommended in his report on Alder Hey two years ago.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the enormous distress and anxiety that has been caused to constituents of the hon. Gentleman by the events to which he refers. He will be aware that the Government have committed themselves to ensuring that we carry through all the recommendations that have been put to us and which we have accepted. Where that requires legislation, we will provide it. My expectation is that he will see that legislation in the course of this Session.
Paul Flynn: Do not yesterday's proceedings prove the urgent need for a day's debate on the desirability of a British war powers Act? Yesterday showed that we are the crucible of the nation for debate but emphasised that we have no powers to decide whether to go to war. Such a decision is made by only two people: the Prime Minister and the Head of State, who lacks democratic accountability.
The arrangement worked well in the past because almost every time that we have gone to war, it has been with the wholehearted consent of the majority of the people of this nation. We have debated the subject many times, but on this occasion the more knowledge that people have about our plans to go to war, the greater their opposition.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend understates the crucial role of the House of Commons in the matter. I said many months ago that it was inconceivable that a British Government would commit British troops to military action without the support of the House of Commons. That must remain the case. Ministers may make the decision, but they, including the Prime Minister, are accountable to this place. To be fair to the Prime Minister, we have made it plain throughout that we want to be accountable to this place and to carry it with us, and that the House of Commons will have an opportunity to vote on a substantive motion when the time comes.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Leader of House ensure that a statement is made next week to tackle the criticisms in the Public Administration Committee report on ombudsmen? It relates largely to a finding by the ombudsman in response to a criticism by

421
me that, for the first time, the Government had not accepted the ombudsman's advice on access to official information. Perhaps a statement would help us to understand why the Government say so much about freedom of information but are secretive and hypocritical when it comes to the provision of information.
Mr. Cook: For the record, the Government introduced and are implementing the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Conservative Government refused to introduce such a measure.
Mr. lain Luke: My right hon. Friend may not know about the unhappiness of hon. Members of all parties about the restrictions on the debate about the Scottish economy in the previous Scottish Grand Committee meeting, which was held on 18 February. The debate was restricted because of an inability to award extra time and the Divisions in the House. As Chair of the Modernisation Committee, will my right hon. Friend undertake to place on the agenda of its next meeting in the next two weeks a review of the workings of the Scottish Grand Committee and other Grand Committees to make them more relevant to the work of the House? Perhaps we could have a system along the lines of the cross-border institutions in Ireland, whereby Members of Parliament, Ministers, MSPs and Assembly Members could come together to discuss issues that straddle the devolved divide.
Mr. Cook: I am aware from the comments of members of the Scottish Grand Committee of the frustration caused by the loss of time through Divisions in the House. We can deal with that through Standing Orders, and with the power of the Chair to extend the length of Scottish Grand Committee's sittings to compensate for time lost in Divisions. I am willing to do that without necessarily going through the Modernisation Committee.
My hon. Friend raised a large question when he suggested full meetings in Committee of Members of this places and Members of other places such as the Scottish Parliament. I do not necessarily oppose such a proposal but not every Member for a Scottish constituency would wholeheartedly endorse it. I would want to know that there was consensus before proceeding further.
David Burnside: The Government have been constructive in presenting to the House information and intelligence to allow hon. Members to evaluate the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to world peace. The police and our intelligence services provide that information.
In the next seven to 14 days, the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party must decide whether to go back into an Executive with Sinn Fein. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland to give the House an evaluation of Colombia, Castlereagh, Stormontgate and the threat posed by republican terrorists? We cannot make a judgment without that intelligence information.
Mr. Cook: Any process that the Government undertake to restore momentum to the peace process
422
must take account of our knowledge of the activities of those who are party to it. That is important, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are clear that if the peace process is to progress we need a definite commitment to acts of completion by paramilitary organisations on both sides. I am not sure whether it would be sensible to disclose in public intelligence information that may not be relevant to future criminal activities.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: May we have a statement next week on the administrative difficulties that may arise if the Budget is not presented next month or, as matters currently appear, it disappears completely?
Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no risk of the Budget disappearing. The Government would never miss giving the House an opportunity to celebrate the fact that we have lower unemployment and lower inflation than ever existed under the Conservative Government, and a sounder economy and lower interest rates than they achieved.
Tim Loughton: Again, the business statement did not mention the mental health Bill, which is eagerly anticipated by Conservative Members and the individuals and organisations throughout the country that provided more than 2,000 consultation responses to the draft measure. When can we expect the Bill? Will the final measure remove the obnoxious coercion provisions in the draft Bill? If the Bill will not be introduced soon, will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on mental health? In the past, we have given time in Supply days to debate the state of mental health provision or its lack in many parts of the country. There are gaps in adolescent mental health provision and increasing waiting times for services.
Mr. Cook: Work on the mental health Bill continues carefully and with due process precisely because of the large volume of responses to the consultation process. As hon. Members know, I strongly argued that we should consult on draft legislation, try to find ways in which the public can comment on it and enter into debate with the most interested lobby and professional groups. That happened with the mental health Bill. It is right and proper to ensure adequate time to reflect on the responses and, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, try to accommodate them in a future text.
Hugh Robertson: In a recent written answer, the Ministry of Defence disclosed that up to 10,400 of our service men and women who are currently deploying to the Gulf face cuts in their local overseas allowance of between 20 per cent. and 35 per cent. Early-day motion 779 deals with the matter.
[That this House recognises that 10,400 members of the armed forces deployed to the Gulf are in receipt of local overseas allowance; deplores the Ministry of Defence's decision to remove 20 per cent. of that allowance for single and married unaccompanied personnel after the first 17 days of any deployment and 35 per cent. of that allowance for married accompanied personnel if their spouse leaves their permanent duty

423
station for more than 17 days; and urges the Ministry of Defence to ensure that no member of the armed forces loses out financially through service in the Gulf.]
Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence makes an urgent statement in the House on the entire welfare package? That will be of interest to hon. Members of all parties. Does he agree that no member of our armed forces should lose out financially through service in the Gulf?
Mr. Cook: My hon. and right hon. Friends who are Defence Ministers are fully aware of the importance of maintaining morale and motivation in the forces. Welfare is an important part of that and my ministerial colleagues will give careful consideration to ensuring that the welfare of all members of the armed forces and their families is fully taken care of.
John Barrett: When the Leader of the House considers the request for an early debate on the future of our pharmacies, which the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) mentioned earlier, will he bear it in mind that the Government gave a commitment to respond within 90 days of the publication of the Office of Fair Trading report and that we are already 40 days into that period?
Mr. Cook: Certainly, I will do so, but according to the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic, there are almost 50 days to go. I have no reason to believe that the Government will not meet the deadline.

Standards and Privileges
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House—

(i)approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 435); and

(ii)accordingly suspends Mr Michael Trend, Member for Windsor, from the service of the House for two weeks.—[Mr. Heppell.]

1.38 pm
Sir George Young: I commend to the House the motion to approve the Committee's third report, which was agreed unanimously on 12 February, and the related recommendation to suspend my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) from the service of the House for two weeks.
On 13 February, when the report was published, my hon. Friend made a personal statement in which he accepted unreservedly the report's conclusions that he had been muddled and naive in his negligent understanding of the additional costs allowance. He apologised unreservedly to Mr. Speaker and to his constituents. Hon. Members will acknowledge the speed with which my hon. Friend came to the House to accept the report's conclusions and to apologise for his conduct, and the terms in which he did that.
The background to this case was a report in The Mail on Sunday on 15 December that my hon. Friend had returned to his house in Windsor while claiming an allowance intended to cover the cost of overnight stays in London. His reaction to the allegations was that they were wrong, and he immediately contacted the Department of Finance and Administration to confirm that his understanding was correct. While his discussions with the department did indeed confirm that he had never claimed additional costs allowance in respect of his London address, they revealed that he had seriously misunderstood the significance of identifying his main residence for this purpose.
Although my hon. Friend believed that his conduct had always been perfectly proper, he accepted that he had misunderstood the rules, and agreed to repay, without delay, the sum that he was told was due. That was done, in full, on 23 December.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards subsequently received several complaints, one of which, from a constituent, formed the basis of the commissioner's investigation.
This is the first case investigated by the present commissioner to come before the House, though not before my Committee. I pay tribute to the care and thoroughness, exemplified by this case, with which he carries out his investigations, and to the clarity of his report, published as an appendix to ours.
The commissioner concluded that my hon. Friend had claimed additional costs allowance in breach of the rules. He did not, however, find that the evidence available was sufficient to substantiate the conclusion that my hon. Friend had deliberately set out to abuse the allowance. He concluded that the evidence was certainly sufficient to justify the view that my hon. Friend was, at the least, careless or negligent in relation to the claims that he made. He also considered that it was clear that,

425
in failing to observe the relevant rules, he had misused the allowance and consequently breached the code of conduct.
The Committee agreed that my hon. Friend was not dishonest in his belief that he had the option to choose which of his places of residence to register as his main residence for the purpose of the additional costs allowance. We recognised, as did the commissioner, that since the matter came to light my hon. Friend had cooperated fully with all the inquiries and promptly repaid the sum he was told he owed the Department. However, my hon. Friend should have recognised that his claiming additional costs allowance in relation to his Windsor home meant that the taxpayer was meeting some of the core running costs of what was in reality his main residence. He should have realised that it was wrong to sign a certificate giving the home of his friend in London as his main residence, when he was staying there infrequently. Accordingly, the Committee agreed with the commissioner that my hon. Friend was negligent, and had breached the code of conduct by making improper use of the additional costs allowance and failing strictly to observe the rules relating to the allowance.
The Committee considered very carefully what would be an appropriate penalty to recommend to the House. The consequences for my hon. Friend of what he conceded in his evidence to us was
"a mistake, a serious mistake",
have already been severe, in bringing to an end his parliamentary career. However, we must recognise the impact of cases of improper use of allowances on public confidence in Members of Parliament and in Parliament as an institution. Of course, the sum involved in this case was very substantial.
The code of conduct requires Members to observe the highest standards in relation to payments or allowances made to them for public purposes, and Members are personally responsible for both the accuracy and the validity of their claims. Having weighed all these considerations, we recommended that my hon. Friend be suspended from the service of the House for two weeks.
David Winnick: I do not want to speak about the hon. Member in question, but the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks prompted me to table questions regarding the manner in which the Fees Office does or does not check submissions for the additional costs allowance. Is it not important that Members of Parliament submit documentary evidence, as in any other job? The present arrangements are loose and unsatisfactory, and do no credit to the House.
Sir George Young: I should like to respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying a final word about the system to which he refers.
We are guardians of the public purse, as well as of parliamentary standards. We were concerned that more than £90,000 had been incorrectly claimed, and that this matter did not come to light through the normal system of scrutiny. We therefore welcomed the steps that are being taken to strengthen confidence in the system for claiming additional costs allowance. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins us in that view. We recommend
426
that these steps be completed as quickly as possible and that they then be brought to the attention of all hon. Members. That would usefully complement the increased emphasis that we wish to place on education and prevention.
We believe that, whatever the precise solutions adopted, public confidence in Members requires that the standards that the House imposes on itself be no less effective than those that it would expect of others responsible for the expenditure of public money. Our recommendations to the House reflect that view.
1.45 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: These are sad but necessary occasions. The House has rules, and it keeps them under review. The Committee has a difficult job to do, which on this occasion, as on all others, it has done conscientiously, fairly and impartially.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend), as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said, apologised to the House promptly and fully for what he did, and has taken the appropriate action. It is now for the House to agree with what the Committee said and bring this matter to a conclusion.
1.46 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: I do not wish to detain the House on this issue. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) has made an apology, and there is a longstanding tradition that when an hon. Member does that, we accept it and draw a line. However, I wish to say a few words about the report, because hon. Members want speedy progress on the wider implications of its recommendations.
The atmosphere surrounding the whole question of sleaze has improved considerably in recent years. The change of commissioner is welcome. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of the Committee, on the speed with which he handled the process and the way in which he did it. That has gone some way to restore confidence in Members of Parliament being able to regulate themselves. The jury remains out on that, but this is an important first step in showing that there can be confidence in the system that we have in the House.
It is extremely important that the Government pick up particular recommendations speedily so that, come the new financial year on 1 April, the proposed changes to how Members submit their claims for allowances are in place, and that they are clear and simple, with clear guidance, and include the principle of receipts for large amounts.
I also hope that the Leader of the House will agree to an early debate on the Committee's proposals, and those of the Wicks committee, which would strengthen some of the procedures for both the Committee's and the commissioner's activities. Those proposals include even stronger measures, and the sooner the House can debate them, the sooner we can build on the progress made so far on these issues.
Finally, there are inconsistencies in the punishments that can be imposed on different forms of democratically elected representatives, such as councillors and Members

427
of Parliament, across a range of different offices. The issue needs to be examined. In the past, local councillors could be surcharged and disqualified. When the House considers the recommendations of the Wicks report and the possibility of fining Members of Parliament, I urge the Leader of the House to remove the inconsistencies, so that similar punishments are available for all of us who hold elected office, at whatever level.
1.49 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons(Mr. Robin Cook): It is generally accepted in the House that we should we quickly to resolve recommendations from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. That is why the Government changed the business for this week, so that we could consider its report urgently. I do not intend to detain the House with a lengthy speech.
First, I thank the Committee for its work and for its expedition in producing the report very quickly. I also congratulate the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who has done a very thorough, clear and lucid job, establishing all the facts in a commendably brief period. It is right to record that he had cooperation from the Member concerned.
We fully accept the Committee's recommendation. We always do, and I hope that the House is about to endorse it unanimously. It is important that we show unity within the House in accepting recommendations that touch upon the integrity of the House and of every Member.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) questioned the adequacy of the supervision of claims for additional costs allowance. Earlier this week, I attended a meeting of the Speaker's advisory panel, at which we discussed that matter. I understand that proposals will shortly come from the Fees Office to tighten up the system, especially, as regards the reference in the letter from Mr. Archie Cameron that was produced in the commissioner's report to the House, a requirement that Members should specify on their claim form the address of the property for which they are claiming. That could have prevented the difficulty that arose in this case. That might also apply to another of the commissioner's comments on that letter in relation to documentary corroboration of the finance for which the Member had claimed. Both would be welcome and necessary steps for tightening the system and I am confident that they will achieve substantial support in the House.
David Winnick: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning my previous intervention.
As I have said outside this place, I work on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the House are perfectly honest, but would not it be helpful if documentary evidence were provided for any claim above £10, £15 or £20? If we were claiming for electricity or telephone bills and the bills were not enclosed, the Fees Office could ask the Member concerned to send on the documentary evidence. Would that be wrong?
Mr. Cook: All those matters are for consideration, but perhaps I could focus on the major issue—the one that
428
has prompted the report: the claim for mortgage interest payments, which is by far the largest claim under the additional costs allowance. It would be desirable if, as standard practice, documentary evidence of mortgage interest paid in the course of the year or the month was supplied in support of the additional costs allowance. That would certainly have met this particular case and would, I suspect, cover a very high proportion of all claims under the additional costs allowance.
Mr. Michael Weir: As a new Member, I do not want to say too much about this matter, but I was struck by the fact that when I rented a flat in London the Fees Office was unwilling to make the payments direct to the letting agent so as to avoid them going through my hands at all, yet it will do so for office costs. That seems inconsistent, yet it could be a way to avoid situations such as that which we are discussing.
Mr. Cook: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If we were to put that obligation on the Fees Office, we should have to face the staffing consequences, which might not be inconsiderable. Traditionally, we have approached such allowances on the basis that Members themselves are responsible and that they must also accept accountability for whatever they have instructed payment to be made. Furthermore, Members choose to resolve their accommodation in a variety of ways, including hotels, and it is entirely right for them to make those decisions. I am not sure that it would necessarily be consistent with that individual freedom to choose if there were a centralised payment system.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I take the point that my right hon. Friend has just made, but surely the Fees Office could make the payment if a Member opts for it to do so. He will recall the fights that occurred in the past even to get the Fees Office to pay our secretaries their salaries direct, without them having first to go through our personal accounts. Direct payment would be a much better way and overcome a major part of the problem.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend tempts me to follow him in reminiscing about the situation in the 1970s, which would, I suspect, appal some new Members who are accustomed to the rather different secretarial and office cost allowances that prevail nowadays. All those things can be improved and no particular suggestion is being ruled out, but it is important to ensure that we tighten the system. That is in hand and meetings have already taken place to discuss what should be done and hon. Members will shortly receive further advice.
I am conscious that the House wants to progress to the substantive matters of the day so, finally, I shall respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about the report of the Wicks committee. The House will be aware that both the House of Commons Commission and the Standards and Privileges Committee published responses to the Wicks report. I fully understand the importance of discussing those reports in the House and we will ensure that there will be a debate on them before the House rises for the Easter recess. I hope that the House can broadly endorse the recommendations.

429
I was gratified that the Wicks committee report, which was comprehensive, did not find that we needed to do much that was fundamental to our system for integrity and for maintaining our standards. However, where it has made useful suggestions for improvement, we should consider them with a fair wind to ensure that we convince not only the Wicks committee but the wider public whom we serve that all possible improvements are made to our system of integrity and enforcement of standards, which is so important to the health of democracy in our country.
Question put and agreed to.

Social Security
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before we debate the first of the two motions, I remind the House that the two orders to be considered this afternoon, on social security benefits uprating and on guaranteed minimum pensions increase, are to be debated separately for up to one and a half hours each. Debate should therefore relate to the merits of each order and should not extend to wider matters of social security or pensions policy.
1.55 pm
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The order will uprate most benefits in the normal way. National insurance benefits will rise by the retail prices index—1.7 per cent for the relevant period—and income-related benefits will rise by the Rossi index, 1.3 per cent. They add up to about £2.25 billion of extra Government spending to help those in most need and to tackle poverty.
This year, as in every year since 1998, we are able to increase some benefits by more than inflation. That contrasts starkly with the 1980s and 1990s, when child benefit was frozen for three years and pensioners received only inflation level increases, even as social security spending spiralled out of control.
In 1997, we said that we would cut the costs of social and economic failure, and we have done so. Despite a turbulent world economy, the latest unemployment figures show a record number of people in jobs and the lowest unemployment rate of the major industrialised countries. Through our investment in the new deal and Jobcentre Plus we have tackled the legacy of mass unemployment that we inherited. Since 1997 there have been nearly 1.5 million more jobs, with savings of £5 billion on the cost of unemployment that can be invested in improving services and tackling poverty.
Mr. Steve Webb: In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that national insurance benefits had been increased at least in line with inflation. He will know, however, that there is one national insurance benefit for which that is not true—contributory jobseeker's allowance. For some reason, it was raised not by headline inflation but by the Rossi index—1.3 per cent. and not 1.7 per cent.—so it is a real-terms cut in a benefit that, at £50 a week, is already low. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister who responds to the debate explain why that benefit has been cut in real terms by being linked to Rossi, when normally national insurance benefits are linked to the all-items retail prices index?
Mr. Smith: I could hazard an answer now, but it will probably be best if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions responds in the wind up.
My general case is valid: we have increased benefits according to the normal indices and, indeed, we have been able to go beyond that due to our success in

431
tackling mass unemployment. As a result of savings from tackling benefit fraud, we are able to ensure that more money is available to invest in services, providing extra help where it is needed and enabling more people to fulfil their potential, as well as, of course, tackling poverty. We have reversed the generation-long trend of rising child poverty. We have reduced by a third the number of families living on less than £10,000 per year and we are getting more money to pensioners than ever before.
Our strategy has been to tackle the root causes of poverty and to ensure that families and pensioners have a decent income and that people of working age are better off in work. We are doing more to help families. Last year, we raised the standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay by a record amount to £75. This year we shall go even further, increasing it by a third to £100 a week.
At the same time, we are increasing the period for maternity leave to 26 weeks, with the option of a further 26 weeks unpaid, allowing women to take a year off work after having a baby. We will provide help not just for mothers but for fathers. We are introducing statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay at £100 a week, plus the right to two weeks' paid paternity leave and 26 weeks' paid adoption leave. That package of support will help 750,000 parents to support and care for their children.
I can also announce further direct support for children. Child benefit will be increased by more than inflation for the third time by this Government, taking the cumulative real increase for the first child to £5 a week since 1997. In addition, all child allowances will be increased by more than inflation, benefiting some 1.3 million of the poorest families in our country. Under Labour, income support help for the poorest children has doubled.
We know that it is particularly hard for low-income families who are bringing up children with disabilities, so I can announce today substantial rises in support. The disabled child premium will increase by more than 16 per cent. to £41.30—nearly double its 1997 rate—and there will be additional help for poorer families bringing up the most severely disabled children: the enhanced disability premium will increase by nearly a half.
Mr. Tim Boswell: The additional help being given to disabled children is welcome, but can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information about any campaign, conducted by himself or in conjunction with the Treasury, to ensure that, as has been promised in the past, those new benefits are properly publicised to the families and parents of disabled children—particularly where those new benefits are linked to, or passported by, other benefits—so that they are drawn positively to their attention to ensure that the benefits get to those who need them?
Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the measures, and I am happy to give him the assurance that, yes, I am very concerned indeed that people should get the benefits to which they are entitled, and I will examine anything that has not been done in
432
response to a campaign that it would make sense to do. It is in all our interests that people get what they are entitled to, especially when we are talking about disabled children.
Together, the measures that we set out will help more than 87,000 families bringing up disabled children. Our tax and benefit measures, combined with our successful employment policies, are helping to get more parents into work, enabling us to make major inroads into child poverty.
We also continue to tackle the legacy of pensioner poverty that we inherited. For the third year running, the retirement pension will be uprated by more than inflation, with an increase of £100 a year from next April for single pensioners and £160 a year for couples. We will increase the basic state pension by at least 2.5 per cent. each year during the lifetime of this Parliament, reaffirming the basic state pension as the foundation of security in retirement.
We will, as in every year since its introduction, increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, giving more help to the poorest pensioners. Indeed, as a result of that measure alone, the incomes of the poorest pensioners will have gone up by over a third since 1997. In conjunction with the winter fuel payments and free television licences, we are already spending £6 billion extra in real terms on pensioners this year.
Paul Flynn: The Government are to be congratulated on their policy on pensioners, which has delivered an increase that is probably greater than any increase that would have been made if the link to earnings had been restored, but is it not true that many of the poorest pensioners are not claiming income support for various reasons? We should be considering those people, of whom there is a very large number. For reasons of pride or because of a disorganised life, or whatever, they are losing out, as their incomes are well below the minimum income guarantee level.
Mr. Smith: I agree that very many of the poorest pensioners are benefiting by more than a restoration of the earnings link would have given them, so I would not accept that they are especially losing out. Of course, it remains a challenge to increase take-up to the level that we would like, and creating a dedicated Pension Service will be a big help.
The Pension Service is more effectively organised to be sensitive to pensioners, as it has a local arm, and I am sure that all hon. Members are beginning to see the benefits in their constituencies of the local surgeries that are being organised. I am glad to see that some Conservative Members are nodding.
Getting such entitlements through the Pension Service is a very good way of tackling the stigma that many people have felt, wrongly, in getting something from social security. The more clearly we bracket those entitlements with the pension and as things that come through the Pension Service, the more we will encourage take-up.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that, in my constituency, more than 3,000 people have applied for the minimum income guarantee—calling it something

433
different has made a big difference. As he will know, couples now get £150 a week, plus all the other benefits, whereas if the Tory link had continued they would now get £105 a week. That is a massive difference.
Mr. Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, and I am very pleased to hear that our measures are making a difference to poorer pensioners in his constituency, as they are across the country.
I shall try to speed up my remarks because I am aware that the debate is more truncated than some hon. Members would wish and that a number of hon. Members want to take part.
In addition to the extra spending that I have already announced, we will go further. From this October, the pension credit will not only guarantee a minimum income but reward those with modest savings and occupational pension incomes, providing, we estimate, an average gain of about £400 a year for half the pensioner households in Britain. Thanks to all our reforms, pensioner households will be more than £1,150 a year better off as a result, and the poorest third of pensioners will have gained £1,500 a year in real terms.
Andrew Selous: Although the Secretary of State has just said that take-up is supposed to be better with the Pension Service, is he not concerned by the predictions from his Department that the take-up of pension credit is expected to be only 67 per cent.?
Mr. Smith: I have said already that I am concerned that the take-up of the help to which people are entitled should be as high as possible. The figure to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not a prediction; it is an operating assumption. We have to plan the expenditure using an assumption. However, if he is asking whether I am aiming for that target, the answer is that I am not—I want to ensure that take-up is as high as possible.
I shall write to all right hon. and hon. Members next month to set out our plans to ensure that people take up the pension credit to which they are entitled. We will automatically transfer current MIG recipients on to the pension credit, establish a freephone number for applications and launch an information campaign. For the first time, people will be able to make claims over the phone without having to fill in complicated forms—that will be done for them. The forms will be sent to them, and all they need to do is sign them—so we are simplifying the process.
Those measures, combined with the state second pension, which will benefit some 18 million people, will help all pensioners. We are making a real difference to the living standards of all pensioners, but those measures will help the poorest pensioners most of all.
Hywel Williams: I am slightly concerned that the Secretary of State seems to have jumped several generations, from talking about poverty among children to pensioners. Does he intend to address the income support available to younger people—those under 25—who are very clearly in poverty? I note from the table provided that the increase will be a whole 55p
434
this year. Does he suggest that they perhaps buy a weekday copy of The Guardian with that money, as that is all they could manage to do with it?
Mr. Smith: I would not attempt to prescribe what people should spend their benefits on. I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about people's needs. As I said, the amounts are being uprated in the proper way and, as he will be aware, the Government have made a big drive to give more help to disabled people. We have advanced their rights in an unprecedented way by creating the Disability Rights Commission. Moreover, we have not only improved benefits in the way that I have already outlined but launched pilot schemes that will help would-be recipients of incapacity benefit to stay in work or move into jobs. We should never forget that up to 1 million disabled people say that they want to work, and too many barriers are in the way of that at the moment. This Government want to remove those barriers and enable disabled people to work, while at the same time providing security for those who are unable to work.
In drawing my remarks to a close, it is evident that the measures that I have described will benefit a large number of children, parents and pensioners. They carry forward our reform of the welfare state and our mission to tackle all forms of poverty. Through policy reform, getting record numbers into jobs and tackling fraud, we are able to target extra resources on children and pensioners who need help most. This order helps us to build a Britain that fulfils potential, opens up opportunity and tackles poverty, and I commend it to the House.
2.10 pm
Mr. David Willetts: We will not oppose the order, and we will certainly not make the mistake famously made by the Liberal Democrats a couple of years ago of trying to vote against any increase in benefits. That was almost as much of a cock-up as the one that we have had today, which means that we cannot have this debate on the scale for which Members on both sides of the House would have wished. Sadly, the uprating debate has shrunk from a full day to three hours. It is a great pity that we have only an hour and a half on this order. I appreciate that that was an accident, but I hope that we will revert to the old arrangements in future.
As we now have less time than we had hoped, I will have to set aside my extensive indictment of the Government's record on social security, powerful and compelling though the evidence was. I am sure that it will be recycled on another occasion. Instead, I shall make some brief remarks.
First, this is a melancholy occasion, as this uprating order marks the disappearance of a range of benefits from the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions as they become tax credits to be run by the Treasury. We understand that Whitehall's arrangements are always being changed, but this change may result in a poorer quality of policy making and decision making. In so far as there is accumulated expertise anywhere in Whitehall on the needs of poor people and how to run their benefits, it lies within the old Department of Social Security, which is now the DWP. I am surprised that

435
Labour Members do not appear to agree with that, as it seems clear to me that the Inland Revenue rightly focuses on extracting income tax from the better-off. The idea that the Inland Revenue should send out giro cheques to millions of people, which will start in April, seems absurd.
We are told that the new arrangements will be seamless, but the reality is that an unemployed family will receive a child tax credit from the Inland Revenue to cover the costs of their children, while separately receiving from the DWP an unemployment benefit payment for the adult. That seems a far clumsier system than the one that it replaces. I hope that the two different Departments will co-ordinate their approach to one family, but it is a significant risk. As one Blairite adviser observed to me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not believe in contestability when it comes to health or education, but he certainly does when it comes to benefit systems, as we will now have two. I hope that the two systems can work successfully.
In the background to today's uprating is yet more means-testing. The benefits that we are uprating include further extensions of means-tested benefits as a proportion of the total social security budget. Rather than quote to the Secretary of State yet again the notorious commitment by the Chancellor to the Labour party conference 10 years ago to end the means test, I might go back further to an episode described in Alan Bullock's biography of Ernest Bevin, in which Bevin tried to persuade the tinplate workers of south Wales[Interruption.] I knew that the Minister for Pensions would be interested when I mentioned Ernest Bevin. He tried to persuade those tinplate workers to join an occupational pension. He negotiated it with the employers, but his members rejected it. Bevin went to his council of the T&G in 1937 and said the following:
"I think it is a tragedy for south Wales, but it appears that a large number of the men take the view that if they become party to a superannuation they are merely saving the Unemployment Assistance Board expenditure. When a large community develops a relief complex of this character it is not good for democracy."
He found that the scope of means-testing was such that he could not encourage his own members to build up funded pension saving. That is a powerful warning of the long-term effects of means-testing on its current scale.
James Purnell: As the hon. Gentleman is taking us on a trip down memory lane, will he confirm that he was an adviser on social security policy through almost the whole of the Thatcher Government? Does he therefore regret that they froze child benefit and froze pensions in real terms, and that the income of the bottom 10 per cent. of people fell in absolute terms—not in relative terms—by about 20 per cent.?
Mr. Willetts: We always have this exchange. I do not recognise the figure of a 20 per cent. fall in the real incomes of the poorest part of the population. I simply do not accept that.
What I want to talk about is what this Government are doing in uprating benefits. The problem of means-testing is not just its effects on behaviour but the problems of take-up to which reference has been made.
436
It is a great disappointment that we still have no take-up figures for income-related benefits for any year later than 1999–2000. They should have been published at the latest by last September, when we were suddenly told that they could not be released until research had been concluded on how to
"better identify people who are eligible for income-related benefits, especially pensioners." —[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 645W]
There is no reason why that research should delay the production of empirical evidence about the take-up of means-tested benefits. Nearly three years have passed since the period for which we require data, and the House would not be demanding unseemly haste of the Secretary of State in producing reliable figures for the take-up of means-tested benefits in 2000–01. The fact that we do not have figures for later than 1999–2000 is a disgrace.
Mr. Webb: Given that the Secretary of State said that next month he will announce a package of measures to improve take-up of pensioner benefits, is it a coincidence that the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asks are due to be published at the end of next month? Does he share my suspicion that the figures may not be very good?
Mr. Willetts: My suspicions are that the Secretary of State is waiting for something to sugar the pill of some figures that might show, sadly, that take-up is far lower than all of us, on both sides of the House, would want.
There is a lot of change going on, and it is a pity that we do not have a longer debate in which to examine it. Briefly, in relation to some of the changes in social security benefits that we are about to see as part of this uprating order, I hope that the wind-up will provide a little more information on three points. First, on the new arrangements for the payment of benefit coming into force in April, there are widespread concerns about the post office card account. Ministers have regularly offered assurances that, as a very minimum, information will be given on all forms of benefit payment—not just on commercial bank accounts but on the post office card account. People should therefore have a choice, including the possibility of continuing to collect their benefits at the post office through the post office card account. I want to quote from a letter, however, which was sent to someone living near my constituency, who has passed it on to me. That person is in receipt of child benefit. The letter, which is from the child benefit centre in Washington, simply states:
"It has been decided to withdraw your order book method of payment for child benefit. Future payments will be made into a bank/building society. Please complete the enclosed form CH 1702 with your bank/building society account details."
That is not compatible with the assurances that we have been given on the provision of information on post office card accounts to benefit claimants. The memorandum from the child benefit centre does not meet earlier ministerial assurances. I shall not detain the House by repeating those assurances, but the Secretary of State knows that they were given, and what is going on now is not compatible with them.
Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the script that the new Pension Service will use mentions the post office card account hardly at all and only at the very end, a fact that I and the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), who is in the Chamber, duly noted when we visited the Pension Service centre in Burnley? Does my hon. Friend agree that that will cause great difficulties for many post offices, which will be forced to close as a result of losing that income?
Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. It is clear from the way in which leaflets are produced in post offices, the letter from the child benefit centre and the script that followed that Ministers are not delivering on the assurances that they gave on information about the post office card account. I hope that the Minister will cover that in his winding-up speech.
On the arrival of the Pension Service, I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State say that local meetings are taking place to give people practical advice. As a Member of Parliament who represents Havant on the south coast, I have received a letter saying that the Pension Service office in Wrexham will handle pension issues for my constituency. Apparently, I should write to it there and my constituents can phone it. I am not aware of any improvements in local advice; nor am I aware of the delivery of the promised face-to-face interviews.
There have been exchanges in the Select Committee on that and I also had an exchange on the television last year with the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who was introduced as a Government aide. As the Government's representative, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) said:
"We have guaranteed that any pensioner who wants a face-to-face interview can have that and we're actually doubling the number of staff at the moment who have that face to face, the new Pension Service will have twice as many."
I hope that the Minister will repeat the assurance that his Parliamentary Private Secretary gave, so that we can guarantee that any pensioner who wants a face-to-face interview can have one. We realise that that does not mean every pensioner, because many will not want a face-to-face interview, but the interview should be available for those who want one.
We all know that the evidence given by the head of the Pension Service to the Select Committee and elsewhere is not compatible with the assurances, including those given by the hon. Member for Wigan. The head of the Pension Service said:
"We are not building a model which is actually showing that anyone can just choose to have a home visit"
She also stated:
"The local service is not designed to be a 'visiting on demand' service and we would expect such occasions to be rare."
Are we, or are we not, able to assure our constituents who want a face-to-face meeting that they will get one with someone who has the authority and expertise to give them proper advice?
438
I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be brief—[Interruption.] Are Labour Members telling me to keep going? Is that because my contribution is so compelling? I do not know how many hon. Members wish to speak—
Mr. Oliver Heald: I do.
Mr. Willetts: My distinguished hon. Friend has much wisdom on the subject and I am sure that he will wind up with great skill.
On the Child Support Agency and the conversion of old cases to the new formula, on which we heard a statement some time ago, when is C-day, as it is called, and what are the arrangements? I am sure that all MPs are receiving inquiries from their constituents who are concerned to know when and how they are to be moved to the new formula. Advice that can be given on a more authoritative basis would be welcome.
I hope that the Minister will tackle those specific concerns and say a bit about the philosophy of a Government who are supposedly committed to welfare reform but who have, after six years in office, ended up with a situation in which well over half the British population are on means-tested benefits. The number of people on income support is higher than it was when they came to office, the number of people claiming incapacity benefit is higher than it was when they came to office and the household savings ratio is almost at a record low. That is not the society that we want. We want more funded savings and people to be less dependent on means-tested benefits. It is a tragedy that we are heading in the opposite direction.
2.25 pm
Vernon Coaker: I want to raise two or three specific concerns that my constituents have brought to my attention. The order is exceptionally important, given that it accounts for billions of pounds on which many people depend. We need more than an hour and a half to consider such matters, because they are of fundamental importance to a huge number of people. Indeed, they affect thousands of people in every constituency.
I agree with the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). I am keen to ensure that benefits paid by post office accounts are made properly available to people. A number of my constituents have raised the problems that they have encountered on trying to open such an account. They have almost been persuaded not to have one. Sub-postmasters have also mentioned that problem to me. Post offices throughout the country need to operate on a level playing field so that people have a proper choice when they decide how their benefits should be paid.
Andrew Selous: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office official to whom I recently spoke said that post offices stand to lose 41 per cent. of their income through the automated credit transfer process?
Vernon Coaker: I do not want to get into a debate about that. It is necessary for the Post Office to modernise. The Government's investment in computerisation, for instance, is welcome. Post offices need to diversify to build

439
up other aspects of retailing and so on. However, alongside that modernisation, we need to accept that post offices cannot continue to be subsidised by the state to pay out benefits. In the process of change, people need to have a choice about how they want their benefits to be paid. That is the sensible approach and I hope that the Government take it.
The Minister knows that I am keen supporter of the pensioner premium part of income support. Although it was unpopular at the time, it has redirected huge resources to the poorest pensioners in society. As a Labour Government, we decided to do that rather than to uprate all pensions because that would have allowed all pensioners to receive an additional sum even if they did not need it. We chose to ensure that the poorest pensioners received significant increases in their income. Many pensioners in my constituency have received that significant increase and it has made a huge difference to their quality of life and standard of living. The Government are to be congratulated on that and I was pleased to defend their policy when that was not a popular thing to do. We can be proud of the outcome.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about take-up. We need a bit more information from the Department about what is happening with that. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions provide any further information, and say how successful or otherwise we are? I support the policy, but I know that some people who are entitled to the benefit are not able to claim it or are not aware of their entitlement. We need to continue to consider how we ensure that those people are made aware of their entitlement.
Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman was talking about the Labour Government's successes in dealing with pensioner poverty. How does that square with the fact that in Scotland one in four pensioners are still living in poverty, after nearly six years of a Labour Government?
Vernon Coaker: I was pointing to the fact we have made the decision to shift a significant amount of resources to the poorest group of pensioners through the pensioner premium in income support, which was an unpopular decision opposed by many in the House. However, we rode out that opposition because we wanted to introduce the change. Other measures have also been introduced, including the winter fuel payment. The Government have tried to address problems, but take-up is still an issue. When I talk to pensioners in my constituency, they are still confused about their entitlement and the forms to be filled in. We must continue to try to find ways of dealing with that, perhaps through the Pension Service.
Mr. Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the Pensions Policy Institute paper that was published recently, but it shows that the income of pensioners as a percentage of national earnings is exactly the same now as it was in 1997. In fact, the gap between rich and poor has widened.
Vernon Coaker: I have not read that document, but if the hon. Gentleman talks to pensioners or looks at what
440
is taking place, he will see that significant additional resources are going to poorer pensioners through the pensioner premium in income support. I supported that policy decision when the Government made it, and I still do.
As I said earlier, I support very much the Government's welfare to work programme, and I believe we should all do so. The best way out of poverty is for people to be supported into work. The Government have introduced a number of successful measures to deal with that. They have targeted improvements on various benefits. The Secretary of State mentioned child benefit, in which there have been incredible increases, especially in respect of the first child, making a significant difference. My right hon. Friend also talked about changes to the disability premium—we all support those welcome improvements.
Flicking through the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2003, one can see that it applies to hundreds of different benefits. A heart-rending, soul-searching parliamentary debate about whether some of those benefits are set at an appropriate level is long overdue. Some of the people I see are dependent on benefits and cannot work, for whatever reason. Sometimes I wonder how they can exist on the money that they receive. That is not so much a criticism as a plea for reflection. Can we pay benefits at a level that does not encourage people to stay on benefit, support a welfare- to-work policy, pursue an anti-poverty agenda, and command public support so that we are not criticised for making benefits too generous? The House and the country need to consider the serious question of whether the poverty line in our benefits system is appropriate. Are we being generous in our definition of poverty? Recently, the journalist Polly Toynbee lived on benefits. She could be ridiculed, as she knew that she would come off benefits and go back to her own world, but her experiences do provide an insight into poverty. She was moved by how little people who depend solely on benefits receive to support themselves. The House ought to have a debate on what is an appropriate poverty line in this country in the 21st century.
Finally, whatever the benefit, huge numbers of people come to our surgeries because they have difficulty finding their way through the forms and claiming their entitlement. Whatever system is set up, that is bound to be the case. It is therefore incumbent on us to ask ourselves whether the system is as good or simple as it could be, and what is the way forward. I welcome the Secretary of State's speech, which included good things about the disability premium. I congratulate the Government on that, but ask my right hon. Friend to take on board some of my remarks to see whether further improvements could be made, especially to take-up, which would help us to make our benefits system better still.
2.36 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: It is always good to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), whose contributions are thoughtful and gratifyingly critical of the Government—in a supportive sort of way.

441
It is hard not to reflect on the fact that, in debating the order and tax credits, we are debating expenditure of £100 billion in 90 minutes, which is about £1 billion a minute. I appreciate that the circumstances in which that time limit was set are beyond our control, but will the Secretary of State make representations through the usual channels to find an alternative occasion, perhaps in Westminster Hall, so that we can have the debate that we might otherwise have had here? There are many wider issues that it is not in order to raise in relation to the motion. However, they do need to be addressed, and there is not an obvious forum in which to do so. I hope that the Minister for Pensions will provide an assurance that he will seek such a debate.
I shall not make some important points that I might otherwise have made. Comments by Members on both sides of the House about the move to automated credit transfer are important, and I should like to see a campaign of civil disobedience by pensioners up and down the land, and the ceremonial burning of letters from the Pension Service saying that they cannot receive their money in the way in which they used to receive it until there are cast-iron assurances about the post office network that, frankly, I do not believe will ever be forthcoming.
I shall not repeat my intervention on the Secretary of State about the level of the contributory jobseeker's allowance, but I hope that when the Minister responds he will explain why that benefit has been cut in real terms. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned, it is a woefully small increase to a woefully small benefit. Perhaps the Minister can explain why people on contributory jobseeker's allowance who have paid contributions will experience a real-terms cut in April.
There are three topics that I would have liked to deal with at greater length, but I shall now merely headline them. First, we have previously visited the 25p age addition in the orders. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State because, unlike the previous Secretary of State, they are willing to engage in the argument about whether age additions are a better strategy than means-testing. The previous Secretary of State simply did not engage in that argument, but written answers that I have recently received from the Minister have set out the Department's line, which was previously given only in the Lords, where these things are debated properly. I thank the Minister for editorialising his recent written answer to me, explaining the facts of the case and why I am wrong. That is a step in the right direction.
On the strategy of age additions, instead of the 25p in the orders, it should be a worthwhile sum. The Government line is that older pensioners may be poorer on average, but there is a big dispersion of incomes among older pensioners, which is clearly true. They take the top and the bottom of the distribution as evidence, and say that there is a big gap between those two numbers, but that is only saying that there are some relatively rich old pensioners, which I do not dispute. The Government do not report in their written answers to me the shape of the whole distribution. At the top, there is a minority of well-off pensioners, but most of the distribution is quite low, with a sharp increase at the end. Therefore, although some of the money does not go to those who need it most, much of the money goes to those who miss out under the Government strategy.
442
Neither strategy is perfect. Under our strategy, which I think is also the Conservative strategy and that of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), we pay some money to the rich very elderly, but most of it goes to the relatively poor very elderly. Under the Government strategy, all the money goes to those who claim it who are by definition poor, but they miss out on a lot of very poor people, who do not get it at all.
The matter is not as clear cut as the Government like to pretend it is. Given that with the pension credit the presumption is 2.9 million recipient households out of 4.1 million entitled households—Government figures, not mine—that is a million who will not get a penny under the Government strategy, and probably two thirds of them would get all the money under the age addition strategy. I hope that the Government, particularly when they review wider pensions issues, will reflect on the 25p figure in the order and whether the reliance on means-testing can be reduced through an age addition strategy. I have never said that there is no place for means-testing; it is a question of balance.
Mr. Andrew Smith: In the interests of open debate on distributional issues, which the hon. Gentleman says he welcomes, does he accept that the cost of his strategy is not only that some older rich pensioners get money that they arguably do not need so much, but that younger poorer pensioners do not get money that they do need?
Mr. Webb: I accept that. However, the younger poorer pensioners below the income support line are typically not very far below the income support line, whereas the old poor pensioners who fail to claim their minimum income guarantee are typically a good deal further below the line. The recently retired generally tend to be better off. I accept that there are pros and cons to each strategy, but the distinctions are not nearly as clear cut as the Government like to pretend.
As an example, a recent written answer to me from the Minister of State stated that the pension credit was going ahead, but had the Government decided at the start of the year to put the whole net cost of the pension credit on the pension for the over-75s, the pension for the over-75s would have been £19 a week bigger. That was the sum cited in the Minister's written answer to me of 25 February. That is close to the MIG, so the question is whether, had we not followed that strategy, for the same expenditure we could have got everybody over 75 clear of the MIG, with vast gains in take-up and in administrative saving. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind on the issue.
As a final observation on the age addition issue, I note that the same Government who say that targeting by age is a bad idea because there are some rich old people have chosen to make TV licences free to all the over-75s. When the Chancellor announced that measure in his Budget speech, he justified it by saying that on average older pensioners are poorer. The Government cannot have it both ways, although they may try; there must be some consistency in their reasoning.
The second issue is the increase of £1.95 a week in the retirement pension, for which the regulations provide. That is £1.95 a week for people on full pensions. I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State women who do not get £1.95 a week increase—they do not get £1.95 a

443
week pension, because of the operation of the married women's stamp. I have invited the Secretary of State—I hope that he will respond to me shortly, though probably not today—to have an independent look at the position of those women who do not get the £1.95 under the regulations.
I want to put on record the way in which our thinking about the matter has moved on. In the past we have said that those women signed up for the system, but we dispute whether all of them knew what they were doing and whether they had proper information. The Government's line—or some parts of the Government's line—is, yes, the women knew what they were doing and it was all crystal clear, whereas Lord Rooker, when he was a pensions Minister, said that none of the information would have passed the plain English test. There has been some admission in the past that there was a problem.
I still believe that there was a problem, but we will never resolve it because the events took place a long time ago. Our argument now emphasises the fact that there was not a one-off decision by those women. It was an ongoing decision for the whole of their lives to remain on the married women's stamp. What might have been a correct decision when they made it may have become a wrong decision when the half-tests were scrapped, which the Secretary of State knows all about, the homes responsibilities protection was introduced, and the national insurance for the low paid was restructured. All those measures changed the balance of advantage of being on the reduced stamp as opposed to being on the full stamp.
The issue that we have not explored properly, which an independent inquiry could investigate with no prejudice and no obligation, is whether women knew about that, whether they had information, and whether they lost out through not being told about the changes. It ceases to be an argument about what happened in the 1960s and becomes an argument about whether women were told about the changes in the system that affected their choices and now affect the benefits that they draw when they retire.
The issue is not just a Lib-Dem whinge. We have tabled early-day motion 131 and the majority of signatories are Labour MPs—76 Labour Members have signed the motion. It is regrettable that the Conservatives have put a block on their Members signing, but 13 free-thinkers on the Conservative Back Benches have done so anyway. I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on the matter. I stress that apart from 1 million stamps, virtually no public expenditure would be involved, so he would not be making a public expenditure commitment. It is a matter that unites hon. Members across the House.
I do not say that I have an angry woman in every constituency, but something approaching that.[Interruption.] Yes, we are working on it. There are members of our campaign organisation in more than 400 constituencies, and they have met hon. Members. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House have signed the early-day motion. Let us not make it a party matter. I welcome the support from all parts of the House. Let us have an independent look at the issue. I hope that the Secretary of State will respond positively.
444
The final issue is the complexity of the system, which has been touched on. I am a regular subscriber to the Child Poverty Action Group's handbook on welfare benefits, which runs to 1,300 pages. I received a rather worrying letter recently, inviting me to buy next year's edition, which will include the tax credits, and informing me that it will include an extra 300 or 500 pages—I do not remember which. The letter assured me that the handbook would not take up any extra space on my bookshelf because it would be printed on Bible paper. In other words, the system is so complicated that next year another 300 or 500 pages will be added to the guide to help people through it, and the guide is only a summary—it does not go into the law in any detail.
When the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) commented on the complexity of the system, I expected him to say that radical simplification is needed. I agree that we need to consider what would be adequate, but surely we are going down the wrong track.
Mr. Willetts: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the extra complexity that will be added by the move to tax credits. Will he confirm that, in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue said that the computer power needed to deliver the tax credit proposals was eight times that needed for self-assessment, and that the PAC has shown that the simple cost of the IT and administrative expenditure to install the new system is well over £1 billion? That is money that could have gone in benefits delivered by well-established systems. Instead, it is being spent on inventing a parallel system that will leave many of our constituents more confused than they are already.
Mr. Webb: Yes. I am aware of tax accountants who do tax every day, but when faced with a benefit form are bewildered by the entire process. However, we must come clean. We all voted for the Tax Credits Act 2002, so we all supported the principle. We have considerable reservations about its complexity and we may well have to revisit it. In admitting that, we should accept that there is great complexity in all the benefits. For example—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the uprating of the benefits.
Mr. Webb: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have a specific example involving income support and the rates being introduced this April. A constituent who came to speak to me about another matter had a letter from his local Jobcentre Plus about the rates of income support that he will get in April. I have a question about the order, to which I hope the Minister will respond.
The letter tells my constituent how much income support he will get now, and goes on to inform him that on 1 April he will get £8.40 because a change in child benefit is coming in. On 8 April he will get £11.77 a week because of a change in the money that he receives through other benefits. On 15 April he will get £11.50 a week because of a change to the severe disability allowance that his partner gets. On 29 April he will get £11.27 because there will be a change to the child benefit that his partner receives. That is four changes in a month.

445
I read the regulations last night, and it appears that not all the changes come in on the same day. Given that income support depends on all the other benefits that people are getting, my constituent will get four different rates of benefit and does not have a clue why. Can the Minister of State explain why the changes are being introduced on different days during April, and how many extra letters have to be sent out to tell people that for a week they will receive a different amount of money? That is symptomatic of the complexity of the whole approach.
Mr. Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman recalls the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2003 that we discussed recently in Committee. Does he agree that if we take account of the knock-on effects of the changes in this order and the complexity of the system on matters such as child support and benefit sanctions, we will end up facing an absolute empire?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, we are going rather wide of the motion.
Mr. Webb: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall wrap up my remarks, but I hope that I will receive some idea as to why the rates are changing on different dates in April and get some sense that the Government recognise that producing telephone directories of regulations and benefits is not the right approach to take.
The fact that we have not got proper time to debate the motion is the result of a cock-up rather than a conspiracy. I hope that we shall receive an assurance that we will have a chance to raise the wider issues that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, quite properly do not want us to consider now. However, the House should certainly have the time to consider them. Although we were right when we opposed similar regulations a few years ago, we will not oppose the motion today.
2.50 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I shall be brief so as to leave time for a proper response. I appreciate the narrowness of the terms of this debate but I shall make a few brief points that have not already been well brought out in the earlier contributions.
Can Ministers comment on the position of the increments to the retirement pension for those who have worked beyond their time or whose partners have worked beyond their time? There is a clear steer in the Green Paper that people should be encouraged to work beyond the statutory retirement age. However, as I understand it, there is still a disincentive—or apparent unevenness—in the treatment of the increments from the basic retirement pension because, to be fair to Ministers, they have been more generous with the basic pension. We need to establish the principle that the two elements should operate in parallel in the future.
My second point relates to the disregard of pension income in connection with incapacity benefit. The system has now been in operation for nearly two years and kicks in at £85 a week. I believe that there has, as yet, been no indication of any uprating of that figure. Clearly circumstances and the amounts paid vary over time, and Ministers might like to clarify the position on that.
446
My third point relates to work. We now have a new structure in which therapeutic work is deemed to have come to an end and there is now permitted work for a finite period. Beneath that, since the Social Security Act 1986 was implemented in 1988, there has always been the understanding that people who, for example, return to work after a period on benefit could work for a limited period and receive pay that would be disregarded. That initially kicked in at £15 a week but it is now £20 a week. If we relate that figure to the minimum wage, it is a morning's work and no more. However, there does not seem to be a change in the permitted level for any period of time and I flag up to the Minister that there is something of a black hole between the operation of that relief and the new permitted work regulations for people working more than 16 hours a week.
A final anomaly relates to the achievement of both Houses and Ministers in relation to the pension credit. Hospital downrating rules were amended to 13 weeks instead of the much shorter period that was in force previously and that will remove much of the sting of the operation of those rules in relation to pension credit. However, I ask Ministers to reflect on some of the associated benefits that have not been so amended. In particular, I think of the attendance allowance for older people that kicks in to affect the benefits available to those who care for them.
As I understand it, the attendance allowance is still withdrawn after four weeks in hospital. Therefore, although someone's pension credit is not deducted for a reasonable period when someone is in hospital—in fact, that person is likely to have left hospital—the last thing that he or she might think about is the attendance allowance. I flag up to Ministers a more general concern that results from the fact I have come across cases in my constituency work of the Department attempting to reclaim benefits that have been overpaid to people who are not fraudsters. Their behaviour may have been inadvertent or they may have been unwell, and problems might arise from that. I hope that Ministers will consider that issue, because the cost would be quite small in relation to the circumstances that I have mentioned. They could make a difference to smoothing the problem out.
In the spirit of getting on with the debate, I shall make only one further point that relates to the delivery of the benefits. It does not matter how much they are uprated if they are not functionally available to the people who need them. Points have been raised about the operation of the post office card account and about the take-up of benefits. I agree with those points, but I add one of my own that was touched on slightly in the remarks of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). There needs to be a functional network of post offices in which benefits can be delivered. That applies even if that involves the use of basic bank accounts and more so if it involves the use of post office card accounts.
A written answer that I received the other day suggested that 12 million payments are still made at post offices every week. One of the problems is that that number of payments proceeds in parallel with—and in certain cases is preceded by—the closure of urban post offices.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue for too long on that point.
Mr. Boswell: He will not, indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. He is making the point that it does not matter how good the benefits are if, for example, my constituents in Tamar square in Daventry, who handed me a petition the other day, find that the post office from which they were going to collect their benefit is no longer open and that the post office to which they are now assigned has queues of an hour at the time of its greatest use.
2.56 pm
James Purnell: I shall make a few very brief points. The first relates to an issue that was considered in the Committee considering the State Pension Credit Act 2002. It involves the incomes disregard for the pension credit. I very much welcome the upratings that have been announced today, but we are trying to encourage older people to work at least until the age of 65 and perhaps beyond. Income starts to get clawed back if they earn only £5 to £10, and that figure may be too low. Have Ministers considered the position in Denmark? As I understand it, it is starting to disregard all income for those aged over its pension age. I can imagine that the expenditure implications may be high for this country, but is it not worth considering whether the disregard should be higher so that people can work beyond the age of 65 without losing too much of their pension credit?
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) referred to home responsibilities protection, so will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions consider a discussion that we had in Standing Committee last year? Perhaps he could reply today or in writing and tell me whether today's statement will deal with the fact that people who care for foster children do not receive home responsibilities protection because they do not receive child benefit. As a consequence, they do not receive credits towards their basic state pension. That leaves them without the security in old age that they require. I know that Ministers said last year that they would consider that point, but several people in my constituency have raised the issue with me. I have spoken recently to foster carers in my constituency and they told me that they did not realise that that would be the consequence of their caring for foster children. That might act as a genuine disincentive, so will my right hon. Friend say something about that today or in future weeks?
I also want to return briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). He said that he did not recognise the figures that I had quoted. I have written to him to say that those figures are from the Office for National Statistics. I first saw them in Nick Timmins' biography of the welfare state. I wonder which figures the hon. Gentleman does not recognise. Does he agree with the Office for National Statistics, because most people would agree that it is a fairly reliable source of information even though he has a good record of exposing some of its inaccuracies? However, on this issue, it is a fairly reliable source, so does he not recognise the figures in the publication on households on below average income or those of the ONS? Does he think that the figures are wrong? I would be interested to hear him apply his forensic skill to the figures to learn whether they are correct.
448
Means-testing underlies the Government's uprating announcement. The hon. Member for Havant and his colleague, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), spoke about the problems of means-testing. Means-testing is a way of targeting the benefits that the Government give out. If we do not target benefits, the current distribution of income will remain as it is. Under the Government of whom the hon. Member for Havant was a member and served so well from 1979 to 1992, the income of the poorest 20 per cent. fell by 30 times, in relative terms, the income of the top 20 per cent. According to the latest publication, under this Government, the income of the bottom 20 per cent. is rising at the same rate as that of the top 20 per cent. In today's economy, rewards for skills and education are growing exponentially.
Mr. Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the paper that was published very recently by the Pensions Policy Institute, but it shows that the gap between rich and poor is widening.
James Purnell: That point relates only to pensioners, if I am not mistaken. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the hon. Gentleman quoted figures to show that the value of pensions had stayed the same as a proportion of earnings. That is an achievement when compared with the Conservative Government's record. Under that Government, the amount fell, because the pension was tied to inflation. As earnings rise faster than inflation, this Government have managed to restore the overall amount of money that has been put into benefits and pensions. We are increasing it in line with earnings and in line with the overall economy—and we are targeting money at the poorest people. That is a significant improvement on the Conservative Government. Opposition Members may wish to acknowledge that: they may even wish to apologise.
At his party's most recent conference, the hon. Member for Havant said that his party had made some mistakes during its time in power. I wonder whether he thinks that it made some mistakes on benefits. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire may wish to intervene again to clarify the position.
Mr. Heald indicated dissent.
James Purnell: I see that he does not want to.
Will the Minister tell us how today's announcement affects the goal of reducing child poverty by 50 per cent. by 2010? Has he considered the good work done by Holly Sutherland of the National Council for One Parent Families? How far will the announcement take us towards our goal of creating a fairer society—which would be in stark contrast to the record of the Conservative Government?
3.2 pm
Andrew Selous: It is sometimes futile to trade statistics across the Chamber, but I want to respond to comments made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). The figures for the number of working-age adults on less than 60 per cent. of the median household income have

449
remained at about 6.6 million from 1994–95 to 2000–01, so there does not seem to have been much of a shift there.
In this uprating order, we have seen an increase in incapacity benefit from £70.95 to £72.15. I do not think that the number of people on incapacity benefit in this country is generally known; neither is it known that the number is steadily increasing. In fact, 2.38 million people are on incapacity benefit. That is a rise of 1.7 per cent. over the past year. Of those, 1,070,000 have been on incapacity benefit for the past five years.
The Select Committee has seen evidence that, in parts of the country with high unemployment, many general practitioners have perhaps been more willing to sign people on for incapacity benefit than has been case in other parts of the country. In their quest to get more people of working age into work, I suggest that the Government consider carefully the points of entry to entitlement for incapacity benefit.
I want to suggest another change to the Secretary of State. Will he consider changing the name of the benefit? Why not "capacity benefit"? "Incapacity" is a negative word that stresses what people cannot do. Changing the name may have the effect of setting the benefit in the light that I know the Government would want.
Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that precisely that proposal is being consulted on in the Green Paper on pathways to work?
Andrew Selous: I hope that the proposal will receive a positive response. The present name is negative and unhelpful.
Jobseeker's allowance has increased to £54.65 from £53.95. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, that there has been a less than real-terms increase for those on JSA who are under the age of 24. The JSA increase will no doubt be appreciated by the 207 people in my constituency who are now unemployed but who were not unemployed this time last year. It is worrying that three quarters of that increase in unemployment has come in the last quarter or so.
Disability living allowance has increased to £57.20—another small increase. I am worried by reports that I have had from a number of my constituents that disability living allowance and attendance allowance are being decided on without claimants having the opportunity to go before a doctor. In one very worrying case, the disability allowance of a constituent of mine was quite severely reduced on the authorisation of a GP who not only had not examined the claimant but had never even seen him. That decision has since been overturned. However, the case was worrying, and if increases are to mean anything in the uprating, I would ask the Secretary of State to consider it.
Time is short and the Minister for Pensions is keen to start the wind-up speech. However, I want to question the Secretary of State's claim that the basic state pension will remain as the cornerstone of our pension's policy. If the minimum income guarantee continues to be uprated by earnings while the basic state pension is uprated only according to prices, over a long period the basic state pension will wither away as a fundamental component of people's retirement income.
3.7 pm
Paul Flynn: I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this annual get-together of social security buffs. We are small in number and we talk a language that nobody on the outside seems to understand. Certainly, no journalists understand or appreciate it. After all, today's announcement affects only about 20 million people.
I repeat what I said in an earlier intervention and congratulate the Government on their splendid record in this field—especially in the area of the state pension. I also point out the shameful record of the Conservative party. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) gave a striking example of that.
A school in my constituency has the splendid motto "Nid da lle gellir gwell"—which means that there is no good that cannot be improved on. In a helpful and constructive way, I want to suggest to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Pensions that they can do even better.
It would not be right to allow this debate to go by without some reference to the earnings link. We owe that to the traditions of the House. I believe that I am the only MP in the Chamber who has to declare a financial interest in the basic state pension, of which I am a grateful recipient and have been for the past three years. As we know, the increase this year is above the level of prices; prices went up by 1.7 per cent. and the pension will go up by 2.5 per cent. That is fine. It shows up the meanness of the previous Administration, who for 17 years increased it by a lower level, which meant that there were salami cuts throughout that period. It is right that we should proclaim the achievements of this Government.
To take up a point that was made from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the relative value of the pension is important. Pensioners want an assurance that they will not lose out relative to the rest of society. All those who campaign for pensioners seek such an assurance but, sadly, no party in the country is offering it at the moment. In spite of the large increases, it was a mistake that we did not go for the attractive and understandable policy of restoring the earnings link. I was disappointed to receive an answer from the Minister for Pensions on 24 July 2002 which revealed that the pension was a smaller proportion of average earnings at that time than at the time of the Labour Government's first uprating in April 1998. Although we have achieved a great deal, the tendency is to head for further reductions, because of the success of the Labour Government's economy. This is a generous policy, but it will end in reductions.
Can we afford it? The Government Actuary said last year that the surplus above the contingency fund in the national insurance fund was £18.4 billion, and we are told that that will rise to £20.2 billion in a year's time. This is the unneeded surplus, over and above all the money that is there to account for any unexpected increases in unemployment and so on. Then there is the £2 billion a year that is taken out of the national insurance fund to compensate employers for the green taxes. It might be quite reasonable to give them that compensation, but why on earth should it come out of the national insurance fund, which is made up of money paid in by working people to ensure that they have

451
benefits in their retirement? I therefore make the plea—not exactly for the first time in this House—that we should consider restoring the earnings link.
3.11 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I was surprised when the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said that he had been receiving his state retirement pension for three years. He obviously keeps very fit through his constant surveillance of the Government on pensions issues. He used to tax me about those matters, but I see that he is now taxing his hon. Friend the Minister.
We have had an interesting debate that, although short, has concentrated on the key issue relating to the uprating statement: what it means for people in practice. We have had a lot of discussions about means-testing and take-up. It is easy for a Government to rely, as this Government so often do, on the effect of means-tested benefits to make them appear more generous than perhaps they really are. The gap between rich and poor has widened since 1997, and the amount that pensioners in the bottom fifth of the population are receiving has remained the same. The complacency that we heard in the Secretary of State's opening speech is misplaced.
We also have to look back at what the Labour party used to say about this, and judge it against its words. The Chancellor wrote a document called, "Getting Welfare to Work" in 1996, in which he stated:
"Means-tested benefits are claimed by over 3.5 million people over the state retirement age—a third of all pensioners. Six hundred thousand do not receive income support to which they are entitled … and are amongst the poorest people in Britain."
Now, it is not one third but 60 per cent. who are on means-tested benefits. Now, it is not 600,000 not receiving income support but 770,000 pensioners not receiving the minimum income guarantee. Take-up has declined over the Labour years from 75 per cent. to 71 per cent. The Secretary of State admits that this downward slide is about to get worse, as his target for pension credit take-up is a miserable 67 per cent.
Mr. Andrew Smith: I made it very clear that that was not a target but a planning assumption. We want the highest possible take-up.
Mr. Heald: But that is what the right hon. Gentleman thinks will happen; 67 per cent. will mean 1.8 million people who cannot have the benefits about which he boasts.[Interruption.] He laughs, but the fact is that he brags about huge achievements on means-tested benefits while the poorest pensioners in the land do not receive the money. Even by 2006, his target is that 1 million people will still not be claiming the pension credit. Surely we can do better.
The debate has concentrated on how we might do better. We have looked at the balance between means-testing and take-up. The proposal that was made against the pension credit option, to give older pensioners—the over-75s—the uprating to which they were entitled, struck me as a measure that would ensure almost 100 per cent. take-up.
Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: I have not got time. I have only seven minutes.
452
Many hon. Members have mentioned the over-complication of the system. This is not a minor point. When considering the uprating of benefits, we have to be able to see what it means in all the nooks and crannies of the benefits system. Just a few years ago, the Department responsible for these matters was the social bank of the Government. It dispensed money to people in need. Now, these functions are spread all over the place. The Home Office deals with asylum support, but it has not even bothered to introduce measures to target fraud, which is bound to exist in any benefit system. The Treasury deals with tax credits, which has knock-on effects on the child support system. It is a mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned overpayments. One reason that people are overpaid is that they do not understand the system; it is too complicated.
In my last minute, I should like to return to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—I am sorry, my hon. Friend; he will be right hon. soon. First, on the post office card account, why is it, after all the assurances from the Government that there would be equal treatment of banks and building societies—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that that matter is outside the scope of the debate.
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that means that I have time to mention the other issues, which are clearly within the scope of the debate.
Will the Pension Service be able to ensure, through local surgeries, that pensioners have the proper facilities that they need to find out about the benefits to which they are entitled under the uprating statement? We should like to hear more about that.
On the child support system, the question of the C-day is obviously relevant because of the benefit sanctions that will have an impact on the uprating statement. We should like to hear from the Minister when C-day will be. Finally, can he tell us his philosophy in about a minute and a half?
3.17 pm
The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): Like the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am disappointed that we have not been able to have a fuller debate. I have had to junk all the things that I wanted to say about the hon. Gentleman and his party; I shall have to keep that powder dry. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) had a smell, but he was not going to miss out either. I shall try to answer as many questions as possible, but I give the commitment that I will send an answer to every question that I have been asked, place a copy in the Library and ensure that a copy of each answer goes to the Chair of the Select Committee, who, I know, likes to monitor what is happening in the Department. I hope that that helps hon. Members.
On further debates, I welcome the opportunity from time to time to have debates in Westminster Hall. I have recently offered to take part in a debate on older people, along with other colleagues, on a cross-government basis. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to

453
give details soon. I would welcome a range of debates such as that. I am more than happy to debate these issues in whatever forum we can within the House, whether in Select Committee, Westminster Hall, here in formal debates or even in Adjournment debates.
What has this debate been about today? Judging by what has been said by Opposition Members, they have not quite got it yet. It might be worth while, in the short time available, to put on record that the estimated cost of uprating for 2003–04 is £2.25 billion additional income. There will be £1.25 billion extra for pensioners. £200 million extra for people with disabilities and their carers, £400 million extra for working-age people and £400 million extra for children. One would not think that there could be fuller evidence of the Government's commitment to tackle and eradicate child poverty, to introduce measures to tackle poverty in old age, and to give opportunity through work and work incentives for people to get into the labour market and, with our support, to deliver themselves out of poverty.
If the current Opposition had been on this side of the House today, the debate would have been reclassified as a debate on downrating. In all that he said, during the short time in which he said it, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) once again failed to reassure the House and the British people that he does not support the proposed £100 billion cut across the public services, much of which would affect our Department.
The hon. Gentleman smiles, but his hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has said that he has an opportunity to make cuts totalling 20 per cent. of public spending across the board of Government activity.
Andrew Selous: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McCartney: Much as I love debating with the hon. Gentleman, I have little time left. I ask him simply to believe that that is what his hon. Friend said. I know it must be a shock to him that he must support such a ludicrous policy.
Mr. Willetts rose—
Mr. McCartney: Here comes another one.
Mr. Willetts: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McCartney: I will at some stage.
Mr. Willetts: The Minister only has four minutes.
Mr. McCartney: I know that. The hon. Gentleman had much more time than me. What I have said is true, however: I can quote from The Daily Telegraph, the house magazine of the Conservative party.
We shall spend about £7.5 billion extra on pensions in 2003–04 as a result of measures that we have taken since 1997. Opposition Members say that this Government have not made a difference to the poorest pensioners, but that is entirely untrue. For example, under the last Tory uprating, an elderly gentleman aged between 60
454
and 74 would have received £68.80. This year, from 1 April, the same gentleman will receive £102.10, an extra £33 a week.
As for the extension of means-testing, what does it really mean? It enables the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to disguise their policy of cutting the incomes of Britain's poorest pensioners. The Conservatives will make direct cuts because they simply do not like pension credit and want to get rid of it. The Liberal Democrats offer a choice. Those who are poor at 60 and want a Liberal Democrat Government should just hope they can reach 75, as they must face 15 years of penury before the Liberal Democrats will give them one extra penny.
To be fair to the hon. Member for Northavon, he admitted that today, for the first time. But we have been telling him for more than a year that his policy is not about lifting pensioners out of poverty, but dividing poor pensioners into two camps. His party will say to poor people under 75, "Go away. Do not disturb us". They will tell those over 75, "Don't worry, we will look after you." I would not put the hon. Gentleman in charge of a piggy bank, let alone the national insurance contributions system. It is a scandalous proposal, and I can guarantee that we will not adopt it.
Mr. Webb: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McCartney: I would like to, but I have only three minutes left. I gave the hon. Gentleman a guarantee at the outset that I would be more than happy to discuss the matter at any time and in any place. He has committed himself to allowing poor pensioners under 75 no proper access to additional income.
Let us be quite clear about pension credit. The Tories and the Liberals continue to raise the issue of mass means-testing. They are trying to deter pensioners from claiming money that is rightfully theirs.
What the Opposition spokesmen have omitted to mention in the political debate is that pension credit is now going live. What is the process about which they complain? It involves a simple telephone call on a free telephone line. Claimants are asked for information only for the purpose of working out the claim. They are sent a form to sign to confirm the information that they have given. The claim is then dealt with directly by the Pensions Service. If the claimants are entitled to extra income, it will come their way, and the vast majority will have nothing more to do for five years. How could that possibly be portrayed as the old-fashioned weekly means test?
As a consequence of this change, the poorest pensioners will receive an average extra income of £400 a year—and at last the savings of those who are just above the minimum income guarantee level are being recognised. I ask hon. Members to support an order that will provide huge amounts of new income for many pensioners and others.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

Pensions
3.25 pm
The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): I beg to move,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
The order imposes no new costs on business, and in my view its provisions are compatible with rights under the European convention on human rights.
This may well be a parliamentary first, in that orders such as this are usually included in the overall debate. I shall be honest with the House: I have just received a message from the Department relating to what I am to say. This is unusual in my case, but I shall stick to the brief that I have been given. I hope that hon. Members who have questions to ask will accept my assurance that I will write to them with technical answers.
A guaranteed minimum pensions increase order is laid every year to prevent a person's contracted-out pension from losing its value because of inflation. The orders were introduced in 1978, at the same time as the state earnings-related pension scheme. Employers who ran good occupational pensions for their employees could contract out of SERPS, provided that they promised to pay their staff pensions that were no less than the guaranteed minimum pension. In return, both employer and employee made reduced national insurance contributions.
The calculation of the GMP is laid down in legislation, and is roughly the same as the SERPS calculation. It is earnings-related, and based on a person's earnings over a maximum of 40 years. If those earnings were not increased in line with inflation, by the time the person retired his pension would be very low as inflation ate into the value of his past earnings. When a person retires, therefore, past earnings are increased to reflect the changes in their value. There is, however, a limit: the earnings are increased by the retail prices index capped at 3 per cent.
Mr. David Willetts: The Minister has explained that pensions contracted out as part of this formula involve a lower rebate. Will he explain why, in calculating that rebate, the Government Actuary assumes that the rate of return on indexed gilts will rise from 2 per cent. to 3.5 per cent., and will rise by 0.1 per cent. a year over the next 15 years?
Mr. McCartney: That is why we employ the Government Actuary: to make such judgments. What a silly question. Why would we pay the Government Actuary not to give us advice?
Let me be honest: one hopes that by the time the advice is given there has been a reshuffle. We should remember some of the things said from the Dispatch Box when the Conservatives were in power, for which they then blamed others. I take full responsibility for the information given by the Actuary, but I assume that he will have used his professional judgment.
The earnings figure used to calculate SERPS is also increased, but in line with average earnings, and is not subject to a cap. When a person retires who has a
456
contracted-out, salary-based pension, his GMP is compared with his notional SERPS entitlement.[Interruption.] I hope that everybody is following me. If SERPS is higher, the difference between the two amounts is paid with his retirement pension. Thus the state makes up the possible shortfall between the level of inflation and the capped amount that the employer is expected to pay. Although GMPs ceased to accrue from 1997, residual rates still exist, so increase orders are still required.
This order is a routine measure to ensure that people's future pensions are not eroded by inflation. This protects the current system, but we are committed to ensuring that the legislation governing how pensions are run is proportionate to the required outcome, and to simplifying as far as possible the burdens placed on employers in this respect. In line with this intention, we announced in the recent Green Paper that we are working with the pensions industry to try to find a workable and affordable solution to the problems associated with the GMP's operation that have been brought to our attention.
I am pleased to say that, as part of our commitment to working with those who will need to operate the system, Department officials are holding meetings with experts in the pensions industry, as well as with those representing scheme members. Only last week, the Department ran a workshop to which those interested in occupational pensions—including the Consumers Association, the national association of pension fund managers and the TUC—were invited. The discussions were particularly fruitful, and indicated some possible ways forward. In addition, we have issued a detailed technical paper on GMPs to widen the debate to include those who cannot attend such meetings. Indeed, I have offered to meet them at their convenience, and I make a similar offer to hon. Members if, after this debate, they feel in need of further information on what I have said.
3.30 pm
Mr. David Willetts: I am grateful to the Minister for what was undoubtedly an entirely accurate, as well as a typically authoritative, account of this order. As the explanatory note points out, the order establishes the basis on which contracted-out occupational pensions have to offer the guaranteed minimum pension in order to be contracted out properly. As the explanatory note makes clear, the order covers contracted-out, defined benefit occupational pension schemes, so I hope that the Minister will be able to answer two questions.
First, he will know that, despite his respect for the professional advice of the Government Actuary, which I share, just about everyone in the actuarial profession believes that the value of the contracted-out rebates—currently about £11 billion to British industry—is no longer actuarially fair. They believe that the cost of providing the guaranteed minimum pension, the uprating of which we are debating, is no longer properly covered by the value of the contracting-out rebate. The general view among actuaries is that the value should be about £12.5 billion—in other words, that the current value is £1.5 billion short. This is a very important point, because it is one reason for the pensions crisis. I know that there are many such reasons, and that not all of them are under the control of Ministers, but the

457
reduction in the contracted-out rebate, compared with the cost of offering contracted-out pensions, is one of the main ones.
I hope that the Minister will not shelter entirely behind the advice of the Government Actuary. Given that this issue is so important to our funded pensions, I hope that he will explain why the Government Actuary uses assumptions to calculate the value of the contracted-out rebate that are out of line with those used in the rest of the industry, and which are particularly out of line with those relating to returns on indexing gilts. That is not considered plausible, and I am afraid that the belief exists in the industry that that obscure assumption was one way in which the Government ensured that the cost of the contracting-out rebate was held down, and was therefore less than was actuarially fair.
That leads to my second concern. We need to know how many pension schemes are still contracted out and therefore covered by the terms of this order, how many are contracted in, and—even more significantly—how many are contracting back in, having been contracted out. The question is whether contracted-out schemes will be re-entering the state system. At the moment, probably the only thing that is keeping them contracted out is the sheer administrative hassle of contracting back in. I fear that one reason why companies are closing their schemes to new members is that by doing so the new alternative defined contribution pensions that they offer instead are often contracted back into the state system. So one reason for the widespread closure of pension schemes for new members—a development that is causing much concern—is that it is used as a mechanism for contracting back in.
The Government Actuary's report—one of the documents that is relevant to our debate—is very explicit. In paragraph 25, on page 10, the Government Actuary explicitly states that he does not know what is going on in respect of contracting out, partly because of the Government's problems with their NIRS2 computer system. He says:
"The introduction of NIRS2 originally led to a lack of data showing numbers contracted out through different routes. I understand that data is now becoming available, but that it is currently being analysed and validated. Consequently there is, pending the completion of this validation exercise, still uncertainty about the numbers of people contracting-out."
So my second query concerns when we will know more about contracting out and contracting back in. That is a fundamental feature of the current crisis in our funded pensions, and I hope that the Minister will be able to address that issue. I am sure that in doing so he would be entirely in order, because the order clearly relates to the regime for contracted-out occupational pension schemes.
The order covers the incomes of millions of pensioners and I hope therefore that I may take this opportunity to confirm what my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said in the Chamber earlier—that it is simply not the case that we are looking for a 20 per cent. reduction across the board in all public expenditure. Having taken that opportunity, I may also say that we will not, of course, oppose the motion, and certainly not in the light of the lucid explanation that we received from the Minister.
3.36 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: I shall be similarly succinct. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) touched on the key issue. The Government Actuary's report on the order identifies £11 or £12 billion of public money that is spent on contracted-out rebates. However, when I tabled a written question to ask how many people were receiving those rebates, the Government could not tell me. It is breathtaking that £12 billion can be spent without anyone knowing who is receiving it, how many are receiving it and whether the amount is going up or down.
I hope that the Minister will flesh out what the report says on page 10, as quoted by the hon. Member for Havant, and give us some idea of when we will receive the information that is "now becoming available". What worries me most about the lack of that information is that we are in a short consultation period on the Green Paper on pensions, on which the future of the scheme will be based. Without the information, it will be policy-making in a vacuum. That cannot be acceptable. We will support the motion, but I hope that the Minister will tell us when the information, which we need urgently, will become available.
3.37 pm
Paul Flynn: I am always astonished by Conservative Front Benchers who present themselves as people with a record on pensions to be proud of. The appropriate response for the Opposition spokesman, especially as he played a major part in the Conservative Government, would be to repeat "mea culpa" for five minutes and then don sackcloth and heap ashes on his head, because their record is so abominable.
I praise the record of the Government, which is remarkable. Since 1997, the Government have achieved the greatest shift in the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor since 1945. It is called stealth socialism, and we are almost ashamed of it in case the Daily Mail finds out and attacks us for it. Despite the Government's good record, I have several concerns.
I wish to raise the possibility of restoring the Treasury supplement. That suggestion will cause panic among the civil servants, who will probably have to ring up somebody in retirement to find out what it was all about. The last successful Liberal politician, David Lloyd George, introduced it and until it was abolished in the late 1980s—it was worth 18 per cent. in annual contribution from the taxpayer to the national insurance fund for pensions. That fine principle ensured redistribution.
I welcome many of the Government's changes, especially the pension credit, which undoes the great injustice suffered by those who made contributions for many years from small disposable incomes but found on retirement that they received no value from the contributions whatever. That move is of great benefit, but it is sad to see that the number of pensioners depending on means-testing will increase.
The prime factor in the fact that the very poorest pensioners do not claim income support is the stigma involved. Every hon. Member will know pensioners who take pride in the fact that they have never received a handout in their lives, or claimed benefit. They say that, in their retirement years, they will get what they paid in

459
for but that they will not fill in a form that offers what they regard as a handout. That has been a problem for many years, and it remains one now.
The house magazine for people of my generation is Saga Magazine. It was disappointing to read in an article by Paul Lewis that the Government assume that the take-up of pension credit will be only 67 per cent. That means that very many people will not get the benefit that they have missed before. We need to address that very important problem.
I am very proud of the Government's record on pensions, but we should reconsider restoring the link to make sure that the minimum income guarantee is the basic pension. It is affordable, and would give much satisfaction to the million or so poorest pensioners who do not claim income support.
3.41 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I was not going to respond to this short debate until I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). The means-testing to which he referred is important when it comes to uprating the guaranteed minimum pension, but the increases to that pension are under threat in a variety of ways.
The first threat comes from the means test, which erodes pension levels. The second is that the overall picture of pension schemes reveals a huge decline in income levels. In the debate earlier this afternoon, I referred to the Government's miserable performance in taking pensioners out of poverty. For the bottom fifth of the pensioner population, the picture has been absolutely flat, but the gap between rich and poor has widened. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport, West would not be pleased with that. One of the factors behind those figures is the fact that take-up is so poor.
David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: In a moment, as I have three or four other points to make.
The introduction of the occupational pension scheme was probably the most important social welfare reform measure of the 20th century. The number of such schemes has fallen from 130,300 in 1998 to 103,000 now—down 30,000. The number of members of schemes that have started to wind up has risen from 10,000 to 40,000. The pension status of adult employees in 1994–95 I am sorry, I mean 1998—
Mr. Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman wants to choose the worst possible figure for the Government.
Mr. Heald: No, I was being generous to the Government. The date I shall choose, 1994–95, is worse for me. In 1994–95, 64 per cent. of adult employees were in an occupational or personal pension. In 1998, the proportion was 60 per cent. That figure is now 56 per cent. now, which shows the collapse that is happening.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decline in private sector occupational
460
pension schemes—whether defined benefit or defined contribution schemes—risks a rather invidious comparison with what is available under publicly financed schemes, including those available to Members of Parliament and civil servants? Is there not a danger that there could be two nations in respect of pensions, as hon. Members have suggested is possible in other areas?
Mr. Heald: I understand entirely the concern felt by many that we are developing two nations in pensions. At the top of the pile among public sector pensioners is the Lord Chancellor, who gets an absolutely enormous public pension. At the other end of the scale, there has been a collapse in private sector pensions.
However, I must not go down that road too much, as we are talking about the guaranteed minimum pensions. Many recently retired pensioners receive guaranteed minimum pensions, which are being uprated by this order. In 1997–98, the percentage of recently retired pensioners with an occupational pension was 67 per cent.; now it is 59 per cent.
David Winnick: If we look in the round at the way in which pensioners on limited incomes have to try to make ends meet, we can see how difficult that is. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman's Government refused any additional help during the winter months, whereas this Government introduced from the very beginning the winter fuel allowance, which is now £200 per pensioner household. Why did his Government not do anything of the kind? I know that he is not responsible—he is a more reasonable or moderate Tory.
Mr. Heald: In fact, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to an answer because I was the junior Minister for two years. I suggest that he puts the matter in its overall context. In the Conservative years, those who had an occupational pension or a personal pension saw marvellous results. The yields on investments in those pensions were about 10 per cent.; now they are running at less than 5 per cent. The stock market has collapsed and occupational schemes are closing hand over fist. In the past year alone, the rate of closure of schemes to new members has doubled. The National Association of Pension Funds says that a large number of schemes are moving towards wind-up. One has to ask why that has happened, and the reason is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Some latitude has been allowed, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now return to the matter under discussion.
Mr. Heald: The Chancellor of the Exchequer put at risk the livelihoods and the financial position of those who receive guaranteed minimum pensions and this uprating because he whacked a £5 billion-a-year tax on pensions, the effect of which has been disastrous. We warned about it time and again, but what have we got out of it? Not very much.
Finally, I want to ask the Minister about a technical aspect of guaranteed minimum pensions. Actuaries say that one of the greatest problems involved in winding up

461
pension schemes and one of the reasons for the delays is having to sort out the equalisation of guaranteed minimum pensions as between men and women following the judgments of the 1990s. That is relevant in the context of uprating guaranteed minimum pensions. I would be grateful to know whether the Minister has any plans to sort that out and to provide the help for which those in the actuarial profession are asking.
3.47 pm
Mr. McCartney: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on making the speech that he was unable to make in the previous debate.
I shall not be enticed down the route on which the hon. Gentleman set out, other than to say, in relation to what he described as the golden years, that we have just cleared up the consequences of those golden years, which cost £13 billion in mis-sold pensions, which were sold mainly to individuals who already had a good pension but were persuaded by the Conservatives, by various means, to put it at risk.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, that is not a technical matter, but a very important issue that has exercised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me in relation to representations that I have received since becoming Minister for Pensions. To be frank, until I became Minister I had not realised some of the problems that were associated with this. I have met Conservative Members who have constituency problems in that regard—if the hon. Gentleman has any such, I shall be prepared to meet him. That is why we are hoping that proposals in the Green Paper will meet both the hon. Gentleman's objectives and our own, which, to be honest, are about the same.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) raised several issues. First, I shall take the opportunity to advise him about his local Pension Service. We are in the process of setting up three surgeries only for him in partnership with Age Concern, two of which are in Market parade and Malmesbury lawns. I can give him further details if he wishes. Doubtless even he will get some support from the Pension Service.
Mr. Boswell: I want to make a constructive suggestion. While the Pension Service gets its act together, it might not be a bad idea if local management wrote to all Members of Parliament to inform them of surgeries' location.
Mr. McCartney: That is a fair point. We are encouraging local managers, and I write to hon. Members as each centre is established. Informing hon. Members is not a problem but a priority. We are doing that as we develop the local Pension Service and put partnership arrangements in place. Further information will be sent to Members of Parliament as we roll out the service. Our job is to keep Members of Parliament and, I stress, their staff involved in our activities. Staff are in the front line and we want to ensure that every member of staff is fully apprised of the service that we are providing and that we forge continuing links.
Mr. Willetts: From the addresses that the Minister mentioned, I suspect that one may be that of an Age
462
Concern office and the other that of a social services nursing home. Will he clarify whether Pension Service staff his officials—will give the authoritative advice?
Mr. McCartney: Indeed. Highly trained, highly committed local Pension Service staff, whose raison d'être is to be advocates for the older person and work with groups, will give advice. We are rolling out centres throughout the country; I believe that 700 are already in place. We are developing and building on that.
We are also willing to consider ideas. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) asked whether we could arrange for Pension Service staff to hold advice centres with her. We will partner any individual, organisation or community group. That includes Members' staff who want assistance and advice on pension matters. It is part of the ethos of the Pension Service, especially the local service, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are committed to it. We shall do anything that we can to assist hon. Members.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire tried to entice me again. Conservative Members always try to entice me. I do not know why, but they try to tickle my fancy—politically speaking, of course. He tried to persuade me to give a different view from that of the Government Actuary on the contract rebates. I am not an actuary and we employ Government Actuaries to give us appropriate advice. They do not do that in isolation. The proposed rebates were sent out for consultation and the Government Actuary's Department produced a document. The Actuary presented recommendations after that consultation.
Recent changes in economic conditions have not altered the Actuary's long-term assumption on which the rebates are based. It is reasonable and fair for actuaries to make long-term assumptions. Changes in cycles will occur from time to time, but the system is well proven and the advice that we receive non-partisan. I assure hon. Members that Ministers have not interfered politically in the past, are not doing so now and will not do so. The decisions are non-partisan; they must be taken independently and based on best practice.
The changes in the order involve £11 billion over five years—2002–03 to 2006–07.
Mr. Heald: There is widespread anxiety in the actuarial profession about the matter. What was the balance of opinion in the consultation? Does somebody support the Government Actuary's opinion?
Mr. McCartney: The whole purpose of consulting is to consult other actuaries. One could take a range of issues and receive different actuarial views. It was obviously the balance that the Actuary came to. He will not give advice to the Government that is so much out of touch with the long-term view that he and others in the profession have expressed. From time to time there will be different views. Actuaries' opinions are sought. The thing about the Government Actuary is that, unlike other actuaries who give advice to clients, who can take it or leave it, he consults over the proposed advice that he may wish to give. That is a democratic, accountable process. There is nothing to add to what I have told the hon. Gentleman. He is looking for a fox. It is not there.

463
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked a range of questions about the lack of numbers on contracting out. I hope that I can give him the right information. If not, I apologise in advance. I am told that the data for the financial years up to 2000–01 will be available by the early summer this year, with an update in the autumn relating to 2000–02.[Interruption.] Remarks are being made from a sedentary position. I am being open, frank and honest. The hon. Gentleman asked me a technical question and I gave him the answer. If there is any change, I shall notify him and other hon. Members as soon as I can. I want to make sure that the information available in this context is put in the public domain.
Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Minister. That is the information that I was asking for, but now that I have heard the answer I am even more worried. Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned that he will be trying to shape pension policy in this critical consultative stage without knowing how many people are contracting out, whether the number is going up or down and how people are responding behaviourly? The last information the hon. Gentleman gave me in a written answer was for 1995–96. How can he make policy in that void?
Mr. McCartney: It is fine to try to make a crisis that does not exist. We have had to reconstruct the NIRS programmes. Therefore, the whole structure and basis of how information is collated has changed. To suggest that this is the only information that we require to determine our pension policy—in relation to the public sector, the state pension provision or private pension—provision, second-tier provision—is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman, who is an academic, knows that what he is saying is nonsense.
We are attempting to give the information and put it in the public domain. I apologise if the hon. Gentleman thought that it should have been made available sooner. There are genuine technical reasons why that was not done. It has fallen to my watch to sort it. I am trying to sort it, so that we all have more up-to-date, more accurate information. I am sure that the hon. Member for Havant will take that comment about more accurate information to his heart and challenge me about it some time in the future.
I will take the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) as a pre-Budget submission to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and make sure that they are passed to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to the Minister, who is trying to respond to the various points that have been raised about pensioners and the effect of the order on them. I return to the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman's PPS, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), to me in the radio interview to which I referred earlier. Can he repeat the guarantee that there will be a face-to-face meeting with officials from the Pension Service, if that is what pensioners want?
Mr. McCartney: I have given a written assurance to the Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman has not
464
read it, I shall send him a copy. Any pensioner who requires a home visit will receive one. We are doubling the staff in the local service. The whole point of the local service is to have an interface to make sure that pensioners have direct access to the services that we want to provide.
I know that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) is working with the hon. Gentleman to privatise the state pension. While he is getting on with that dastardly deed we are getting on with a face-to-face relationship with Britain's pensioners.
Question put and agreed to.
David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am aware that you and Mr. Speaker are not responsible for the management of business, but I want to bring to your attention the fact that yesterday a large number of Members wanted to speak in the debate. I was one of those who were unfortunate. I have tried on other occasions to speak in debates on Iraq and other Members, too, were not called yesterday who might have wanted to speak previously. Today, business has collapsed at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I realise that we cannot always anticipate what is going to happen, but it seems odd that arrangements cannot be made. Yesterday many Members, including me, could not speak in the debate despite all our efforts, while today we are finishing at 4 pm instead of 6 pm. I am sure that I am not alone in my concern. Is it possible to communicate the concern of some Members about this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): To some extent, the hon. Gentleman has answered his point of order: it is indeed not a matter for the Chair but for the usual channels. I have no doubt that they will have taken note of his comments.

PETITIONS

  Fireworks
  4.1 pm
  Ian Stewart: I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition on behalf of myself and my hon. and good Friends, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), and the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis). We support a partnership between local authorities, the police service, primary care trusts, the fire service, the Salford Advertiser, the Prestwich Advertiser and, of course, the public in our constituencies in presenting this petition relating to the sale and use of fireworks.
  We have received an increasing number of letters from our constituents expressing their growing concern about fireworks. None of us who are in our mature years can remember from our youth anything like the type of fireworks that we see nowadays. They are vastly different. On behalf of the public, the partnership calls for better restrictions on the type and use of fireworks. It is concerned about the licensing and registration of the sale of fireworks to the public and wants better regulation of the importation and distribution of fireworks.

  465
  The petition states:
  The Petition of the Salford Advertiser and Prestwich Advertiser, signed by more than 6,000 readers and other supporters, declares that there should be new regulations restricting the type and use of fireworks available and licensing restrictions for those who sell fireworks in order to cut down on distress caused to families, the elderly and their pets by irresponsible firework use.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduce new regulations to restrict the type and use of fireworks available and to institute a new licensing regime for those who sell and/or organise public displays.
  To lie upon the Table.
  4.4 pm
  Jim Dobbin: My petition is on the same subject, so I shall not reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart). I have previously handed in 60,000 signatures to No. 10 Downing street. The petitions are timely as tomorrow there will be a Second Reading debate on a private Member's Bill on fireworks.
  I take this opportunity to thank the Manchester Evening News, the Middleton Guardian, the Heywood Advertiser and the Rochdale Observer for their help and support.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of over 2,500 residents of Heywood and Middleton, and surrounding areas of Manchester,
  Declares that the disruption and distress caused by extensive use of fireworks throughout the year to local communities and animals is wholly unacceptable; that the Private Member's Bill to be introduced by the Honourable Member for Hamilton South is worthy of support.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take such measures as lie within its power to restrict the use of fireworks and to legislate for their regulation.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Body Piercing
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  4.5 pm
  Ms Meg Munn: Daniel Hindle was a healthy, active teenager with a passion for music. He attended Sheffield college, studying media, English and information technology. He was a skilful guitarist and, by last summer, he had formed his own band, which had already started playing gigs and was in demand for further performances.
  Daniel had a girlfriend and, last October, they decided that they would get a piercing together. They went to a popular studio in Sheffield, where his girlfriend had her eyebrow pierced and Dan had his lip pierced. That turned out to be the catalyst for the nightmare that was to ensue. A few days after the piercing, he became ill and slowly got worse. He was admitted to hospital and subsequently into the coronary care unit. He was infected by septicaemia, or blood poisoning, which attacked his major organs and left him too weak to fight the infection. A few days before Christmas, on 21 December, Daniel lost his fight for life. He was 17 years old.
  Daniel and his girlfriend did what many teenagers do; they decided to get a piercing—the sort of thing that ordinary teenagers do. Tragically, Daniel was not an ordinary teenager. He had been born with a heart defect called tricuspid atresia—a condition that had necessitated two life-saving operations when he was younger. Both operations were 100 per cent. successful, and Daniel had grown up normally with an excellent quality of life.
  Daniel was not aware that for him, piercing could pose a serious health risk. His mother, Christina Anderson, believes that if he had been aware of the risk, he probably would not have had it done. Unfortunately, nobody drew that possibility to his attention before or during his visit to the piercing studio.
  There is no suggestion that the studio did anything wrong. It was not ignoring Government regulations. Astonishingly, there are no regulations for body piercers in Sheffield. Local authorities in London have powers to control ear piercing and cosmetic body piercing businesses by licensing, using provisions in the London Local Authorities Act 1991, or by registration and byelaws, using provisions in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981. The majority of London local authorities have adopted licensing powers. Local authorities outside London have powers to register and make byelaws for ear piercing businesses under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, but not for cosmetic body piercing businesses.
  Sheffield city council's website contains information about body piercing, stating that it does not require registration. It provides information, however, on how to register on a voluntary basis with the health protection service, which offers that service. Those who register with the authority receive a premises inspection to ensure that appropriate standards are being achieved and a certificate stating that the premises and practices are suitable and sufficient.

  467
  Sheffield's voluntary code of practice aims to
  "offer guidance to body piercers regarding the practice of body piercing and outlines specific recommended hygienic procedures."
  That includes that body piercing shall not be undertaken on any person under the age of 16 unless parental consent is given, and an expectation that proof of age will be requested. It advises that the client's medical history should be discussed and draws attention to particular conditions that should lead a client to consult a general practitioner before proceeding. Those include heart disease, major infections, allergies and skin complaints. That is good advice, but registration is voluntary. No statutory requirement exists to find out how old someone is before piercing them, and no law exists stopping a child under 16 from being pierced. No compulsion exists to find out whether a customer, such as Daniel, has a heart defect.
  The Government have stated on a number of occasions that they believe that primary legislation should be introduced to give local authorities outside London powers to regulate the hygiene and cleanliness of cosmetic body piercing businesses when parliamentary time allows. I am aware that that issue was raised recently in the Local Government Bill Committee. I have also spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions urging him to seek to amend the Bill if at all possible to introduce this provision. Parliament needs to act now. Daniel's death is already one death too many.
  Today, I am not just asking for legislation to be changed. I want to raise awareness of the health risks of body piercing and I want the Department of Health to consider what it can do to raise awareness. I understand from previous parliamentary answers that the Department does not have information on the number of people who seek medical help as a result of body piercing. In answer to my written parliamentary question in January, the Minister stated that the Department was not aware of any research into the risks of body piercing for individuals with congenital heart disease, although there have been a small number of published case reports from abroad of endocarditis in individuals with congenital heart disease following skin piercing.
  That is not the only area of medical risk, however. A search of the internet has revealed the following information. Dr. Junaid Hanif of Heath hospital in Cardiff carried out a study of body piercing last year. He discovered that
  "more than 95% of GPs in Greater Manchester have treated complications caused by body piercing in the past year and incidences in England and Wales of damage to ear cartilage caused by piercing have doubled in the last decade with more than 2,000 cases reported in 2001."
  Writing in the August 2002 issue of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, Drs. Akhondi and Rahimi of the Mercer university school of medicine in Georgia reported the case of one 25-year-old man who became seriously ill soon after having his tongue pierced. The man had a heart defect, and blood tests revealed that his heart was infected with a type of mouth bacteria, and the stud of the piercing also tested positive for the presence of the same bacteria. Thankfully, that young man survived after a period in hospital.
  468
  Almost as common and potentially far more serious than jewellery allergies are infections, which result in redness, swelling, tenderness, pain and, often, swelling of nearby glands. When sterile techniques are not used, bacteria and viruses can be introduced into the bloodstream, including the hepatitis B virus that can cause chronic hepatitis and liver cancer, and HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In people born with heart valve disorders, bacterial endocarditis, a potentially deadly infection of the heart, can result if they fail to take preventive antibiotics. Piercing the nose can result in a staphylococcal infection and piercing the cartilaginous part of the ear, which has a very poor blood supply, can result in an infection necessitating surgery and can result in permanent deformity. Even tetanus is a risk in people who have not been immunised in the past 10 years.
  In an article in the Student British Medical Journal last year, Jamie Wilson of Leeds said:
  "The largest ever 'body art' study has found that a fifth of students with body piercings have excessive bleeding, bacterial infection, and tissue trauma. The research was reported in Mayo Clinic Proceedings … after 454 undergraduates from a New York college completed questionnaires on the subject."
  More than half the students had piercings outside the traditional domain of the earlobe, and 29 per cent. of women had a navel ring or belly bar. Complications were most likely for nipple, navel and genital piercings, and bleeding and bacterial infection were the most common ailments. Piercings were most frequently permanently removed from the nose, tongue, eyebrow and male nipple. In September 2000, a woman with 118 piercings, including six lip rings and 11 belly bars, died from bacterial septicaemia. She refused to seek medical attention, believing she could offset any infections with saline swabs.
  The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health contacted me stating that it, too, is calling for stricter licensing controls on body piercers in response to concern about health risks. It has issued a set of recommendations for consumers designed to inform and educate the public about the possible health implications of skin piercing treatments ranging from body art and tattooing to electrolysis and acupuncture. The institute echoes my concerns that there is no control over who can set up in business as a body piercer, and there are certainly no recognised standards for new practitioners. It also calls for any piercing below the neck to be made illegal for under 16-year-olds.
  Body piercing has become much more fashionable in the past few years, with many teenagers thinking nothing of going out and getting a piercing done. Daniel Hindle did that and a life was cut short. Given the concerns and the possible medical risks that are already known, will the Minister's Department consider commissioning further research on the risks of body piercing, especially if there is an underlying heart condition? The Department of Health is aware that a small study in the United States stated that physicians should advise patients with heart conditions against piercing, but that if the person decided to go ahead, antibiotics should be taken, which is usually the case for dental or surgical procedures. Further research is needed to understand the risks and to ensure that proper advice is given.
  Daniel's death has devastated his mother, his family, his friends and the whole college community at Norton in Sheffield. A website has been set up to raise awareness

  469
  and to commemorate his life at www.danaid.com. I am not against body piercing; I am against ignorance about the effects that such piercings can have. No other young person should lose his life in that way. In spite of her grief, Christina Anderson, Daniel's mother, has dedicated herself to preventing that from happening. Now it is the turn of the Government to act.
  4.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) on her success in obtaining this important debate. I know that she has taken an increasing interest in the regulation of cosmetic body piercing in recent months. I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to explain the Government's position on the issue. I also hope to respond to the specific queries raised.
  As body piercing becomes more common, especially among young people, the problems associated with it become more important, too. I am aware of the tragic case of Daniel Hindle. I should like immediately to put on record my sympathy for his family, friends and community. I have looked at the website and am aware of the tremendous campaigning work that Daniel's mother has undertaken. Sheffield city council is carrying out a detailed and thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding Daniel's death. As the investigation is not yet complete, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. However, it will be important to consider whether there are any general lessons to be learned once the investigation is completed.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that the health risks of body piercing and the measures in place to control them are crucial. People considering body piercing should be aware of the risks and should be confident that appropriate controls are in place. Where existing health conditions may be relevant to body piercing, that should be clear to all concerned. That applies not just to heart defects but to other pre-existing conditions. I am aware that there is great concern about the piercing of children. Body piercing has become more fashionable in recent years, and the trend has been stimulated by celebrities who have had their bodies pierced. It can be extremely worrying for parents when their children have ear or body piercing done against their wishes.
  I should like to address my hon. Friend's concerns by considering the possible health risks and the measures in place to control the situation. If cosmetic body piercing is carried out in an unhygienic manner or incorrectly, it may cause a variety of problems such as local, usually trivial, wound infections, as well as transmission of serious blood-borne viral infections such as hepatitis B. Most complications are local, minor wound infections that do not appear to be caused by the piercing itself. Typically, they may be caused by exposure to bacteria, for example, by touching the piercing in the days following the piercing with unwashed hands or by the wound coming into contact with hair, bedding, clothing and so on.
  470
  As my hon. Friend said, I stated in a recent parliamentary answer that there has been a small study in the United States that investigated ear piercing and tattooing in patients with congenital heart disease. In that study, no patients experienced serious infections following ear piercing and tattooing, although a quarter of them experienced minor local skin infections following ear piercing. As my hon. Friend said, there have been a small number of case reports abroad of endocarditis—infection of the heart valves and perhaps the heart lining—in people with congenital heart disease following skin piercing. My hon. Friend asked whether the Department of Health can carry out more investigation into the extent of difficulties that arise as a result of skin piercing. I am pleased to tell her that we are considering the feasibility of a special study in that area. I have asked my officials to look into that, because it is important that we have an evidence base on the extent of those problems. My hon. Friend's information about the GP survey is tremendously interesting, as it reveals the extent of problems in the Greater Manchester area.
  Non-infectious complications can result directly from body piercing, and include swelling around the piercing and allergic reactions to jewellery, metal and antiseptics. Serious complications, as far as we know, are uncommon, according to case reports in the published literature and surveillance by the Public Health Laboratory Service. None the less, it is vital that we have the right measures in place to ensure public protection. A pressing question for us is how to regulate body piercing businesses in the face of those possible risks. We have a legislative framework in place that facilitates the promotion of safe and hygienic practice to try to minimise those health risks. We intend to strengthen that framework, as I shall explain. Local authorities have powers under specific and0 general legislation to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. In London, local authorities may regulate those businesses by licensing and inspection, or by registration, byelaws and inspection, depending under which legislation they have chosen to proceed. The vast majority of London local authorities have adopted licensing powers, and can set the conditions under which a licence is granted. Licence conditions may cover matters such as cleanliness, hygiene of the premises, and equipment and its safety. Local authorities can refuse to grant, renew or transfer a licence, or they can revoke a licence if they are not satisfied that the business will provide a safe and hygienic service.
  My hon. Friend is right that local authorities outside London do not have specific powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. When the legislation governing skin piercing businesses outside London was introduced in 1982, I think in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, cosmetic body piercing was not widely known about or practised to the extent that it is these days. My hon. Friend will recognise that many—probably most—cosmetic body piercing businesses also carry out tattooing or ear piercing. Such businesses often operate side by side in the same premises.

  471
  Local authorities outside London have powers to regulate by registration and byelaws both ear piercing and tattooing. Local authorities therefore have the opportunity to work with businesses that offer cosmetic body piercing together with tattooing or ear piercing to provide safe and hygienic practices. That will be to the benefit of all their customers, whether they come for tattooing, ear piercing or cosmetic body piercing.
  In addition, local authorities can use general enforcement powers under health and safety at work legislation. That allows them to use improvement and prohibition notices and ultimately to prosecute cosmetic body piercing businesses if they judge that there is a risk to customers' health and safety. Sometimes the health and safety powers are under-utilised, perhaps because local authorities do not see them as local government powers, but they exist and they are extremely strong powers in terms of improvement and prohibition notices. Local authorities can use those powers if they are appropriate.
  There was a consultation exercise on these matters in 1996. Following that consultation, we concluded that there should be primary legislation to give local authorities outside London the specific powers that they lack to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. As my hon. Friend said, we have been trying to find parliamentary time to ensure that that happens. We know that there is substantial support from local authorities and from businesses for such legislation. The good businesses in operation want to ensure that they are providing excellent and safe practices. There has been heavy pressure on parliamentary time. I cannot be precise about when it might be possible to introduce legislation, but we shall take every opportunity that we can.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the Local Government Bill. If possible, we want to pursue that, but I cannot give a commitment at this stage. That does not mean that cosmetic body piercing businesses outside London are entirely regulated. There are powers in place for local authorities to inspect, advise and, if necessary, enforce the legislation. The framework enables local authorities to play a role in driving up standards and promoting good practice. It is important that we build constructive partnerships with the businesses and get the proper advice out to the public.
  My hon. Friend referred to the voluntary registration scheme and code of good practice introduced by Sheffield city council for body piercing businesses. We are also aware that some local authorities have produced information for the public on the risks of body piercing and how to choose a reputable body piercer. In Bury and Rochdale councils area and in Southampton such guidelines and information for the public have been introduced. The Department of Health has used the Bury and Rochdale body piercing leaflet as an example of good practice in our recently issued strategy on hepatitis C. It is important that we encourage local authorities to issue such information.
  Action is being taken by industry bodies such as the Association of Professional Piercers and the European Professional Piercers Association, which have also produced good practice guidelines. Those need to be
  472
  distributed widely. There has also been guidance from the Health and Safety Executive, which in October 2001 produced updated guidelines. Those guidelines should assist local authorities in advising businesses on issues such as hygiene practice, treatment of customers with existing health conditions, after-care, and adopting a reasonable approach to age of consent issues.
  All these measures and activities should help in promoting safe practice. That must include prospective customers being made aware of the potential health risks of body piercing, the relevance of existing health conditions, the need for medical advice, and the proper after-care of the piercing to reduce the risk of infection. Those are all aspects that my hon. Friend highlighted in her contribution.
  On the age of consent, I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about young children having body piercing done without parental consent, in terms of whether that is appropriate and also because of the possible health risks. Overall, Government policy on the age of consent is the responsibility of the Home Office. However, let me explain the position on skin piercing.
  Only the tattooing of minors is controlled by specific legislation—the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969. The question of what is a valid consent for cosmetic body piercing is governed by common law. If a person under the age of 18 is capable of understanding the nature of the act that is to be done, he or she is capable of giving a valid consent to it unless statute provides otherwise. The degree of competence that can be exercised by children will depend in each case on the relative maturity of the child concerned, as well as upon his or her age. I understand that parents are concerned when their children have had body piercing done without their consent. However, I am advised by local authorities and the industry that body piercing should not be carried out on children without parental consent. Obviously, practice in individual businesses may vary.
  Our concern is that, if we introduced a minimum age of consent, we could end up increasing the health risks of body piercing. Children might try to pierce themselves or each other in an unsafe or unhygienic manner or they would go to disreputable piercers rather than to those who abide by a code of practice and guidelines. It is a difficult issue on which to make the right judgment, but I am sure that we are all aware that, when an activity is subject to prohibition, the prospects of it taking place with greater risk always remain on the horizon. We are keeping the age of consent under constant review and will continue to consider whether it may be appropriate to introduce a minimum age of consent for this practice. Most reputable businesses would like guidelines that make it clear that people under the age of 16 should not be pierced.
  In conclusion, our primary concern is that cosmetic body piercing is provided in a safe and hygienic manner. I have outlined the legislative framework that is in place and said that we plan, wherever possible, to strengthen that framework. We want to encourage local authorities outside London to use their existing powers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and under the provisions to regulate ear piercing and tattooing.

  473
  We will keep the position under review in the light of any new evidence that emerges, and we will consider the need for further action once the investigation into the tragic case of Daniel Hindle has been completed. I am keen that we learn the lessons of that case. I am pleased to confirm to my hon. Friend that we will consider the feasibility of carrying out a special study to make sure that we increase our evidence base on this issue. That will become increasingly important in the future as
  474
  cosmetic body piercing becomes more popular, particularly among young people. It is important that Government keep up to date with developments.
  I thank my hon. Friend for raising a matter that is important not just to her constituency but to the country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Five o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

New Towns
[Relevant documents: Nineteenth Report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 603-I, and the Government's response Cm 5685.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
2.30 pm
Andrew Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the Select Committee's report. I want to put on record my gratitude to all those people who submitted evidence to the inquiry. Select Committees are very dependent on the quality of the evidence that they receive if they are to produce valuable reports. The report contains excellent evidence. As well as collecting evidence, we asked a series of questions about the new towns. There is a great deal of valuable information in volumes II and III of the report.
I also appreciate the hospitality of those people who arranged our visits to Telford, Corby and Hemel Hempstead. No, it was not Hemel Hempstead but Harlow—my memory is slipping. I should have made a note not to make that mistake. I thank them for the information that I gathered during my visit.
Finally, I want to record my appreciation of Brendan Nevin, the adviser to the Select Committee, and to David Harrison, the Clerk of the Select Committee for this Parliament and the previous one. David Harrison has now moved on, but the Select Committee appreciated his hard work.
The new towns were created after Lord Reith's inquiry into housing problems following the second world war and out of the need to replace a huge amount of slum housing and bomb-damaged housing, especially in areas such as London. The three key proposals that the inquiry made were that the new towns should be created in open countryside, that they should have a maximum population of about 60,000 and that the housing should be low density. We must remember that there was great concern in that era about diseases such as tuberculosis, which were associated with high-density housing.
New towns and the way in which they were created were an important part of the nation's history. In some ways, we need to keep a record of that. The attempts of Robert Owen, the Levers and Cadburys to create new housing remain: we have New Lanark, Port Sunlight and Bournville. It would be nice to think that some of the new towns will exist in the future, so that people can view them as a record. Most of the early new towns were the creation of a set of town planners who were very important in the middle half of the last century. They created something that was relevant for the time, rather than something that would develop easily into housing that suits modern life. It is important to achieve a balance between keeping the historic record and having somewhere attractive for people to live.
144WH
We must also note that the new towns were served badly by successive Governments. The Treasury can tell us that a lot of money was put into the new towns at the beginning, but rather than allowing the money to stay with them to help them evolve and develop, the Treasury quickly started to demand that the new towns pay the money back. In many cases, the towns paid it back time after time, which is how the new towns got a rotten deal. When the Commission for New Towns was wound up, it handed over its assets to English Partnerships, which was continually under pressure from the Treasury to get the money back. Many hon. Members in the Chamber represent new towns, and they would all agree that if the money had stayed in their communities rather than going back to the Treasury, their communities could have evolved.
Some communities had a certain amount of money set aside for future activities. For example, in Milton Keynes, we were told firmly that the money to look after the parkways was still available, but such endowment is the exception rather than the rule for the new towns.
Ms Julia Drown: Towns such as Swindon were not classified as new towns but went through similar experiences without the extensive powers or direct grant that came from the Government. Does my hon. Friend feel that in considering the issues of extra and continuing support for towns, the grant that was invested initially should be considered, to ensure that infrastructures keep up with the needs of communities?
Andrew Bennett: It is important that money is available to keep the infrastructure developing and to take into account the special problems that were created, which I will comment on later. Some of the transport systems and lower-density housing schemes brought problems, which have got worse, and the Government have a duty to come up with the money to solve the specific problems created for the new towns by the concept of the development.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Further to my hon. Friend's observations about Governments' attitude to new towns, was he surprised to receive a memorandum from the ex-chief executive of the Commission for the New Towns, John Walker. He said that from the 1980s to the mid-1990s, the
"Government took it as an opportunity to turn its back on new towns, and regard them primarily as a source of income from asset sales."
Does my hon. Friend think that the current Government have brought about a big change in that policy?
Andrew Bennett: I hope that the change has been made, but I shall come to that later.
I was starting to talk about how English Partnerships had taken a lot of the money away from new towns. Sadly. until 12 months ago, it could have been said that English Partnerships deserved to be wound up. I understand the argument that English Partnerships is a useful vehicle for the Government. I hope that, instead of being a moribund institution that should have been wiped away, it will be much more successful in its second coming. I have heard all the public relations material. Its

145WH
representatives appeared before the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, and everything looked promising. However, we want to see delivery on the ground before we are convinced that English Partnerships can do the job that the Government are planning for it.
Rosemary McKenna: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation is different in Scotland? New town developments have already been wound up, and there is no residual body or Scottish Partnerships, but all the problems noted by the Select Committee are identifiable in the Scottish new towns. Has he been in touch with any of his counterparts in the Scottish Parliament, in view of the fact that the new towns are now an issue for the Scottish Parliament, and does he think that there are lessons to be learned jointly in examining the issue?
Andrew Bennett: I certainly think that there are joint issues to be examined. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) was on the Committee, and he pushed urban issues very strongly. It seemed to me that there was a common theme, and that what needed to be done for the English and Welsh new towns also needed to be done for the Scottish ones. I do not know enough about the Scottish situation to know the mechanisms, but I fully accept that something needs to be done to solve the problems of the new towns there.
I shall now enumerate some of the problems. The original promise was that the housing would be low density. In the 1950s and early 1960s low-density housing might have been what people wanted. On occasions, imaginative ways of dealing with low-density housing might have been devised, but they are no longer relevant. In Runcorn, for example, an imaginative bus way was put in, which, at that particular time, served the low-density communities well. However, that bus way is now a nightmare, because, particularly in the evening, people are left standing at bus stops with no cars or other traffic going past, and do not have the feeling of security that they need in low-density housing areas. We must recognise that low-density housing, as created in most of the new towns, is not suitable.
There is also the question of critical mass, and what size the new towns should be. The aim for the original towns was 60,000 people. It may be true that, when they were built, 60,000 gave the critical mass to provide—I will not say the butcher, the baker and the candlestickmaker—the things needed to make a complete community. It is increasingly evident that the new towns that stuck at 60,000 or smaller are too small to maintain all the critical facilities that they need. That raises the question whether extra housing can be spread out into some of the green spaces in those new towns, to give them greater capacity without losing the original vision.
There are, therefore, some important issues to be addressed with regard to increasing housing density, developing viable communities, and establishing facilities such as good transport links.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman makes
146WH
the case for increased density not out of necessity—we all understand the need for high-density housing—but on the basis that people prefer to live in a higher-density environment. That is not my experience, from the comments that I receive in my constituency whenever intensification of development is proposed. Does he have any evidence to suggest that people want greater density, rather than recognising that they will have to have it?
Andrew Bennett: There is quite a bit of evidence that people like to be in bigger communities. They may not want the field at the bottom of their garden to be built on, but they would like another field nearby to be built on. All sorts of things, such as shops and other facilities, are not viable unless there are enough people. I believe that people recognise that a critical mass is needed to make things work. I have talked to people in some of the new towns—not specifically the ones that the Committee visited—and they say that there are not enough people with the same sort of interests to make a particular society or group of activities work.
David Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that the critical issue is quality design? In many new towns there needs to be clearance of unpopular housing and quality redesign that will resolve some of the issues related, for example, to the Radburn lay-out, which many consider to have been a disaster in the new towns.
Andrew Bennett: I do not want to go through everything that is in the report, but I was about to address the Radburn lay-out. First, however, I want to deal with town centres.
Every member of the Committee who went to Corby was shocked and appalled by the state of the town centre. There was a feeling that we were in a third world country rather than the United Kingdom. I have every sympathy with the people of Corby. They have a town centre in which they can take no pride. A large number of them go out of Corby to do their shopping and they would like to make the town centre an effective shopping area again. That is true of most of the new towns; the way in which the shopping centres were designed is not effective today. They need redesigning, but that will not be possible without a greater number of people to make those shopping centres viable.
Barbara Follett: There is a particular problem with crime in these town centres because they are deserted after 6 pm. There is no residential/work mix. We have to get that right if we want to bring crime down.
Andrew Bennett: Yes. It is worth remembering that the concept of the new towns was a planning one. People were supposed to live in one place, work in another and shop in another. Everything was separated. There were good reasons for that in 1950; most industry was not pleasant and people did not want to live close to it. Industry has changed and the Government have been working hard on the idea that town centres should become places where people can live, work, shop and participate in leisure activities.
Putting all that back together is one of the key tasks in the new towns. We want the new town centres to be redesigned so that they are places where people can live,

147WH
shop and go for entertainment. That is a significant task that will involve Government, the new towns and the private sector. To do it, we need the critical mass.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: Will my hon. Friend clarify a point? He seems to be talking about the population of the town. Skelmersdale's population is 42,000. He may be saying that if it were 80,000 the town centre might be more feasible. That is not the same as low-density housing. In Skelmersdale and other new towns the housing on the estates is high density and people are on top of one another. Those are two different issues.
Andrew Bennett: I am happy to take interventions, but if all hon. Members are to have a turn there needs to be a little restraint.
I accept that there are two different issues. All new towns are not the same. There are places where the housing was spaced out with large areas of parkland in between. In some cases, there are not now the resources to maintain that parkland to a standard that would make it an asset rather than a disadvantage to local people. From my brief visit to Skelmersdale, I do not think there is the same problem there as in some of the southern new towns.
Some of the housing is brilliant and has stood the test of time. The difficulty with most of the new towns is that they started off with a high standard of housing and then, with all the pressure to build extra housing—especially in the 1960s—some cheap designs were brought in. Some were system-built. There was also the Radburn design, which was revolutionary at the time. It had walkways to the front door but the garages were located at the rear and all other services were supposed to come to the back door. In some places the design still works effectively, but in most places it does not work. The front accesses have become places where crime almost flourishes and the backs look unsatisfactory.
A great deal of money needs to be spent to remove some of those dwellings and put new dwellings in their place. Certainly, some of the housing that we saw in Telford should have been knocked down a long time ago, but of course that costs money. There is the question of money to replace much of the worn-out housing, and the question of jobs. Some new towns were very successful at attracting jobs and a balance of jobs. Places such as Skelmersdale, however, were far too dependent on one employer, so when that employer got into difficulties, so did the whole town. Again, that is a lesson for the new towns. A multitude of employers are needed, rather than just particular ones.
Neighbourhood renewal money has gone into an awful lot of urban communities, but most of the new towns do not qualify for it. The people who represent new towns have a justified whinge that they cannot gain access to some of the money that other communities have been able to get. There is a question about planning permission and whether it has been transferred. English Partnerships still has quite a lot of outstanding planning permissions to deal with, and the local community should have a say in that. The problem of clawback also needs to be dealt with.
I think that we produced a fairly balanced report. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said nice things to me about the report on several occasions,
148WH
but the polite way of describing the official response is that it simply says, "Get lost." In one way, that can be disheartening. A Select Committee can do its work, take evidence and produce a report, but then the Government do not show much enthusiasm. I have to admit, however, that some of the Government responses that are least encouraging on the surface produce the best results over time. I shall therefore listen with considerable hope to the reply from my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will address many of the problems that we have identified and that, in a couple of years, it will be the action taken, rather than the Government response, that is remembered.
I say firmly to the Minister that I hope that, today and in the actions taken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, he will talk about a rebirth of the new towns, so that they can build on their successes and remedy many of their problems. I hope that he will ensure that the new developments in the Thames Gateway and Ashford, whether they are called new towns or not, avoid the pitfalls that the new towns have encountered and learn from the many considerable successes that people in the new towns have experienced. I commend the report to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. I inform those hon. Members who wish to speak that the Chairman of the Committee, who has just spoken, indicated that if he had given way much more often, perhaps not all of them would be able to speak. A majority of those seeking to catch my eye represent new towns, and I hope that all hon. Members who want to will be able to speak, to enable the Front Benchers to wind up the debate at the normal time.
2.53 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee and those who worked on the report. When it was published, there was an extraordinary sense of elation in the community that I represent, because after decades of neglect, it was not simply people who represented new towns who were responding to what those of us who represent such communities see as a crisis. There was a sense that someone out there really understood the problem, and I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend, first, for having initiated the inquiry and, secondly, for having made a series of recommendations, each of which hit the button. I say that as someone who has been disappointed by many people who are supposed to have been doing something to address the problems of these communities. Finally, it looked as if there was some understanding of what they faced.
It was therefore with something approaching horror that I received the Government's response to this extremely intelligent and thoughtful report. In almost every particular, the recommendations are rebuffed and there is a failure to understand. Those who advised Ministers in the 1980s and 1990s were the kind of people who led even the ex-chief executive of the Commission for the New Towns to say that the Government had turned their back on new towns and that their attitude was that of a detached landlord with no apparent policy interest in the long-term success of these communities.

149WH
Those civil servants or advisers still seem to be ruling the roost, to judge by the Government's response. Time after time it shows a lack of understanding of the recommendations being proposed. For instance, there are repeated references to substantial amounts of money being made available for housing under this year's allocations from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, very little of it is coming to my constituency: indeed, there is a haemorrhaging of resources away from the community, because the Government have decided that negative subsidy and the asset base of the community that I represent are such that substantial resources should be removed. The Government regard themselves as having given substantial resources not just to my constituency but to new towns in general.
Yet the ex-chief executive of the Commission for the New Towns said on page 79 of the evidence:
"The New Towns Programme was the only urban programme (to the best of my knowledge) which relied almost entirely on loan (rather than grant) finance from government. Moreover, it has repaid the loans to government, with interest, nearly 40 years before they were due, leaving residual assets in government ownership worth well over £1 billion."
He goes on to talk about the difficulties of maintaining the assets that had been put forward:
"There is … a common sense and a moral argument that says the local communities ought to benefit more directly from value released by the further development and sale of the remaining assets, which vary tremendously in scale and value between the various new towns."
Government policy under Nicholas Ridley was not what we were expecting when we were elected to represent new towns in 1997. I welcome some of the substantial changes made by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, especially in the remit governing English Partnerships. The recent change of attitude since the report was published has been manifest in some of its work to see itself as an agency for regeneration and cooperation rather than an agency for Treasury deprivation of assets of local communities.
I welcome much of that. However, that thinking is not reflected in the Government's document, which takes the attitude, "You think you've got problems, but other communities have as well". There is something in that, but we have a series of problems that are coming to a head at the same time. The Government talk about design and infrastructure and say that that is not a problem that is specific to the new towns. No it is not, but we have it in spades and other communities have it sporadically.
I represent a new town that has a library at its centre. The library is the usual small, leaking, crumbling structure that one would associate with a new town with 70,000 inhabitants. It was built on the assumption that those people would not need books. The college in the centre of Hemel Hempstead is falling apart. It has a flat roof and is of a dreadful design. Its principal would like to see it razed to the ground. The only venue for any form of public entertainment such as concerts and pantomimes in Hemel Hempstead was recently levelled by the local authority, leaving a large pile of rubble. Everything is falling apart at the same time. As with
150WH
Corby, people who want to go shopping find department stores in other towns, not in Hemel Hempstead.
When, in response to a series of important recommendations about the inadequacy of standard spending assessments as a way of remedying the difficulties of new towns, the Government say that that is a problem that others have too, we need them to get real. Standard spending assessments are not helping us and the most recent effects of the local government finance settlement have exacerbated these problems.
I do not want to take up more time than I should, but the fact is that whenever the Government are offered something in this document that would really help, they say no. For instance, paragraph 52 of their response states:
"The Government is not prepared to give up clawback or sales receipts in the New Towns as a general principle."
We want the Government to understand that new towns were financed in a way that involved them in repaying their debt to the wider community. They have repaid it and repaid it and repaid it. Now they are crumbling and they need something back. In his submission, John Walker, the chief executive of the Commission for the New Towns, said:
"Examination of government accounts show that a large portion of their expenditure on 'inner city' programmes has been funded from new town receipts."
That milch cow ought now to be seen as itself in need of a little tender loving care.
If the Government rip up their initial response to this report and follow some of the things that have been flowing from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in advice to English Partnerships and on prospects for regeneration of our communities, we can begin to address the problems with which the system has left us. I am asking for another handout, for more money, for regeneration and investment, but I am also saying that new towns have the capacity to solve some of the problems that are firmly on the Government's agenda.
Affordable housing in Hertfordshire is at a premium. The site owned by English Partnerships in Hemel Hempstead the so-called Lucas Aerospace site—will be ideal for such a development initiative, and will solve the problem of vacancies in the local health service, which are at a higher level than in any other community in the United Kingdom. Some 8.6 per cent. of nurses' jobs are unfilled. An active housing programme, affordable housing and new towns can help to solve such difficulties.
We must bring solutions to the table. We need an active process of urban regeneration that involves English Partnerships and its current asset base. Where it does not have an asset base, it should use its expertise to develop one. I welcome any approach, but we have real problems. We need major investment, which may address many other issues on the Government's agenda.
3.6 pm
David Wright: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), and I agree with so much of what he had to say. I do not intend to delay the Chamber for too long, and I begin by welcoming the Select Committee report and praising the commitment of the Chairman of the Committee during its construction.

151WH
The Committee visited Telford, and councillors and local authority officers found that visit extremely useful. The report allowed people to believe that new towns are back on the agenda, having been off it for so long—some 20 years, in fact. It also leads us to believe that someone is starting to listen on some of the issues and problems that new towns encounter, although I am disappointed by the Government's response. I will return to that.
My first point relates to the unique nature of new towns, which the Government's response does not accept. New towns are largely a construct of the postwar era, but there are many examples of new communities that were created by the philanthropists of the 19th and early 20th centuries, when people came together to try to improve the housing and social conditions of their communities. The post-war new towns policy was an echo of that. It was incredibly positive, and a message, which was pushed largely by left-of-centre Governments in the post-war era, that lives and communities could be better and that we could do more for our people. The new towns stand as a unique testament of how Government intervention can be positive for ordinary people.
As Members know, Telford was called Dawley new town in 1963 and renamed in 1968. It is one of the larger and, I would argue, more successful new towns. It is also my home town, and it is a great privilege to represent it, but Telford is not new any more, as it is over 30 years old. In some ways, the title "new town" is a problem for us. When new towns were constructed, there was a massive investment in the infrastructure all at the same time, but infrastructure wears out. New towns were developed in a fairly short time, and that infrastructure looks tired and worn. We have had substantial new investment and good partnerships with the private sector that have brought resources into new towns, but we need a major injection of public and private sector resources to deal with some of those infrastructure problems. I will turn to one of them in relation to a point that I wish to make about the Select Committee report and the Government's response.
Much of the housing stock in new towns is past its useful life. We have already heard about issues involving the Radburn layout of estates. A number of estates in my town in south Telford, such as Woodside, Brookside, Sutton Hill and Malinslee, were developed using the Radburn layout, which was well described by the Chair of the Select Committee. Access to the front of a property is gained from a pedestrian area, and parking and vehicular access are to the rear.
In many of those estates there are areas of overgrown former environmental improvement patches and large swathes of poorly defined land with no indication of where people's property starts or ends. That causes great problems with antisocial behaviour and nuisance. We need to redesign and restructure those estates radically and turn some of those properties around. We need to consider street design and renewal.
Many shopping centres on those estates can be described only as bunkers. We must clear them and consider better quality design that would open them out and make them more attractive. The people of Telford deserve the best—I am sure that all Members believe the same about their constituents. They measure their perception of what Government and local government
152WH
think of them from the facilities we provide for them. To be honest, we have let them down over the past 20 years and it is time for change.
I am pleased to say that English Partnerships is assisting us locally on Woodside. It is doing a tremendous job, and I refer in particular to people such as Peter Murray, who heads the team and to whom I pay tribute. We are seeing greater partnership between the agencies, particularly English Partnerships, which needs to go on the record. A potential multi-million pound scheme is emerging for the regeneration of Woodside, and I thank the Minister for his interest over recent months. Some positive things are coming out of the change in attitude and process.
The difficulty is, however, that that scheme will tackle only one of a number of estates that I mentioned, although those problems exist on many others. Once we have dealt with Woodside, we must try to deal with some of the other estates too, which will be resource intensive. It would be helpful if the Minister commented on how we can draw together a rolling programme of housing stock improvement and investment in new town areas. I shall touch further on that point in my conclusion.
The role of English Partnerships has been extremely important over the years. The attitude employed by its predecessor, the Commission for the New Towns, during the 1980s and 1990s was appalling. It pursued a policy of what are known as "fire sales" of accommodation on new town estates, which created enormous problems with mixed ownership and tenure. In terms of redevelopment, mixed tenure can be good, but the way in which the disposal strategy was handled during the 1980s and 1990s and the fact that people have been unclear about who owns which assets and strips of land that are left seemingly in no one's ownership have caused great management problems in many new town estates. We need to re-examine that issue and get it right.
I repeat that the role of English Partnerships is central to what we are trying to achieve in new towns, and I appreciate the changes at the top level in the management of its role. If it can emerge as the new regeneration agency that can help us to deal with some of the issues in new towns, I will welcome that. When I make my concluding proposals, I shall return to some issues that I would like English Partnerships to pick up.
One of the major issues in Telford is transport. The town was designed around the car in the late 1960s. There is a fantastic road network—the large estates are surrounded by roads and have fantastic vehicular access—but our public transport infrastructure is weak. We have excellent new bus programmes, but we need more resources to assist us in our transport plan. Indeed, I do not believe that the existing transport budget can cope with the infrastructure and investment that Telford needs. If the town were built now, high-quality rapid transit systems—running north-south and east-west—would be put in. We could see that development in future years. We certainly need significant investment in our bus transport strategy and I want that to be a key theme in the regeneration of the new town.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is aware that his constituency has a portion of railway line that is not used for public passenger transport. Roughly speaking, it runs south from the centre of Telford down

153WH
to the Ironbridge power station. It has often struck me that it could be developed into a useful commuter route, which would shuttle people from largely residential areas in the south towards the centre of Telford. Does he agree that that should be considered?
David Wright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for promoting that idea. I recently received a proposal from the Telford steam railway trust relating to opening that line up again. However, delivering the project would involve an investment of about £4 million. The scale of the necessary infrastructure and investment means that the project cannot be achieved by a small organisation. We would need to put together a public-private partnership. I welcome his interest, however. Perhaps we could have a discussion and consider how the investment could work. He represents a neighbouring constituency, and the project could have a positive impact on his communities as well.
High-quality cultural investment is one of the key issues on which we need to focus. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has already mentioned the fact that he struggles in terms of the scope and scale of the cultural investment in his town centre and community. Telford has an excellent town centre and a superb shopping centre, but, as I said in evidence to the Select Committee, it is an out-of-town centre right in the middle of the town. It makes very little connection with many of the communities around it.
We need to develop public-private partnerships to secure investment in a cultural quarter in Telford. I am pleased to say that English Partnerships has acknowledged that and has supported the local authority in developing a master plan. We need support and pump-priming investment to ensure that we can deliver that. We also need to bring in the private sector, but we may well need further assistance and support through public sector pump-priming to bring forward sites under the cultural investment strategy. That will help us to ensure that our town centre is the life of the town, and that it does not close down at 5.30 or 6 o'clock at night and become a desert environment.
I finish with a plea on promoting better quality design, which is integral to the future of our new towns. When our new towns were first put together, many of the architects who worked on them were committed to trying to achieve the best communities. Unfortunately, a lot of the work done then has not stood the test of time. I hope that we do not repeat those mistakes when redesigning many of our residential areas and town centres over the coming years.
We need to lift the quality of the design and infrastructure that we offer to local people, who judge their town by the environment around them. They deserve the very best, and we need to invest heavily in design competitions and processes that will bring the best architects into the new towns. Why should the best architects look only at the large cities in our country and across Europe? Why do the best architects look only at Manchester, London and Leeds? We need to translate
154WH
their activity down and attract them to redesign our new towns. They could bring their skills and talents to give us some of the best quality buildings for the future.
Andrew Bennett: One of the interesting things about the new towns is that when they were initially constructed they attracted some of the best people in their field as chief planners. They got their prestige out of working for a new town. Getting such people back is important.
David Wright: My hon. Friend is quite right and I broadly agree with him. I want to recreate that environment, so that people see new towns as being at the cutting edge of design and quality and the best designers are brought back to regenerate our new towns.
Mr. Hammond: There seems to be great enthusiasm for master planning among Members who have spoken. Is not one lesson to be learned from some of the problems with our new towns that the monolithic approach to planning, rather than a more organic approach to the development of communities, can be a root cause of future problems?
David Wright: As one who represents a new town, I think that one of our biggest problems is the laissez-faire planning approach of the 1980s, when many of the structure plans for new towns were torn up, small retail parks sprang up all over the place and the shopping hierarchy was destroyed. We need to integrate our planning framework more effectively. I am a supporter of master planning, and if that makes me an old-fashioned Stalinist, I am sorry, because I do not intend to be. I want public sector agencies to examine the overall approach to new towns, bring in the best designers in the private sector and encourage flexibility around a master plan. Both angles can be achieved.
I am conscious that other Members wish to speak, so I shall sum up. I want to raise four issues, which I hope the Minister addresses, and to explain what we need for future new town development. First, we need access to neighbourhood renewal fund resources because of our new town status. There is a problem in many new towns because we do not qualify for those resources. We have significant pockets of deprivation, but they are often outweighed by areas of relative prosperity. That means that local authorities such as mine do not receive regeneration resources. They are often unable to plan what goes into those pockets of deprivation or to use such resources to match investment from English Partnerships, the Housing Corporation, other agencies and the private sector. We need a greater commitment to neighbourhood renewal in new towns because they are new towns.
Secondly, I want the Minister to consider new towns as a priority for any future housing market renewal investment round. It would be helpful if new towns could be considered as special cases in that context. Local authorities in my area are doing significant work with the black country boroughs to examine how the housing market in the west midlands operates. Many wards in my constituency would be investment priorities if they were in the black country, so if there is to be a second round of the housing market renewal fund and housing market renewal investment, I hope that the Government consider new towns.

155WH
Thirdly, I would like more waiving of clawback arrangements. English Partnerships has done a lot in response to queries from a number of Members, including me, who have been fairly annoying and persistent questioners on the strategy that it employs.
Fourthly, I want to ensure that we do not return to the situation of the 1980s and 1990s when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said, places such as Telford were seen as a cash cow for the Treasury. That must stop. New towns have paid their dues and it is time that they were regenerated effectively in a partnership between communities and those who represent them.
3.23 pm
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) for giving me the opportunity to serve on the Committee that considered the new towns. I thank all who were involved in putting together a very good report, which I commend to the Minister, but I am rather disappointed at the Government's response.
Hon. Members will know that I do not represent an English constituency, and I feel almost divorced in making this statement, but it is important to demonstrate my experience of new towns. I have lived, almost from birth, in an area where a new town was created, and I saw the birth of that town in the 1960s and its demise in the 1990s. I want to share with the House some experiences of that period. There were five new towns in Scotland, which were all wound up at the same time. The town that I represent, in which I have lived for most of my life, is the Irvine new town, which is unique in that it is the only new town created by the sea. There are those who say that it should have been shoved into the sea after the planners walked out. I represent it, however, and I am proud to do so. Its people are the best that there are, and I call it God's country.
I have seen some of the effects of new towns and have heard about those from other hon. Members this afternoon. The Committee was able to expose some of those effects, especially in Corby. Having been to Corby with the Committee, I have to say that I came away thinking that I had been to hell and back. I have relatives there, and after my visit I telephoned them to say that I had been. They said, "You didn't come and look at Corby did you? It's the pits". It really is. Having then gone back to the Irvine new town and taken a wander around, I can say that it is like a palace compared with Corby. However, we also went to Harlow, which is a completely different experience. There has been good investment there, and much creative thinking.
Irvine was wound up in the mid-90s and has suffered since because it no longer receives the £11.5 million per annum that was injected by the development corporation. One plus of being a new town was that those funds brought industry into the area—lots of industry—which created lots of jobs. Those were at the leading edge, and they were of high value to the area. They injected enormous resources into it which would not otherwise have existed. The leisure facilities, such as the Magnum leisure centre in the main part of the town, were magnificent, and there was nothing better than
156WH
seeing those made available to people for the first time. The creation of golf courses, football fields and all sorts of recreational facilities has transformed the area and is to be commended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) mentioned transport. I have a theory that when the planners—who I think are worse than lawyers, which is saying something—came to design the new town, they opened up an old Ordnance Survey map of the area and then decided to have a tea break. Where the tea cups left stains, they became the roundabouts. They decided to join them up, and that became the roads. Irvine, and every other new town, is a wee bit like that. Having represented a trade union covering the five new towns in Scotland, I appealed to my employer for a special allowance for tyres because I wore out so many going round all the roundabouts. I understand that the taxi drivers in East Kilbride get 2p extra a mile on their rate because they wear out so many tyres going round all the roundabouts.
Transport more broadly is a disaster. The planners did not look outside the new towns. They spent all the money on the new towns, but the roads go nowhere. There are roundabouts with blocked-up exits all over my town. Roads do not go anywhere other than the new town itself. Many years ago, I saw the Grand Prix in France where it is held in the streets and thought about making an application to have the Grand Prix up in Irvine, where there would be a fantastic network of roads to choose from, instead of in Silverstone.
I return to the subject of planners. Having been in a town of 19,000 people, where there was great heritage and culture, I would argue that the planners from the development corporation destroyed the centres of those communities; they ripped them down. They took away the bridge, which I regret to this day, and they created a shopping centre that I call the biggest WC in Europe because it is white-sided and white-tiled, and it looks absolutely appalling. I do not know if they were planners with a great future ahead of them. My God, I would not have given them much of a future if what they created then was an example of how they went about their business. It was a demonstration of what was wrong with the new towns.
Having always been involved with the politics of the town, I can say that there was a democratic deficit in the boards of the new towns. That had plusses but a lot of minuses. The planners would never have got away with what they did to the town if they had been subject to the democratic ticket. They would not have been re-elected if they had been democratically elected in the first place.
The other element of the problems is the loss of industry. At the start of my remarks, I made a point of the plusses and mentioned the good industry in the area. Today, most of that industry has gone away; none of the companies that were brought to us in the 1960s are still there. Not one company created at the same time as the development corporation is in the town now. That has a major impact: my constituency has the highest unemployment in Scotland. The rate is 3 per cent. above the national average because the jobs that were brought in are no longer there.
There are no public sector jobs either. Because the new town was not completed—it was wound up early—it does not have the infrastructure to support itself for

157WH
any length of time. I remember talking, in the days leading up to its demise, to the chief executive, who bemoaned the fact that he was going to be out of a job, but he also saw his baby being thrown out with the bathwater. A house was being created, but the early wind-up in the mid-1990s meant that the house was never given a roof. That affected the whole infrastructure, and it is still badly affected.
The worst example is the town centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned town centres and the experience in Corby. The town centre in Irvine was destroyed by the planners. It is now ageing, and there are no resources to improve its position. We see that as the legacy of the new towns process.
If I were to summarise, having lived through the whole period of the new town, I would say that it has been a bad experience overall. However, I have come out the other side of that process; I have spent a tremendous amount of time encouraging people; and I have seen the small communities coming alive. There are two main towns, and the smaller of the two, Kilwinning, is coming alive. It is starting to see its own identity return, and the whole area is being lifted up. It is obvious that it will never be able to do that on its own because it requires more attention than can be given by any Government agency. I would suggest that any new town in the United Kingdom is in exactly the same situation.
The momentum of what was being developed—latterly the developments were good—has been completely lost. We are not seeing what I wanted: a town of some 70,000 people, which would have been big enough to allow Marks & Spencer, for instance, to come to it. Nothing like that could happen in Irvine. That problem must be looked at seriously in every new town.
The Chairman of the Committee mentioned the need for rebirth. There is no doubt that the position of new towns needs to be rethought. They are unique; they have been unique throughout their existence; and their legacy must be addressed. They need more resources and more investment. I look forward to hearing the Minister say that the Government will proceed on the basis that the new towns are unique.
3.35 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am fascinated by my hon. Friend's account of the way in which his roundabouts came into being. Skelmersdale in my constituency is similarly covered with roundabouts, which came about in a slightly more enterprising way. The new town was built on an old mining area, so the roundabouts were put on the top of the old pit shafts. The whole of Westminster could fit into some of the roundabouts. They have wonderful flooded pits in the middle of them, which kids fish in. They are the closest thing to leisure centres that any of them have seen. When kids moan, "There's nothing to do in Skem," I say, "Go and fish in the roundabout," and they do.
Mr. McWalter: Is my hon. Friend saying that there is nothing else to do in Skelmersdale?
Mr. Pickthall: Not after dark.
Mr. Donohoe: I forgot to say that one of our roundabouts is so big that the local sheep farmer has the grazing rights.
Mr. Pickthall: It is one way of keeping green spaces.
158WH
I am a fully paid-up member of the new town whingers group. If one has something to whinge about, one whinges. As well as having some positive things to say about our new towns, we have a lot to complain about as well. Therefore, I was delighted when the Select Committee decided to do a study on the new towns, and even more pleased when I read its report, because it hit all the right notes. I shall come back to that in a moment.
The gap between the Select Committee's recommendations in its report in July last year and the Government's response in November is unusually great. The Government's response is largely dismissive and does not even bother to be polite or to explain some of its conclusions in detail. That may be the result of changes in the structure of Departments and ministerial changes. Attitudes are bound to change. However, before the report was printed, Lord Falconer and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who were the Ministers responsible for these issues before the changes were made, openly and clearly supported most of the main recommendations that the Committee eventually made. Several of us had meetings with them on the subject. Indeed, in a debate in this Chamber we put forward our views and received a positive response from my hon. Friend.
Therefore, the brusque rejections in the Government's reply came as a shock—literally. I was astonished when I read it. The recommendations included, for example, the removal of the clawback rights. One can smell in that the controlling hand of the Treasury, because it would have had to forgo some projected income if clawback and asset sales were forgone.
I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, which was generous in spirit. That needs to be said, because most of the hon. Members involved in its construction—perhaps all of them bar one—did not represent new towns. Therefore, they were looking at the problem from outside and objectively. They were asking the right questions and then making the right recommendations. What they recommended would have made a significant difference to Skelmersdale in my constituency of West Lancashire.
I do not deny that the Government are injecting regeneration funds into Skelmersdale through the methods briefly outlined in the response document, but two points need to be made on that. First, at the same time as the Government, through the regional development agency facilitators in the Government office for the north-west, are putting regeneration funds into Skelmersdale, they are removing assets and potential assets through sell-off and clawback. It seems absurd that one arm of government should recognise a problem—in my town as well as many others—and say, "Right, we'll put a pile of money in," while another arm takes out a tranche of money that the town has generated for itself.
Secondly, the Select Committee made it clear that new towns had special problems—lots of towns have problems—consequent on their being new towns. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) that "new towns" is now the wrong title. The said that Skelmersdale traditionally did not get the regeneration support received by other new towns because of its proximity to larger areas of deprivation, and it said the same about Telford. That is

159WH
self-evident. However, it is also true that the attention of successive Governments seeking to tackle socioeconomic deprivation has, over decades, concentrated on the larger areas that are perhaps easier to identify and have inner-city problems, such as Liverpool in my part of the world and, to a lesser extent but still a problem, Manchester.
To some extent that identified disadvantage for Skelmersdale has been addressed in recent months. It would be churlish of me not to welcome that, because the money that has come from the Government through the RDA will do a great deal of good. Skelmersdale has 42,000 people and, like other towns that have been mentioned, its growth was stopped in the 1970s. I believe that it was stopped deliberately so that Skelmersdale did not qualify for further help to build its town centre or its hospital. Land is still set aside for a hospital. The town will never get it, but the entire population of Skelmersdale believes that I will deliver the hospital at some point in the future. They will probably get rid of me if I do not. I certainly have no chance of doing it.
In smaller urban areas such as Skelmersdale deprivation is not as extensive. The numbers are not as large, but the situation is as serious as in Liverpool, Manchester or any of our cities with problems. Skelmersdale is a second-generation new town, built in the 1960s to accommodate mainly overspill population from Liverpool. Those who moved to Skelmersdale in its first years and are still around—there are quite a lot—say that it was fabulous: it was a great place and they thought that they had come to paradise. They could look out of the windows and see green fields, and some of them had nice little gardens. It is about 15 miles from Liverpool and 30 miles from Manchester, but it is immediately surrounded by a large and relatively well-to-do rural area.
Skelmersdale has no rail link, although railway lines pass close to it. It has lousy bus services, especially into the big estates around the town. It has the sort of town centre that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford described in the report, a description that he has repeated this afternoon: it is rather like an out-of-town mall dumped into the middle of the town, with no civic centre characteristics at all. There is no cinema. There was a small theatre, under county council provision, but it is about to be shut. There are sports centres but there is no community life in Skelmersdale centre after 6 o'clock in the evening. Several of my hon. Friends have made the same point about their towns. That makes towns of such size very difficult places to live in.
The changes to the planning regulations that the Select Committee proposed would have considerably helped West Lancashire district council to develop a proper town centre for Skelmersdale, something that it is seeking to do. Plans for that are being put together. The Government's response to the proposed changes to the planning arrangements, on page 14, is in my view pretty woolly. It says:
"We would, therefore, expect planning arrangements under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to increasingly become the norm."
Does that mean that that will happen in 100 years' time, or that it will happen once this year and twice in ten years' time? It is, frankly, not very helpful.
160WH
I shall mention the jobs situation briefly, because it is very similar to what my hon. Friends have already described, and I do not want to bore the Minister by repeating the same points. In the late 1970s, four huge factories in Skelmersdale, including Courtaulds and Dunlop, closed down within weeks of one another when the grants and the rate relief ran out. Some 4,000 jobs were lost overnight. That was a crippling blow in a town of that size. I am delighted to say that unemployment in Skelmersdale is now much lower, which is very positive, but over the years those factories have been replaced with firms with no roots in the area. They come in and are there for a few years. If they flourish, they stay a little longer, but if they flourish a great deal, they are taken over by another firm, which tends these days to be an American parent firm, and moved to Romania. That has happened to several firms recently. The jobs available in Skelmersdale are always very shaky. There is always uncertainty among the people over whether their jobs will still be there the next year.
The Government have brushed aside underlying arguments clearly put forward by the Select Committee. There is a serious democratic deficit in the new towns, where substantial resources continue to rest in the hands of English Partnerships, a quango with which the elected local council may or may not have a close working relationship. I am pleased, and want to put on record, that my council tells me that in the past few months those relationships have become much better and more positive. It is happy about that. The Government say that English Partnerships will be a "key player". They state:
"We are not now proposing to divest English Partnerships of its non-strategic assets to local authorities, but rather for EP to ensure that their value in achieving the Government's objective is realised to the full."
That sounds pretty fine, but I am not sure what it amounts to in reality. It is safe to say that a good, sympathetic, positive and forward-looking quango is better than one that is not. Such a change has taken place, and I welcome it.
I recognise that the Government are enjoined to work with each new town's local authority, which is now happening. I also understand—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that English Partnerships can now acquire land and be involved in developments outside the new town. If so, the Government have not only rejected the proposal to transfer controlled assets from a quango to democratic local authorities—as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) told us his Committee recommended—but are presiding over an expansion of quango powers beyond the remit of the Commission for the New Towns into and around my local authority areas.
Finally, I want to express my dismay at the general tenor of the Government response. It seeks to refute the argument of new town MPs and the Select Committee that new towns are special and require particular attention. One obvious example is that new town estates were often built rapidly over a limited period and are therefore decaying at the same time.
It may not be true of other new towns, but mine has a parallel problem with the population. Large families moved in and bred rapidly, but the size of families is now much smaller and the number of young people in the town has collapsed over the past few years. Projections

161WH
suggest that that will continue for some time. All of a sudden, we have a problem with schools that we no longer need. This year we shall have to decide which schools to close. Such problems are peculiar to new towns, because of their manufactured, non-organic history.
In Skelmersdale, we have tried every experimental building method known to man—and even some that are not. Some proved catastrophic. It is not so bad now because the worst houses have been pulled down. If I had wanted to, I could have shown members of the Select Committee houses in which they could have put their hands through the corner of a room into the garden and picked a flower. Those houses were built on metal frames with concrete slabs, but many of the frames rusted and twisted. We still face the legacy of such experiments. In the 1960s, such houses might have seemed all right, but they left a dramatic legacy.
Mr. McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of that legacy was the vast use of asbestos, as a result of which even pulling buildings down is extremely hazardous and difficult?
Mr. Pickthall: Indeed, it posed many complications. On one fairly large estate, the council has removed asbestos over the past couple of years, but only from those houses that are still rented. People who bought their houses unaware of the asbestos in them have to sort it all out themselves, at a cost of several thousand pounds, and many are elderly people who do not have the resources to do so. That is certainly a damaging legacy. No one living now is to blame for it, but the problem is still with us.
The introduction to the Government response refers to the desire of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for new towns to be "normalised". I am glad that they put the word in inverted commas. It sounds rather sinister. It sounds like the sort of thing that the Americans did in Vietnam: "We'll normalise this piece of territory." The Government go on to talk about ensuring
"parity of treatment with other local authorities".
That is fair enough and it is encouraging, but a major part of that normalisation must be to seek to ameliorate the problems created by the Radburn design. I shall not go into that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has described it more than adequately. Paragraph 3 of the introduction describes it as militating against sustainable living communities. That is one point in the Government response with which I absolutely agree. The rest of the paragraph, which addresses what we shall do about the Radburn principle and the design flaws, is well-meaning waffle. It does not mean anything.
The enormous effort and cost involved in correcting the problems that the Radburn design has created must be acknowledged. I maintain that the assets in the control of the CNT and English Partnerships should be used—perhaps they are being used now, as things are being handled more sensibly—by the local authority in that work. The local authority is the best body to organise that, and I speak as someone who for the last
162WH
12 months has had a Conservative-controlled local authority. However, it is democratically elected, concerned about the future of the new town and anxious to do its best for it.
Skelmersdale is helping, whether consciously or not, the Government's programme for affordable housing and better housing, because all round the edge of it huge new private estates are being built. The houses are very nice. If they were in the south-east of England, they would be worth £250,000 apiece, but in that area they are relatively low-cost houses. They are improving the town and avoid the mistakes that were made in the building of the existing new town. There are many thousands of them. However, we could end up with quite a nice dormitory area all round the edge of Skem, like a big doughnut, with a rotting core of the old new town, without a town centre. That prospect does not cheer me up at all.
Mr. McWalter: Does my hon. Friend draw any comfort from the claims made repeatedly in the Government response that the standard spending assessment system is being abolished and replaced with a new local government settlement, and that that is the way in which these matters will be dealt with?
Mr. Pickthall: As my efforts over many years to understand the standard spending assessment have absolutely failed, the answer is no, that does not give me any comfort, although it does remind me to place on the record the fact that my area has also had its support for housing chopped back in the last year. That is causing us considerable problems.
It must be remembered that new towns such as Skelmersdale represent work still in progress. They are not a finished job; they have never been capped off. Debts are paid off, but cash from assets is still being taken out by the Treasury. I still maintain, despite the reports and the nice things that I have said about English Partnerships, that those assets should be used to help to finish off the new towns—in the nicest possible way. They should be used to make them the living communities that the Government say that they are anxious to construct. That enormous task will be very difficult, but many people out there are willing to take it on, and most of them are elected.
3.59 pm
Matthew Green: I welcome the debate, and in particular the Select Committee report, which examines the problems of the so-called new towns in some detail. The report, and the Government's unsatisfactory response to it, revolve around whether one accepts that the new towns have a unique case compared with other areas. In summary, the Government's response is that the problems of new towns can be dealt with in the same way as those of other areas. One could have some sympathy with that view, if it were not for one major difference between the new towns and other areas: a substantial amount of land in new towns is owned by a Government quango, English Partnerships, and the controlling interest that that quango has over the planning and development of the new towns does not exist anywhere else.
The Government may have strong arguments for saying that, with the new formula spending share, which has replaced the standard spending assessment, unique

163WH
cases could be made for towns throughout the country. I, for one, would argue that the Government have not taken enough account of rural areas, and that new towns adjoining rural areas, such as Telford, get a better settlement than the rural districts. However, the important issue with new towns is that the land and the assets are in the hands of a quango, and cannot be used to the full extent in helping their regeneration—or in some cases their required rebirth.
We should also bear it in mind that the new towns are not all the same. We have just heard about Skelmersdale, where the polite word that might be used about the core of the town is stagnation. However, other new towns, such as Telford, are expanding and thriving. Moreover, Milton Keynes, where the Government are planning to build a lot more housing, will continue to be a "new" town because of the rapid development that is planned for it.
I shall add a little historical perspective to the debate. Hon. Members will probably not know that my degree is in mediaeval studies. I know that new towns are nothing new. Ludlow is a formally laid out mediaeval new town. I would not have described the Mortimers, who planned the town in the 12th century, as Stalinist. Formal planning does not have to be viewed as a centralised approach. Ludlow is a very successful new town from the 12th century. Our biggest problem is that in the 12th century they did not realise that the motor car would be invented, so there are no parking spaces. Many of Ludlow's problems are a result of its success.
There are also new towns that were built in the 12th and 13th centuries that no longer exist. There is a place in Shropshire called Caus, which is now a field, but was once a planned, formally laid out town. In the past, towns have been successful or not, and we must take a historical view of that. There will be nothing really new. There may soon be new "new towns", although they might not be called that, at Ashford and Thames gateway.
To return to the report, as I am sure that hon. Members would prefer me to do, there are several areas that should be examined, the first of which is planning. There is a particular problem where a large amount of land is owned by a quango and that quango has rights with no equivalent elsewhere. That prevents local authorities from developing proactive local planning strategies. The capacity to use section 106 agreements to get planning gain is also limited compared with other areas. As a by-product, the local authority also has a reduced fee income from the administration of the planning system, because so much of the land is owned by English Partnerships. The Government cannot ignore that, and pretend that new towns are like the rest of the country, because that ownership does not exist in other areas.
There is also the financial aspect. With both the 2 per cent. clawback and the fact that only 20 per cent. of the asset is put back into the area, there are some situations in which the areas are still seen as milch cows that keep the Treasury happy. We have heard about the crazy case of Skelmersdale, which is attracting regeneration money into one hand and seeing money disappearing off to Government from the other. If we tried to explain that to local taxpayers, they would be more than baffled.
164WH
The financial aspects need to be reviewed. More importantly, we need to learn some lessons, because in the future we will need to develop the equivalent of new towns, and to develop and redevelop the existing new towns. There was an exchange about low or high density, but the real problem with new town development was the separation of the new towns into different zones in which people live, work and shop. Successful towns throughout the centuries have merged those activities in one site. People live above shops and are in thriving centres at all times of the day, because they either live there or are visiting for entertainment. That is lost with the modular approach, which is also designed around the motor car.
Mr. Hammond: Is not the essence of traditional towns that different parts of them get redeveloped at different stages, so no single fad or design concept of the moment is imposed across them all? That is what gives them their vibrancy and character, which are so often lacking in some of our new towns.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but it goes only so far. Historic towns that have been developed piecemeal have been in existence for much longer, and the 30-year-old new towns will develop piecemeal from now on. He has a point, as the infrastructure problems stem from the fact that they were all built at the same time, but I would not stretch it too far.
David Wright: The point is that there are pockets of problems, deprivation and poor design surrounded by other areas and communities that are successful. We do not want to affect the successful communities; we want to tackle the problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could use a different design approach in each area while retaining the character of the successful elements of new town communities?
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is spot on with that approach. That does not involve ignoring strategic planning, as good strategic planning would ensure different designs, feels and characteristics for different parts. I know Telford well, as I was born and bred in Shropshire, which Telford is still formally part of. Many people in Telford will still say that they come from Wellington or Ironbridge, referring to the old communities. Some of those are successful, but we have also heard about the problem estates, especially those built on the Radburn design. It is not an easy decision for local authorities or the Government to consider, but I suspect that we may reach the stage of having to demolish the Radburn estates, rather than trying to fiddle with them.
Andrew Bennett: Some Radburn estates many need to be pulled down, but we must remember how the tenure has developed on them. There is owner-occupation, because people have bought their homes, and a significant amount of rented accommodation, because private landlords have moved in, particularly in places such as Telford. Sadly, they are some of the worst private landlords, and I hope that the Housing (Overcrowding) Bill will start to deal with that problem.

165WH
Putting the different interests together in one package is complicated, and the process is further complicated by the fact that ownership of some of the land is unknown.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has hit the point. The problem is not always that land ownership is unknown. Some strips of land have, in effect, become ransom strips for any future development. There are many problems. Central Government legislation may be needed to provide more radical ways of dealing with the problem of the complexity of ownership of sites.
Mr. Hammond: It may be inconvenient to anyone who wants to take a redevelopment approach that the new towns are not necessarily under single ownership. However, surely that simply repeats the pattern that exists in every other community and town in every other part of the country? There are various tenures, and various owners, good and bad, co-operative and uncooperative.
Matthew Green: Yes, in a sense, but I invite the hon. Gentleman to walk around some of the estates in Telford, although the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) might not be too keen. He will see that the problem is much more systematic than would arise from a more organic process of the past.
Mr. McWalter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of those ransom strips are now being actively conveyed to the local authority following some of the recent changes to English Partnerships? That is certainly happening in my area. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, and ask the Minister to consolidate that move.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not disagree that some of the recent changes to English Partnerships have been for the better. Frankly, the worst days for new towns were in the 1980s and 1990s when there was a laissez-faire approach, as it was described, and distant landlords. I welcome some of the changes, but problems remain that the Government have yet to accept. That emerges from their response; they do not accept that the problems exist. Members of the Select Committee and most other people accept that the problems are very real.
Another major point to make about the new towns is that they were built around the car. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s, the car was not seen as the environmental problem that it is now. That had several effects. We heard about the roundabouts, which create great problems. Telford, which is on my doorstep, and Redditch, which is not that far away, share the characteristic of hundreds of roundabouts.
Moats were another effect that the very effective road system created. They prevent people from travelling on foot from one part of the town to another. Telford town centre, which I know well, is like a large shopping mall that could be anywhere. It could be Merry Hill, which is an out-of-town shopping mall, but it is not: it is in the centre of Telford. Hardly anyone would ever walk there or take public transport. Everyone drives there. Office blocks and successful businesses surround it, but each
166WH
one of them is a small island surrounded by car parking spaces. At 6 o'clock, they are dead and distant. It is a long way for anyone to walk into the town centre from any of the housing areas.
Mr. McWalter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing us to add to points that we made in the main debate. Is he aware that the cars were also separated from the houses? A row of houses was built, followed by a garage block, the assumption being that all these proud car owners would put their cars into the garages at night. That does not happen now. Hardly any of the garages are used to house cars, but are the centres for drug trafficking and a variety of other antisocial uses such that one of our needs is for many of those garage blocks to be entirely demolished.
Matthew Green: That is a fair point. One of the longterm routes out of this is that when areas of new towns are redeveloped, as they will have to be, rather than a residential area just being redeveloped as a residential area we should look more closely at live-work schemes. We should perhaps try to make the communities work on that site, rather than have this continual divorcing of different parts in different places. I would like to see a bit more support from the Government for live-work schemes. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is currently going through Parliament. There is quite a bit of concern about developers' mixed use schemes. The reduction in planning consents down to three years may be welcome in straight housing sites but could be a serious problem in mixed use developments. Perhaps the Minister could give us an assurance that he will look into that.
We have a well thought out and cogent Select Committee report and a Government response that at best imitates the action of an ostrich with its head firmly in the sand. They are pretending that the problem is not there. These problems will not go away. There is the decline in the infrastructure, the problems of all the buildings becoming old at the same time and the fact that the Government are taking the lion's share of the finance sitting in the land. That finance could be used to redevelop those areas. That has to be addressed at some point. If it is not, it will keep coming back year after year, until finally this or another Government concede the point and allow the money to go back.
The Minister may not be able to persuade the Chancellor. It may be a difficult task, but he needs to start trying. At some point in the next few years some of that money must be invested back into these towns. It is only fair that it should be. Future sites such as Thames gateway, Ashford and Milton Keynes are coming on. We owe it to them to learn the lessons of what has worked and what has failed in the new towns. We must work to solve the problems that have been created and ensure that those problems are not created for the new generation of settlements.
4.17 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) on his presentation of the Select Committee report. As a former member of that Committee, albeit for a rather brief period, I find it a particular pleasure to take part in this debate. It has

167WH
been characterised by a great deal of expertise. That is hardly surprising, as almost all the hon. Members who have spoken represent new towns. I cannot claim to represent one myself, but I grew up in Essex and anyone who grows up there has a passing acquaintance with new towns.
The debate is timely because the Government are proposing new settlements. It is an appropriate moment to look at some of the inherited problems from the last wave of new settlement buildings before plunging into the new wave. It is also interesting that a number of hon. Members referred to the problems that have arisen from what were regarded at the time as novel, modern and innovative building techniques. Houses were built quickly using the kind of techniques that the Deputy Prime Minister advocates to address the affordable housing crisis in the south-east.
I hope that the Government will think carefully about the lesson of the new towns in relation to unconventional building techniques. I am sure that when Skelmersdale was built, experts advised that those techniques were perfectly sound and well researched and would not present problems in the future. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the construction techniques that the Deputy Prime Minister advocates for this new wave are less susceptible to such dangers.
The report is good and worthwhile, although I do not agree with all its recommendations. I do not share the rose-tinted affection of the Chairman of the Committee for the designers of the new towns. Hon. Members had mixed views about whether brickbats or bouquets should be awarded to the architects and town planners of the 1950s and 1960s.
There is some Labour party grief to be worked through; every Labour Member who spoke expressed disappointment and dismay and emphasised the gap between the Select Committee's recommendations and the Government's response, to which the Minister will reply in due course.
I identify two conflicts between the report and the Government's response. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that the Government's response was basically, "Get lost". More specifically, the Select Committee has emphasised the need for special treatment of the new towns, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has emphasised the desire of the new towns for normalcy, and to be treated as part of the general community.
In rather extraordinary language for a Government response, it is suggested in paragraph 34 that the best way to benefit areas in greatest need is "bending mainstream programmes". I am not sure what that means, but it is not what one expects civil servants writing a response to suggest. There seem to be some unresolved differences between the Committee's recommendations and the Government's response.
The second clear area of conflict is that the Select Committee's overall thrust is to recommend giving local authorities greater autonomy and allowing them to retain capital receipts in order to deal with problems at local level, using local people and democratically elected local forums. It recommends specifically the transfer of the assets of English Partnerships to the relevant local authorities.
168WH
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was gentle on the Government over their response to the Select Committee recommendation, which the Government comprehensively rejected. They prefer to control the agenda from the centre through English Partnerships and the Regional Development Agencies. The Government intend to retain clawback and prefer to have the money available for disposal from the centre so that they can determine where regeneration will take place, rather than allowing locally generated receipts to fuel local redevelopment. That is the antithesis of local government.
The pooling of capital receipts, which the Government propose in clause 11 of the Local Government Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, is a further step in the wrong direction. It is a step away from local autonomy and towards enabling the Government to direct investment according to their agenda and in a way that is not subject to scrutiny and control by democratically elected local authorities.
David Wright: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I want to know why, in 18 years in government, the Conservative Administration did not make any of the changes or work with new towns on the basis that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Hammond: During the past 20 years, the situation has been evolving. I am not here to make a party political point; the Select Committee report made various recommendations and suggested certain actions, some of which the Government have rejected. The debate this afternoon is between those hon. Members who support the Select Committee's recommendations and the Minister defending the Government's response.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not here to score party political points, but is he saying that a Conservative Government would allow clawback and give control of the funds back to the councils? Is that now Conservative party policy?
Mr. Hammond: I shall not make policy on the hoof. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of recent debates on the Local Government Bill, so he should know that we greatly resisted the Government's proposal for the pooling of capital receipts, which is a parallel example. He should be able to deduce that it would be inconsistent to reject the pooling of local authority capital receipts and at the same time advocate continuation of the clawback of receipts to English Partnerships. I shall return to the point in a few moments.
The Select Committee and the Government agree that not all new towns have the same characteristics and needs. Some are in areas where low demand aggravates the physical problems. Others, particularly in the southeast and around London, are areas of high demand, facing the problem of the lack of affordable housing, though there might he potential for brownfield redevelopment of higher densities than currently apply.
David Wright: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I am not attacking him, but does he acknowledge that the high and low demand equation

169WH
often occurs within the towns? Some estates in Telford are pockets of deprivation where demand for property is low, but in others two miles down the road the demand for housing is high. It is not simply a north-south divide; the market dynamics are far more complex.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is certainly not just a north-south issue, as hotspots exist all around the country. It is incontrovertible, however, that in the south-east, where the pressure for more affordable housing is greatest, the new towns—perhaps including some of their more depressed parts—provide more potential for redevelopment as higher density communities. That could prove a solution to the affordable housing crisis from which London and the south-east suffer.
All the new towns are affected by problems such as poor sustainability, car dependence, and inadequate infrastructure and housing stock—often as a result of building methods. Another problem that new towns often share is coming into obsolescence at the same time. It is the coincidence of obsolescence that underpins many of the issues raised by new town Members here today.
I should like to focus on the report and the Government's response, and put some specific points to the Minister. Recommendation (a) deals with the licensing of landlords, which the Select Committee clearly linked to the receipt of housing benefit. It is unclear from their response, however, whether the Government make that link. They refer to making it a criminal offence for a private landlord who is not licensed to let a property, yet in the next sentence talk about no housing benefit being payable.
It is wholly appropriate and legitimate for the Government to consider introducing a system of licensing landlords who are to be beneficiaries of housing benefit. However, it is equally clear that requiring landlords to have a licence to let—with the corollary that if they do not have a licence they will be committing a criminal offence by letting, not necessarily to someone in receipt of housing benefit but to anyone—represents a significant erosion of the rights of private property, with potentially significant implications for human rights. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify the Government's intentions on that point.
Andrew Bennett: We are looking forward to the draft housing Bill that will deal with that matter. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are two separate problems? In many parts of the country private landlords do not cause any problems. However, particularly in some areas of low demand in the north and the new towns, some landlords appear to put tenants into a property with a view to making the property next door almost unsellable. In that case, it is a question not just of whether those people receive benefit or not but of the behaviour of the landlord.
170WH
I hope that the Government will consider enabling local authorities to take action against all landlords whether they are in receipt of benefit or not. In other places, it will be necessary only when they are in receipt of benefit.
Mr. Hammond: I look forward to having that discussion with the hon. Gentleman when the draft housing Bill is published, but the issue of compensation will arise. Local authorities can compulsorily purchase properties, but the compulsory letting of properties suggested in the communities plan is not compulsory purchase but the state's requiring a landlord to take an action that he might not otherwise take. That is a significant step.
There will be issues relating to compensation. I do not know whether the Government intend to allow landlords who are not licensed and cannot let their property to require the local authority to purchase it. It would be interesting to learn that, but it might be more appropriate to discuss it when the draft housing Bill is published.
Recommendation (b) draws attention to the problems of low density, and the Government's response cites the Greenwich millennium village, which on the face of it looks like an interesting example of a new high-density sustainable development of 80 dwellings per hectare. Hon. Members will know that the proposed developers of the millennium dome site held an exhibition in the House a couple of weeks ago. I had the opportunity to talk to them about the Greenwich millennium village and discovered that very few of the occupants of those dwellings were families. They were mainly single people and young couples.
Of course, the population is increasingly composed of single-person households. We must recognise that, but I maintain that an essential part of the glue of our social fabric is the family. Families have an ownership of communities that single people do not. We all had the experience when we were younger of living in areas mainly composed of single person households, in which people arrive in their cars and leave in their cars. There is not the same sense of community that there is when families are present. I am concerned that no one has yet come up with a model for high-density urban living that will be attractive to families with children as opposed to professional couples and single households.
Andrew Bennett: The attractive feature of the Greenwich millennium village is that it already has a functioning school—I assume that there must be children for the school to function—and a family health centre. It is not as balanced a community as the hon. Gentleman would like, but it is fairly balanced, and the key thing is that the facilities are put in place at the same time as the new housing is developed.
Mr. Hammond: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and it is an interesting experiment. However, it seems to me that the jury is out, and 10 or 20 years down the line, the absence of a mix of population in that development may be an issue. Perhaps we should all watch it with great interest.
Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that his Government left a report to the effect that some

171WH
4.4 million homes were needed in the south-east of England, and we were left to deal with it? That report identified the huge growth in single-person households as the main driver of that housing need. Clearly, a programme that dealt with that need and gave single people a reasonable chance of getting accommodation in the near future would be extremely welcome.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is obviously right. There is going to be great interest in the need for accommodation for single people. It would not be beneficial for our cities and urban areas to be redeveloped as high-rise, high-density, single-person accommodation, while the suburbs became the places where people moved when they wanted to have families. That would be a bad model, and I am sure that the Government would not want that kind of social apartheid. I am simply pointing out an area of concern. The jury is out and we all need to watch with interest—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening to the debate extremely carefully and it appears to be wandering into other areas. We are debating the Select Committee's report and recommendations and the Government's response to them. I suggest that I have shown discretion and that we should deal with the report and the Government's response.
Mr. Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that valuable guidance.
Recommendation (e) of the Select Committee's report deals with neighbourhood management problems. The Select Committee thinks that part of the blame lies with the fragmented ownership that has arisen out of the right to buy. One or two hon. Members have clarified some of the issues. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that it is still the Government's view that mixed tenure communities are likely to be successful and that mixed tenure is a positive thing. I am sure that neither I nor the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish want the Select Committee's report to be interpreted as suggesting that the introduction of different forms of tenure into an area is a negative thing.
I want to ask the Minister about business improvement districts, which we have been discussing in the context of the Local Government Bill. There is much reference to local authority-led initiatives in relation to town centres in new towns, but the Government's response contains absolutely no reference to BIDs. Will the Government confirm that they regard BIDs as an appropriate potential solution and a tool for use in new town centres?
As I have already said, new towns in the London area need more affordable housing. Instead of addressing that need for more affordable housing in the new towns, the Government refer in paragraph 32 of their response to the announced new focus points in the south-east—the Thames gateway, Ashford and the Cambridge-Stansted corridor. However, in paragraph 13 they suggest that the intensification of development within the existing new towns can be an important route to the delivery of affordable housing. Will the Minister confirm that the Government see the new towns in the south-east as a significant source of land for affordable housing? Will he confirm that paragraph 57, which refers to English Partnerships' land being a source of
172WH
affordable housing, means that English Partnerships will cease to dispose of land for market housing? If that is so, what are the implications for mixed communities and mixed tenure development?
Recommendations (j), (k), (o) and (p) deal specifically with the role of English Partnerships, and the Government's response is the exact opposite of what the Select Committee recommended. The Select Committee suggested that English Partnerships should become a consultancy, having divested itself of its assets to local authorities. Local authorities would call English Partnerships in as a consultant where appropriate and the RDAs would get involved only in genuinely strategic sites. The Government have decided that English Partnerships is to drive the whole process. Paragraph 40 of the Government's response states:
"English Partnerships will work closely with the Housing Corporation, and with other key agencies including the RDAs".
The paragraph makes no mention of local authorities.
We also have to consider something that hon. Members have not mentioned. I hope that they are aware of the Government's proposal to sequester 75 per cent. of all capital receipts, rather than capital receipts only in the new towns. A pattern is emerging of local authorities being emasculated by a Government who have decided that the regeneration and redevelopment of urban areas, including the new towns, will not be led by elected community representatives and will effectively be in the hands of their agencies.
All hon. Members who have spoken have touched on the need for investment in redevelopment or refurbishment of obsolete or nearly obsolete stock. What is the Government's assessment of the scale of that problem? There will clearly be a time after which the housing stock and infrastructure of the new towns will come to the end of their useful lives. The Government response tells us that £4.7 billion, which includes money spent on the planning system, will be available by 2005–06. Can the Minister say how much of that money will go to the new towns? Can he put that in the context of the Government's assessment of the need for the renewal of obsolete infrastructure and stock in the new towns?
Recommendation (m) is that clawback from right-to-buy sales should be abolished. That was the major theme of the Select Committee report, but the Government have rejected the recommendation outright, while referring to their protection of public investment in the new towns, although, as several Members have commented, the debts have been paid off. The Select Committee's concern was to put the new towns on a similar basis to that of other local authorities. I must say to the Chairman of the Select Committee that the Government have done that by a rather different route. They have sequestered 75 per cent, of the capital receipts of all local authorities, in effect extending clawback to all local authorities and all right-to-buy sales, which is a huge centralising measure that will give the Government, not local authorities and local people, control over the regeneration and redevelopment agenda.
Paragraph 48 of the Government response says that English Partnerships has the power to waive clawback or to transfer it to a local authority. Local authorities are being subjected to the sequestration of 75 per cent.

173WH
of capital receipts. Can the Minister explain how the power to waive or transfer clawback will operate? Is that still a valid statement in view of clause 11 of the Local Government Bill? A local authority has raised that specific question with me.
Recommendation (v) relates to the evaluation of the experiment at a time when the Government propose to move forward with more new settlements. The recommendation seems sensible, and, although the Government have not rejected it, their response, which discusses thematic studies, is unclear. Will the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to learn the lessons of the new town experiment in a formalised way, particularly in terms of innovative building methods? How do the Government intend to learn from those experiences in developing the new communities of the future?
The Government have rejected the Select Committee's central proposals and have chosen to take a Treasury-led centralising approach with the central allocation of funding for redevelopment and renewal. They have chosen to reject any explicit recognition of the special problems arising from the coincidence over a short time of many routine renewal requirements in the new towns. That approach is repeated in the Local Government Bill and the new local government funding formula, which the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead mentioned. It seems that the Government have rejected the opportunity provided by the Select Committee report to address the liabilities that will accrue from the housing stock and infrastructure of the new towns if they are not tackled immediately.
4.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): This has been a good debate and I am pleased to have so much time to respond. We need to understand the context. The Select Committee report was published in July, at almost the same time as the Deputy Prime Minister's first statement of intent, following the comprehensive spending review, on 18 July and almost at the same time as the quinquennial review of English Partnerships and all that that entailed. It was responded to in November 2002 and, as someone said earlier, it is clearly a work in progress if ever there was one.
We have almost completed the jigsaw with the announcement of the sustainable communities document in February 2003. If the Select Committee's report was timely, much has happened since, and Members need to understand the wider context and all that has prevailed since its publication. Their characterisation of the report has done a disservice to the new towns that they represent and to the response to that report. It is not a dismissive document. With all that has happened since, I would have thought it unnecessary to make such remarks, some of which I shall return to.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was right about one matter in his entirely non-partisan conclusion—not. It is no accident that barely one new town is represented by a Conservative—most of the rest fell away in 1997— but
174WH
he is right that the response is not, "Get lost." We are not well served by selective quotations that anyone could make from the report. There are elements unique to some new towns, but not to others. There are elements of social fabric unique to some of our new towns, but not to them all.
If I were being flippant, which I am not, because this is a serious subject, I would say that Harrow could be characterised as a new town, certainly as much as Ludlow, given that about three-quarters of its housing stock was built in the 1930s. Happily for Harrow—I do not know about Ludlow—it was slightly better built with a greater concern for high quality and design than much of the housing stock in the new towns, although I will not make special pleadings for 1930s Nash-built pairs of semis that might reach the end of their natural life in 30 or 40 years. Happily, the houses were built to last and were worthy of 100 years or more.
That is not to belittle the perhaps five types of difficulty in our new towns, but to say that either the Government's response or all that the Government have outlined since the report's publication fails to respond to them is not useful. Many of the points made about employment and reliance on single employers are a feature of the flawed aspects of the social engineering that went into some new towns. Sadly, when travelling the country, I see similar factors in communities that have sprung up since, and indeed long before, the new towns were built, as well as communities that have sought to reinvent themselves and been clobbered by what might be called reliance on a mono-industry culture.
I think in particular of Torbay, whose 1920s elegance is faded to say the least. It relies wholly on tourism and has a wonderful Edwardian facade that makes it look very posh and rich, but it is 89th in our list of most deprived areas and has significant pockets of poverty. The area has sought to reverse the decline in tourism by relying more and more on mobile phones and telecommunications. That was fine when there was a taker for them—it led to a little boom in Torbay's economy for some time—but then there was a shut down, with all the commensurate difficulties that Corby has encountered with steel and that many other new towns and other areas have encountered. To say that many difficulties of the new towns are not unique is not to dismiss or belittle them—it is to be realistic. Very serious points have been made, however, and I want to deal with them.
No one has said that the Government response somehow implies that the new towns are not relevant. Some 10 sit squarely in the huge tri-regional growth area of London, the south-east and the east, where we are following the communities plan and putting in significant amounts of money. The notion that those 10 new towns will not be part of the growth areas and housing growth in those regions is complete nonsense. We must learn from mistakes in the new town movement when we move on with those growth areas, which is why the debate and the report have been useful. However, I am certain that those 10 new towns will be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
It is right and proper that the sustainable communities plan dwelt on the four growth areas in London, the south-east and the east, but people will know if they look at the housing numbers that, even if

175WH
we achieve every single housing aspiration in those growth areas, that represents but 50 per cent. of the commonly agreed growth targets that we need to meet for those regions. To say that other new towns will not have a role is not appropriate.
I can understand that expectations were raised by the Select Committee report, which I fully accept is extremely good. I can also understand the elation after decades of neglect, not least by the Conservative party, which had a judgment meted out to it in 1997 and subsequently. However, I do not understand the horror that has been referred to at the Government response and at what the Government have done since. In the context of the response, I do not accept that every recommendation was entirely rebuffed. Let me say this in the gentlest terms: the notion that there is no longterm interest in the viability of those communities at the core of the Government response is not accurate.
To say that some civil servants still rule the roost is an unnecessary attack on officials. If hon. Friends do not like the Government response or what I say as a Minister, they should attack me, not the officials who stand behind me. They have no recourse to a response. If people have a problem with the policies of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, what I have said or what the Government response says, they should attack the Department or the relevant Minister. They should not characterise things as indifference by officials who are with us now or who were with us previously. It is not appropriate to do that in any way, shape or form.
Mr. McWalter: As my hon. Friend gave evidence to the Select Committee when he had been in post for only four weeks, it was inevitable that a significant contribution to his response would be made by those who briefed him.
Mr. McNulty: That is as may be—I am sure that it is as factual as the sun coming up tomorrow—but that does not alter the fact that it is inappropriate for elected politicians to hide behind their position to attack officials in any way, shape or form. If people do not like what the Government do, they should attack the Government. If they do not like what I say, they should attack me. They should not tell me that there is a horrible number of civil servants behind me who were indifferent to what new towns were about in the 1970s and 1980s and who are indifferent now. People should not say that those civil servants put words in my mouth and that that is why I am indifferent. Frankly, that does not serve anyone's purpose, nor does the notion that since 1977 in respect of new towns we have had government by diktat a la Nicholas Ridley. Equally, that is not true. It is not why people got elected in 1997.
I have been up and down the country, and I have seen examples of crumbling libraries, colleges with flat roofs and so on in new towns and outside them, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) described. That is not to belittle the experience of new towns, but we do not serve them by suggesting that their problems with crumbling public infrastructure, whether libraries or colleges, are unique. I have crumbling libraries in my constituency. All
176WH
significant urban areas have crumbling libraries and badly built and designed public buildings of poor quality—of course they do.
Mr. Donohoe: Surely my hon. Friend the Minister accepts that the quick build that occurred during the period that we are talking about, which is mainly the 1960s, resulted in poor architecture. That is why, some 30 years later, we are experiencing problems and the new towns are taking a big hit. No other towns have comparable problems. I challenge him to give an example from any part of the country of a town built in the 1960s that is not a new town.
Mr. McNulty: That is not the point. The comments about the quantity and obsolescence of an array of housing stock are well made—I am not trying to belittle the difficulties—but I can say the same about the mill towns of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There is seriously low demand in pockets of the north, which is not to do with the fabric, but with social engineering.
Sadly for us all, much that was built in urban areas, especially in the 1960s, has crumbled. The school that I went to was very good, but I spent half my time in mobile units in the playground—the building was condemned because not enough concrete was used to build it. Yes, there are problems in urban areas and in some parts of, perhaps, every new town, but they are not crumbling, decaying wrecks from top to bottom in quite the way that some people would have it.
Mr. McWalter: Most Members accept that every community has major difficulties with renovation of infrastructure, but in any given decade most communities need perhaps 20 per cent. of their infrastructure to receive such renovation. It is unusual for a community to have to deal with a percentage much greater than that. Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that the extraction of money from local authorities—£10 million from mine—through negative subsidy alone creates special problems and deprives areas of the resources to effect very necessary renovations?
Mr. McNulty: I recognise that there are special problems, not least in terms of volume and the fact that much decaying stock is coming on stream at the same time, but it is indicative that most new towns do not have the significant problems of low demand and abandonment that exist in some areas. I shall return to that when I deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright).
I do not mean to over-egg the pudding. It is not appropriate to undermine very real problems, but when we talk about new towns moving to normality, there is nothing sinister in it—that is exactly what they must do. When we talk about the democratic deficit and moving towards the framework of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, people ask, "What does that mean?" Precisely, it means overcoming the democratic deficit that people accept exists in other dimensions. I shall return to that issue.
Of course infrastructure is wearing out. The Radburn layout scheme was a complete travesty, and it was certainly not designed for its durability or on any notion of sustainability. This has been pointed out, and I shall return to it in a moment:

177WH
"The Government is not prepared to give up clawback or sales receipts in the New Towns as a general principle."
Fine. Members can refer to that if they want, but please will they quote it in the context of the next two sentences? They are:
"We need to be sure that the investment the Government has made in the new towns is protected. As we explained … in some circumstances, and with the agreement of the Treasury, English Partnerships might waive clawback or transfer the right to receive clawback to the relevant local authority."
If the whole piece is quoted, it makes sense as a response, whether one agrees with it or not. If one simply quotes the first part, one cannot sustain an argument that it is dismissive.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: No, because I shall deal with what the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me in a moment. He will understand that when we get to it.
I am not downplaying some of the new towns' problems, nor the variety between and within new towns, but we could have a similar debate about seaside towns, market towns or the 88 inner-city ward areas. Those places have different problems of different magnitudes, but they are specialised and unique problems none the less.
The point has been made, which is fair in part, that, overwhelmingly, new towns do not receive neighbourhood renewal funding. One response to that is that if they are not in the 88 top wards, why should they receive such funding? The mechanism for distributing those funds uses the condition that an area has to have one of the 88 most deprived wards in the country, and if it does not, it does not get anything. I have significant pockets of deprivation in my constituency, but we do not get neighbourhood renewal money for the same reason—there is a quantum when compared with the overall borough authority.
However, a serious matter underlies that point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford said. Although the mechanisms and data did not necessarily exist for smaller-area remuneration districts the last time the index of multiple deprivation was looked at, the neighbourhood renewal unit has now engaged academics and researchers from Oxford university to review that situation. We are about halfway through that review, in which we are trying to capture an area beyond the ward—sub-ward and small-area level. That is problematic, and we are committed to addressing it. That could increase the availability of neighbourhood renewal funding for some new towns and other areas where there are distinct, but very deep, pockets of poverty which are not captured by the wider mechanism.
On setting up market renewal areas in the new towns, I suspect that I have no substantial good news. The pathfinders are quite deliberately focused on the most acute areas of widespread market failure, and, with the best will in the world, we cannot say that that is a significant feature of new towns. I know that Telford has the worst examples and manifestations of the problems affecting the new towns but, as my hon. Friend the
178WH
Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) said, it is nothing like the east Lancashire pathfinder area, where housing problems, in all their forms, are writ large. The new towns do not have the emerging problems of Oldham and Rochdale, where I was on Tuesday, or some parts of Merseyside and South Yorkshire, where there are problems of low demand, abandonment and other complexities.
We will, however, be able to translate to the new towns, and other areas, the significant lessons that we learn from tackling the issues of low demand and abandonment in the nine pathfinder areas. That process happens in a range of our other programmes. We need to learn the lessons of new build in the 1960s in general, and of the new towns in particular, not least in terms of quality, design and density, and the problems with transport that have been mentioned. We should not repeat the mistakes in the growth areas.
Andrew Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that in some pathfinder areas where problems are pretty desperate, it may be necessary to put in nine stitches to turn the area round, but in places such as Telford, where market weakness is just starting, we may need to put in only one stitch to achieve that? We should make some effort now in places that are starting to suffer market weakness, rather than waiting until they are in the worst state.
Mr. McNulty: That is exactly what English Partnerships is doing in Woodside and the four other strategic sites that it will retain in Telford. We have made it clear that what is needed is good quality and design, not tinkering and the built-in obsolescence that resulted from a decade of bad design. EP has a positive and productive relationship with its colleagues in the three sites in Hemel Hempstead which will stay on the list of 34 strategic sites. Those good principles will also be followed in Skelmersdale town centre. I spent three years in Liverpool and had the pleasure of going to Skelmersdale once. I will say no more.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire that English Partnerships has not, in its new role, acquired the power to buy land outside the new town areas. It has always had that power but it is now incorporated in its plans for new towns. My hon. Friend said that new towns needed to be finished off in the nicest way, but every community and town is a work in progress; it is never finished. The Mortimers did not foresee 12th-century Ludlow as a finished project; 21st-century Ludlow is ever so slightly different but it is still a work in progress. An end game was never intended for these communities. They may have come to the end of their useful life as representatives of the glorious new town movement, but they have moved on and are now substantial communities in their own right. They have moved to different phases and have to address their own problems.
As part of the process of restoring the democratic deficit, we have given the new town authorities and others significant funding to revitalise their planning functions. The planning delivery grant gave authorities such as Telford and Stevenage at least £75,000 for the coming year to improve their planning departments; Milton Keynes got £340,000, Hemel Hempstead

179WH
£229,000, Harlow £181,000 and Basildon £208,000. We want to get the planning process up to speed, and we are putting our money where our mouth is.
We expect planning arrangements under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to become the norm, and we expect to move away from the anti-democratic elements in English Partnerships and the Commission for the New Towns. There is nothing sinister about that; we want to restore the democratic planning process in those areas, and rightly so.
Having responded to hon. Members, I will start my speech. I suspect that there will be no monument to me in a new town. Lewis Silkin, the post-war Minister for Town and Country Planning, shares one side of a monument in Stevenage because people were so happy about what was done.
David Wright: Telford has a Silkin way.
Mr. McNulty: I am pleased to hear it. When Lewis Silkin visited Stevenage before it was expanded, people repainted a sign at the railway station to read "Silkingrad". That was not a 13th-century Stalinist, but there was an allusion to Stalin, none the less.
Andrew Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a chance that 17 new town shopping centres will be named after him if he comes up with the money?
Mr. McNulty: I am not sure that I want that to be my epitaph—not yet, anyway.
Fifty years after the start of the process, the challenge is for new towns to move into the next phase of the work in progress. The report is useful, and I urge hon. Members to take our response and all that has happened since its publication as a comprehensive reply. We need to heal the parts of some new towns that are showing their age and, when appropriate, find ways of ensuring that new towns play their part in meeting today's housing needs through sustainable growth.
As we tackle both issues, we must keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that sustainable communities are about more than just rebuilding the fabric of housing. As hon. Members have commented, communities need strong economies full of opportunities, jobs with a long-term future, and good schools, hospitals and public transport. I accept the point made about transport in some communities, and many authorities have submitted their transport plans and are already starting to redesign local transport schemes with an eye on the 21st century rather than the 1960s. Communities also need a safe and healthy local environment, well-designed neighbourhoods, more sustainable construction and much more.
There are specific difficulties with our new towns, but many themes are common to all our communities. Our policies for new towns must be seen in the context of our overall action plan for sustainable communities, which is flexible according to the needs of local areas and regions but comprehensive enough to deal with the big issues that confront us today. Although we are alive to the needs and opportunities facing the new towns, we need to deal with those challenges within the approach outlined in our sustainable communities plan.
180WH
Putting new towns in a policy isolation tent will not help them. It is much better to integrate them into mainstream housing regeneration and planning, so that they can benefit from our comprehensive approach and other communities can more readily learn the lessons of new towns. As some hon. Members have said, we may be talking about newer new towns for the Thames gateway, but serious thought needs to be given to how that growth area and others will expand to meet the needs of the south-east.
I want to mention the key aspect of the Government's approach which was not fully developed when we made our response to the report; I refer to the role of English Partnerships. Other hon. Members have mentioned that, for which I am grateful. EP is a key player in delivering the Deputy Prime Minister's new agenda, and it has a significant and pro-active role to play in coordinating the delivery of plans for key-worker and affordable housing.
English Partnerships is not only about housing; it is at the core of our work to create balanced communities. We can point to the Telford and Milton Keynes millennium communities, the Telford sustainable extension at Lawley and the Northampton south-west district. I have no time to go into them, but they represent progress made by EP and many new towns since the quinquennial review of 24 July. I am grateful to every hon. Member who has said that the relationship with EP before and since the review has been productive and positive, because that is what has been fed back to me.
We have an excellent new dynamic team at English Partnerships which, under Margaret Ford's chairmanship, works with new town authorities on an individual basis to ensure proper dialogue. People can still throw rocks and call it a quango, but it is working effectively with the democratic leadership in each area. I make no excuse for telling EP to focus on 42 strategic sites and projects as the key to its role. As hon. Members will know, 34 of those are in new towns, and a variety of schemes are included to enhance the vitality and sustainability of the new towns. They include work on Skelmersdale town centre, a range of schemes in Milton Keynes, Spencers park, Paradise fields, Brakespear in Hemel Hempstead, and the town centre, Woodside, Lightmoor, East Ketley millennium community and Lawley in Telford.
Equally important is EP's role in improving the quality of ageing housing estates, such as Woodside in Telford, Five Links in Basildon and Castlefields in Runcorn. Those are all under the auspices and tutelage of EP and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Mike Hall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. McNulty: I shall give way briefly, although the request is cheeky, as my hon. Friend has only just arrived.
Mr. Hall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He just mentioned Castlefields, in my constituency, and that is why I got to my feet. We are delighted with the co-operation that we have with English Partnerships in redeveloping the Castlefields site, and we look

181WH
forward to wonderful things taking place there. However, to ensure that the site is properly regenerated, we might need to discuss clawback with the Department so that we can reinvest the money in the Castlefields area.
Mr. McNulty: I look forward to those discussions, and to visiting Weaver Vale, as I have been promising to do for the past three months. I shall still visit, despite my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate.
English Partnerships has held very constructive discussions with the new town local authorities. It knows from that experience that each new town is different, and that the package of non-strategic assets and liabilities varies from town to town. Consequently, today I am pleased to announce that English Partnerships has been given discretion by the Deputy Prime Minister to transfer balanced packages of non-strategic landholdings and assets to the local authorities.
We shall, in some cases, have to take some of the financial issues to the Treasury, and we will also need to ensure that such transfers will cause no detriment to the delivery of our plans for sustainable communities. However, I am assured by English Partnerships that we will get more than merely words, and it will actively seek to waive clawback and transfer the right to receive clawback to the relevant local authority. Those matters are being examined in some detail.
Mr. Hammond rose—
Mr. McNulty: Now the hon. Gentleman will ask me about clause 11 of the Local Government Bill, which is why I would not give way to him earlier.
Mr. Hammond: I shall let the Minister answer the question about the interaction of transfer of clawback rights to local authorities or waiver of clawback and clause 11 of the Local Government Bill.
Mr. McNulty: The simple answer to that, which is not intended to be facetious, is that I will not comment on legislation that is currently under consideration, albeit from my Department. I do not want to pre-empt the democratic process and what Parliament will have done with the Bill by the time it emerges from that process.
I am assured that the discussions with the Treasury are taking place in the context of clause 11, and that the ability to waive clawback remains. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not live or die by the daily events and proceedings on the Local Government Bill, so if that proves not to he the case, I will write to him to let him know. However, I am fairly sure that the ability to waive clawback and to pass on the receipts to a local authority rather than to English Partnerships remains outwith clause 11. If that is not the case, I will get back to him.
Mr. Hammond: I am sure that the Minister is right that that is outwith the provisions of clause 11, which deal with local authority sales and the Secretary of State's right to take 75 per cent, of those right-to-buy receipts. However, it seems odd that, on the one hand, the Government say that all local authorities must pass
182WH
to the Secretary of State 75 per cent. of what they receive, and on the other hand, the Minister is saying that English Partnerships may be empowered to waive that right with respect to certain new town authorities. However, I am grateful to him for offering to write to me.
Mr. McNulty: On that point, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, there was the unique position of a significant public sector quango—the Commission on the New Towns as was, and English Partnerships as is—having significant landholdings. The quinquennial review said that there are 42 strategic sites—town centres and others—that are crucial to what the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister wants to achieve in its policy framework and the detail of the sustainable communities plan. There is a range of other non-strategic balanced packages of sites that we will—now that the Deputy Prime Minister has signed that off—co-operate with the new town authorities to put back where they should be, with those authorities. I am not, of course, saying that the Deputy Prime Minister has signed a bit of paper and overnight all those assets will revert to the new town authorities, because there must be significant negotiations to unpick all the complexities of ownership that colleagues talked about earlier.
It is a Welsh example, but in Cwmbran, where work to identify all non-strategic assets and liabilities is virtually complete, English Partnerships has no interests suitable for development. The clawback and covenants in relation to community buildings, highway subsoil and miscellaneous open space come to 120 hectares in 20 different sets of legal documents. The local authority sees clawback as an impediment to local regeneration and for 10 years next to nothing has happened. Our proposals would transfer responsibility for all that to the local authority, enabling it to get on with regenerating key areas of the town. The distinction is between receipts for local authorities that are cash windfalls, where 75 per cent. may go back to central Government, and new town clawback, where the receipts will be for reinvestment in new town regeneration. That is part of the answer, but I will still write to the hon. Gentleman with the full answer.
New towns will sit in the vision and strategy that is outlined in the document "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future". They have a strong role to play in achieving those numbers for growth in London, the south-east and the east. As the Government response says, and as my hon. Friends have mentioned, despite the poor quality of design in some areas and the degradation of some of the public infrastructure and the transport difficulties—issues that are recognised and are being resolved in one form or other—there is still scope to add to many of the new towns in London, the southeast and the east. There is serious need in those communities and beyond for affordable housing and key worker housing.
We are currently a year or so into the starter home initiative, which partly addresses the issues of key workers. Our target is 10,000 starter homes, which we will achieve, and we have reached 2,000 so far. Some 400 of those are in the southern new towns: 400 key workers are now housed because of the starter home initiative. As I said about pathfinder areas, there must be lessons that we can learn from the low demand in those key

183WH
areas at their worst. People may describe Corby town centre as third world. I have just come back from Delhi, and if it was anything like Delhi I would go there. I loved Delhi. I thought that it was wonderful. The urban regeneration company just launched in Corby has shown wisdom and has an enormously creative and imaginative vision for Corby's future. It has elaborate plans to double the size of the community over the next 30 years. I know that that is what all the new towns will want for their future.
Andrew Bennett: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Select Committee had an impressive presentation from people in Corby about what they would like to do? All they want is a bit of railway from Corby to the mainline so that they can attract people from the rest of the south-east to increase the critical mass of Corby. If he could say yes to that he would be a hero in Corby—
Mr. Donohoe: And he would get a statue.
Mr. McNulty: Perhaps unsurprisingly, I will resist that temptation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, I know Corby. I know that those concerns are there. It is also part of one of our growth areas in that key south midlands corridor. The urban development corporation's vision and how that fits in with the overall growth area is quite lively and creative stuff. Whether Corby gets its railway line is a matter for others with far more power than I have.
There are strong examples across the piece of the new towns coming to terms with the next phase of their existence. Yes, with help and support, but with help and support through our main programmes. Their problems are recognised—some are shared or similar and some are unique. What we have done with English Partnerships and the way in which it has come up to speed so soon after the outcome of the review is a tribute to Margaret Ford and her leadership. All the reports stress a professional commitment to creativity and imagination by the new town authorities and by English Partnerships to get to grips with the serious issues that hon. Members have outlined. I repeat that the new towns have been well served by the Committee and its report. I was very pleased, not least because I was only four weeks into my new job, to appear before the Committee. It was enormous fun. I do not know whether enjoying an hour before a Select Committee makes me a sick person, but it was an education.
As I said to hon. Members in my opening statement, one cannot be a Harrow boy without knowing in some detail all the new towns, and especially those in Hertfordshire, dotted around Watford. Those northern towns, as I used to think of them, are part and parcel of the fun and creativity of growing up in north-west London. I accept now that Welwyn, Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead are not northern towns in the generally accepted sense. New towns are at the heart of our approach. Everything that we do in the sustainable communities document will benefit the new towns.
If I let hon. Members go at 5.28 they will not be saying, "That rotten person kept us here until 5.30."
184WH
I am also, among other things, the design champion for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am responsible for parks and green spaces and other aspects of the public realm that are crucial to the sustainability of our communities. Whether in growth areas, low-demand areas or in reconfiguring and revitalising our new towns, we must learn that the spaces between buildings are important. The public realm in the widest sense is important. These are lessons that the designers of new towns did not take into account. When designing a new town, we must plan out crime not plan it in. We must appreciate that people must live in these towns and walk around them.
Grass verges and public parks are not fripperies: they are central to the vitality of our communities. That is why it is such a pleasure to know that the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment is working closely with Telford on Woodside. We can revitalise all our communities, not least our new towns, by learning the lessons of the past and by insisting that, whether it is dealing with greater numbers in the south or reconfiguring some of our low-demand communities in the north, high quality and good design are not add-ons. We should not adopt an attitude of "Build 'em cheap and build 'em high," so that buildings collapse in 10 or 20 years' time. They must be rooted at the core of everything that we do—public sector, social sector and private sector.
Design and high quality permeate the sustainable communities document, and rightly so, as does the notion that the public realm is vital in those areas.
Mr. McWalter: Will my hon. Friend accept the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) that the top design teams simply do not make themselves available to towns as they do to cities?
Mr. McNulty: I accept my hon. Friend's point. That is why I am so pleased that CABE is working with Telford in Woodside, and I encourage that elsewhere. I want to see good, high-quality designers helping us to reconfigure and refocus our low-demand areas. It is quite wrong to characterise our approach to low-demand areas as one of bulldozing empty houses. If that were all that low-demand areas offered, their plans would not be accepted. Plans must accept fully that good design and good quality in the public realm and in public open spaces are crucial. We must ensure that designers are attracted to low-demand areas as well as to growth areas and to new towns. That is fundamental.
We should celebrate the new towns. We are not finishing them off, but they have perhaps come to the end of one phase. We must ensure that, with all other urban communities, they march into the next phase in the context of the sustainable communities document. They must have their needs served as readily and as comprehensively as all other communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o' clock.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Departmental Appointments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women what guidance she gives to departments regarding the setting of departmental targets for the appointment of women; and if she will make a statement. [99039]

  Ms Hewitt
  This Government are committed to achieving an even balance of men and women on boards of public bodies. Responsibility for making these appointments lies with individual Ministers supported by their Departments. Each Department sets out its target for increasing diversity in public appointments in "Public Bodies: Opening up Public Appointments 2002–2005". The DTI is committed to between 45 and 55 per cent. of appointments made each year to be women.

  The Cabinet Office has lead responsibility for public appointments. It is committed to helping Departments achieve the targets they have set, while upholding the principles of selection on merit.

  EU Equality Advisory Committee
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement regarding conclusions reached at the EU Equality Advisory Committee meeting on 9 October 2002. [99049]

  Ms Hewitt
  The purpose of the meeting of the EU Advisory Committee on 9 October was to exchange information and experience. The minutes of the meeting are not yet available from the European Commission.

  Public Appointments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women how many regional seminar series in each region were hosted by the Women and Equality Unit to attract women to public appointments in each of the last two years; and if she will make a statement. [99040]

  Ms Hewitt
  During 2002 the Women and Equality Unit hosted eight regional seminars. The seminars were held in the following places:

  Abingdon

  Canterbury

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Scunthorpe

  Leeds

  Greenwich

  North Tyneside

  One national seminar was held in Leicester.
  644W
  The practical guide "Get A Public Life", published in December, enables others to run similar events.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women how much has been spent on regional seminars by the Women and Equality Unit on attracting women to public appointments; and if she will make a statement. [99041]

  Ms Hewitt
  The National Outreach Campaign consisted of eight regional seminars and five national seminars; the total cost of holding these seminars was £57,551.21 (excluding VAT).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Embryo Research
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many embryos the Medical Research Council envisages requiring per year for its embryo stem cell bank; and what their planned budget is for the bank. [97989]

  Ms Hewitt
  The bank will store adult, foetal and embryonic stem cell lines derived by the research community in the UK and overseas. Such lines will be ethically sourced and quality controlled. Embryonic stem cells will be supplied to the bank from IVF embryos donated for research. The MRC does not know how many embryos will be so donated.

  However, it is a condition of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority licence that all embryonic stem cell lines derived in the UK must be deposited in the bank. It will be a condition of MRC funding for stem cell research that adult, foetal and embryonic stem cell lines generated with such funding must be deposited in the bank. Other UK funders are likely to adopt the same terms and conditions. Deposition in, and access of lines from the UK bank will be overseen by the Steering Committee chaired by Lord Patel. Since the UK bank will provide standardised stem cell lines for research purposes, the need for individual research groups to derive their own stem cell lines will be reduced, thereby minimising the overall number of embryos used.

  The UK stem cell bank is being funded at a level of £2.6 million over three years. MRC will contribute 75 per cent., and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council 25 per cent. of these costs.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the MRC has spent on research using human embryos in each the past 20 years. [97990]

  Ms Hewitt
  The majority of the research on embryos supported by the Medical Research Council involves material collected from animal models; only a small number of projects involve human embryos. Human embryonic tissue is currently used in the study of developmental biology and research on the treatment of disease. MRC does not keep historical figures for spend on such research, but estimates that in the last financial year (2001–02) it spent £0.6 million on research involving or related to human embryos.

  E-Mail Addresses
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what e-mail address members of the public may contact(a) her and (b) each of the Ministers in her Department; and for each e-mail address if she will state (i) the date it became active, and (ii) the number of e-mails received in each month since activation. [97458]

  Ms Hewitt
  The e-mail addresses are as follows:

  (a) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—Patricia Hewitt—mpst.hewitt@ dti.gsi.gov.uk

  (b) Minister of State for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions—Alan Johnson—mpst.johnson@dti.gsi.gov.uk

  Minister of State for E-Commerce and Competitiveness—Stephen Timms—mpst.timms@dti.gsi.gov.uk

  Minister of State for Energy and Construction—Brian Wilson—mpst.wilson@dti.gsi.gov.uk

  Minister of State for Trade—Baroness Symons—ministersymons.action@fco.gov.uk

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Business—Nigel Griffiths—mpst.griffiths@dti.gsi.gov.uk

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumer and Markets—Melanie Johnson—Melanie.Johnson.mpst@dti.gsi.gov.uk

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation—Lord Sainsbury—mpst.sainsbury@dti.gsi.gov.uk

  (i) Each e-mail address became active upon the appointment of the Minister;

  (ii) This information could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Euratom Research
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which United Kingdom companies or organisations have benefited from the European Council Decision 668/2002/Euratom of 3 June 2002, which estimated a European funding area for the sixth framework programme for Euratom research and training activities. [98497]

  Ms Hewitt
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's Culham Science Centre is the only organisation in the UK to receive funding for nuclear fusion research. Some of this funding is used for research by UK universities and the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory.

  UK research contractors, regulators and industry will benefit from the fission programme by participating in FP6 research projects supported by Euratom. The first call for proposals for these research projects is currently underway and two further calls will follow during the course of FP6.

  Renewable Energy Exporters
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 30 January 2003,Official Report, column 984W, on renewable energy exporters, if she will provide a breakdown of the renewable energy technologies represented by the three applications for support under the renewable energy initiative of the ECGD. [99333]
  646W
  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD has received applications that could be considered under this initiative in respect of the following renewable energy technologies:

  Mini-hydros

  Offshore wave energy

  Waste to energy

  The initiative comes into effect in April 2003 making ECGD cover available for at least £50 million of projects that meet the minimum risk standards.

TRANSPORT

  Belfast City Airport
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the ability of runway facilities at Belfast City airport to accommodate an increased use by large passenger planes. [99417]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In licensing civil aerodromes in the UK, the Civil Aviation Authority does not specify the type or number of aircraft that can operate from a particular aerodrome. Instead, it ensures that national and international operating and safety standards are complied with. Provided that these standards are met it is a matter for aircraft operators and the aerodrome licensee to be satisfied that the facilities and manning levels match their requirements.

  Stretch Limousines
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the environmental impact, with particular reference to(a) emissions and (b) fuel consumption of (i) a stretch limousine and (ii) other types of road vehicle. [99249]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No specific assessment has been made of the environmental impact of stretched limousines. However, indices for regulated pollutants (CO, HC, NOx and PM) and for CO2 are given for various classes of road vehicles in Table 2.6. of the Departmental publication "Transport Statistics: Great Britain—2002 Edition".

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many stretch limousines have been registered for use on British roads in each year since 1992; and if he will estimate the average distance travelled by each of these vehicles in each of these years. [99224]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on body types does not distinguish between different categories of limousine. No information is held on the distances travelled by these vehicles.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to establish a national standard for local authority low emission zones restricting the entry of highly polluting vehicles into air quality management areas; and if he will make a statement. [98699]
  647W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The latest guidance issued by DEFRA to support local authorities with their air quality management duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 includes recommendations made by the National Society for Clean Air's Cleaner Transport Forum on proposed standards in low emission zones.

  Air Transport (EU Regulations)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received concerning the European Commission's Air Transport Draft Regulation COM (2002) 521; and if he will make a statement; [100035]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of Draft Regulation COM (2002) 521; and what the Government's policy is on the draft regulation. [100036]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On 21 October 2002 the Minister for Transport submitted an Explanatory Memorandum on the draft Regulation to both Houses of Parliament. On 11 December 2002 the Minister submitted a Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to Parliament including a partial regulatory impact assessment assessing the likely effect of the proposal as drafted. The assessment listed eight organisations that, in response to a request by officials, made representations to the Department. They are: the British Air Transport Association, the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK, the General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association, the British Helicopter Advisory Board, the Royal Aero Club of the UK, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the International Union of Aviation Insurers and the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Whilst the Government supports measures to harmonise insurance requirements across the European Community, it has expressed concern that the introduction of mandatory requirements for non-commercial aircraft operators would impose unwarranted costs on that sector of civil aviation. We have also questioned the legality and practicality of the provisions in proposal to overflying aircraft.

  Air Travel (Demand)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his policy to allow anticipated increased demand for air travel to be met. [99201]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is one of the central questions to which we are seeking responses in our current consultation on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom. We will set out our policy conclusions in the air transport White Paper later this year.

  Congestion Charge
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in cases where regional strategic guidance includes congestion taxes for a particular town or city, what requirement will be placed on the Council in that place to introduce a congestion charge. [93604]
  648W
  Mr. Spellar
  Decisions on whether to introduce such measures and the form they take, are a matter for individual local authorities.

  Driver Fatigue
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to raise awareness among drivers of the dangers of fatigue with(a) the general public, (b) operators of motor fleets and (c) companies using commercial vehicles and employing travelling salespersons. [99635]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department raises awareness of the dangers of falling asleep at the wheel among all drivers by means of national publicity campaigns and advertising. Local authority road safety officers support our campaigns and provide relevant publicity materials to employers within their areas.

  Full details of the Department's driver tiredness campaigns were given in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Bath (Don Foster) on 9 December 2002 [Official Report, column 31W].

  We will be running new radio commercials this Easter. Motorway variable message signs will again carry the "Don't Drive Tired" slogan again. We will also be using lorry back advertising for the first time to remind drivers to take a break. A new public information film will be produced in the spring.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to ensure that local authorities have up to date oil spill contingency plans in line with the National Contingency Plan following the second report of the Public Accounts Committee. [98698]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The responsibility for responding to pollution at sea lies with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and certain ports and harbours, as laid out in the Merchant Shipping Regulations 1998. However, local authorities will respond to shoreline pollution and have detailed contingency plans to address potential incidents.

  The MCA provides two accredited training courses for local authority emergency planners and operational staff. 'Oil pollution, Contingency Planning and Response' is a five-day course for local authority management staff, run four times a year across the UK. 'Oil Pollution Response', run eight times a year, is a two day hands-on training course in counter pollution for local authority staff, who would expect to be involved supervising beach clean-up operations and protective booming operations.

  The MCA actively encourages local authorities to maintain and update their oil spill contingency plans. The MCA maintains a database of all local authority oil spill plans, and monitors the updating procedures of individual authorities. In addition, local authorities are encouraged to submit their plans for formal review by the MCA's Counter Pollution and Response Branch.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian consequences of war against Iraq, with special reference to medical aid. [98733]

  Clare Short
  The people of Iraq are already suffering a humanitarian catastrophe. 60 per cent. of the people in this naturally wealthy and highly educated country are dependent on handouts from the Oil for Food Programme and one-third of children in Baghdad-controlled Iraq are chronically malnourished.

  If the UN authorises military action to force Saddam Hussein to comply with his disarmament obligation, it is essential that great care is taken to minimise any harm to the people who are already very vulnerable. This means very careful targeting of military action, ensuring order is maintained, food distribution is quickly resumed and that health and water and sanitation infrastructure is rehabilitated as soon as possible.

  Planning is in hand for all of this. My greatest worry is that there is not yet agreement that the UN should have the lead role in a post conflict Iraq. Without this there would be significant legal and other difficulties for the
  international humanitarian system to work.

SCOTLAND

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much producing her Department's latest Annual Report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90889]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The cost to the Scotland Office of producing the 2002 Departmental Report was £3,869. The number of copies printed for the department was 150. Copies of the report were Provided free of charge to the Scottish Affairs Committee, other Government Departments and for use within the Department.

  The Stationery Office determines the number of copies for retail sale and meets the costs of printing and publication. I understand that TSO has sold approximately 300 copies of the report.

  Departmental Consultations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list consultations her Department has conducted since 1997; and when each consultation(a) opened and (b) closed. [97432]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is as follows:

  a consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament was launched on 18 December 2001 with responses invited by 29 March 2002.
  650W
  a consultation on Sunday working in Scotland was launched on 19 December 2002 with a deadline for comments by 14 March 2003.

  Online Sales/Purchases
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) products, (b) goods and (c) services were (i) bought and (ii) sold online by her Department in each of the last five years. [97455]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date, no products, goods or services have been bought or sold on-line by the department.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90545]

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many working days were lost due to illness in her Department in(a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding five years. [90743]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Details of working days lost due to illness in my department are given in the table below.

  Dates

  Working days lost due to illness

  1 January 2002–30 November 2002

  651.0

  1 January 2001–31 December 2001

  746.5

  1 January 2000–31 December 2000

  442.5

  1 July 1999–31 December 1999

  299.0

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Coronation Anniversaries
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what events and programmes were arranged for previous anniversaries of the Coronation of Her Majesty the Queen in(a) 1978 and (b) other years. [98832]

  Tessa Jowell
  Any events to mark the Anniversary of the Coronation in 1978 and other years were arranged as part of The Queen's normal programme of engagements. Similarly, any events to mark the 50th Anniversary of the Coronation this year will be part of The Queen's programme arranged by Buckingham Palace.

  Horseracing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received regarding the decision by the British Horseracing Board to alter the charges levied on bookmakers relating to receiving pre-race data; and if she will make a statement. [99548]
  651W
  Mr. Caborn
  We have so far received about a hundred letters on this matter. Decisions by the British Horseracing Board about charges to bookmakers for the use of its data are commercial matters as between the parties; and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what criteria Ministers in her Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if she will make a statement; [99508]

  (2) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months, by each Minister in her Department to outside interest groups, broken down by (a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99509]

  (3) how often Ministers in her Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups in the last 12 months. [99584]

  Dr. Howells
  All offers of hospitality are made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting. The giving and receiving of hospitality is conducted fully in accordance with the guidance set out in the Ministerial Code, and Guidance on Contacts with Outside Interest Groups including Lobbyists. The detailed information requested is not held centrally, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Olympics Bid
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the potential benefits to non-London tourist centres of holding the 2012 Olympics. [97930]

  Tessa Jowell
  The additional tourism benefits of the Olympics and Paralympics outside London and the South East have been estimated at between £100 million 652W
  and £190 million, reflecting the expected increase in expenditure by overseas and domestic visitors during the period of both the Olympics and Paralympics.

  The estimates do not include any wider or longer-term effects outside London that hosting an Olympics would have on inbound and domestic tourism. Nor have we sought to break down the estimate by individual region. However, as the BTA said in its recent submission to the CMS Select Committee, there can be little doubt that the staging of a successful Olympics would be beneficial in the longer-term for inbound tourism, providing an unparalleled opportunity to showcase the wider UK as well as London. This is a view that has been endorsed by a number of organisations, including Advantage West Midlands and the South West Regional Assembly.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people are employed(a) part-time and (b) full-time in the British tourism industry. [99680]

  Dr. Howells
  Since the tourism sector is formed of parts of a diverse set of industries whose businesses serve both tourists and non-tourists, the number of jobs supported by tourism can only be estimated. The latest estimate of total employment in tourism-related industries in Great Britain is 2.2 million in June 2002, of which 1.1 million jobs were part-time.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of expenditure on domestic tourism in 2002. [99681]

  Dr. Howells
  Domestic tourism expenditure on trips with an overnight stay is estimated to have been 22.6 billion for January to October 2002. Data to the end of 2002 will be published in April 2003.

  Data on domestic tourism day trips will be available in summer 2003.

  Both sources will be published on the website www.staruk.org.uk.

DEFENCE

  Asylum Accommodation (Daedalus)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations there were between the MoD and the Home Office prior to the announcement by the latter of its interest in developing asylum facilities at Daedalus. [98626]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since November 2002 there has been a variety of contact between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence about the Daedalus property.

  The Home Office contacted Defence Estates in late November 2002 requesting details of sites that might be available for an inter-governmental transfer to the Home Office.

  In December 2002, the Home Office requested information, together with a site plan, in regard to an area of the Daedalus property, which MOD were considering for potential future disposal. Home Office representatives visited the site on 22 January 2003 and subsequently indicated that a portion of the site was could be of interest to them. My Home Office colleague, Beverly Hughes MP, wrote to me on 10 February 2003 to say that the Daedalus site was potentially suitable for an asylum accommodation centre for up to 400 single men and that the Home Office intended to make an announcement to this effect on February 11.

  Decommissioning
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to postpone the proposed decommissioning dates for(a) HMS Splendid and (b) HMS Sovereign pending the completion of the first Astute class submarines. [98249]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon Member to the answers I gave on 3 February 2003,Official Report, columns 52W and 67W.

  Nerve Gas
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the(a) effectiveness and (b) appropriateness of disabling nerve agents in conflict situations. [98106]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence assesses the range of threats that the armed forces may face in conflict, including those from chemical weapons. The use of all chemical weapons is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force in April 1997. The Convention also prohibits the use of riot control agents (i.e. temporarily disabling agents) as a method of warfare.

  Nuclear-Powered Submarines
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of each paid-off SSN and former Polaris submarine. [95886]
  654W
  Mr. Ingram
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 February 2003, Official Report, column 747 W]: I mistakenly referred to HMS Dreadnought as a Polaris submarine. She is, of course, a Dreadnought Class submarines and never carried Polaris missiles.

  RAF Continuous Attitude Survey
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army personnel indicated in the latest analysed Army continuous attitude survey that they were(a) very satisfied, (b) satisfied, (c) neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, (d) dissatisfied and
  (e) very dissatisfied when asked about (i) how much they felt valued by the army, (ii) general job satisfaction, (iii) how satisfied they were with management by superior NCOs/WOs, (iv) how satisfied they were with management by officers, (v) working conditions on operations, (vi) working conditions non-operations, (vii) confidence in abilities of immediate superiors, (viii) satisfaction with army life in general, (xi) satisfaction with quality of life, (x) satisfaction with workload, (xi) satisfaction with amount of leave entitlement, (xii) overall amount of training received, (xiii) overall pay, (xiv) army pension arrangements, (xv) welfare arrangements on operational tours and (xvi) welfare support for families; what percentage of those responding to each question each option represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99185]

  Dr. Moonie
  The questions raised were covered in two separate Continuous Attitude Surveys (CAS), SP2 distributed in August 2001 and SP3 distributed in May 2002 as indicated. Questions asked in SP 2 were not repeated in SP3. The details have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel in the latest analysed Royal Air Force continuous attitude survey indicated they(a) strongly agreed, (b) agreed, (c) neither agreed nor disagreed, (d) disagreed, (e) strongly disagreed and (f) didn't know to the statement 'Overstretch is causing serious problems in my working group'; what percentage of those responding to this question each option represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99190]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest analysed survey was issued o 2000 RAF personnel on 1 February 2002, and completed by them during February to April 2002. It was published in September 2002.

  In this survey, the responses to the statement 'Overstretch is causing serious problems in my working' are set out in the table below. It is not possible to separate the 'Don't know' from the 'not applicable' responses.
  655W

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Strongly agree

  Number1

  347

  70

  417

  Percentage

  36.6

  32.0

  35.7

  Agree

  Number1

  333

  77

  410

  Percentage

  35.1

  35.2

  35.1

  Neither agree nor disagree

  Number1

  170

  37

  207

  Percentage

  17.9

  16.9

  17.7

  Disagree

  Number1

  75

  27

  102

  Percentage

  7.9

  12.3

  8.7

  Strongly Disagree

  Number1

  10

  1

  11

  Percentage

  1.1

  0.5.

  0.9

  Don't know/not applicable

  Number1

  13

  7

  20

  Percentage

  1.4

  3.2

  1.7

  Total:

  Number1

  948

  219

  1,167

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  1 Number of people who responded with this answer

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Number1

  Percentage

  Number1

  Percentage

  Number1

  Percentage

  Strongly agree

  458

  48.3

  120

  54.8

  578

  49.5

  Agree

  372

  39.2

  80

  36.5

  452

  38.7

  Neither agree nor disagree

  87

  9.2

  13

  5.9

  100

  8.6

  Disagree

  10

  1.1

  2

  0.9

  12

  1.0

  Strongly disagree

  1

  0.1

  —

  —

  1

  0.1

  Don't know/not applicable

  20

  2.1

  4

  1.8

  24

  2.1

  Total

  948

  100

  219

  100

  1,167

  100

  1 The number of people who responded with this answer.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel in the latest analysed Royal Air Force continuous attitude survey indicated they(a) strongly agreed, (b) agreed, (c) neither agreed nor disagreed, (d) disagreed, (e) strongly disagreed and (f) didn't know to the statement 'In the past 12 months I have had more than my fair share of separated service/detached duty'; what percentage of those responding to this question each option represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99192]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest analysed survey was issued to 2,000 RAF personnel on 1 February 2002, and completed by them during February to April 2002. It was published in September 2002.

  In this survey, the responses to the statement 'In the last 12 months I have had more than my fair share of separated service/detached duty' are set out in the following table. It is not possible to separate the 'Don't know' from the 'not applicable' responses.

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Strongly agree

  Number

  76

  14

  90

  Percentage

  8.0

  6.4

  7.7

  Agree

  Number

  163

  30

  193

  Percentage

  17.2

  13.7

  16.6

  656W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel in the latest analysed Royal Air Force continuous attitude survey indicated they(a) strongly agreed, (b) agreed, (c) neither agreed nor disagreed, (d) disagreed, (e) strongly disagreed and (f) didn't know to the statement 'Overstretch is causing serious problems in the RAF as a whole'; what percentage of those responding to this question each option represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99191]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest analysed survey was issued to 2,000 RAF personnel on 1 February 2002, and completed by them during February to April 2002. It was published in September 2002.

  In this survey, the responses to the statement 'Overstretch is causing serious problems in the RAF as a whole' are set out in the table. It is not possible to separate the 'Don't know' from the 'not applicable' responses.

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Neither agree nor disagree

  Number

  297

  60

  357

  Percentage

  31.4

  27.4

  30.6

  Disagree

  Number

  206

  61

  267

  Percentage

  21.8

  27.9

  22.9

  Strongly disagree

  Number

  63

  28

  91

  Percentage

  6.7

  12.8

  7.8

  Don't know/not applicable

  Number

  141

  26

  167

  Percentage

  14.9

  11.9

  14.3

  Total

  Number

  946

  219

  1,165

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Naval personnel in the latest analysed Royal Navy continuous attitude survey indicated that they were(a) very satisfied, (b) satisfied, (c) neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, (d) dissatisfied, (e) very dissatisfied regarding (i) adequacy of training for service job, (ii) current minimum time ashore, (iii) effect of their career on the career of spouse/partner, (iv) level of job satisfaction, (v) pay in general (vi), total remuneration package, (vii), amount of annual leave allowance (viii) medical and dental

  657W
  facilities for themselves, (ix) enjoyment of service life,

  (x) amount of separation from family and friends and

  (xi) rates and terms of pensions; what percentage of those responding to each question each option

  Royal Navy

  Very satisfied

  Satisfied

  Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

  Dissatisfied

  Adequacy of training for your service job

  97

  11.2

  502

  58.2

  148

  17.1

  95

  11.0

  Current Minimum Time Ashore (MTA)

  87

  10.1

  279

  32.3

  236

  27.3

  152

  17.6

  Effect of your career on the career of your spouse/partner

  9

  10

  132

  153

  346

  40.1 211

  24.4

  Level of job satisfaction (you expect in the future)

  32

  37

  332

  38.5

  26.3

  30.5

  180 20.9

  Your pay in general

  40

  4.6

  312

  36.2

  191

  22.1

  224

  26.0

  Your total remuneration package

  20

  2.3

  293

  34.0

  288

  33.4

  206

  23.9

  Amount of annual leave allowance (30 working days)

  51

  5.9

  491

  56.9

  208

  24.1

  92 10.7

  Medical and Dental facilities for yourself

  118

  13.7

  510

  59.1

  110

  12.7

  82

  9.5

  Your enjoyment of service life

  91

  10.5

  372

  43.1

  214

  24.8

  142

  16.5

  Amount of separation from family and friends

  3

  0.3

  124

  14.4

  292

  33.8

  267

  30.9

  The rates and terms of pensions

  48

  5.6

  313

  36.3

  325

  37.7

  95

  11.0

  Note:

  From the General Report of the RN's Continuous Attitude Survey completed in August 2002.

  Very dissatisfied

  Nil response

  Adequacy of training for your service job

  17

  2.0

  4

  0.5

  Current Minimum Time Ashore (MTA)

  84

  9.7

  25

  2.9

  Effect of your career on the career of your spouse/partner

  87

  10.1

  78

  9.0

  Level of job satisfaction (you expect in the future)

  48

  5.6

  8

  0.9

  Your pay in general

  89

  10.3

  7

  0.8

  Your total remuneration package

  46

  5.3

  10

  1.2

  Amount of annual leave allowance (30 working days)

  17

  2.0

  4

  0.5

  Medical and Dental facilities for yourself

  41

  4.8

  2

  0.2

  Your enjoyment of service life

  39

  45

  5

  0.6

  Amount of separation from family and friends

  154

  17.8

  23

  2.7

  The rates and terms of pensions

  44

  5.1

  38

  4.4

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Naval personnel in the latest analysed Royal Navy continuous attitude survey indicated that they(a) strongly agreed, (b) agreed, (c) neither agreed nor disagreed, (d) disagreed and (e) strongly disagreed with the statements (i) in your own opinion the service is more sexist than society as a whole, (ii) in your own

  Royal Navy

  Strongly agreed

  Agreed

  Neither Agreed nor Disagreed

  Disagreed

  Strongly Disagreed

  Nil Response

  Question

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number Percentage

  Number Percentage Number

  Percentage

  In your opinion the service is more sexist than society as a whole1

  41

  4.8

  178

  20.6

  191

  22.1

  295

  34.2

  150

  17.4 8

  0.9

  In your opinion the service is more racist than society as a whple1

  11

  1.3

  72

  8.3

  157

  18.2

  369

  42.8

  245

  28.4 9

  1.0

  I trust my senior officers to do the right thing2

  20

  2.3

  305

  35.3

  205

  23.7

  248

  28.7

  65

  7.5

  21

  2.4

  Notes:

  1 From the General Report of the RN's Continuous Attitude Survey completed in August 2002.

  2 From the Collective Performance section of the RN's Continuous Attitude Survey completed in November 2002. (The General Report for this survey has yet to be analyzed).

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel in the latest analysed Royal Air Force continuous attitude survey said their work load was(a) too high, (b) about right and (c) too low; what percentage of those responding to this question each option represents, when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99186]
  658W
  represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99196]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  opinion the service is more racist than society as a whole and (iii) I trust my senior officers to do the right thing; what percentage of those responding to each question each option represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99197]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is provided in the table below:

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest analysed survey was issued to 2,000 RAF personnel on 1 February 2002, and completed by them during February to April 2002. It was published in September 2002.

  The responses to the question in which individuals were requested to assess their current work load (excluding secondary duties) are set out in the following table.
  659W
  Work load (excluding secondary duties) is assessed as:

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Too high

  Number1

  240

  78

  318

  Percentage

  25.8

  35.9

  27.7

  About right

  Number1

  620

  130

  750

  Percentage

  66.6

  59.9

  65.3

  Too low

  Total

  Number1

  71

  9

  80

  Percentage

  7.6

  4.1

  7.0

  Total

  Number1

  931

  217

  1,148

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  1 The number of people who responded with this answer.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel in the latest analysed Royal Air Force continuous attitude survey said they worked each week on average(a) 30 hours or less, (b) 31–35 hours, (c) 36–40 hours, (d) 41–45 hours, (e) 46–50 hours, (f) 51–60 hours and (g) over 60 hours, what percentage of those responding to this question each option represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99187]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest analysed survey was issued to 2,000 RAF personnel on 1 February 2002, and completed by them during February to April 2002. It was published in September 2002.

  In this survey, the responses to the question 'Over the last three months, approximately how many hours have you worked each week on average, including lunch breaks?', are set out in the following table:

  Hours

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  30 or less

  Number1

  19

  4

  23

  Percentage

  2.0

  1.8

  2.0

  31–35

  Number1

  36

  4

  40

  Percentage

  3.8

  1.8

  3.4

  36–40

  Number1

  188

  20

  208

  Percentage

  19.9

  9.2

  17.9

  41–45

  Number1

  342

  71

  413

  Percentage

  36.3

  32.6

  35.6

  46–50

  Number1

  223

  68

  291

  Percentage

  23.6

  31.2

  25.1

  51–60

  Number1

  87

  40

  127

  Percentage

  9.2

  18.3

  10.9

  Over 60

  Number1

  48

  11

  59

  Percentage

  5.1

  5.0

  5.1

  Total

  Number

  943

  218

  1,161

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  1 Number of people who responded with this answer

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel in the latest analysed Royal Air Force continuous attitude survey indicated that they 660W
  intended to opt for further service if they had the opportunity; what percentage of those responding to this question each reply option represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99194]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest analysed survey was issued to 2,000 RAF personnel on 1 February 2002, and completed by them during February to April 2002. It was published in September 2002.

  In this survey, the responses to the question 'Do you intend to opt for further service if you have the opportunity?' are set out in the following table.

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Yes

  Number1

  347

  35

  382

  Percentage

  36.5

  15.9

  32.6

  Perhaps

  Number1

  335

  61

  396

  Percentage

  35.3

  27.7

  33.8

  No

  Number1

  210

  41

  251

  Percentage

  22.1

  18.6

  21.5

  N/a—already committed to a full

  career to age 55

  Number1

  58

  83

  141

  Percentage

  6.1

  37.7

  12.1

  Total

  Number1

  950

  220

  1,170

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  1 The number of people who responded with this answer.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel in the latest analysed Royal Air Force continuous attitude survey indicated that life in the RAF(a) was much better than expected, (b) was better than expected, (c) was as expected, (d) was worse than expected, (e) was much worse than expected and (f) has no expectations; what percentage of those responding to the question each option represents; when the survey was completed; and if he will make a statement. [99195]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest analysed survey was issued to 2,000 RAF personnel on 1 February 2002, and completed by them during February to April 2002. It was published in September 2002.

  In this survey, the responses to the question 'Overall, how has your life in the RAF been, compared to what you expected?' are set out in the following table:

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Much better than I expected it to be

  Number1

  59

  14

  73

  Percentage

  6.2

  6.4

  6.2

  Better than I expected it to be

  Number1

  253

  59

  312

  Percentage

  26.7

  26.8

  26.7

  As 1 expected it to be

  Number1

  367

  104

  471

  Percentage

  38.7

  47.3

  40.3

  661W

  Airmen

  Officers

  Total

  Worse than I expected it to be

  Number1

  185

  36

  221

  Percentage

  19.5

  16.4

  18.9

  Much worse than I expected it to be

  Number1

  35

  2

  37

  Percentage

  3.7

  0.9

  3.2

  I had no expectations

  Number1

  50

  5

  55

  Percentage

  5.3

  2.3

  4.7

  Total

  Number1

  949

  220

  1,169

  Percentage

  100

  100

  100

  1 The number of people who responded with this answer.

  Ship

  Build completion date

  Date of acceptance into service

  Planned decommission date

  Crew complement

  Approximate stores capacity

  Ownership

  Diligence

  1981

  1984

  2006

  53 RFA 77 Embarked force

  Fuel: 1,400 sq m

  MOD

  Grey Rover

  1970

  1970

  2007

  54 RFA

  Fuel: 6,000 sq m Fresh water: 300 sq m Oil: 66,000 litres

  MOD

  Gold Rover

  1974

  1974

  2007

  54 RFA

  Fuel: 5,500 sq m Fresh water: 300 sq m

  MOD

  Black Rover

  1974

  1974

  2007

  53 RFA

  Fuel: 6,000 sq m Fresh water: 300 sq m Oil: 66,000 litres

  MOD

  Brambeleaf

  1976

  1980

  2009

  58 RFA

  Fuel: 31,000 sq m Fresh water: 1,400 sq m

  MOD

  Bayleaf

  1982

  1982

  2009

  58 RFA

  Fuel: 28,700 sq m Fresh water: 1,400 sq m

  Lombards Leasing Services

  Orangeleaf

  1975

  1984

  2008

  58 RFA

  Fuel: 31,000 sq m Fresh water: 1,400 sq m

  Lloyds Industrial Leasing Ltd.

  Oakleaf

  1981

  1986

  2015

  36 RFA

  Fuel: 38,700 sq m Fresh water: 1,300 sq m

  James Fisher Ltd.

  Fort Rosalie

  1978

  1978

  2013

  106 RFA 12 RN 28 Civilian

  Ammunition, food and general Naval stores: 10,100 sq m

  MOD

  Fort Austin

  1979

  1979

  2014

  106 RFA 12 RN 26 Civilian Ammunition, food and general naval stores: 10,100 sq m

  MOD

  Ford Victoria

  1993

  1994

  2019

  96 RFA 13 RN 23 Civilian

  Fuel: 12,000 sq m Fresh water: 370 sq m Oil: 137,000 litres Ammunition, food and general Naval stores: 6,400 sq m

  MOD

  Fort George

  1993

  1994

  2019

  95 RFA 13 RN 28 Civilian

  Fuel: 12,000 sq m Fresh water:370 sq m Oil: 136,000 sq m Ammunition, food and general Naval stores: 5,900 sq m

  MOD

  Argus

  1981

  1988

  2008

  82 RFA 69 Embarked force

  Fuel: 3,700 sq m

  MOD

  Sir Bedivere

  1967 Ship Life Extension Programme 1998

  1967

  2011

  59 RFA 352 Embarked force

  Ammunition and cargo: 660 sq m vehicles: 12 Challenger tanks, 31 large vehicles, 56 Land Rovers or 26 cargo containers on tank deck; 19 large vehicles, 50 Land Rovers or 20 cargo containers on vehicle deck

  MOD

  Sir Geraint

  1967

  1967

  2004

  52 RFA 250 embarked force

  Ammunition and cargo: 600 sq m vehicles: 14 Challenger tanks, 23 large vehicles, 62 Land Rovers or 20 cargo containers on tank deck; 34 large vehicles, 63 Land Rovers or 30 cargo containers on vehicle deck

  MOD

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the date of original build completion, (b) the date of acceptance into service, (c) the anticipated date of decommissioning, (d) the number of crew, (e) the stores carrying capacity where appropriate and (f) the ownership of (i) RFA Diligence, (ii) RFA Grey Rover, (iii) RFA Gold Rover, (iv) RFA Black Rover, (v) RFA Brambleleaf, (vi) RFA Bayleaf, (vii) RFA Orangeleaf, (viii) RFA Oakleaf, (ix) RFA Fort Rosalie, (x) RFA Fort Austin, (xi) RFA Fort Victoria, (xii) RFA Fort George, (xiii) RFA Argus, (xiv) RFA Sir Bedivere, (xv) RFA Sir Geraint, (xvi) RFA Sir Percivale, (xvii) RFA Sir Tristram, (xviii) RFA Sea Crusader and (xix) RFA Sea Centurion. [99147]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is contained in the following table:
  663W

  Ship

  Build completion date

  Date of acceptance into service

  Planned decommission date

  Crew complement

  Approximate stores capacity

  Ownership

  Sir Percivale

  1968

  1968

  2005

  52 RFA 301 Embarked force

  Ammunition and cargo:600 sq m MOD vehicles: 14 Challenger tanks, 23 large vehicles, 62 Land Rovers or 20 cargo containers on tank deck; 34 large vehicles, 63 Land Rovers or 30 cargo containers on vehicle deck

  MOD

  Sir Tristram

  1967

  1967

  2004

  51 RFA 238 embarked force

  Ammunition and cargo: 600 sq m MOD vehicles: 12 Challenger tanks, 56 Land Rovers or 26 cargo containers on tank deck;26cargo containers on tank deck; 31 large vehicles, 67 Land Rovers or 33 cargo containers on vehicle deck

  MOD

  Sea Crusader

  1996

  1996

  2003

  18 RFA

  2,300 lane metres capacity

  Nouvelles Orientations

  Note:

  Sea Centurion was leased from Ocean Arrow and was returned to her owners in 2002.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to(a) replace and (b) add to vessels in the RFA fleet; and if he will make a statement. [99293]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy decommissioned two O-class RFA Fleet tankers during financial year 2000–01: RFA Olwen (commissioned in 1965) and RFA Olna (commissioned in 1966). Two new Wave-class Auxiliary Oilers (AO) RFA Wave Knight and RFA Wave Ruler are expected to enter service in early spring this year.

  On current plans four of the five Landing Ships Logistics, RFA Sir Geraint, Sir Tristram Sir Percivale and Sir Galahad are expected to be replaced by four larger and more capable Bay Class vessels in 2004 and 2005.1 also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 February 2003, Official Report, column 514W, to the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr. Lewis).

  Ships (Decommissioning)
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what navy ships have been decommissioned since 1997; and what their final destination was. [97286]

  Mr. Ingram
  A total of 31 Navy ships have been decommissioned since 1997. This figure includes three Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships.

  Navy ships decommissioned since 1997

  Final destination

  HMS Peacock

  Philippines

  HMS Plover

  Philippines

  HMS Starling

  Philippines

  HMS Birmingham

  Scrap (Commercial Sale)

  HMS Battleaxe

  Brazil

  HMS Boxer

  Not yet known

  HMS Beaver

  Scrap (Commercial Sale)

  HMS Brave

  Not yet known

  HMS London

  Romania

  HMS Bicester

  Greece

  HMS Berkeley

  Greece

  HMS Orkney

  Trinidad and Tobago

  HMS Orwell

  Guyana

  HMS Blackwater

  Brazil

  HMS Spey

  Brazil

  HMS Arun

  Brazil

  HMS Itchen

  Brazil

  HMS Herald

  Commercial Sale

  HMS Shetland

  Bangladesh

  664W

  Navy ships decommissioned since 1997

  Final destination

  HMS

  Bangladesh

  HMS

  Not yet known

  HMS

  Commercial Sale

  HMS

  Renamed Hindostan and redesignated for training use

  HMS Coventry

  Romania

  HMS Beagle

  Commercial Sale

  HMS fearless

  Not yet known

  HMS sheffield

  Not yet known

  HMY Britannia

  Exhibition, Port of Leith, Edinburgh

  RFA Olna

  Scrap (Commercial Sale)

  FRA Olwen

  Scrap (Commercial Sale)

  RFA Resource

  Commercial Sale

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are stationed in Sierra Leone; what changes in numbers have taken place in the last month; and if he will make a statement on the current military situation in Sierra Leone. [99453]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 31 July 2002 the security situation in Sierra Leone was judged to be benign enough to end Operation Silkman (the overarching operation for United Kingdom forces in Sierra Leone), leaving a self-sustaining UK-led International Military Advisory and Training Team (IMATT). The IMATT currently involves some 120 personnel, comprising 108 UK personnel plus a number of internationals. Six additional UK personnel have been assigned to IMATT within the last month.

  To display our continued commitment to the settlement process in Sierra Leone on 21 February we deployed a Company Group from 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles plus HQ and supporting elements (eg logistics and medical)—in total around 310 people. HMS Iron Duke and RFA Black Rover are also planned to deploy to Sierra Leone waters in the next few weeks as a further demonstration of UK commitment.

  The security situation in Sierra Leone is satisfactory. This deployment demonstrates the UK's continued support to the Government of Sierra Leone, and our

  665W
  ability to conduct such deployments rapidly and at short notice, notwithstanding our involvement in operations elsewhere in the world.

  The UK also provides the Chief Of Staff, six HQ staff officers and 15 Military Observers to the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL).

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial help is available to producers who wish to(a) supply and (b) use combined heat and power. [98901]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's draft Strategy for combined heat and power (CHP) to 2010, consulted on last year and available in the Library to the House, details the range of Government support measures currently in place for CHP. The main measures include:Climate Change Levy exemption on fuel inputs and, pending the outcome of a State Aid application, on all Good Quality CHP electricity outputs;
  Eligibility for Enhanced Capital Allowances;
  The £50 million, two-year, Community Energy grant programme; and
  eduction in VAT on certain grant-funded domestic micro-CHP installations.

  The Energy White Paper, published on 24 February, set out the following further range of measures to support CHP.

  Requirement for significant evidence that power station consent applicants have considered all economically viable options for CHP and community heating.

  Emphasise the benefits of CHP and community heating whenever planning or sustainable development guidance is introduced or reviewed.

  Work with Ofgem to ensure a level playing field under NETA for smaller generators, including CHP.

  Set targets for use of CHP in the Government Estate.

  Explore incentivising CHP within any expansion of the domestic Energy Efficiency Commitment from 2005.

  Support field trials designed to evaluate the benefits of micro-CHP.

  Invite the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust to review their current and future programmes to ensure they reinforce delivery of our CHP target.

  Work on a framework for pilot projects under the UK Emissions Trading Scheme for which CHP projects may be eligible.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the change in use of CHP by companies covered by climate change agreements; and if she will make a statement. [87880]

  Mr. Meacher
  [pursuant to his answer, 18 December 2002, Official Report, c. 800W]: My answer was sent in error, referring to HFC as opposed to CHP. The answer below corrects the original.
  666W
  There has been no assessment made of the change in use of CHP by companies covered by climate change agreements. The agreements set targets for improvements in energy efficiency, which in some cases take account of the potential for CHP in the facility. In other cases, operators are required to make an assessment of the potential for CHP, which may result in a change to their targets. Operators are free to meet their targets in a range of ways.

  Big Cats
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sightings there have been since June 2001 purporting to be of big cats, broken down by county; what steps have been taken to investigate these; and on how many occasions it has been concluded that a big cat probably was present. [99220]

  Mr. Morley
  Big cats, such as tigers, lions, cheetahs, leopards or puma, are not native to the UK and are not naturally found in the wild in this country. There are widespread and frequent reported possible sightings but, despite investigations, the Department is not aware of any confirmed instances of big cats of unknown origin being found out of captivity in England in the last 20 years. The lack of hard evidence (such as captured animals, corpses or photographs) is hard to reconcile with the number of reported sightings, unless people are genuinely but frequently mistaken with their identification.

  The Department does investigate claims of big cat sightings where there is a potential risk to possible livestock predation. Where livestock deaths are involved and it is likely that hard evidence could be obtained to identify the predator, a field visit may be conducted. However, the Department does not systematically record all alleged sightings.

  Since June 2001, the Department's Rural Development Service (RDS) have had 22 cases of alleged big cats reported to them connected to possible livestock predation and where there was potentially hard evidence to follow up. There have been two field visits in relation to these reports. The counties for these reports were: Buckinghamshire; Cornwall; Devon (three); Essex (three); Kent; Norfolk; North Somerset (two); North Yorkshire; Oxfordshire; Shropshire; Staffordshire; Suffolk; Surrey (two); Warwickshire; West Midlands; and Wiltshire. In many cases the details of the report provide insufficient circumstantial evidence to justify the expense of a field visit. However, should a field visit be deemed necessary, a trained wildlife biologist carries out detailed searches for various types of evidence such as examining the body in the field for evidence of how it had been killed or checking for footprints. In none of the field visits could any evidence be found to confirm the presence of big cats.

  Release of big cats into the wild is prohibited under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and possession of these species is regulated under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. If there is believed to be a public safety issue, for example from an escaped big cat, then this is a matter for the police.

  Departmental Budget
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the principal components of the changes in the budget of her Department from 2002–03 to 2005–06; and if she will make a statement. [99289]

  Alun Michael
  Defra's budgets for 2002–03 and the 2002 Spending Review years (2003–04 to 2005–06) are as follows:

  £ million

  —03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Resource budget

  2,185

  2,492

  2,452

  2,496

  Capital budget

  241

  316

  344

  354

  Total departmental expenditure limit1

  2,426

  2,808

  2,796

  2,850

  1 Full resource budgeting basis, net of depreciation.

  Spending by the Department in 2005–06 will be more than £400 million higher than in 2002–03, supporting a programme of reform. It fulfils the Government's pledge to introduce a significant programme of measures to move the food and farming industries to a long-term sustainable basis, to create thriving and prosperous rural economies and communities and to improve the environment. And it takes full account of the Department's lead role in promoting sustainable development across Government for the good of our citizens, both now and in the future.

  Departmental expenditure limit

  £000

  Resources

  Capital

  Core-Defra by business area

  2001–02

  Animal Health and Welfare

  163,664

  9,946

  Environment

  319,463

  264,569

  Food, Farming and Fisheries

  89,059

  11,373

  Finance, Planning and Resources

  10,260

  522

  Legal Services

  6,562

  30

  Land Use and Rural Affairs

  287,615

  155,784

  Operations and Service Delivery (inc foot and mouth eradication)

  499,133

  4,403

  Policy and Corporate Strategy

  3,182

  0

  Science

  143,616

  10,944

  Agencies

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  -3,226

  13,130

  Central Science Laboratory

  -2,453

  1,953

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  -2,712

  210

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  -7,375

  2,206

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  -691

  200

  Rural Payments Agency (inc foot and mouth eradication)

  449,536

  19,510

  Total

  1,955,633

  494,780

  2002–03

  Animal Health and Welfare

  169,907

  17,226

  Environment

  409,767

  297,685

  Food, Farming and Fisheries

  106,949

  12,014

  Finance, Planning and Resources

  10,288

  1,954

  Legal Services

  8,318

  19

  Land Use and Rural Affairs

  291,060

  170,993

  Operations and Service Delivery (inc foot and mouth eradication)

  290,643

  24,368

  Policy and Corporate Strategy

  5,081

  0

  Science

  142,624

  13,036

  Agencies

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  -3,253

  10,135

  Central Science Laboratory

  -1,413

  1,846

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  -2,781

  332

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  -9,540

  13,819

  668W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her total departmental budget is under the Department Expenditure Limit set in the Comprehensive Spending Review of 2002 in each year from 2001–02 to 2005–06; and how much within each year has been allocated by activity and to each executive agency, broken down by(a) resource and (b) capital. [99287]

  Alun Michael
  The results of the 2002 Spending Review for Defra are as follows:

  £ million

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Resource Budget

  2,492

  2,452

  2,496

  Capital Budget

  316

  344

  354

  Total Departmental Expenditure Limit1

  2,808

  2,796

  2,850

  1 Full resource budgeting basis, net of depreciation.

  Details of allocated budgets for 2003–04 to 2005–06 will be published in the spring 2003 Departmental Report. The information will include how budgets are allocated to deliver the Department's functions and objectives.

  The Departmental budgets for 2001–02 and 2002–03 do not form part of Spending Review 2002. However, budget information for these two years, by business area, is provided in the following table.
  669W

  Departmental expenditure limit

  £000

  Resources

  Capital

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  -1,057

  300

  Rural Payments Agency (inc foot and mouth eradication)

  436,117

  37,789

  Total

  1,852,710

  601,516

  Drinking Water
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) percentage and (b) gross volume of water intended for drinking purposes was tested for (i) mineral content and (ii) chemical content in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by water company supplier. [99244]

  Mr. Morley
  All public water supplies are tested for the most important minerals, namely calcium and magnesium and for 34 other chemicals or group of chemicals. All of the results are required to be put on public records by water companies, and a summary is published in the Annual Report of the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

  Farmers (Administrative Workload)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reduce the administrative burden on farmers. [98227]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The Government's Regulatory Reform Action Plan issued in February 2002 included 59 entries covering all aspects of Defra's responsibility. Many of these will be implemented over the next two years; others will be more long term. They involve changes to EC legislation, major reviews of whole areas of enforcement, inspection and information handling to ease the burden on farmers. We have already had some success, for example from April 2002 inspectors have been carrying out combined bovine risk analysis inspections required by the four IACS cattle schemes. We have introduced simpler rules for sheep producer groups making them easier to understand.

  Some regulation of agriculture is unavoidable if Defra is to safeguard the environment, public and animal health and public funds. However, our goal is to keep regulation to the minimum and find ways of streamlining the bureaucratic burden that regulation often imposes. We have a long-term strategy (2007) to introduce risk-based environment regulation across all sectors including agriculture. New risk- assessments, standardised permits better reporting arrangements will keep charges down and reduce the bureaucracy of regulation.

  We are working towards an integrated solution to the problems of regulation and agriculture by developing a whole farm approach. This is a strategy that will be developed in close consultation with industry and other stakeholders and will maximise the benefits of major investments in new IT systems, by bringing together all information held by Defra and other agencies. This will be available to farmers and growers for business
  670W
  planning, and to government to streamline enforcement and tailor advice and guidance to farmers' individual circumstances.

  Sustainable Energy Projects
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the progress made by Government assisted projects to develop area based(a) sustainable energy projects and (b) domestic energy savings and health initiatives. [96955]

  Mr. Morley
  We are making good progress with these projects. The majority of them operate on a national basis, providing assistance to households and communities across the country.

  To encourage sustainable energy projects:

  We are spending £50 million over two years on the UK wide Community Energy programme which promotes community heating. So far £8.5m of grants have been approved. Two of these grants have been for innovative energy from waste schemes.

  The Energy Crops Scheme has allocated £650,000 of grants to promote the establishment of energy crops in England.

  We fund the Countryside Agency's Community Renewables Initiative, which promotes the establishment of local renewable energy schemes in England.

  The DTI fund both the UK wide Bio Energy Capital Grants Scheme and the UK wide £10 million Clear Skies initiative. Both are relatively new initiatives. The Bio Energy Capital Grants scheme aims to ensure the development of 100MW biomass heating provision at all scales, whilst Clear Skies provides advice and support for the installation of household and renewable community renewable schemes.

  To encourage domestic energy savings and health initiatives:

  We fund the Warm Front grant scheme which assisted over 400,000 households living in Fuel Poverty by installing energy efficiency measures. This indicates that the Government is making good progress toward meeting its target of assisting 600,000 homes by 2004.

  The Government has established the Energy Efficiency Commitment. The Commitment requires electricity and gas suppliers to achieve targets for the promotion of improvements in energy efficiency, with an emphasis on helping lower income customers. The overall target on all suppliers is a combined saving of 62 fuel-standardised terawatt hours.

  Defra and DTI are funding a pilot Warm Zones initiative in five areas in England. The zones attempt to identify all fuel poor households in an area, and ensure

  671W
  that existing schemes are used to improve the energy efficiency of those homes. The pilot is being evaluated at present and an interim report is expected shortly.

  Waste Inspections
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many inspections were carried out at industrial and waste sites by each individual Environment Agency office in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001; and if she will make a statement. [93707]

  Mr. Meacher
  Until recently, the Agency has required its regions to report only the annual inspection total for the region as a whole. The regional inspection figures for 1997 and 2001 are as follows:

  Industrial

  Waste

  Region

  1997–98

  2001–02

  1997–98

  2001–02

  Anglian

  978

  616

  17,432

  13,919

  Midlands

  850

  571

  24,895

  17,237

  North East

  1,211

  1,150

  23,278

  17,784

  North West

  806

  646

  20,530

  13,503

  Southern

  418

  298

  11,487

  5,515

  South West

  394

  238

  15,410

  10,206

  Thames

  343

  308

  18,950

  11,967

  Wales

  583

  413

  8,228

  6,826

  These figures reflect the Agency's move towards a more risk based approach to inspection, with fewer, more in-depth visits targeted on those sites with the greatest potential to harm the environment.

  Water Management
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of significant consents to discharge trade effluent to watercourses were reviewed by the Environment Agency in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [98700]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency reviewed 10 per cent. of significant trade effluent consents for discharges to watercourses in 2001 and 8 per cent. in 2002.

  Water Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many recorded incidents of pollution caused by leaking sewerage pipes there have been, broken down by statutory undertaker in each year since 1992. [99272]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra does not hold figures on sewage pollution incidents, and while the Environment Agency's database contains figures for pollution incidents for the last two years, it is not possible to identify separately those attributable to leaking sewers.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the environmental impact of(a) fat, (b) oils, (c) fuel and (d) other pollutants being poured into drainage and sewerage systems. [99273]

  Mr. Morley
  The environmental impact will depend on the quantity of substance entering the drainage or sewerage system, and in the case of sewerage systems the 672W
  extent to which the treatment plant can accommodate the load. Depending on the individual circumstance the impact can range from nil to significant, depending on what degree of intervention, prevention or mitigation is possible or achieved.

  The Environment Agency records and reports on incidents of pollution. It also collects and publishes data on annual releases via authorised discharges of some 150 individual pollutants to the environment and to sewerage systems.

  The Agency has worked with the Water Industry to identify and quantify sources of releases into sewerage systems. The environmental impact arising from these releases is not currently systematically assessed. However, work is underway that could enable the potential impact of emissions on environmental systems to be recorded. The research is expected to be completed in early 2004.

  The Environment Agency has published a report on Oil in the Environment (Oil and Gas in the Environment. 1998). This gives an assessment of the significance of oil as an environmental pollutant.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Medical Students (Debt)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the average debt level that a medical student would incur during his or her training as a result of the Government's proposals for higher education. [98842]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The level of loan taken out by medical students will depend on their individual circumstances and choices, including the extent to which they work while in higher education.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average A level points score was for(a) school sixth forms, (b) sixth form colleges and (c) general further education colleges in each of the last three years. [98860]

  Mr. Miliband
  The average GCE/VCE A/AS and AGNVQ point scores achieved by 17 year old students in 1999–2001 (the most recent three years for which data are available):

  20011

  2000

  1999

  All schools

  19.9

  18.7

  18

  Sixth form colleges

  19.3

  17.4

  17.4

  Other FE Sector colleges

  14.2

  11.2

  11.3

  All FE Sector colleges (sixth forms and other FE)

  16.9

  14.3

  14.4

  Schools and FE Sector colleges

  18.9

  17.2

  17.2

  1 Figures for 2001 are not directly comparable to 1999 and 2000 as they include changes introduced as part of the Qualifying for Success reforms in September 2000. Under these reforms, students are encouraged to take a wide range of subjects in their first year of post-16 study, with students taking between one and five Advanced Subsidiaries and progressing three of these on to full A levels in their second year. These changes have resulted in an increase of students' average point scores in 2001.

  Adult Education Courses
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what extra contribution will be sought from fees for adult education courses with the new learning and skills funding formula for further education colleges. [99562]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The operation of the Learning and Skills Council's funding system is the responsibility of the Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member providing the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Higher Education (Top-up Fees)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department made of the deterrent effects to students of imposing top-up fees on shortage subjects in drawing up the proposals in the policy document, "The Future of Higher Education"; and if he will make a statement. [98130]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are not imposing fees on any higher education institution, course or subject—rather, we are giving universities the freedom to set their own fees, between £0 and £3,000.

  Higher Education (Academic Merit)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he is issuing to higher education institutions on the assessment of academic merit without reference to social or cultural factors affecting an individual. [99560]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not for Government to prescribe university policies for which universities are themselves responsible. We look to them to ensure that they admit on the basis of merit, taking into account appropriate factors which may well go beyond simply using predicted A-level scores. We have asked the Higher Education Funding Council to look at best practice and disseminate it throughout the sector so that all universities have admissions processes which are fair and transparent.

  Higher Education (Drop-out Costs)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has commissioned into the relationship between student costs and drop out rates for each university and higher education institution. [94765]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Figures published in 2002 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the UK as a whole has

  Table 1: Actual and forecast income and expenditure

  £ million

  1999–2000 Actual

  2000–01 Actual

  2001–02 Forecast

  2002–03 Forecast

  2003–04 Forecast

  2004–05 Forecast

  2005–06 Forecast

  Total income

  10,465

  11,069

  11,585

  12,237

  12,796

  13,280

  13,799

  % Increase

  —

  5.8

  5.5

  5.6

  4.6

  3.8

  3.9

  Total expenditure

  10,370

  11,100

  11,598

  12,250

  12,754

  13,213

  13,711

  % increase

  —

  7.0

  5.9

  5.6

  4.1

  3.6

  3.8

  Surplus after

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Depreciation of assets of valuation and tax

  125

  44

  13

  (10)

  143

  109

  94

  674W
  one of the lowest non-completion rates among OECD countries.

  Up to date research, the UNITE/MORI "Student Living Report 2003", found that 96 per cent. of students consider that going to university is a worthwhile experience and that the major reason for drop out is dissatisfaction with the course rather than financial issues. 87 per cent. of students interviewed agreed that the money they were spending on higher education was a good investment in their future.

  These findings on drop out are backed up by research commissioned by the Department "Dropping Out: A Study of Early Leavers from Higher Education" by Peter Elias and Rhys Davies at the Institute of Employment Research at Warwick University, published January 2003 that shows that the most common cause of non-completion was poor choice of course. Financial problems and personal problems were also cited by respondents to the survey. However, a relatively low response rate to the survey underpinning the research implies the quantitative results are only indicative.

  The National Audit Office report "Improving Student Achievement in English Higher Education" published in January 2002 showed that students who drop out tend to have lower prior academic qualifications. Most of them cite personal reasons (feeling unprepared for higher education, changing personal circumstances or financial matters) or withdraw because of academic failure.

  Higher Education (Operating Deficits)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many universities and colleges in the English and Welsh higher education sector have operating deficits; and if he will make a statement. [98504]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information about higher education institutions in Wales is for the Welsh Assembly to provide. The Higher Education Funding Council for England published 'Outcomes of 2002 financial forecasts and annual operating statements' in January 2003. This report is based on information provided by higher education institutions in July 2002. The forecasts were based on assumptions reflecting the prevailing general economic climate and the funding announcements made at the time and so do not take account of the Spending Review settlement for 2003–04 to 2005–06. Projected levels of surplus are significantly affected by exceptional items, such as gains or losses on property transactions.

  The forecast income and expenditure position for the sector as a whole is set out in Table 1 of the report, which is shown.
  675W

  Table 1: Actual and forecast income and expenditure

  £ million

  Actual 1999–2000

  Actual 2000–01

  Forecast 2001–02

  Forecast 2002–03

  Forecast 2003–04

  Forecast 2004–05

  Forecast 2005–06

  Surplus as % of total income

  1.19

  0.40

  0.10

  (0.09)

  1.10

  0.81

  0.67

  Historical cost surplus as % of total income

  1.95

  1.25

  0.92

  0.51

  2.11

  1.37

  1.02

  Exceptional items

  —

  77

  26

  3

  101

  41

  6

  The only year where there is a forecast deficit for the sector as a whole is 2002–03 when the deficit is estimated at £10 million or 0.9 per cent. of the total budget of over £12 billion.

  The number of universities and colleges forecasting deficits is shown in table 2 of the report.

  Table 2: Actual and forecast surpluses and deficits

  Number of HEIs forecasting operating deficits

  Number of HEIs forecasting historical cost deficits

  2000–01

  47 (35%)

  35 (26%)

  2001–02

  55 (41%)

  35(26%)

  2002–03

  60 (45%)

  35 (26%)

  2003–04

  44 (33%)

  24 (18%)

  2004–05

  39 (29%)

  21 (16%)

  1005–06

  33 (25%)

  22 (16%)

  As a result of the latest Spending Review announcements, Government spending on higher education will rise by more than 6 per cent. a year above inflation over the next three years.

  NUT Annual Conference
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will arrange for a Minister from his Department to attend the National Union of Teachers' annual conference this Easter. [99157]

  Mr. Miliband
  No Minister will attend the NUT's annual conference this year.

  Research Authorities
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reflect greater selectivity in the research authorities of the higher education sector, with particular reference to those rating above 5. [99561]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In "The Future of Higher Education" we announced our intention to identify the very best of the Departments rated 5⋆ in the last Research Assessment Exercise and give them an uplift in funding over the next three years in order to focus resources on the strongest performers. We are asking the Higher Education Funding Council for England to consider how best to implement this proposal.

  St James School, Colindale
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects to make a decision on the application by St. James School, Colindale for consent to build an all-weather pitch on its playing fields. [99615]
  676W
  Mr. Miliband
  The Secretary of State expects to make a decision on this application within the next few days.

  Student Drop-Outs
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list those universities with over 20 per cent. of students expected to drop out of their courses without finishing their degrees, using the latest figures compiled by the Higher Education Funding Council; if he will estimate the cost to public funds for each student; what initiative he is taking to reduce drop outs; and if he will make a statement. [90465]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest information is shown in the table. The cost to the Exchequer of students who drop out from UK universities depends on factors such as the timing of drop outs within academic years, the level of public funding associated with individual courses, whether or not students transfer to other HE institutions and whether or not students return to HE at a later date. Figures for the cost are not compiled centrally.

  The UK has one of the best completion rates in the world. The latest Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Performance Indicators (Pis) put the national rate of non-completion at 17 per cent. This rate has stayed broadly the same since 1991–92, a period of considerable expansion of student numbers. But there is room for improvement. That is why we have asked HEFCE to "bear down" on non-completion, in particular by identifying examples of good practice in student retention and disseminating them across the sector; by working more closely with those institutions whose performance indicator for non-completion fails to meet expectations; and by working with the Department in establishing a sector target for non-completion.

  HE Institutions in the UK with non-completion rates of more than 20 per cent. Full-time students starting first degree courses in 1999–2000

  Non-completion rate

  Institution

  Projected1

  Benchmark2

  England

  —

  —

  Anglia Polytechnic University1

  27

  21

  Bolton Institute of HE1

  30

  25

  University of Central Lancashire1

  33

  26

  Coventry University

  22

  21

  Dartington College of Arts

  24

  17

  University of Derby

  24

  22

  University of East London1

  33

  26

  University of Greenwich

  26

  23

  University of Huddersfield1

  25

  20

  Kingston University

  21

  21

  Liverpool Hope University College

  23

  23

  Liverpool John Moores University1

  22

  19

  London Guildhall University1

  30

  25

  University of Loton1

  26

  21

  Middlesex University

  22

  23

  677W

  HE Institutions in the UK with non-completion rates of more than 20 per cent. Full-time students starting first degree courses in 1999–2000

  Non-completion rate

  Institution

  Projected1

  Benchmark2

  University College Northampton1

  29

  20

  University of North London1

  45

  27

  School of Oriental and African Studies1

  29

  17

  South Bank University

  28

  26

  Staffordshire University

  23

  20

  University of Sunderland1

  28

  21

  University of Teeside1

  27

  22

  Thames Valley University1

  29

  22

  Trinity College of Music1

  39

  17

  University of the West of England

  21

  19

  University of Westminster

  23

  23

  Scotland

  University of Abertay Dendee1

  24

  17

  Glasgow Caledonian University1

  29

  17

  University of Paisley1

  31

  17

  Wales

  University of Glamorgan

  25

  23

  University of Wales, Lampeter

  26

  21

  University of Wales College, Newport1

  26

  21

  North East Wales Institute

  26

  23

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education1

  30

  19

  1 The projected outcomes are calculated on the assumption that the progression paths of new entrants will be the same as those for students currently in the system. Those institutions whose projected value is significantly worse than their benchmark are marked with an asterix.

  The benchmark is an expected value which allows for the entry qualifications of the students and the subject mix of the institution.

  Source:

  "Performance Indicators in Higher Education" published by HEFCE.

  Top-up Fees (Brunel University)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from Brunel University about the impact of top-up fees on the socio-economic background of applicants; and if he will make a statement. [98979]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received a number of representations from a variety of sources since the launch of the White Paper and expect to receive more during the period for comment.

  University Entrants
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many UK students have entered universities in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) Scotland in each academic year since 1990. [91638]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest available figures are shown in the table. Figures for Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the devolved Administrations of these countries.

  UK domiciled entrants to undergraduate courses1

  Academic year

  England2

  Wales2

  Scotland3

  Northern Ireland2

  1990–91

  328,500

  18,000

  46,200

  9,200

  1991–92

  377,700

  20,500

  49,300

  9,900

  1992–93

  415,600

  23,600

  56,800

  10,800

  1993–94

  437,200

  24,300

  59,000

  11,300

  1994–95

  460,700

  27,200

  75,000

  12,100

  1995–96

  477,900

  31,200

  82,600

  15,300

  678W

  UK domiciled entrants to undergraduate courses1

  Academic year

  England1

  Wales2

  Scotland3

  Northern Ireland2

  1996–97

  476,100

  31,400

  91,000

  15,400

  1997–98

  483,700

  30,700

  95,700

  17,600

  1998–99

  471,300

  31,000

  97,600

  18,300

  1999–2000

  485,000

  32,200

  98,700

  18,900

  2000–01

  490,500

  34,300

  98,800

  20,600

  2001–024

  504,300

  36,800

  106,200

  19,800

  1 Entrants to full-time and part-time courses at HE and FE institutions. Excludes students at the Open University.

  2 Census count as at 31 December in years up to 1993–94, and as at 1 December in subsequent years.

  3 Census count as at 31 December in years up to 1993–94, whole year session counts in subsequent years.

  4 Provisional. Includes estimates for HE students in FE colleges.

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Work Experience
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his plans are for the provision of structured and accredited work experience schemes for 14 to 16 year olds. [99624]

  Mr. Miliband
  As I said in my answer to the hon. Member on 10 February over 95 per cent. of pupils currently undertake work experience placements in their last years of compulsory schooling, and we want all pupils to benefit from high quality placements. A range of guidance and support is already provided by the Department, the Learning and Skills Council and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. This seeks to ensure that placements are safe, well structured, integrated into the curriculum and suited to the needs of the individual, with activities and outcomes captured within pupils' records of achievement.

  We also intend to make work-related learning a statutory requirement for all pupils at Key 4 from 2004–05. We have asked the QCA for further advice on work-related learning as part of their overall advice on Key Stage 4 curriculum change. While delivery will vary according to pupils' needs and circumstances, integrating work experience more closely into the curriculum will be one of the means by which this requirement may be fulfilled. In many cases the experience will be distinct and practical, providing opportunities for assignments and project work that will contribute directly to qualifications such as the new GCSEs in vocational subjects or NVQs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Government officials are responsible for liaison with officials from Gibraltar. [99752]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government is in regular contact with the Gibraltar Government on a broad range of issues. This involves contact between officials in a number of Whitehall departments and the Gibraltar Government.

  British Council
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the cost to the British Council of funding arts events abroad in 2001 to support UK creative industries; and if he will make a statement. [99120]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Council expenditure on the arts and creative industries programme in Financial Year 2001–02 was £24.9 million, including £8.1 million of staff costs in the UK and overseas. This funding leveraged a further £27.2 million from partners, sponsors and other revenue sources.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the information given on page 91 of the FCO Departmental Report 2002, whether the event attended by Mr.Fidel Castro, including a performance by the Manic Street Preachers, was funded by his Department through the British Council; and if he will make a statement. [99121]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 26 February 2003]: The costs of the concert were borne by the band and their record company, with the venue, local staffing, logistics and security provided by the Cuban Ministry of Culture and the Cuban Institute of Music. The British Council's role was to facilitate contact between the band and the Cuban authorities.

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is with regard to recent proposals by the French and German governments that decisions over European Common Foreign and Security Policy be taken by qualified majority vote; what discussions he has had with the two governments concerning this matter; and if he will make a statement. [93438]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]: Her Majesty's Government will not come to final decisions on the matter until it has had, in due course, the opportunity to study the Reports of the Convention as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman will wish to note that in the Convention Working Group, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales proposed the following: "While noting that there was no consensus yet on the further extension of QMV, the Group could agree that the future Treaty should include a provision, which would provide for the possibility of the European Council agreeing to extend (on the basis of unanimity) the use of QMV in CFSP.".

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his Answer to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) of 7 February 2003,Official Report, column 479, on the Convention on the Future of Europe, what plans he has to submit the draft constitutional treaty to Parliament before it is discussed at the inter-governmental conference; whether it is his policy that Parliament will have a chance to vote on the
  680W
  draft treaty (a) before and (b) after the inter-governmental conference; and whether the draft constitution will be put to a referendum of the British people. [99341]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Praesidium's draft Constitutional Treaty is a public document which can be accessed through the Convention website at www.european-convention.eu.int. The UK Parliament is already a party to the discussions in the Convention, beingrepresented by four official members, one of whom is on the Convention's Praesidium. As with all previous EU treaties, a Constitutional Treaty would be submitted for scrutiny by Parliament before the UK would ratify it. The Government has no plans to hold a referendum on any new EU treaty.

  Krishna Maharaj
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to decide on further official action and approaches to the United States authority seeking remedies, relief and an order for a new trial for Krishna Maharaj. [99688]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Officials in London, and the Consulate-General in Atlanta remain in close and regular contact with Mr Maharaj's legal representatives, and continue to take an active interest in the on-going legal proceedings. It is for Mr Maharaj's lawyers to pursue the legal avenues open to him, including the possibility of a re-trial. We will, however, look to see what else HMG could properly do.

  Kurdistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Kurdistan Regional Government regarding means to assist Kurdish citizens in the event of a military attack on Iraq. [99697]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives of the northern Iraq Kurdish administrations, as well as other Iraqi oppositionists, to discuss a wide range of issues. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, leaders of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan respectively, in December 2002.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Travelling to the UK on False Documentation
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons during the last 12 months for which figures are available have been prosecuted for travelling to the UK on false documentation; how many were legally represented; how many raised the defence under section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that they wished to claim asylum; how many were convicted; and how many were sentenced to imprisonment of(a) less than six months and (b) more than six months. [98646]
  681W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information required to answer this question is not collected and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the set-up costs for CAFCASS was spent on the new IT system. [99529]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In the year preceding CAFCASS's launch, a total of £10.2m was spent on set up costs of the new organisation; this included capital expenditure of £7.7m. Over £5m of this total, i.e. some 50% was spent on the IT service for the new organisation.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the records of children who are known to CAFCASS had been transferred onto the new IT system by the end of 2002; and how many will be transferred by the end of(a) 2003, (b) 2004 and (c) 2005. [99530]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) is currently considering how to record cases in a standardised electronic format. Meanwhile the full case papers are held in the existing methods of storage.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent by CAFCASS on new accommodation since 1 April 2001; and what proportion of this came(a) from the CAFCASS annual budget and (b) from initial start-up costs. [99531]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since 1 April 2001 CAFCASS has been implementing a strategy to ensure its accommodation is suitable for its needs. This has involved disposing of some properties inherited from the predecessor organisations and acquiring new properties. Overall the number of properties has reduced from 184 to 146. Costs of £3.76 million in 2001–02 were met from set-up funding which was provided to CAFCASS for this and other purposes. Costs in 2002–03 are likely to be £1.34 million and have been met from their 2002–03 operating budget.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many CAFCASS offices comply with all health and safety legislation; and how many will comply by the end of(a) 2003, (b) 2004 and (c) 2005. [99532]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) aims to complete, by the end of 2003–04, an internal safety audit for each office. This will give a clear indication of progress. In addition, a number of topic-specific national safety procedures have been developed, addressing a range of legislative requirements and duties, including emergency actions, induction training, first aid, workplace inspections, accident reporting, lone 682W
  working and display screen use. CAFCASS had in any event adopted the inherited Health and Safety policies and procedures of its predecessor organisations.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost is of CAFCASS staff based in(a) headquarters and (b) regional offices in 2002–03; and what proportion this represents of the overall budget. [99533]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  CAFCASS salaried staff costs for 2002–03 are forecast to be £2.9 million for headquarters, 3.5 per cent. of the overall budget, and £46.4 million for staff in the regions, 55.9 per cent. of the overall budget. These figures (including London) include the costs of CAFCASS employed guardians, but not self-employed guardians or other agency or contract staff.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps she is taking to ensure that judges and the judiciary receive training to recognise and deal with cases of domestic violence. [97744]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My Department continues to work closely with the Judicial Studies Board to develop training for judges and magistrates that takes account of the growing body of knowledge about domestic violence.

  All newly appointed part time judges, and all judges who are authorised to hear family cases, are required to attend a residential "Induction Course" in the relevant jurisdiction. Thereafter, both full and part time judges attend residential continuation seminars every three years in each jurisdiction they exercise. The amount of training time provided on domestic violence in JSB courses and seminars is shown in the annexed table. Many judges also attend locally organised conferences.

  In addition all full and part time judges sitting in the Crown Court attend an annual one-day Circuit Seminar on sentencing issues, for which the theme last year was Domestic Violence. This provided, on average, up to five hours of additional training on this subject in 2000–01.

  Training of Magistrates is the statutory responsibility of individual Magistrates' Courts Committees. But the JSB assists by producing generic training materials, and is currently working on a training package specifically on domestic violence.

  I also launched a guide on 21 February to inform service providers of the current remedies available to victims of domestic violence in the civil and criminal courts. It is my hope that the magistrates and the professional judiciary will also find this a useful source of information.

  We will continue to identify further action in every area of our responsibilities, and in those areas of responsibility that we share with other Government Departments, to make sure that tackling domestic violence and protecting its victims (adults and children) are given the priority they deserve.

  Refurbishment
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether a building research establishment environmental assessment method document has been prepared for the refurbishment of(a) GKN House, (b) Steel House and (c) Clive House. [96408]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  (a) There are no plans to undertake a BREEAM assessment on the partial refurbishment of GKN House. (b) An assessment has not yet been carried out for Steel House but it is a requirement of the contract, soon to be awarded, that such an assessment is undertaken. (c) A BREEAM method document has been prepared for Clive House.

TREASURY

  Anti-poverty Targets
  18. Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will estimate the cost of meeting the anti-poverty targets of the millenium development goals. [99479]

  John Healey
  The UN estimates that global aid flows will need to be doubled in order to meet the Millenium Development Goals by 2015. This means that an extra $50 billion is needed per year.

  The UK is seeking to develop the proposal for an International Finance Facility in partnership with the international community. The facility would borrow on the international capital markets to raise the amount of development aid for the years to 2015 from $50 billion a year to $100 billion dollars per year.

  Pension Credit
  19. Helen Jones
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many pensioners in Warrington North will be eligible for the pension credit. [99480]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at November 2002, over 2,700 pensioners in Warrington North were receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee. They and others besides will benefit from the Pension Credit. Nationally, the Department for Work and Pensions is aiming to ensure that at least three million pensioner households receive their entitlement by 2006.

  National Insurance
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what his estimate is of the effect of the impending national insurance increases on UK competitiveness. [99481]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my response in the Chamber earlier today to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

  Bioethanol
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will reduce the duty on bioethanol used as fuel for motor vehicles. [99482]
  684W
  John Healey
  In the Pre Budget Report, we announced a reduced rate of duty for bioethanol, to be set at 20 pence per litre less than the prevailing rate for ultra low sulphur petrol. The date of implementation of this new rate will be announced at the time of the Budget.

  Debt
  Phil Hope
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what arrangements he is proposing to write off the debt of the world's poorest countries. [99483]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the Chancellor gave the hon. Member for Gloucester earlier today.

  EU Economic Policies
  Alan Howarth
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what his policy is on the European Union's co-ordinating the economic policies of the member states [99484]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has consistently made clear its support for a prudent interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact, which takes into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment.

  The Government is committed to economic reform in Europe, building on the Lisbon agenda. The progress report on European economic reform, "Meeting the Challenge; Economic Reform in Europe", was published on 17 February 2003, and describes progress made in meeting the Lisbon objectives.

  ACT Dividend Credit
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the amount of extra revenue he has received since 1997 from the abolition of ACT dividend credit. [99485]

  Ruth Kelly
  I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to tax credits paid on dividends received by investors.

  When we announced the changes to dividend tax credits in July 1997 we estimated that they would increase revenue by amounts of £2.3 billion in 1997–98, £3.95 billion in 1998–99, and around £51.5 billion each year thereafter.

  But it is misleading to look at these figures in isolation. The abolition of payable tax credits was part of a wider package of CT reform that reduced rates of corporation tax and encourages re-investment of profits for growth. These reforms will have partly offset the effects of changes to tax credits.

  There has been no estimate made of the Exchequer effects since those Budget forecasts.

  Child Trust Fund
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each Government consultation that has included information on the Child Trust Fund. [99028]
  685W
  Ruth Kelly
  Proposals for the Child Trust Fund (CTF) were first published in April 2001 in the consultation document, Saving and Assets for All. A follow up consultation document, Delivering Saving and Assets, which asked specific questions about the delivery model for the CTF, was published in November 2001. The result of this consultation was published in the 2002 Pre-Budget Report. As part of the consultation launched on 5 February 2003 on the product specifications for the 'stakeholder' products recommended by the Sandier review, the Government is seeking views on whether explicitly linking the CTF to the other products in the Sandier suite would be helpful.

  Gold Reserves
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the outcome of the policy of instructing the Bank of England to sell gold reserves; and what percentage of total gold reserves have been sold. [99462]

  Ruth Kelly
  As recommended by the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury undertook a review of the gold sales programme once it was completed. Copies of the Treasury's "Review of the Sale of Part of the UK Gold Reserves", issued in October 2002, have been placed in the House of Commons' Library. It is also available on the Treasury's website.

  As a result of the portfolio restructuring the Government has reduced the United Kingdom's gold holdings from the 715 tonnes (held in May 1999) to 320 tonnes at the end of the programme, a reduction of around 60 per cent. The United Kingdom now holds around 23 per cent of its net reserves in gold.

  Government Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total(a) market value and (b) same use value of land and buildings owned by the UK Government; and if he will make a statement. [98378]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Asset Register (CM 5221) shows that, at March 2000, the value of land and buildings owned by central government departments and their sponsored bodies in the public sector was £160 billion. Land and buildings are valued in accordance with the relevant UK accounting standards. Further information is available in departmental resource accounts and the accounts of their sponsored bodies.

  Government Finance
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his forecasts are for the Government's(a) budget deficit and (b) PSBR, (i) in absolute terms and (ii) as a proportion of GDP, for the next five financial years; whether these will be compliant with the terms and conditions of euro membership and the stability pact; and if he will make a statement. [99600]

  Mr. Boateng
  Projections of public sector net borrowing as a proportion of GDP and in £ billion for the next five financial years are shown in the 2002 Pre-Budget Report, in Tables B2 and B5 respectively. The public sector net cash requirement, formerly known as 686W
  the public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR), is shown in Table B22 of the 2002 Pre-Budget Report for 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Table B2 of the 2002 Pre-Budget Report also shows the Treaty measures of deficit and debt used in the excessive deficits procedure. The reference levels of 3 per cent. of GDP for the deficit and 60 per. cent of GDP for gross debt are comfortably achieved throughout the period. The projections are consistent with the Government's prudent interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact, which takes into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment (as specified in Article 104 of the EC Treaty).

  Iraqi Residents (UK)
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the latest estimate is of the number of Iraqi nationals resident in the United Kingdom. [99689]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. R. Walter, dated 27 February 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of Iraqi nationals resident in the United Kingdom. (99689)
  The latest available estimate of the number of Iraqi nationals resident in the United Kingdom is 21,000. This estimate is obtained from averaging the results from the Labour Force Survey over the twelve month period ending November 2002 and is subject to sampling error.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times since 2001 he has taken flights within his departmental duties in the UK; how many of these were(a) charter flights, (b) first or club class and (c) by helicopter; and who accompanied him on each trip. [95383]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken four flights, including two return flights, within the UK on departmental business since 2001. One of these flights was in club class. He has taken no charter or helicopter flights.

  On one occasion he was accompanied by two special advisers, a press officer and a private secretary; on another by a special adviser, a press officer, a private secretary and an official; on one occasion by a special adviser, a press officer and two private secretaries; and on another occasion by a special adviser and two private secretaries. All travel was undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer Written Question 92347 tabled for answer on the named day of 28 January. [98923]
  687W
  Ruth Kelly
  My Private Secretary provided this information by letter on 17 February in response to an enquiry from the hon. Gentleman. I am placing a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what scientific evidence the UK Government has collated to suggest that amnesic shellfish poisoning in scallops represents a threat to human health. [94154]

  Ms Blears
  There have been no recorded instances of amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP) in humans in the United Kingdom due to the consumption of scallops. However, ASP is a recognised neurotoxin, which has caused severe illness and even death in other countries through consumption of shellfish and is therefore a serious threat to human health.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the European Commission intends to respond to the appeal from the Food Standards Agency for a review of the current internationally accepted action level of 20 mg/kg in scallops; and what scientific evidence the Commission has collated to suggest that amnesic shellfish poisoning represents a threat to human health. [94155]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency wrote to the European Commission on the question of the action level, seeking their views on how further research may be taken forward. The Commission has acknowledged receipt of a project proposal for the assessment of scallop portion size as a contribution to the assessment of the risk to consumer health. This proposal will be evaluated and, if considered valid, submitted to the Commission's Scientific Committee for Scrutiny.

  The current European Union controls are based on evidence drawn from an incident in Canada which resulted in cases of severe illness and several deaths. Details of this or any ongoing research can be obtained from the Commission's Directorate General SANCO.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures, tests, and exercises constitute the process by which PSNI officers reclassify in relation to use of firearms; and if he will make a statement. [98568]

  Jane Kennedy
  The training comprises of an introductory Health and Safety input, a refresher handling class, a live fire qualification shoot and an interactive lesson on Human Rights and Police Use of Firearms.

  Scallop Fishery
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the whole Irish Sea scallop fishery has been closed. [94151]
  688W
  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency, which has responsibility for monitoring shellfisheries for the presence of algal biotoxins as required under EC Directive 91/492, that closures of scallop fisheries are based on sample test results above the statutory limit.

PRIME MINISTER

  Director of Communications
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what rules govern speeches made to external organisations by his Director of Communications; and if he will make a statement; [100018]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the speech made to the Freight Transport Association by his Director of Communications on 18 February. [100019]

  The Prime Minister
  Speeches made by special advisers in an official capacity are governed by the requirements of the Model Contract for Special Advisers. In line with the terms of his contract, my Director of Communications occasionally carries out speaking engagements. His speech to the Freight Transport Association was one of a number he is doing in a personal capacity to raise funds for charity. He spoke about his experience in the media and in politics, and then did a Q&A session. There is no record of his remarks.

  Iraq
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what plans Her Majesty's Government has to present the government of Iraq with a formal written ultimatum before it enters a state of armed conflict with that Government; [99491]

  (2) what the maximum length of time is in which Iraq is required to comply with the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1441; and if he will make a statement; [99493]

  (3) if he will make it his policy to publish, in advance of entering a state of armed conflict with Iraq, a statement indicating why he considers that all peaceful means of settling the disputes between the United Kingdom and Iraq have been exhausted. [99665]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I gave in the House on Tuesday 25 February 2003.

  Lord Lieutenant for Cambridgeshire
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the announcement of the new Lord Lieutenant for Cambridgeshire to be made. [99606]

  The Prime Minister
  The former Lord-Lieutenant for Cambridgeshire, James Crowden, retired in November last year. The process of identifying a successor is well in hand and we hope to announce an appointment shortly.

CABINET OFFICE

  Capita
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2003,Official Report, columns 367–368W, on Capita, if he will give the (a) start and finish date, (b) value, (c) evaluation mechanism for successful delivery and (d) penalty charges for failure to deliver for each contract; whether penalty charges have been incurred; what the service level agreements were; what the contract numbers were; and if he will make a statement. [97337]

  Mr. Alexander
  The information requested is as follows:

  Contract for Fast Stream Recruitment Support

  (a) Started 1 April 2001, ends 30 September 2003

  (b) The contract is part fixed cost and part variable cost. The fixed cost is £1,224,000 and the variable cost to date is £1,980,000

  (c) Successful delivery is achieved through careful contract management, including regular monitoring.

  (d) The contract contains a default procedure that has not been used. The contract number is F060.

  Contract for Provision of Civil Service and Judicial Pensioner Payroll and Associated Services

  (a) Started 1 October 2002, the contract is for 5.5 years extendable up to 10.5 years.

  (b) The current value is some £3.6 million per annum, however the contract price is subject to annual indexation and changes in live and preserved caseloads—either up or down.

  (c) Successful delivery is achieved through careful contract management, including regular monitoring.

  (d) The contract provides for a reduction in the contract price if performance standards are not achieved. The contract does not have a number.

  Contract for Recruitment of Assistant Parliamentary Counsel

  (a) Started 4 October 2001, ended 11 November 2002

  (b) £19,000

  (c) Successful delivery was achieved through contract management, including regular monitoring.

  (d) The contract provided for termination in the event of a material breach which was not remedied. The contract did not have a number.

  I have put a copy of the service levels for each contract in the Library.

  All costs exclude VAT.

  Civil Defence
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 495W, what further steps have been taken by his Department since 11 September 2001 to ensure that local authorities in England and Wales work in conjunction with the (a) St John's Ambulance and (b) other voluntary organisations to update local civil defence plans and increase civil defence (i) planning and (ii) readiness in the event of an NBC terrorist attack in (A) London, (B) South East, (C) England and (D) UK; and when the most recent guidance was given. [98641]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 495W.

  Mr. Peter Gershon
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when Sir Andrew Turnbull will reply to the letter of 22 January 2003 from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton regarding the conduct of Mr. Peter Gershon CBE. [99772]

  Mr. Alexander
  Sir Andrew Turnbull replied to the hon. Member on 26 February 2003.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many named day written questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that received a holding answer were given a substantive answer(a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days, (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) Parliamentary Questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99458]

  Mr. Alexander
  Seventy five Named Day questions were tabled to the Cabinet Office between 15 October and 24 February, of these nine had holding replies. All were answered within three parliamentary sitting days.

  Cabinet Office parliamentary questions are recorded on a parliamentary database, and progress of all parliamentary questions are monitored closely.

  As far as ministerial correspondence is concerned, the Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on performance of departments in replying to Ministerial correspondence. The Report for 2001 was published on Friday 24 May 2002, column 674W. The Report for 2002 will be published in due course.

HEALTH

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action his Department will undertake to ensure that primary care trusts fund the treatment of patients suffering from predominantly classic CNV associated with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) within the context of the clinical studies recommended in the Final Appraisal Determination of photodynamic therapy for AMD issued by NICE; [98632]

  (2) when his Department returned photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration to NICE; and when final guidance is expected; [98633]

  (3) what his Department's estimate is of the number of patients who, according to the product licence, should have been eligible for treatment for AMD during the clinical studies. [98634]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to carry out an appraisal of photodynamic therapy (PDT) as a treatment for age-related macular degeneration. It has not yet published any guidance to the National Health Service on this topic. NICE prepared its Final Appraisal Determination on Photodynamic Therapy and circulated it to consultees
  691W
  on 16 January. We understand this document has been appealed against. NICE will now consider any appeals before publishing its final guidance.

  Once guidance has been published, NHS bodies are obliged to make the ncessary funding available so that patients can receive treatments recommended by NICE, if recommended by the clinician.

  A recent study sponsored by the Macular Disease Society estimated that there were currently 182,000 suffering from age-related macular degeneration with a best eye visual acuity below that judged appropriate for certification as blind or partially sighted. The study forecast that this number would increase to 194,000 by 2008. We are unable to estimate exactly how many patients may benefit from photodynamic therapy until NICE has completed its appraisal of the therapy.

  Agency Nurses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of agency and bank nurses in(a) York and (b) North Yorkshire: and what assessment he has made of the impact of these costs on the respective primary care trusts. [98052]

  Jacqui Smith
  Figures for the costs of agency and bank nurses are not available. The table sets out the costs of all agency staff and other staff not directly employed by individual health authorities, national health service trust and primary care trusts—including agency nurses. Figures for the cost of bank nurses are included in the cost NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff.

  Analysis of expenditure on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, within the North Yorkshire Health Authority Boundary: 2001–02

  Organisation name

  Expenditure on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (£)

  North Yorkshire Health Authority

  0

  Selby and York Primary Care Trust

  83,388

  Northallerton Health Services NHS Trust

  133,482

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  766,850

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire NHS Trust

  201,422

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

  500,903

  Tees East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  0

  Sources:

  1. Annual financial returns of health authorities.

  2. Annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  3. Annual financial returns of primary care trusts.

  Source of information:

  Department of Health

  Cancer Treatment
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many teenage cancer patients since 1997 spent the majority of their cancer treatment in(a) adult and (b) children's wards in (i) England and (ii) the North East of England; and if he will make a statement. [98466]

  Ms Blears
  No statistics are available centrally which allow distinction between adult and children's wards.
  692W
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the locations of teenage-specific cancer wards(a) in 1995, (b) in 2003 and (c) that are planned to be completed by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [98471]

  Ms Blears
  We do not routinely hold details of all the teenage cancer wards provided in the National Health Service in 1995 nor those that are provided at the present time. However, we are aware of eight units currently dedicated to teenage cancer patients in the following NHS 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

  It is for primary care trusts to decide exactly which health services their local population need now and in the future. We have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to develop guidance on children's and adolescent cancers. This will help primary care trusts in the planning and delivery of future teenage cancer services.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effectiveness and provision of cancer wards for teenagers in England. [98511]

  Ms Blears
  The particular needs of adolescents in the health service are being considered as part of the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services. In addition, we have asked the National Institute of Clinical Excellence to develop guidance on children's and adolescent cancers. This guidance will take account of the national service framework and will help primary care trusts (who have responsibility for assessing the health service needs of the local population) determine the most effective way to deliver services that meet the particular needs of this group of cancer patients.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds have been available in specialist teenage cancer wards in England each year since 1997. [98513]

  Ms Blears
  Information on bed numbers is not collected centrally at the level of detail requested.

  Care Commissioning
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations govern local authority care commissioning; and what measures are in place to ensure transparency. [98071]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: Councils should base their commissioning decisions on the principles of Best Value. They should focus on what

  693W
  will deliver the optimum outcome for service users. Whether councils' commissioning arrangements are fair and open is the subject of Best Value service reviews and reviews by the Audit Commission and the Social Services Inspectorate. These judgements are then published in reports.

  We expect local social services and health authorities to adopt the Building Capacity and Partnership in Care Agreement. We published this in October 2001 with the endorsement of local health and social care commissioners and providers. This document provides clear guidance on how to bring about improvements in the planning and commissioning of services in ways that brings confidence and stability to the whole system.

  Care Standards Act
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make a statement on proposed changes to the Care Standards Act 2000 regulation following the consultation at the end of last year. [97883]

  Jacqui Smith
  The consultation document issued on 16 August 2002 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.

  The consultation exercise ended on 8 November 2002 and the revised national minimum standards were published on 18 February 2003.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to relax the regulations relating to communal space in care homes as a result of his consultation exercise on the Care Standards Act 2000. [97884]

  Jacqui Smith
  The consultation document issued on 16 August 2002 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.

  The consultation exercise ended on 8 November 2002. The revised standards, published on 18 February 2003, include the standards relating to communal space.

  Child Protection
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what communications to GPs regarding procedures for dealing with children suspected of suffering harm at the hands of their carers have been issued by his Department since 25 February 2000. [96039]

  Jacqui Smith
  There were no communications directly to general practitioners regarding procedures for dealing with children suspected of suffering harm at the hands of their carers in this period.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Wednesday 12 February, Official Report, columns 810–11W.

  Clinical Consent
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy regarding consent for(a) clinical experimentation, (b) research and (c) trials on babies born in the NHS with life-threatening conditions. [98119]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The principles of consent remain broadly the same in all these settings. These are set out in the Department of Health's guidance published in March 2001 "A Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment" which explains the current English law on consent to treatment.

  Correspondence
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 29th November from Mrs.A C Phillips of Benfleet, a constituent. [95213]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 3 February 2003]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 25 February 2003.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will substantively reply to the letter of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight dated 8 October 2002, ref. PO 1017307, concerning Mr.Wardrop. [98813]

  Mr. Lammy
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 18 February 2003.

  Departmental Land (Ashford)
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what land has been sold by his Department in the Ashford area in the last five years. [98171]

  Ms Blears
  One site in Ashford, Kent has been sold by the Department over the last five years; that of Pinewood Nursing Home in 1997.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were employed in the departmental filestores in each year since 1997; how many have been transferred to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [98856]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department of Health filestore services have been contracted out since April 1996. Since that date the contractors have employed staff in the following numbers:

  1 April to 31 March

  Number employed (whole time equivalent)

  1996–97

  5.5

  1997–98

  4.5

  1998–99

  4.5

  1999–2000

  5.5

  2000–01

  5.5

  2001–02

  6.5

  2002–03

  5.5

  These numbers include a manager on-site two to three days a week, but do not include casual staff recruited to help out with occasional peaks of work.
  695W
  No records management or filestore staff have been transferred to the private sector since 1996.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expenditure on the Department of Health website was in each of the last five years. [95689]

  Mr. Lammy
  The cost of the Department's website from 1998–99 to 2002–03 is shown in the table.

  Financial Year

  Hosting and maintenance(£000)

  Website development(£000)

  Estimated staff costs2(£000)

  Total costs(£000)

  1998–99

  20.9

  20

  178.9

  219.8

  1999–00

  54.3

  30

  229.4

  313.7

  2000–01

  49.3

  130.7

  277.1

  457.1

  2001–02

  73.32

  1245.9

  407.6

  726.8

  2002–03 (to 01/02/03)

  1103.36

  46

  426.2

  575.5

  Notes:

  1 This includes £16,840 in migration and set-up costs incurred on switching Internet Service Providers in June 2002.

  2 Based on agreed civil service staff costs (including salaries, common services, etc.)

  The website was set up in 1996 and has grown from 100 pages to over 80,000 pages since then. The number of databases made available online has increased from one at thebeginning of 1998 to 60 in 2002.

  In 2000, the Department embarked on a major redevelopment of the website in response to user feedback, the introduction of the Guidelines for UK government websites and an increase in use of the Internet as a vehicle for departmental publications. This was completed by the end of March 2002.

  The website regularly receives in the region of five million hits per month and is consistently placed in the top six most-visited Government websites.

  Dietary Advice
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the Government is making in increasing the average daily consumption of fruit and vegetables from three to five portions a day. [87323]

  Ms Blears
  National trends in fruit and vegetable consumption, since the beginning of the Five-a-Day programme in 2001, cannot as yet be fully ascertained, due to the considerable time it takes to undertake dietary surveys and their analyses. However, monitoring systems are in place. At a national level, trends in consumption will be assessed through the annual Health Survey for England, through which data on fruit and vegetables was collected for the first time in 2001.

  At a local level, evaluation of five local Five-a-Day pilot initiatives—one-year interventions targeting one million people between 2000 and 2001—demonstrated that they have produced important changes in people's knowledge, access and intake of fruit and vegetables. Overall, the intervention was found to have had a positive effect in people with the lowest intakes. Those who ate less than five a day at baseline increased their intakes by one portion over the course of the study. Sixty six new local five-a-day initiatives, funded by the
  696W
  New Opportunities Fund, will begin this year. A tool has been developed to ensure effective evaluation of the local Five-a-Day initiatives.

  Following successful piloting, the National School Fruit Scheme is now being extended throughout England on a region by region basis. The Scheme currently reaches 425,000 children in 3,500 schools across the whole of the West Midlands and London. A tool for assessing the impact of the National School Fruit Scheme on children's diets is currently being developed.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has carried out regarding the link between child physical abuse and domestic violence. [99036]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health's policy research programme is currently funding a research project which focuses on existing child protection practices and procedures and explores their ability to respond to children who have experienced domestic violence, or drug or alcohol misuse within their families.

  In addition, Government funding has, over the last few years, been used to support the following two studies, which are now complete: A health needs and health-care assessment of a population of children resident in refuges for women victims of domestic violence (Dr Elspeth Webb, 2000), a project which focussed on the children of women who were victims of domestic violence, within the refuge setting; and Children's Needs—Parenting Capacity, the impact of parental mental illness, problem alcohol and drug use, and domestic violence on children's development (H Cleaver, I Unell and J Aldgate, 1999), a study which examined how factors such as domestic violence, alcohol and drug misuse and mental illness, may impact on children and may affect a parent's capacity to respond to their child's needs.

  Drug Appraisals (NICE)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the way in which(a) NCCHTA, (b) TAG, (c) TAR, (d) universities, (e) his Department, (f) NICE and (g) the joint working group work together to decide which drugs NICE should appraise; and if he will make a statement. [97140]

  Ms Blears
  A paper describing new arrangements for selecting topics for referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), including new pharmaceuticals, was sent to interested parties at the end of last year. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Drug Dependency (Treatment)
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he has set for improving the waiting times for treatment for opiate dependency(a) in prison and (b) in the community. [97645]

  Ms Blears
  Drug treatment services in prisons are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I understand that the Prison Service has not set a specific target for improving
  697W
  the waiting times for treatment for opiate dependency in prison. All prisoners referred to the counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare service should receive an initial assessment within a target of five days from the point of referral.

  In December 2001, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA) developed a programme to tackle the growing problem of waiting times for drug treatment in the community. As part of this process, the NTA set targets on the maximum acceptable waiting times for treatment. The targets are defined by treatment modality, not by the patient's drug of dependence. Opiate dependent patients may be receiving treatment through any of the modalities shown in the table, according to their individual clinical need.

  Weeks

  2002–03

  2003–04

  In patient detoxification

  4

  2

  Specialist prescribing

  6

  3

  GP prescribing

  4

  2

  Structured counselling

  4

  2

  Day Care

  4

  3

  Residential rehab

  4

  3

  DXA Scans
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many DXA scans were completed in each hospital trust in 2002. [97725]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of dual energy X-Ray absorptiometry scans is not collected centrally.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether costs were incurred by his Department as a result of the fire strikes. [98387]

  Mr. Lammy
  Some minimal costs were incurred. These were contained within the Department's normal budgets which allow for contingencies of this nature.

  Health Care (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses work in hospitals in the East Riding of Yorkshire; and how many of them are employed from an agency. [97729]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 12 February 2003, the following number of nurses were employed by Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Nurses

  Headcount

  Whole time equivalent

  Qualified

  2,230

  1,927.8

  Unqualified

  894

  737.9

  There is no record of the number of agency staff employed.

  Source of information:

  Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust

  Heart Choice Scheme
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is a requirement for NHS hospitals to employ an independent patient care adviser to advise patients on the Heart Choice Scheme. [97309]

  Ms Blears
  All trusts engaging in cardiac surgery and cardiac tertiary centres are now required under the patient choice initiative to employ a patient care adviser, who is accountable at the local level to the head of the parent trust's patient advice and liaison service.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the HIV/AIDS infection rate is in the United Kingdom. [99156]

  Ms Blears
  The HIV/AIDS infection rate for adults aged between 15 and 49 years and living in the United Kingdom in 2001 is estimated to be 0.13 per cent.

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has received on the reasons of the resignation of the former Chief Executive of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [97992]

  Ms Blears
  In November 2002 Dr. Maureen Dalziel's appointment as Chief Executive of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was terminated, following a vote of no confidence by the members of the authority. This was entirely a decision for the members of the authority. However the Chair, Ms Suzi Leather, has confirmed there was no question of any impropriety nor was Dr. Dalziel's departure connected with any incident at a licensed treatment centre.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list IT contracts in his 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. [99001]

  Ms Blears
  The only information technology contracts let by the Department of Health in the last 10 years in excess of £50 million are confined to centrally funded projects for the national health service.

  The Department does not retain centrally, detailed records of when NHS systems became fully debugged and the cost of any over-runs. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the IT contracts for 1993–2002 is shown in the table.
  699W

  £ million

  Inception

  Contract

  Costs

  date

  Fully functional

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  NHSNet central framework contract with BT and Cable and Wireless

  129.6

  1995

  7–10 year contract. 1996 for BT 1997 for Cable and Wireless

  1996–99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2000

  Clinical Messaging

  50.0

  2000

  7 year contract. Gradual rollout from 2000

  2001

  Microsoft software enterprise agreement

  138.6

  2001

  3 year contract. This is a software purchase enabling contract

  Electronic Staff Record

  325

  2001

  10 year contract. Gradual rollout from 2001

  2002

  NHSNet purchase of additional bandwidth Email and directory services

  96.5

  2002

  5 year contract. Gradual rollout from 2002

  Email and directory services

  326.2

  2002

  10 year contract. Scheduled for March 2003

  IVF Treatment
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many licensed clinics offer single ovum IVF; and how many couples have been offered the option of this procedure; [97987]

  (2) what the take-home-baby rate has been for IVF in unstimulated cycles (single ovum IVF). [97988]

  Ms Blears
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) does not record centres routinely offering treatment involving unstimulated cycles. For this reason it is unable to provide information on the exact number of centres that have provided this service. However, if a patient requests a natural cycle for medical or other reasons, the HFEA has advised that the clinic would consider providing this treatment.

  Information on total number of live births resulting from an unstimulated in vitro fertilisation treatment cycle is shown in the table.

  Natural IVF Cycles—fresh, unstimulated cycles using the patient's own oocytes1,2

  Time period

  Cycles

  Live births

  Birth rate percentage

  1 August to 31 December 1991

  358

  23

  6.4

  1 January to 31 December 1992

  823

  52

  6.3

  1 January to 31 December 1993

  827

  37

  4.5

  1 January to 31 December 1994

  628

  16

  2.5

  1 January to 31 December 1995

  387

  7

  1.8

  1 January to 31 December 1996

  196

  4

  2.0

  1 January to 31 December 1997

  91

  2

  2.2

  1 January to 31 December 1998

  94

  4

  4.3

  1 January to 31 March 19993

  28

  —

  —

  Erroneous cycle dates4

  4

  —

  —

  Total

  3,436

  145

  4.2

  1Data as recorded on the HFEA register.

  2As cycles are unstimulated (natural), single embryo transfers are routine. Where two oocytes are produced and both fertilise, two embryos could be replaced.

  3January to March 1999 is the most recent period for which figures are available.

  4Four cycles where year not correctly recorded.

  Source:

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Lieutenant Commander R.W.J. Cansdell
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will reply substantively to the letter of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) dated 21 November, acknowledged on 25 November, ref P01020175, concerning Lieutenant Commander R. W. J. Cansdell. [95076]
  700W
  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 24 February.

  Maternity Patients (Drug Misuse)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidences of drug misuse by maternity patients there have been in England since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [98467]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally. Information on numbers entering drug treatment services is available, via the national drug treatment monitoring system. This provides a breakdown by gender, but does not identify maternity patients as a separate group. Information on the number of women entering drug treatment services can be found from the statistical bulletin "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000/01", published in December 2001 at http://www.doh.gov.uk/pubNc/sb0133.htm.

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) provide information about maternity in national health service hospitals. No data is collected relating to the provision of ante natal services.

  Maternity data is available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/ public/sbQ211.htm.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to help pregnant women who are addicted to drugs; and if he will make a statement. [98468]

  Ms Blears
  Pregnant women are considered a priority group and are therefore fast tracked into treatment.

  Midwives provide the majority of care for pregnant mothers as well as advice and support on healthy lifestyles including substance misuse.

  If a woman, as part of her ante natal care, is assessed as requiring treatment for drug misuse she will be referred to appropriate drug treatment services.

  Obstetric and substance misuse services exist throughout the country. The Department of Health's "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management" (Clinical Guidelines) recommends the following:
  "Different approaches have been tried to deliver care to pregnant drug misusers, such as specialist midwives, or drug dependence staff attached to the antenatal clinic. Each method should try to involve the primary health care team, particularly if prescribing substitute medication. The type of service in each area will depend on local circumstances, the number of

  701W
  pregnant drug misusers presenting for care, expertise of the obstetric and primary care services, and availability of specialist or shared-care support."

  Further information is available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/drugs/pdfs/dmfull.pdf.

  Medicines
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that claims for the benefits of medicines advertised to health professionals are investigated; [97952]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the assessment by the Medicines Control Agency of the advertising for the oral contraceptive Yasmin; [97953]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the benefits of Yasmin in relation to other oral contraceptives. [97955]

  Ms Blears
  In April 2002, at the time of launch of Yasmin, a combined oral contraceptive authorised in the European Mutual Recognition procedure in June 2000, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) identified advertising for the product through its routine monitoring of published advertising materials. The company—Schering Health Care Limited—was asked to provide the references quoted in the advertising material. At this stage, the evidence in the references was not examined as closely as it would have been, and subsequently was, in the event of a complaint from a health care professional from the perspective of the clinical usage of the product.

  Following specific complaints from health professionals in August and September 2002, the MCA conducted an assessment of the claims made in advertising for Yasmin and concluded that the quality and extent of the evidence provided was not sufficiently robust to support the claims made and that the Yasmin advertising was in fact misleading. The MCA requested that the company, Schering Health Care Limited, withdraw the material and it did so in October 2002.

  The company was subsequently required to submit all its advertising for Yasmin to the MCA for review prior to publication. The MCA has also required Schering Health Care Limited to issue a corrective statement concerning advertising for Yasmin. This will be sent to health professionals who received previous advertising material from 21 February 2003 and also published in all medical journals where previous advertisements had appeared.

  The Agency makes an assessment of the safety, quality and efficacy of applications for a marketing authorisation. The data assessed in the Yasmin application included efficacy studies versus other licensed oral contraceptives as comparators. However, the comparative benefits of a particular product in relation to other products are not relevant to the Licensing Authority decision under the terms of the Medicines Act 1968, so long as there is acceptable evidence of efficacy.
  702W
  The control of medicines advertising in the United Kingdom is based on a long established system of self-regulation, underpinned by statutory powers administered by the MCA under the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994 and the Medicines (Monitoring of Advertising) Regulations 1994. The MCA undertakes a range of duties, set out in a published guidance note, to ensure that claims for the benefits of medicines in advertising comply with the statutory requirements. These include preventing of advertising prior to publication in certain circumstances, monitoring of medicines advertising in medical and other journals and investigation of complaints about advertising from any source, including health professionals and the public.

  National Institute for Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) clinical and (b) non-clinical staff work for each regional centre for the National Institute for Mental Health. [97876]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the numbers of clinical and non-clinical staff currently working in each development centre of the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMHE). Further staff may be employed in the future for short-term specific projects. These will in most cases be clinically trained. Development centres will also be engaged in supporting and facilitating networks of clinical staff to undertake region wide developing activity. The majority of people involved in the work of NIMHE's Development Centres will therefore be clinically trained and engaged in clinical activity.

  Regional Development Centres

  Clinical staff1

  Non-Clinical staff1

  Eastern

  2.8

  3.6

  West Midlands

  3.8

  5

  East Midlands

  —

  1.5

  London

  1.1

  5.8

  South West

  2.5

  5.5

  North West

  2

  3

  North East/Yorkshire and Humberside

  7.8

  11

  South East

  —

  7.2

  1Whole time equivalent

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists(a) are practising in southwest Hampshire and (b) have left the NHS in southwest Hampshire in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [99034]

  Ms Blears
  The latest information available is for the general dental service (GDS) for Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority (HA) area at 30 September 2002. 206 dentists were working in the GDS in Southampton and South West Hampshire HA
  703W
  area at 30 September 2002, six more than in September 2001. Eleven dentists previously practising in the HA area left the GDS in the 12 months to 30 September 2002.

  Information is not collected centrally on dentists leaving and joining other dental services, including the personal dental service, community and hospital dental services.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls were made to NHS Direct between(a) 15 October 2000 and 10 February 2001, (b) 15 October 2001 and 10 February 2002 and (c) 15 October 2002 and 10 February 2003. [97821]

  Mr. Lammy
  1,279,200 calls were made to NHS Direct between 15 October 2000 and 10 February 2001. 1,862,500 calls were made between 15 October 2001 and 10 February 2002 and 2,000,500 calls made between 15 October 2002 and 10 February 2003.

  Nurse Recruitment (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on nurse recruitment in the Portsmouth area in the last three months. [98348]

  Ms Blears
  In addition to undertaking a tender procurement exercise to set up a national health service e-recruitment project, the Department of Health is launching the 2003 national recruitment campaign for the NHS in February. The purpose of the national campaign is to provide a national brand for the NHS that is flexible and can be adapted at a local level to increase the impact of local recruitment activities.

  I am advised that at local level within Hampshire & Isle of Wight, recruitment initiatives are also on going. These include; restructuring recruitment functions to form specialist teams working on long term and short term needs, implementation of a recruitment and retention strategy group, local and national advertisements, targeted advertisements in RGN student handbook, RCN Bulletin, and Nursing Times, roadshows, events in the hospitals, and other promotional events.

  The Portsmouth City Primary Care Trust has recently launched its own website, which includes a job shop page advertising all vacancies including qualified nurses and there are a limited number of secondment opportunities to Southampton University to undertake qualified nurse training in adult mental health.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS was from April to December 2002 of prescribing(a) Yasmin and (b) Marvelon. [97954]

  Ms Blears
  During the six months April to September 2002, the net ingredient cost of the hormonal contraceptive pills Yasmin and Marvelon prescribed and dispensed in the community in England was £786,400 and £1.71 million respectively. The number of prescription items of Yasmin and Marvelon that were dispensed in the community over this time was 44,800 and 162,300 respectively.
  704W
  Net ingredient cost refers to the cost, which the dispenser is reimbursed, of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees. Data have been provided from the prescription cost analysis (PCA) system and data to September 2002 are the latest available. PCA does not cover items dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions. PCA only covers drugs that are on a prescription. Therefore contraceptive pills dispensed in family planning clinics are not included in these data.

  Parkinson's Disease
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ban the use of tissue from aborted foetuses in research for Parkinson's disease; and what assessment he has made of the side-effects caused to patients by its use in research. [97986]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans to ban the use of foetal tissue in therapeutic research programmes. In accordance with the Polkinghorne guidelines research ethics committees need to examine all such proposals. Research or innovative therapy involving foetal tissue must be assessed on the merit of the individual proposal and the ethical issues involved. Any adverse effects observed would need to be reported through the appropriate systems in accordance with the Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (2001).

  Pompe's Disease
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what trials are taking place on methods of treatment for Pompe's disease; and if he will make a statement. [98819]

  Jacqui Smith
  We recognise and are sympathetic to the problems experienced by people who have Pompe's disease, and understand the difficulties and distress caused for them and their families. Current treatment consists of symptomatic management of cardiac and respiratory failure, provided through mainstream health services. We are aware that some trials are taking place overseas of the effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy with a view to producing specialist effective therapy over the next few years.

  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC is not currently funding any treatment trials into Pompe's Disease. However, the MRC always welcomes high quality applications for research into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands in funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health. As a rule, the MRC does not earmark funds for particular topics.

  Rohypnol
  Rev Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to reclassify Rohypnol; and how many doses of Rohypnol have been prescribed in each country of the United Kingdom in each year since 2000. [98364]
  705W
  Ms Blears
  Rohypnol, the proprietary name for the substance flunitrazepam, is one of the benzodiazepine family of drugs, and is controlled as a Class 'C' drug. There are no plans to reclassify it. Rohypnol has not been dispensed in the community in England since 1985.

  Information relating to Wales and Scotland are for the devolved administrations to respond to. Whilst institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Stroke Units
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of stroke patients were treated in a stroke unit for the minimum effective time in the last three months. [99318]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not routinely collect the information requested. The most comprehensive source of information on stroke services is the National Sentinel Stroke Audit, carried out by the Royal College of Physicians. The results can be found at http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/strokeaudit01–02.pdf.

  Sustainable Communities
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions he has made in his departmental budget for the spending entailed in the Sustainable Communities plan on healthcare in Ashford; and if he will make a statement. [98635]

  Ms Blears
  Sustainable Communities Plan is an initiative of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and has indicated a sum of £164 million available over the next three years for Milton Keynes/South Midlands, Ashford, London-Stanstead and Cambridge.

  Table 1: Completed primary courses: percentage of children immunised by their first birthday and second birthday

  Number of children

  Year

  Thousands

  Diphtheria

  Tetanus

  Polio

  Pertussis

  MMR1

  Year of first birthday

  1996–97

  609

  93

  93

  93

  92

  —

  2000–01

  578

  91

  91

  91

  90

  —

  2001–02

  556

  91

  91

  91

  90

  —

  Year of second birthday

  1996–97

  620

  96

  96

  96

  94

  92

  2000–01

  592

  94

  95

  94

  94

  87

  2001–02

  573

  94

  94

  94

  93

  84

  1Immunisation is recommended between 12 and 15 months of age

  Source

  Department of Health, Statistics Division SD3G, Cover data

  Table 2: Percentage of children immunised by their 5th birthday

  Diphtheria, Tetanus and Polio

  Pertussis

  MMR

  Year

  Number of children age five1

  Primary

  Primary and booster

  Primary

  First dose

  First and second dose

  1996–9722

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2000–01

  616

  94

  80

  92

  92

  75

  2001–02

  608

  94

  81

  93

  91

  74

  1Thousands

  2 Information about uptake age five was collected for the first time in 1999–2000

  Source

  Department of Health, Statistics Division SD3G Cover data
  706W
  Ashford Borough Council and strategic partners have been working for some time on an "Ashford's Future" study, and I am advised that in December 2001, key capacity issues were examined including a health profile of Ashford together with a health and modernisation plan produced by Ashford Primary Care Group. The study addressed current deficits and the vision for primary and community care looked at how many general practitioner surgeries would be needed over the growth period. "Ashford's Future The Overarching Report", published December 2002, included an indication of the number of primary care centres that would be required, phased over time.

  Ashford Primary Care Trust and the Kent&Medway Strategic Health Authority will be key partners in the planning process as action planning becomes more detailed. The PCT will use the local delivery plan process and the StHAs capital
  funding process to progress development in Ashford.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under the age of five years received immunisation against(a) polio, (b) pertussis, (c) tetanus, (d) diphtheria and (e) MMR in (i) the last year for which figures are available, (ii) the previous 12 months and (iii) 1996. [97811]

  Ms Blears
  Information about coverage rates for children who have completed primary immunisation courses against polio, pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria by their first and second birthday and MMR by their second birthday for the years 1996–97, 2000–01 and 2001–02 are shown in table 1.

  Information about booster and second MMR immunisations by age five is shown in table 2.
  707W

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Children's Rights Commissioner
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West on 27 September 2002 regarding a Children's Rights Commissioner; and for what reasons he has not yet replied. [95290]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon Member's letter on 12 February. The reply was delayed due to the original response being lost in transit between Departments.

  Department

  Agencies

  Other directorates Staff posts

  Immigration and nationality directorate Staff posts

  Prison service Staff posts

  Passport service Staff posts

  Forensic science service Staff posts

  Criminal record bureau Staff posts

  Total Staff posts

  1997–98

  10

  11

  14

  12

  10

  N/a

  57

  1998–99

  11

  11

  14

  9

  10

  N/a

  55

  1999–2000

  9

  11

  14

  10.5

  9

  N/a

  53.5

  2000–01

  9

  11

  13

  17.5

  8

  N/a

  58.5

  2001–02

  10

  11

  15

  15.5

  8

  N/a

  59.5

  2002–03

  10

  11

  19

  15.5

  8

  0

  63.5

  No posts have been transferred out to the private sector during the period in question.

  Drug Rehabilitation Funding (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding was made available for the rehabilitation of drug offenders in Derbyshire in each year from 1997 to 2002. [98894]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The pooled treatment budget, introduced in 2001–02 provides funding for the treatment and rehabilitation of people with drug problems, including offenders. Drug Action Teams use their pooled treatment budget allocations, together with additional resources from health and local authorities and other sources to fund treatment provision in their areas.

  The level of pooled treatment budget funding allocated to Derbyshire in 2001–02 was £1.376 million. This was increased to £1.8496 million in 2002–03.

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Home Office

  0

  0

  104,209

  371,708

  440,490

  106,000

  Other Departments

  590,000

  774,000

  1,091,753

  843,480

  739,500

  600,511

  Total

  590,000

  774,000

  1,195,962

  1,215,188

  1,179,990

  706,511

  These figures are based upon information available from Departmental accounting systems and include Government payments for services/consultancy that contribute to Drugscope's costs. There may be small in-year payments for one-off projects that do not appear in these figures. Funding for future years is currently under consideration.

  Departmental File Stores
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were employed in the departmental filestores in each year since 1997; how many have been transferred to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [98859]

  Hilary Benn
  The details of the departmental and agency staff numbers, over the years in question, across the Home Office Group are set put in the following table:

  In 2003–04, Derbyshire's pooled treatment budget allocation will increase by 29 per cent to £2.395 million.

  Drugscope
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what funding from(a) his Department and (b) any other government department has been provided to Drugscope in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01, (v) 2001–02 and (vi) 2002–03; and what funding is planned for future years. [99701]

  (2) what discussions he has had about future funding for Drugscope. [99699]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Drugscope and its predecessor organisations the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependency received the following funds from the Home Office and other Government Departments (Department of Health, Department for Education and Skills and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister):

  Probation Service
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of offenders on supervision per probation officers caseload. [98190]
  709W
  Hilary Benn
  The average number of offenders on supervision per probation officer as at 31 December 2001 was 40.7. However, staff other than probation officers are involved with the supervision of offenders, chiefly probation service officers. The average number of offenders on supervision per probation officer and probation service officer grades combined was 27.0 as at 31 December 2001.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Bereavement Payments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change the bereavement payments system for those leaving no dependants; and if he will make a statement. [98990]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have no plans to change Bereavement Benefits. The current scheme was introduced on 9 April 2001 in order to focus help where it is most needed; on immediate needs and on families with children and to provide equal access to men and women for the first time.

  The Bereavement Payment is a lump sum payment of £2,000 payable immediately to help with costs arising on bereavement. Widowed Parent's Allowance is a weekly benefit payable to widowed parents who satisfy the qualifying conditions. In addition Bereavement Allowance is a weekly benefit payable, for 52 weeks following widowhood, to widows and widowers aged 45 and over without dependant children.

  Corporate/Shared Services
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons spending by his Department on corporate and shared services has increased between 1998–99 and 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [97345]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions came into being on 1 April 2001. Consequently there are no comparable figures prior to this date. The final actual expenditure for 2002–03 has yet to be confirmed and therefore a comparison with actual expenditure for 2001–02 or planned expenditure for 2003–04 cannot be made. The current expenditure plans of the Department for Work and Pensions are contained in Tables 1–11 of the Departmental Report: The Government expenditure plans 2002–03 to 2003–04, Command 5424.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, reference Smith/ PostOfficeCard/140203/MP. [99454]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.

  Crisis Loans
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what value of crisis loans 710W
  were paid to benefit recipients experiencing delays in the administration of their benefits in each year since 1997. [99559]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We recognise that many people making a claim to benefit will be in need of immediate financial support. To avoid unnecessary hardship, discretionary payments on account of benefit (interim payments) can be made where a claim has not been determined but the decision maker is satisfied that the basic conditions of entitlement for the benefit are likely to be met. The amount of any interim payment is automatically recoverable from the main benefit when it is awarded.

  Crisis Loan alignment payments can be made to people awaiting their first payment of benefit which is paid in arrears, or their first payment of wages. Crisis Loans made to people awaiting benefit payments will cover their needs until their first benefit pay-day, following which full or interim payments of benefit can be made. In the main, these payments are made to people of working age (as pensioners are generally paid in advance). Information is not collected separately on the number or value of alignment payments made to people awaiting a first payment of benefit.

  The available information is in the table. The figures show the total number and value of Crisis Loan alignment payments made, including those made to people awaiting payment of their first wage.

  Social Fund Crisis Loan Alignment Payments

  Number of payments

  Expenditure(£million)

  1997–98

  398,731

  17

  1998–99

  433,851

  20

  1999–2000

  474,076

  23

  2000–01

  476,936

  24

  2001–02

  486,031

  27

  Notes

  1. Expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest £million.

  2. Awards including alignment payments may include other items.

  3. Technical problems with the Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System mean that figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 may be subject to a margin of error of 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. and should therefore be treated as a guide only.

  Sources

  Annual Reports by the Secretary of State on the Social Fund 1997–98 to 2001–02; and the Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System

  Industrial Action/Sickness Absence
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many working days have been lost in his Department and its predecessors due to(a) industrial action and (b) illness in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01, (v) 2001–02 and (vi) 2002–03. [97844]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 12 February 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Yeovil, Mr. David Laws, on 12 February 2003, Official Report, column 803–04W.

  Widowers' Benefits
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on widowers' benefits. [97546]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Bereavement Benefits were introduced on 9 April 2001, and for the first time extended support to both widows and widowers following the death of a spouse. These new benefits concentrate the help available where it is most needed; on immediate needs and on families with children.

  The Bereavement Payment is a lump sum payment of £2,000 payable immediately to help with costs arising on bereavement. Widowed Parent's Allowance is a weekly benefit payable to widowed parents who satisfy the qualifying conditions. In addition Bereavement Allowance is a weekly benefit payable, for 52 weeks following widowhood, to widows and widowers aged 45 and over without dependant children.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
  Table 1

  Financial year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  All dwellings built

  North East

  7,581

  6,665

  7,428

  6,764

  6,390

  North West

  19,201

  18,969

  18,922

  18,317

  15,892

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  15,464

  13,085

  13,418

  13,446

  13,239

  East Midlands

  14,549

  14,755

  16,378

  13,602

  14,062

  West Midlands

  13,392

  14,031

  15,297

  14,213

  13,459

  East

  21,301

  18,986

  18,745

  16,002

  15,617

  London

  13,623

  12,864

  12,480

  14,280

  14,170

  South East

  25,441

  23,346

  23,175

  22,086

  21,895

  South West

  19,003

  15,929

  15,912

  14,979

  15,575

  England

  149,555

  138,630

  141,755

  133,689

  130,299

  Local authorities (percentage)

  North East

  0.12

  0.11

  0.05

  —

  —

  North West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.01

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0.10

  0.01

  0.02

  —

  0.03

  East Midlands

  0.71

  0.54

  0.04

  0.06

  —

  West Midlands

  0.13

  —

  0.21

  0.55

  —

  East

  0.17

  0.03

  —

  —

  0.23

  London

  0.38

  0.27

  —

  1.11

  0.37

  South East

  0.12

  0.12

  0.13

  0.55

  —

  South West

  0.31

  0.23

  0.16

  0.15

  0.08

  England

  0.22

  0.14

  0.07

  0.29

  0.08

  Table 2

  Financial year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Number of large scale voluntary transfers

  North East

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  North West

  2

  2

  5

  4

  —

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  East Midlands

  —

  1

  2

  1

  2

  West Midlands

  —

  1

  2

  3

  1

  East

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  London

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  South East

  2

  2

  2

  3

  1

  South West

  1

  5

  3

  3

  —

  England

  6

  12

  16

  18

  7

  Estimated total dwellings transferred

  North East

  —

  —

  3,500

  36,400

  —

  North West

  5,600

  4,700

  25,000

  19,100

  —

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  —

  —

  —

  12,800

  —

  East Midlands

  —

  5,000

  8,800

  3,400

  9,100

  West Midlands

  —

  13,000

  15,700

  28,900

  5,500

  East

  —

  —

  6,700

  —

  15,400

  London

  8,200

  1,200

  —

  7,100

  —

  South East

  5,000

  5,600

  9,700

  13,500

  4,800

  South West

  5,500

  26,200

  9,900

  10,500

  —

  England

  24,300

  55,800

  79,300

  131,700

  34,800

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many civil servants have been employed by(a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92412]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley South on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 333–4W).

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department recorded in 2001–02; and on how many occasions computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (i) within and (ii) outside his Department. [97564]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established on 29 May 2002. During the period 29 May 2002 to 31 December 2002 there were:(a) no recorded cases of computer hacking, (b) no recorded cases of computer fraud, and (c) one reported case of computer theft.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cases of computer misuse there were in his Department in each of the last five years, broken down by each category of misuse; and how many of those cases resulted in disciplinary action. [93041]

  Mr. Leslie
  Coinciding with the creation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 29 May 2002, a new policy was introduced dealing with the use/misuse of the Office's ICT resources. This policy was brought to the attention of staff in an Office Bulletin and is contained within the staff handbook.

  No cases of misuse have been raised since the introduction of the new policy.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to increase the standard of living conditions in areas of council housing. [98463]

  Mr. McNulty
  As set out in "Sustainable communities: building for the future" launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February(copies of which are available in the Library) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is investing £2.8 billion over the next three years to improve council housing and reforming the way targets are delivered to make all social housing decent by 2010.

  Alongside this, funds have been provided for 'liveability'(£201 million), neighbourhood wardens (£50 million), groundwork (£40 million) and `Community Enablers'(£27 million), all of which will contribute to improving living conditions in areas of council housing. Proposals for tackling anti-social behaviour will be set out in a White Paper and Bill planned for this year.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what improvements have been made to council houses since 1997; and how much has been invested in council housing in each year since 1997. [98464]

  Mr. McNulty
  The resources provided by central government to support housing investment by local authorities in England since 1997–98 are tabled below. The table also gives figures for the amount of capital expenditure by authorities on the council housing stock. The number of council houses which failed to meet the decent standard fell from 1.9 million in 1996 to 1.2 million in 2001. Around half of this reduction resulted from transfers to housing associations, where extensive improvement programmes will have been agreed as part of the transfer, Right to Buy sales and demolitions.

  £million

  Central Government support for housing Capital1

  capital spend by authorities on council housing

  1997–98

  926

  1,563

  1998–99

  1,211

  1,660

  1999–2000

  1,252

  1,569

  2000–01

  1,891

  1,816

  2001–02

  2,377

  2,120

  2002–03

  2,474

  22,505

  2003–04

  2,686

  Not yet available

  1Includes housing credit approvals, the Major Repairs Allowance, Arms Length Management Organisation resources and support for Disabled Facilities Grants and Cash Incentive Schemes.

  2Planned expenditure

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council houses have been sold since 1997; and how many council houses there are in the UK. [98465]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information on the total number of council house sales in the United Kingdom up to March 2002 is currently incomplete. However, between April 1997 and March 2002 it is estimated that there were approximately 706,000 council house sales in Great Britain, about 380,000 of which were transfers to registered social landlords. Latest available estimates of
  713W
  dwelling stock in the United Kingdom are as at 31 March 2001, when some 3,684,000 dwellings were rented from local authorities; the corresponding estimate for Great Britain was 3,558,000.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of and how many council stock properties are classified as non decent in(a) Hull, (b) the East Riding and (c) North East Lincolnshire. [99059]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities provide estimates of the number and proportions of homes they own that are non decent in their Business plans. The figures provided in the plans submitted in July 2002 are as follows.

  Non-decent dwellings⋆

  %of stock non-decent

  Kingston upon Hull

  27,640

  80

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  5,260

  43

  North East Lincolnshire

  3,000

  33

  ⋆Estimates rounded to the nearest 10

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to(a) provide funding and (b) allow councils to tackle repair and improvement backlogs, if tenants vote to stay with the council. [99056]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are two routes—Arms Length Management Organisation and the Private Finance Initiative—through which local authorities can access additional resources to bring their council housing up to a decent standard by 2010. Substantial increases in the resources available for both these programmes were announced earlier this month in our action programme "Sustainable communities: building for the future". The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has just completed a Review which identified ways of making these programmes more effective. The main findings were set out in the publication Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future.

  External Consultants
  Mr. David Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [92225]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the Hon. Member for Buckingham, for information on external consultancy spend by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister since it came into being on 29 May 2002.

  The Executive Agencies:

  £

  The Rent Service(since it started in October 1999)

  1999–00

  1,001,920

  2000–01

  2,068,656

  2001–02

  1,787,271

  2002–03

  2,038,000(estimated)

  The Planning Inspectorate

  1995–96

  721,000

  1996–97

  698,000

  1997–98

  197,000

  714W

  The Executive Agencies:

  £

  1998–99

  292,000

  1999–00

  1,945,000

  2000–01

  1,750,000

  2001–02

  3,454,000

  2002–03

  3,884,000 (estimated)

  The Fire Service College

  1995–96

  35,917

  1996–97

  215,190

  1997–98

  151,687

  1998–99

  100,246

  1999–00

  99,900

  2000–01

  77,696

  2001–02

  121,786

  2002–03

  135,000 (estimated)

  The QE II Conference Centre

  1995–96

  33,848

  1996–97

  8,737

  1997–98

  Nil

  1998–99

  Nil

  1999–00

  Nil

  2000–01

  2,250

  2001–02

  Nil

  2002–03

  2000 (estimated)

  The Non Departmental Public Bodies

  The Housing Action Trusts

  1995–96

  3,406,000

  1996–97

  2,242,000

  1997–98

  3,736,000

  1998–99

  2,490,000

  1999–00

  2,020,000

  2000–01

  2,550,000

  2001–02

  2,400,000

  2002–03

  3,300,000(estimated)

  The Audit Commission

  1995–96

  150,000

  1996–97

  240,000

  1997–98

  280,000

  1998–99

  630,000

  1999–00

  1,300,000

  2000–01

  1,120,000

  2001–02

  640,000

  2002–03

  700,000(estimated)

  The Standards Board for England is only able to provide information for the last two years

  2001–02

  151,000

  2002–03

  70,000 (estimated)

  English Partnerships since it started in 1999 the figures are as follows

  1999–00

  3,000,000

  2000–01

  1,870,000

  2001–02

  950,000

  2002–03

  1,130,000(estimated)

  Fraud and Theft
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money has been lost by his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies through(a) fraud and (b) theft in each year since 1996–97. [92424]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created in May 2002.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham on 27 February 2003, Official Report, Hansard.

  Heritage Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what sales of heritage assets and antique assets have been made by his Department since May 1997; if he will list other assets; and if he will estimate the total sales proceeds. [92414]

  Mr. Leslie
  No heritage or antique assets have been sold by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister since it was created on 29 May 2002. There have been, consequently, no sale proceeds.

  There are no heritage or antique assets held on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's asset register.

  Housing
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new homes have been built since 1997; where they are located; and what proportion(a) are council houses and (b) have been transferred to housing associations. [98461]

  Mr. McNulty
  Table 1 shows how many new homes have been built in each region since 1997–98 and what proportion were council houses. Table 2 shows the number of Large Scale Voluntary Transfers of local authority stock and an estimate of the total number of dwellings transferred. It is not possible to provide data on what proportion of new homes have been transferred.
  717W
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the link between housing land shortages and the house price increase of the late 1990s; and if he will make a statement. [98864]

  Mr. McNulty
  In developing Sustainable Communities: building for the future, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister officials have taken note of a range of evidence concerning potential imbalances between housing supply and demand.

  Housing (Kirklees)
  Ann Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what capital resources for housing investment have been allocated at 2002–03 prices to Kirklees Council in each year since 1990–91. [98221]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is the following table:

  £million

  Year

  Actual allocations1

  In 2002–03 prices2

  1990–91

  10.4

  14.3

  1991–92

  10.6

  13.6

  1992–93

  11.7

  14.6

  1993–94

  11.8

  14.3

  1994–95

  9.0

  10.8

  1995–96

  9.4

  11.0

  1996–97

  9.6

  10.9

  1997–98

  8.3

  9.1

  1998–99

  9.6

  10.3

  1999–00

  10.7

  11.1

  2000–01

  16.1

  16.5

  2001–02

  21.3

  21.3

  2002–03

  20.7

  20.2

  2003–043

  19.7

  18.8

  1 Covers housing annual capital guidelines (which include an element to be financed from authorities' capital receipts); the major repairs allowance; support for disabled facilities grants; the Capital Receipts Initiative; and ring-fenced support for a number of housing schemes, e.g. Cash Incentive Schemes. Estate Action scheme funding is excluded.

  2Allocations have been converted to 2002–03 prices using the GDP Deflator.

  3 The reduction in 2003–04 mainly reflects a change in the local government capital finance system, which means the allocations no longer include an element assumed to be financed from authorities capital receipts.

  Housing Provision
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account he took of the High Court decisions in the cases of R v Islington LBC ex parte Reilly and Maunix (1998) and R v Westminster CC ex parte Al-Khorshan (1999) in drawing up his code of guidance on allocation of accommodation; and if he will make a statement on the balance between his encouragement of choice-based lettings and the legal requirement to give preference to those identified as having urgent housing needs. [98382]
  718W
  Mr. McNulty
  A new Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation, revised to take account of the changes to Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 contained in the Homelessness Act 2002, was issued in November 2002.

  The new Code takes account of the Court of Appeal judgment in the conjoined cases of R(on the application of A) v Lambeth London Borough Council and R(on the application of Lindsay) v Lambeth London Borough Council on 23 July 2002 which upheld the High Court decisions in R v Islington LBC, ex parte Reilly and Mannix (1998) and R v Westminster, ex parte Al-Khorsan (1999). The covering letter which was sent with the Code to all housing authorities and other interested parties specifically mentioned the Court of Appeal judgment. It is for housing authorities to take account of the implications of the judgment for their allocation schemes, and to take account of the Secretary of State's guidance in the Code.

  The revised Code provides (at paragraph 5.9) that, in framing their allocation scheme so as to secure that reasonable preference is given to certain categories of persons, housing authorities must have regard to the fact that the reasonable preference categories should not be treated in isolation from one another; and must provide a mechanism for identifying applicants who qualify under more than one category and for taking this into account in assessing their housing need.

  The Government believe that all housing authorities should adopt more choice-based, customer-focussed, lettings policies, while continuing to meet housing need. This is the best way to ensure sustainable tenancies and to build settled and stable communities. We believe that there is sufficient flexibility within the existing statutory framework to enable housing authorities to offer applicants a choice of accommodation and to ensure that reasonable preference is given to those with the most urgent housing need.

  The Code advises (at paragraph 5.11) that, when considering how to reconcile choice and housing need, housing authorities should consider adopting a simplified system of applicant prioritisation in place of a complex points-based approach. An appropriate approach might include systems that:

  (a) "band" applicants into a number of groups reflecting different levels of housing need, with prioritisation of applicants within these groups being determined by waiting time, and/or

  (b) give people in the most urgent housing need priority over other applicants (often by using a time-limited "priority card").

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be providing more detailed good practice guidance on this issue towards the end of this year, once the funded choice based lettings pilot scheme has been properly evaluated.

  Industrial Action/Illness
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many working days have been lost in his Department and
  719W
  its predecessors owing to (a) industrial action and (b) illness in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01, (v) 2001–02 and (vi) 2002–03 to date. [93573]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established following machinery of Government changes in May 2002.

  In the case of working days lost due to industrial action no days have been lost during the requested periods.

  In respect of sickness absence, the most recent "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" was published by the Cabinet Office and announced by Ministerial Statement on 19 December 2002. This covered the calendar year 2001 for the predecessor Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and its executive agencies. Previous reports go back to 1996. Figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  The Office is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and to meeting its Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) target reductions in sick absence by the end of 2003.

  Land Reform
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for land ownership reform in England and Wales; and what discussions he has had with local government and its representative organisations on the subject of land reform. [98602]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no general plans for land ownership reform and have held no such discussions, although the Lord Chancellor's Department is currently considering recommendations by the Law Commission for the abolition of remnants of the feudal system in land law.

  Government policy is mainly directed towards making the property markets work better through our proposals for a seller's pack for residential transactions; residential leasehold reform; the introduction of commonhold; the promotion of greater choice and flexibility in commercial leasing as well as reform of the law on renewal of business tenancies; and work HM

  Session

  Bill/Act

  DETR Acts/Bills 1997–2001

  1997–98

  Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Act 1997 Local Government Contracts Act 1997 Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998 Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (P) Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 (P) Waste Minimisation Act 1998 (P)

  1998–99

  Water Industry Act 1999 Rating (Valuation) Act 1999 Local Government Act 1999 Greater London Authority Act 1999 Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Act 1999 (P) Bills dropped: Railways Bill (scrutinised by Select Committee, Bill dropped and proposals pulled into next sessions Transport Bill)

  1999–2000

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Local Government Act 2000 Transport Act 2000 Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 (P)

  720W
  Land Registry is undertaking to improve market information available to buyers and sellers of land and to develop electronic conveyancing. Major reforms to the law of land registration and the law of adverse possession will come into force on 13 October 2003 at the commencement of the Land Registration Act 2002. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also provided greater rights of public access to rural areas.

  The Law Commission is working in accordance with its published programme to make land law fairer and more modern. Current projects include major reviews of housing law and compulsory purchase law as well as work on forfeiture of leases. A project on the law of easements and analogous rights such as restrictive covenants is planned in the near future.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what calculation he has made of the likely impact on land prices in England and Wales of land ownership reform in Scotland. [98610]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not undertaken a detailed analysis, but given the changes in Scotland there is unlikely to be any impact in England and Wales.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on the subject of land ownership reform. [98611]

  Mr. McNulty
  None, but officials of the Scottish Executive have provided my officials with briefings on the Scottish land ownership reform programme at their regular contact meetings.

  Legislation
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many bills his Department and its predecessors have sponsored in each of the past five years; and how many have received Royal Assent. [91628]

  Mr. Leslie
  Bills sponsored in the last five years by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and previously by both the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) are listed in the following table.
  721W

  Session

  Bill/Act

  2000–01

  The Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 (HO took the lead) The Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001 Bills dropped:

  Homes Bill—Ran out of time because of general election Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill (LCD took the lead)—Ran out of time because of general election

  DTLR Acts/Bills. 2001–02 session

  2001–02

  Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002 Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 Homelessness Act 2002 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (LCD took the lead)

  ODPM Bills currently in committee stages

  Local Government Bill

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

  Market Renewal Pathfinders
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria will be used to allocate the £500 million earmarked for the nine housing market renewal pathfinder areas in England. [98844]

  Mr. McNulty
  Market renewal pathfinders are developing schemes to recreate sustainable communities in their areas, requiring long-term commitment from them and Government. Recognising that the problems differ in each area and that the solutions must also, it is intended that funding for the low demand pathfinder projects will be determined by negotiation 'with each project. Funding will be subject to the quality of plans and to subsequent performance. Independent Scrutiny by the Audit Commission will act as a check on value for money.

  New Homes (Milton Keynes)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a map showing the area covered by the proposed building of new homes in the Milton Keynes area. [98356]

  Mr. McNulty
  The maps in "Sustainable communities: building for the future" and "Sustainable communities in the South East" indicate the general area covered by the study into the potential growth area around Milton Keynes/South Midlands. There is, at present, no map that shows the proposed location of any new homes in the Milton Keynes area. Further studies are required before such a map can be drawn up. Following publication of the Communities Plan we are supporting local partners in carrying out more detailed studies to inform the RPG alterations later this year. These will indicate strategic areas where development is proposed.

  Public Bodies
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the(a) total budget and (b) departmental funding for (i) rent assessment panels, (ii) The Ordnance Survey, (iii) The Standards Board for England, (iv) The Housing Corporation, (v) Housing Action Trust, (vi) The Boundary Commission for England. (vii) The Boundary Commission for Wales, (viii) The Property
  722W
  Advisory Group, (ix) The Audit Commission,
  (x) English Partnerships, (xi) The Rent Service, (xii) the Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate, (xiii) Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and (xiv) The Fire Service College in (A) 2000–01, (B) 2001–02, (C) 2002–03, (D) 2004–05 and (E) 2005–06. [94582]

  Mr. Leslie
  The figures requested for (ii) the Ordnance Survey, (iii) the Standards Board for England (which came into existence in April 2001) (iv) The Housing Corporation, (v) Housing Action Trusts, (ix) the Audit Commission, (x) English Partnerships, (xi) the Rent Service, (xiii) Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and (xiv) the Fire Service College, for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are published in their annual report and accounts, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  For 2002–03 the figures are in the following table:

  £

  (a) Total Budget

  (b)Departmental Funding

  (ii) the Ordnance Survey

  1112,000,000

  —

  (iii) the Standards Board for England

  7,900,000

  7,900,000

  (iv) the Housing Corporation

  1,156,887,000

  31,158,936,000

  (v) Housing Action Trusts

  114,800,000

  114,800,000

  (ix) Audit Commission

  2207,000,000

  21,700,000

  (x) English Partnerships

  145,650,000

  140,000,000

  (xi) The Rent Service

  42,500,000

  42,500,000

  (xiii) Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  7,000,000

  426,000

  (xiv) Fire Service College

  119,000,000

  550,000

  1This includes amounts paid by Government for the provision of data and services.

  2 The Audit Commission's financial year is 1 November to 31 October, this figure is forecast to end October 2003.

  3 The excess in Departmental funding to total budget is due to an accrual difference.

  Note

  Budgets for 2004–05 and 2005–06 are not yet available.

  The (i) rent assessment panels, (vi) the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England, (vii) the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales, (viii) the Property Advisory Group, and (xii) the Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate do not receive Government funding other than costs to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of sponsoring these bodies.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department

  723W
  spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2000–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92231]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. Since then the estimated expenditure up until 31 March 2003 for publicity is £10.97 million of which £5.15 million is for advertising.

  Figures for agencies and non-departmental bodies are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether mortgage brokers registered under the Mortgage Code Complaints Board will be permitted to give advice on the Right to Buy Scheme under the proposed changes implemented by the Deputy Prime Minister; and whether other financial institutions registered with the Financial Services Authority will be able to give similar advice. [97396]

  Mr. McNulty
  Yes. Mortgage lenders and Mortgage Code Compliance Board (MCCB) registered mortgage brokers are permitted to give advice on the suitability of all mortgage loans, irrespective of whether they are for purchases under the Right to Buy scheme or otherwise. These arrangements are not affected by the changes proposed to the Right to Buy
  Scheme.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the rate of staff(a) absenteeism and (b) sickness was in his Department, its predecessors and each of its agencies and non-departmental public bodies in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03; what the target set is for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [93506]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established following machinery of Government changes in May 2002.

  In respect of sickness absence, the most recent `Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil service' was published by the Cabinet Office and announced by Ministerial Statement on 19 December 2002. This is available in House Libraries. This covered the calendar year 2001 for the Cabinet Office, the predecessor Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and its executive agencies. Previous reports go back to 1996. Figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  The executive non departmental public bodies are not staffed by civil servants, and the sickness absence rates for those are not collected centrally. All cases of absence are taken up and dealt with by line management. Separate information on absenteeism is not readily available. The Office will set a target for reducing sickness absence in the context of its current business planning round.

  Social Housing
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will identify those elements of the resources listed in Annex A of the paper, Sustainable Communities, that 724W
  will provide funding for investment in (a) repairs and improvements to council housing, (b) repairs and improvements to housing owned by registered social landlords and (c) the provision of new homes for rent. [98159]

  Mr. McNulty
  From 2004–05 resources that were provided to local authorities for their Housing Investment Programme, and resources provided to the Housing Corporation will be put into a single regional housing pot. Final decisions on the allocation of resources will be made based on advice from the new Regional Housing Boards (RHBs).
  The figures shown are those we used in building up the totals and may not be the final figures.

  (a) Money for improvements to Council housing includes

  (i) The funding shown in the third line of the table for Arms Length Management Organisations (£1,994 million over the next three years);

  (ii) A share of the housing investment programme (HIP) money that forms part of the totals in the first two lines of the table. In 2003–04 HIP amounts to £842 million. Only a proportion of this will be used to support improvements to Council housing. HIP is also used to fund improvements to private housing, and provision of new affordable housing. HIP resources go into the local authority single capital pot for use at the discretion of the LA. But on past trends about one third of HIP funding will be used to support council housing improvements. From 2004–05 this funding becomes part of the single regional housing pot.

  (iii) In addition £685 million of new PFI credits were announced in Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. These are not included in the funds shown in Annex A.

  (iv) The Major Repairs Allowance was introduced in 2001 and gives local authorities the funding required to maintain the condition of their stock. This is provided through the housing revenue account and does not appear in the figures in Annex A. It will total over £4 billion over the next three years.

  (b) Funding for improvements to RSL housing

  RSLs fund the vast majority of their repairs and improvements from rental income or by borrowing privately. But the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme provides for some £40 million next year to fund improvements. This funding will be included in the single regional housing pot from 2004–05.

  (c) Funding for new homes to rent

  The single regional housing pots shown in the first two lines of the table in Annex A include funding for the Housing Corporation for new affordable homes. In addition some of the HIP resources, and some of the funding in the transitional arrangements line, will be used for the provision of affordable homes by RSLs. In total we are providing some £5 billion over the next three years for affordable housing, though the precise figure allocated will depend on advice from the RHBs.

  725W
  Not all of this funding will support homes to rent——some will support low cost home ownership. Again the precise split will be subject to advice from the RHBs, but the majority will be invested in homes to rent

  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many days on average people were on the waiting list for social housing in(a) England and (b) each local authority defined as rural by region, who were (i) defined as in priority need and (ii) others, in each year since 1978. [98494]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information on length of time spent on waiting list for social housing is available from the Survey of English Housing for 2000–01 and 2001–02, but not for earlier years. (Information is not collected that identifies households that were classified as in priority need). In the table data for the two survey years has been combined in order to provide a larger sample size.

  Average time waited to be allocated social housing accommodation: England 2001–01 and 2001–02

  Type of local authority

  Average length of time waited——days

  Rural

  426

  Urban

  370

  All (England)

  379

  Source

  Survey of English Housing

  Special Advisers/Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers have been employed by his Department in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92423]
  Mr. Leslie: In relation to special advisers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South on 31 January 2003, Official Report, column 1056W.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. On 1 January 2003, the Office employed 23 full-time equivalent press officers.

  Stock Transfers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will reduce the ODPM target of achieving 200,000 council housing stock transfers a year; and what numbers have been achieved in each of the last five years. [99058]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is no target for transferring council housing to registered social landlords. The December 2000 housing policy statement, "Quality and Choice: The way forward for housing", said that the Government was willing to support the transfer of up to 200,000 homes annually in the period 2001–02 to 2003–04, where a local authority selects the transfer option and has the support of tenants. The number of homes transferring over the last 5 financial years is set out in the table below:

  Financial Year

  Number of Units Transferred

  1997–98

  32,982

  1998–99

  73,900

  726W

  Financial Year

  Number of Units Transferred

  1999–00

  97,385

  2000–01

  134,219

  2001–02

  ⋆35,390

  ⋆ Between 1997 and 2000 the duration of each transfer programme was one year. This period was extended to 2 years from 2001. Therefore the final total for the 2001 programme is expected to be 186,777 which comprises 35,390 dwellings which transferred in 2001–02, 86,387 transferred to date in 2002–03, and a further 65,000 that are due to transfer by 31 March 2003.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what contribution the £800 million set aside for 2003–04 to finance stock transfer by writing of overhanging debt makes to the most deprived local authority areas. [99060]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government's target is to make all social housing decent by 2010, including that in the most deprived local authority areas. Housing transfer is one route by which this can be achieved. Payments to meet local authorities' overhanging debt are made where the value of the housing stock transferring is less than a local authority's associated housing debt.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what changes he requested to the National Audit Office report on council housing stock transfers; [99061]

  (2) what queries he has raised with the National Audit Office about its report into council housing stock transfers; and whether those changes resulted in the delay in publication. [99063]

  Mr. McNulty
  In line with normal practice, the National Audit Office's draft report is being discussed and the facts in it agreed with officials in the office of the Deputy Prime Minister. A publication date for the report has always been provisional subject to the work being complete.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what help will be given to councils whose council housing stock is in negative equity to pursue large scale voluntary transfers. [99064]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's action plan "Sustainable Communities: building for the future" published on 5 February says the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will explore options for gap funding housing transfer where the stock has a negative value.

  Supporting People Housing Projects
  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Supporting People housing projects have included drugs treatment. [98528]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the supply mapping exercise undertaken by local authorities as part of the preparations for Supporting People showed that there were a total of 3,225 household units for substance misusers with housing related support needs in 265 services, in December 2002.

  Sustainable Communities
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new affordable homes for(a) key workers and (b) other groups in housing need he expects the funding announced in Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, to deliver in each Government Office region in 2003–04. [98515]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to deliver around 21,000 units via the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme in 2003/04. This includes units to be delivered under the Challenge Fund, a significant proportion of which will be allocated to key workers in London, the South East and East of England regions.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the other relevant organisations identified in paragraph 6.9 of Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, that may be invited to be involved in the proposed regional housing boards, include representatives of(a) tenants and residents associations and (b) voluntary sector organisations working with those who are homeless or in housing need. [98529]

  Mr. McNulty
  Decisions on the precise composition of the board are a matter for agreement within the region. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not expect the membership to be much wider than the organisations listed. The board will need to work with any existing regional housing forum, tenants and residents representatives and other housing groups, which will need to be closely involved in the development of the Regional Housing Strategy. The 728W
  involvement of the Regional Assembly in the board will provide a direct link to a wide range of stakeholders, including voluntary and community groups.

  Sustainable Communities (North-East)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what financial assistance the Department will give to the implementation of the Tees Valley Housing Strategy. [97215]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my Hon. and learned Friend to the answers given my Hon Friend the member for Redcar on 20 February 2003,Official Report.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89900]

  Mr. Leslie
  Losses between the creation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 29 May 2002 May and 31 December 2002 due to theft and fraud are as follows:

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  £1,601

  Agencies

  £11,627

  NDPBs

  £81,728

  Assets have been valued at cost, net book value or replacement cost depending on the circumstances of the individual case. Recoveries from perpetrators or others, e.g. insurance claims, have been netted off. Some incidents are still under investigation and final values may change.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prison Service
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  I have today laid before Parliament the report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body on the pay of governor and officer grades in the Northern Ireland Prison Service for 2003. Copies have been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Both the Secretary of State and I welcome the recognition in the report of the work of staff in the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  The Review Body has recommended a consolidated increase of 2.5 per cent. on existing rates of pay for the 12 month period commencing 1 April 2003 and an increase of 1.5 per cent. on allowances.

  I have decided to accept the recommendations and implement the award in full.

TRANSPORT

  Airports Consultation
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  Last summer the Government published a set of seven consultation papers on the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom.

  On 26 November the High Court upheld a challenge against the exclusion of options for additional runways at Gatwick Airport. On 28 November I told the House, Official Report, columns 474–87, that I would not appeal against the judgment, because an appeal would result in an extensive period of uncertainty for people up and down the country. I therefore announced that I was keeping open the consultation, which had been due to end on 30 November, and that I would publish a further consultation paper including runway options at Gatwick.

  I am today publishing the further consultation material. I have decided that it would be easier for consultees to publish it in the form of second editions of the full South East consultation paper, the summary South East paper and the questionnaires for both the South East and other areas of the UK. Consultees can easily see the text added as a result of including the Gatwick options.

  The new documents include the original consultation material on options at Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and other South East airports, and the option for a new airport at Cliffe. In addition, in accordance with the High Court decision, the papers now include options for additional runways at Gatwick.
  26WS
  As for options on the other South East airports published last July, the papers now set out for Gatwick all the options which were appraised in detail in the later stages of the South East and East of England Regional Air Services (SER AS) study. Accordingly, there are two options for a single new runway at Gatwick and one option for two new runways there. The papers also set out alternative assumptions on the timing of these Gatwick options.

  The consultation, for all parts of the UK, will now close on 30 June. We will consider carefully all responses received by that date, including proposals for options other than those which have been included in the Government's consultation documents. As I told the House on 28 November, this is an opportunity for anyone to express their views on all the options in the consultation, as well as to put forward any reasonable alternatives.

  Copies of all the new documents are available in the Vote Office and in the Library. My officials are writing to everyone on the original consultation list, and to all those who have responded to the consultations so far, to alert them to the new documents and to the 30 June deadline, and explaining that people who have already submitted responses can choose either to let their response stand, or to add to, or amend, or withdraw their response in the light of the new material.

  Night Noise Restrictions (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports)
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar)
  We have been considering the timetable for the forthcoming consultation about night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. The present night restrictions regime at those airports is due to end in October 2004. We have decided to consult shortly on an interim proposal to extend this regime for a further year, to October 2005. This would allow us to consider comments received in response to the question about the five yearly review cycle in the consultation paper Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East (the second edition of this paper has been published today), as well as the wider policy context, before we consult on a regime to take effect from October 2005.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agri-environment Scheme
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food recommended that an entry-level agri-environment scheme should be made available to as many farms in England as possible. The Government accepted this recommendation and announced in the Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy in December 2002 that, subject to a successful pilot, the Entry Level Scheme would be made available to farmers across England from 2005.
  27WS
  I am pleased to inform the House that the pilot for this new scheme begins today. Guidance Booklets which give full details of the scheme design, including the environmental management options that farmers will implement under the scheme, the application process and application forms are now available. Farmers in the four pilot areas will be able to apply for the new scheme from now until 30 May 2003.

  All farmers with land in the four pilot areas have been invited to launch meetings in the week beginning 3 March, at which they will be able to collect copies of these booklets. Defra staff and representatives from our partner organisations will be on hand at the meetings to answer farmers' questions and provide further information. These meetings will be followed by workshops in the four pilot areas, which will provide further practical help for farmers.

  The design of the pilot for the Entry Level Scheme, including the location of the four pilot areas, has been developed in close consultation with key partner organisations through regular meetings of an Entry Level Scheme Working Group.

  The pilot areas were chosen carefully, according to a range of objective criteria, to be representative of a variety of English farm types and landscapes. There are approximately 200 farms in each of the pilot areas. The areas chosen to pilot the new scheme are:

  Area

  Nearby towns

  Pilot area broadly Representative of:

  North East

  Barnard Castle(Co.Durham)

  Upland farming

  South West

  Tiverton (Devon)

  Grassland farming

  South East

  Mortimer (Berkshire, nr Reading)

  Mixed farming

  East Midlands

  Market Deeping

  Arable farming and (Lincolnshire) cropping

  Maps showing the precise boundaries of the pilot areas have been placed in the Defra library in Nobel House.

  The basic features of the Entry Level Scheme Pilot will be as follows:
  Farmers taking part in the Pilot Scheme will have to identify important environmental features and areas on their farm. They will also have to make a commitment to carry out simple, yet effective, environmental management activities, which they will select themselves from a wide-ranging list of options. Examples of options available include wildlife-friendly hedge management, buffer strips around key features on the farm, the maintenance of stone walls and managing low input grassland.
  Each option will be worth a certain number of points, related to the cost to the farmer of implementing that option. If the farmer achieves a target number of points for their farm they will be guaranteed entry to the scheme and payment. The target number of points will be based on farm size. Farmers will have to get 30 points per hectare, except for LFA land in parcels of 15 ha or more where the threshold will be 15 points per hectare.
  28WS
  There will be a flat rate payment of £30 per hectare over the whole holding, paid annually. However, for LFA land in parcels of 15 ha or more, farmers will receive £15 per hectare. The lower rates reflect the fact that this land, which is normally extensively grazed, is generally managed less intensively, farmers could not be expected to implement such a wide range of measures, or at the same level of intensity, as in lowland farming situations.
  The scheme will be open to all farmers who farm land within the pilot area boundaries.
  Agreements will be for 5 years.

  A key aim of the scheme is high take-up, as the environmental management activities available will be most effective if they are applied across a wide area. To facilitate high uptake, the scheme has been designed to be simple to administer for both the farmer and Government. We hope that farmers participating in the pilot will be able to understand and implement the entry level scheme themselves, without the need for specialist advice on a one-to-one basis.

  The pilot will be closely monitored and evaluated for the next two years. The evaluation will assess the application of the environmental management measures at the farm level, including their potential to deliver the expected environmental benefits. The accessibility and popularity of the scheme, and an analysis of the factors affecting uptake, will also be considered.

  The experience gained from the pilots will enable us to adapt and improve the scheme design before aiming to roll out the Entry Level Scheme across England in 2005.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Schemes 2003–04
  The Minister for Pensions
  (Mr. Ian McCartney): I am pleased to announce that there will be no increase in the General Levy rates for 2003–04. Rates will remain at the 2000–01 level as set out in the tables, due to buoyant levy receipts and good housekeeping.

  I am also pleased to announce that although some payments have been made out of the pension compensation fund, it will not be necessary to raise a Compensation Levy in 2003–04.

  The Government's Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for retirement", Cm 5677, published 17 December 2002, sets out plans for a new, risk-focused pensions regulator, which also provides support, advice and guidance to the pensions industry.

  The General Levy rates for 2003–04 are as follows:

  Table 1—Occupational Pension Schemes

  Scheme Size (Number of Members)

  Basis

  Amount per Member

  Minimum payment per Scheme1

  2 to 11

  £12 Per scheme

  -

  -

  12 to 99

  Per Member

  £1.25

  -

  100 to 999

  Per Member

  £0.90

  £125

  1,000 to 4999

  Per Member

  £0.70

  £900

  5,000 to 9,999

  Per member

  £0.53

  £3,500

  10,000 or more

  Per member

  £0.37

  £5,300

  29WS

  Table 2—Personal Pension Schemes

  Scheme Size(Number of Members)

  Basis

  Amount per Member

  Minimum Payment per Scheme1

  2 to 11

  £5.20 Per scheme

  -

  -

  12 to 99

  Per Member

  £0.50

  -

  100 to 999

  Per Member

  £0.35

  £50

  1,000 to 4,999

  Per Member

  £0.30

  £350

  5,000 to 9.999

  Per member

  £0.20

  £1,500

  10,000 or more

  Per member

  £0.15

  £2,000

  Note: 1. Minimum payments ensure that schemes in the lower bands do not pay more overall than those the higher bands

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Relations Act
  The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of a consultation document as part of the Government's review of the Employment Relations Act 1999.1 have also placed in the Libraries copies of the draft regulations prohibiting the blacklisting of trade unionists, which arose from the review. The review was announced on 11 July by the Secretary of State, with the following terms of reference:The Government has reformed the labour market to build a durable and fair basis for constructive employment relations. By a range of measures, the UK labour market is achieving high levels of employment and combining fairness and flexibility.
  In line with commitments made in the 1998 Fairness at Work White Paper, the Government will review the operation of the statutory union recognition and derecognition procedures in the Employment Relations Act 1999. The review will also look at the operation of the other provisions of the Act.
  The review will be carried out by the DTI through full public consultation. The DTI will complete this task to a timetable enabling any legislative recommendations which the review may make to be introduced within the lifetime of this Parliament.

  Based on the evidence, the review has found that the Act is working well. The review has concluded that the central pillars of the Act should remain unchanged, but it makes a number of proposals to amend other parts of the Act to improve their practical operation. The consultation document also presents the Government's proposals to change trade union law in line with the judgment reached on 2 July by the European Court of Human Rights in the Wilson and Palmer case. The consultation period ends on 22 May.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  The twelfth Report on the implementation of the SinoBritish Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today and copies have been placed in the Library of 30WS
  the House. A copy of the Report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website http://www.fco.gov.uk/. The Report includes a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the Report to the House.

  European Union Council Business (March-September 2003)
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The business for the period March to September is as follows:

  MARCH

  1–2—Athens—Informal Education

  3—Brussels—Competitiveness Council

  4—Brussels—Environment Council

  6—Brussels—Meeting of the Presidium

  6—Luxembourg—Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs

  6—Brussels—EUROGROUP (Evening)

  7—Brussels—ECOFIN

  7—Luxembourg—Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  13—Brussels—Meeting of the Presidium

  14–15-Athens—(Informal Defence Meeting)

  17–18-Brussels—Convention Plenary

  17–18-Luxembourg—Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  18–19—Brussels—General Affairs & External Relations Council (GAERC)

  21—Brussels—EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  27—Brussels-Meeting of the Presidium

  27–28—Luxembourg—Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  27–28—Brussels—EU-RIO Group, EU MERCOSUR

  28–29—Veria—Informal Justice & Home Affairs

  31—Brussels—Agriculture & Fisheries Council (to be confirmed)

  Date

  Location

  Event

  April

  2

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  3–4

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  4

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs

  4–6

  Hania (Crete)

  Informal ECOFIN (Ministerial)

  5

  Lisbon

  Europe—Africa Summit

  10

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations

  14

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries

  16

  Athens

  Signature Of The Accession Treaty

  17

  Athens

  European Conference

  23

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  24–25

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  May

  2–4

  Olympia

  Gymnich (Informal Foreign Ministers)

  3–4

  Athens

  Informal Environment (Ministerial Informal)

  5–6

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council (To be confirmed)

  8

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  Corfu

  Agriculture (Ministerial Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  Competitiveness

  12

  Brussels

  EUROGRUP

  13

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  14

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  31WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  14

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Ministerial

  16–17

  Halkidiki

  Informal Regional Policy (Ministerial)

  16–18

  Cruise off Greece

  Informal Transport & Merchant Marine (Ministerial)

  17

  Brussels

  EU-W. Balkans (Zagreb Process)

  19

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (+ Defence)

  20

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  22

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  24

  Thessaloniki

  Informal Culture (Ministerial)

  26–27

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  26–27

  Crete

  EUROMED Conference (Mid Term Ministerial)

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  28

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  30–31

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  31

  St Petersburg

  EU—Russia Summit

  June

  2

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP

  12–13

  Alexandroupoli

  Development Co-operation (Ministerial Informal)

  2–3

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  3

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  4

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  5–6

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  5–6

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  5–6

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  6

  Rhodes

  Public Administration (Ministerial Informal)

  1l

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  11–12

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  12–13

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations

  20

  Halkidiki

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  21

  Halkidiki

  Zagreb II Summit

  22

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  24

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  July

  2–3

  Rome

  Research Ministerial Informal)

  4–5

  Naples

  Transport Infrastructure (Ministerial Informal)

  6

  Brussels

  Trade (Ministerial Informal)

  10

  Varese

  Informal Council/Troika

  11–12

  Varese

  Informal Council of Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs

  15–16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11–12

  Varese

  Informal Council of Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs

  15–16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  17–18

  Treviso

  EU Employment Committee (Informal)

  18–20

  Montecatini

  Energy & Environment (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  22

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  24–25

  Milan

  European Conference on Discrimination

  25–26

  Verona

  Education (Ministerial Informal)

  August

  No Meetings Planned

  September

  3–5

  Viterbo

  Telecommunications (Ministerial Informal)

  12–14

  Stresa

  ECOFIN (Informal Council)

  32WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  19–20

  Rome

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  22–23

  Brussels

  Competition (Internal Market, Industry & Research)

  29–30

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  29–30

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

HOME OFFICE

  Prison Service Pay Review
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn)
  The second report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) on the pay of governing governors and operational managers, prison officers and related grades in England and Wales in 2003 is being published today and copies will be placed in the Library.

  The PSPRB have continued to be impressed by the professionalism and dedication they found amongst the remit group staff, particularly in view of the pressures of rising prisoner numbers. They have recommended a basic rise of 2.8 per cent, which is in line with the rate of inflation in December 2002 and other review body awards.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided that the recommendations will be implemented in full, with effect from the operative date of the award of 1 April 2003.

  The key recommendations of the report are:

  A 2.8 per cent increase to basic pay rates from 1 April 2003;

  Locality allowances paid to Prison Service staff in eligible areas in London and the South East will be increased from 1 April 2003:

  from £3,500 to £3,800 per annum for the top rate from £2,300 to £3,000 per annum

  for a new "higher" rate

  from £2,300 to £2,500 per annum for the middle rate

  from £1,000 to £1,100 per annum for the lower rate

  An improved performance-related progression system for operational managers from 1 April 2003 and assimilation to a new pay spine retrospectively to 1 January 2003;

  An increase of 2.8 per cent. to the Healthcare specialist allowance paid to prison officers from 1 April 2003. Other specialist allowances frozen at current rates; and

  Other allowances increased by 2.8 per cent.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  On 6 September 2002 I announced the appointment of an Independent Review Team, led by Patrick Carter, to take a fundamental look at the operations of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). In particular, the Review Team was tasked to support the CRB management in the short-term and to identify necessary longer-term changes in the way the
  33WS
  CRB operates to ensure that it can deliver its twin objectives of providing greater protection for children and vulnerable adults whilst ensuring that the Disclosure process does not act as a bar to speedy recruitment.

  I have today placed in the Library the main findings and recommendations of the Independent Review Team.

  I am extremely grateful to Patrick Carter and his two colleagues—John Holden and Ron Skelley—for their rapid and thorough examination of the situation at the CRB and their recommendations on the way forward. The team has come up with a wide-ranging set of recommendations for improvements to the CRB intended to enable it to meet future challenges as demand for its services continues to grow. The CRB is a vital element of the Government's programme to improve the protection of children and vulnerable adults from those who might wish to harm them. It needs to be put on a sounder footing to meet these objectives more effectively and provide the levels of service rightly expected by its customers.

  The Independent Review Team's recommendations build on the steady improvement in the GRB's performance over the last six months which has seen the average number of Disclosures issued rise from 24,500 per week in August 2002 to the current 40,000 per week. Some 80 per cent of Standard Disclosures and 50 per cent. of Enhanced Disclosures are now issued within three weeks. These improvements have been achieved by both the Agency and Capita working in partnership to deliver the service that the CRB's customers are entitled to receive.

  The Government propose to take forward the 10 recommendations in the report as follows:
  Ways should be sought of optimising the end-to-end CRB process efficiency, by reviewing and rationalising the management responsibilities and respective roles in the complete chain undertaken by Registered Bodies, the CRB Agency, Capita and local police forces.

  The Government agree that the roles of the different parties involved in the CRB process should be strengthened and clarified. In particular, we intend to enhance the intelligent customer function within the Agency so that there is a stronger focus on setting standards across the whole operation and ensuring that these are met. There also needs to be better management co-ordination of the CRB end-to-end business processes. This may involve the more flexible deployment of Agency and private sector staff and to this end we will take powers in the Criminal Justice Bill to enable the Secretary of State's functions under Part V of the Police Act 1997 to be exercised by the private sector as well as Agency staff.
  The critical role of Registered Bodies in the CRB process needs to be recognised and upgraded. Registered bodies should be unambiguously responsible for validating the identity of those for whom they seek Disclosures and for ensuring the quality and completeness of applications submitted to the CRB. The number of Registered Bodies should be optimised to establish sensible economies of scale and improve proficiency.

  The Government accept this recommendation and will legislate this session to make it clear that Registered Bodies are responsible for verifying the identity of an
  34WS
  applicant. It would, as now, be open to a Registered Body to delegate the function of validating identity to the prospective employer or other agent while retaining overall responsibility, as long as we are satisfied in a particular case that delegation provides a reasonable safeguard. To ensure that Registered Bodies discharge their responsibilities effectively, we will take powers to attach conditions to a registration and to revoke a registration where such conditions are breached. We share the Review Team's view that optimum levels of efficiency within a Registered Body can best be achieved by handling a sufficient number of Disclosure applications. With the new responsibilities for Registered Bodies, a number of those currently countersigning relatively small numbers of applications may seek to de-register of their own volition. We will monitor the situation carefully. The Government will take reserve powers to set a threshold for the minimum number of applications to be processed by a Registered Body each year and to de-register those Registered Bodies which fall below the threshold. Registered Bodies and others across the sectors which use the CRB's Disclosure service will be fully consulted before these changes are implemented. We will take particular account of concerns that have been expressed about access to Registered Bodies and the level of fees charged by some umbrella bodies. As part of the consultation exercise, we will seek views oh placing a cap on the fees that may be levied by Registered Bodies.
  There should be a progressive move to mandate electronic submission of applications by Registered Bodies.

  The CRB will introduce an electronic application channel as soon as practicable; a pilot will be undertaken later this year. We believe that many Registered Bodies will want to adopt this channel as their preferred means of submitting Disclosure applications. In time, as more and more Registered Bodies migrate to the electronic channel there will be a diminishing case, on efficiency grounds, for maintaining the existing paper and telephone channels. At that point, consideration would need to be given whether to mandate—by means of a condition attached to registration—the electronic channel for registered bodies to submit applications to the CRB. This will not preclude individuals submitting their applications to registered bodies by paper or telephone channels where mutually agreed.
  Given that the production of Enhanced Disclosures is significantly more costly and ties up local police force resources, new arrangements should be established for the Agency to set priorities, in accordance with Government Guidelines, on which applications should get Enhanced and which should get Standard Disclosures.

  The Government agree with the spirit of this recommendation, but it is important that the criteria are set by ministers, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, on the basis of a risk assessment. Having established the criteria for Standard and Enhanced Disclosures it is important that there is some mechanism to ensure that they are properly observed. It is proposed, therefore, to amend the Police Act 1997 first to enable the type of Disclosure for any given occupational group to be determined by regulations and then to enable the CRB to give effect to such regulations. Where necessary, the CRB would be expected to seek additional information from the registered body in order that it

  35WS
  could make its assessment in any given case. We will take account of the views of Registered Bodies and others before implementing these changes.
  It is recommended that the Police National Computer (PNC) files are "flagged" to denote the existence of intelligence information on any individual held at local force level and not included in convictions recorded on the PNC.

  The cost and feasibility of introducing a system of flags on the PNC to denote the existence of local intelligence will be tested in a pilot due to commence in three forces (Metropolitan Police, Staffordshire and West Midlands) in the spring. Decisions about the rollout of such a system will be taken in the light of the outcome of the pilot.
  It is recommended that the launch of Basic Disclosures be postponed until the CRB systems have been developed to provide a substantially greater capacity. It would be inappropriate to launch Basic Disclosures until higher priority categories of applicant for higher level Disclosures are seeing their needs fully accommodated. It is also recommended that Basic Disclosure applications should be routed through Registered Bodies, with identity validation undertaken by these Bodies, rather than allow direct submission from applicants as currently envisaged by the legislation.

  The Government concur that the priority for the CRB is to ensure that demand for higher level Disclosures is fully met and that applicants for such Disclosures receive a satisfactory service. Basic Disclosures will not be introduced until these objectives have been achieved. The Government note the case for routing applications for a Basic Disclosure through a Registered Body as in the case of Standard and Enhanced Disclosures, but will want to consult fully with employer organisations and others on the implications before coming to a final view. In the event that the Government decide to proceed, legislation would be needed to implement this recommendation.
  The Information Technology system built and operated by Capita has been subject to a range of improvements and enhancements since original delivery, as a result of which performance has improved. A further programme of significant enhancement will be required. Additionally, almost all the recommendations set out here would lead to requirements for system change and therefore would have contractual consequences. It is therefore recommended to attempt to renegotiate the contract with Capita to implement necessary technology renewal and align the contract to the changed and evolving circumstances.

  The Government accept this recommendation and will seek to renegotiate the contract with Capita so that it reflects the changed environment in which the CRB will be operating.
  An investigation should be undertaken into the possibility of requiring fingerprints to be submitted by applicants for Disclosures where the sensitivity of the employment role to be undertaken makes this appropriate. This would enable a more rigorous linking of police records (which in turn are mostly linked to fingerprints) and the individuals submitting applications for Disclosures. This investigation will need to look at the balance to be struck between such increasing rigour of CRB identity processes and the cost and convenience of the service to the customer.

  The Government will undertake a further study in consultation with Registered Bodies and others on the case for, and practicalities of, requiring applicants for Disclosures in particularly sensitive employment roles to submit their fingerprints with their application. Among the issues the study will need to address, is how
  36WS
  to avoid any unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of applicants. A decision whether to proceed will be taken in the light of the results of the consultation exercise. Legislation would be needed to implement this change.
  While recognising the benefits derived from establishing the CRB under the wing of an existing Agency, it is now recommended that an independent Executive Agency is created within the Home Office to carry forward the CRB's changing and increasingly demanding functions. There will need to be a transitional period which will be overseen by a transitional Management Board operating within an appropriate governance framework.

  The Government agree that the CRB, currently part of the Passport and Records Agency, should be reconstituted as a free-standing Agency. The new Agency will be established as soon as practicable. A Transitional Board has been established to ensure a smooth transition. John Holden has agreed to serve as the non-executive chairman of the Board and Patrick Carter and Ron Skelley as non-executive members. A stakeholder group will be established under John Holden's chairmanship to represent the interests of Government Departments and the police.
  In order to implement a number of the recommendations, changes to the legislative framework under which the CRB operates (Part V of the Police Act 1997) will be required.

  As indicated above, the Government will take forward in the Criminal Justice Bill the necessary legislative changes needed to implement recommendations 1, 2 and 4.

  Certificates of Identity
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  On 6 February we announced that we would consult on plans to tighten the policy on issuing Certificates of Identity. We have completed the consultation as quickly as possible, as there was evidence of abuse. I can now announce that, from 27 March, these documents will only be available to people who can prove that they need them.

  The change has proved necessary because some people who claim to have fled their home countries in fear of their lives have used our documents to travel back. Recently, we found 125 Iraqis using these documents on just 16 flights to Damascus, which is 140 miles from the Iraqi border. (There are no direct flights to Iraq). We cannot allow this to continue. We have decided that all applicants for a Certificate of Identity, including those who have indefinite leave to enter or remain, must prove that they cannot obtain a passport from the authorities of their own country. People who have exceptional leave to enter or remain (i.e.leave for a limited period) will also have to show that they need to travel for an essential reason, such as business, education, religion or compassionate circumstances. They will have to tell us which country they need to travel to and will not be allowed to go to any other countries using the Certificate of Identity.

  With this change of policy, we also intend to send a clear message that the United Kingdom takes its obligations seriously, and we expect those who benefit from our protection to do the same.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Councillor Codes of Conduct
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Promoting high standards of ethical conduct among Councillors is one of the most important requirements for the strengthening of local democracy and the building up of trust between people and their elected representatives. The Government are today laying an amendment to the Local Government Bill which will lead to new regulations allowing local authorities to play a more active role in dealing with cases of councillor misconduct.

  The amendment has been prepared following an extensive consultation exercise last summer on the proposed regulatory framework which would allow local investigation of allegations and local hearings. Close consideration of more than 1,000 responses to that consultation led to the conclusion that a robust and workable set of regulations could not be made without changes to the primary legislation.
  38WS
  The Government now intend to issue regulations in two parts. The first set of regulations will set out the regime within which local standards committees will be able to consider reports on alleged councillor misconduct completed by ESOs and referred to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority under section 59 (4) (c) of the Local Government Act 2000. The intention is that these regulations will be laid before Parliament in early April. I understand that the Standards Board for England intend to publish guidance for local authorities on the operation of these regulations

  The second set of regulations will provide for the conduct of investigations by monitoring officers, or their deputies, following a decision by an ESO to cease an investigation and refer the matters to the monitoring officer under section 60 (2) (b) of the Local Government Act 2000. Our intention is not to lay these regulations until a change has been made to the Local Government Act 2000 which would allow a monitoring officer to appoint another person to conduct an investigation, especially in circumstances where the monitoring officer might have a conflict of interest. The amendment which is being laid before Parliament today is designed to achieve this change. Subject to Parliament's enactment of the amendment, regulations dealing with investigations will be laid in the Autumn.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

  Licensing Bill [H.L.]
  The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
  Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Licensing committees]:
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 4, line 7, leave out from "of" to end of line 8 and insert "such members of the authority as the authority shall determine"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 37, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41. Amendment No. 37 would remove the restrictions on the number of members of a licensing committee. I spoke to the amendment in Committee, and I was not satisfied with the answer that I received.
  Noble Lords will know that there will be an ever-present need for speed and flexibility on the part of local authorities. In large urban areas, local authorities will he hampered from running the system efficiently by the specification that the licensing committee may have no more than 15 members. Backlogs will build up; applications will be delayed; and applicants will become frustrated. In small areas, local authorities may be hard pushed to find 10 members. In Committee, I referred to Ryedale District Council, in the parliamentary constituency of my honourable friend John Greenway. That council has 23 members. Rutland County Council, in the parliamentary constituency of my honourable friend Alan Duncan, has 20 members. The suggestion that a licensing committee may have no more than 15 members seems a little out of kilter.
  The provision is a setback to the new system before it has even started. No doubt, the Minister will counter my argument as he did in Committee by talking about sub-committees and the fact that,
  "In certain emergencies they"—
  the licensing committee—
  "can even devolve work to officers in order to meet the requirements of particular exigencies".—[Official Report, 19/12/ 02; col. 835]
  That is a classic case of over-regulation and unnecessary complication. Why not let the local authorities decide how many members there should be on the committee? They will be able to decide on the number that best meets their needs for the amount of business that the committee will handle. The Bill is over-prescriptive.
  I turn to Amendment No. 41. On the third day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said that, when considering applications for licences, all members of a licensing committee would have to be present for the committee to be quorate. That was a surprising thing for the noble Lord to say. It is apparent from the Bill that it would be difficult for a licensing committee to refuse to grant a premises licence or a personal licence. One could he forgiven for thinking that the purpose of the Bill is to repeal licensing law, albeit that it takes 169 pages to do so. Be that as it may, the Bill makes it far easier to obtain either a premises licence or a personal licence.
  The curious thing is that, if all members of a licensing committee must be present for the committee to he quorate—we could think of those in Ryedale, for example—it will be more difficult to obtain a licence. We all know how difficult it is to get a meeting of our colleagues together. Finding a date when all the members of any group can meet is always difficult. Even when a date is found, somebody inevitably cries off for a good or bad reason. The work of government here in Westminster and at local level would come to a grinding halt, if the requirement for a quorum for any committee was set at 100 per cent. Therefore, we resist any suggestion that a quorum should be 100 per cent.
  That was the situation before Christmas. However, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, must have had a good Christmas. He was in more charitable mood on the fourth day in Committee. He said:
  "a local authority could not conceivably act in circumstances in which everybody had to be present and correct in order to form a quorum".—[Official Report, 13/1/03; col. 16.]
  I like the idea that everyone has to be both present and correct. I wonder what the noble Lord means by being correct, rather than just present. The thrust of what the Minister said was that a 100 per cent quorum was unworkable. It looks as if I am pushing at an open door on that point. That being so, it is appropriate that the licensing committee itself should decide the quorum for meetings. It will be best placed to know how busy it is and where a balance should be struck.
  Regulations made by central government cannot take into account the many local variations that would make a quorum figure acceptable in one area but not in another. The quorum for meetings should he decided at local level, rather than by central government. I beg to move.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we support these entirely sensible amendments and hope that the Government will accept them.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I too should like to support my noble friend Lady Buscombe. As I pointed out in Committee, one of the concerns as regards the procedure is that dealings with local authorities over public entertainment licences have not always been as swift, flexible and responsive as people would like. Adding further burdens will make the speed of

  381
  response even less flexible. Thus anything that may entrammel the local authority in bureaucracy, including a fixed requirement for people to attend meetings, seems undesirable. We seek as much flexibility as possible for the local authority in order that it will be able to respond quickly to applications.
  I understand the Government's wish to see a minimum level of quorum; that is perfectly fair. However, the Bill as drafted is overprescriptive and I therefore support the amendment.
  11.15 a.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that the points are being rather belaboured because of a misconception. Representations made during our earlier discussions and again today suggest that the licensing committee will meet in regular session. The question of quorum would then become much more significant. Let me assure the House that while the licensing committee may wish to meet frequently and is able to do so—that is its business as defined locally—its sole obligatory function as a committee is to make the licensing statement. For that the full licensing committee will have to be present and therefore the question of numbers is significant in that context. However, it is only for that function that the entire committee needs to be in action; it may decide at the local level whether it wants to hold full meetings on other occasions.
  For the rest, we envisage a flexible committee structure to meet the requirements for the granting of licences that will be responsive to local pressures, while at the same time the structure will maintain a clear perspective on the responsibilities of the licensing committee itself and on the nature of the surrounding regulations.
  I understand fully the points that have been made and recognise the issue of flexibility. That is why I wish to emphasise that most licences will be granted within the framework of a sub-committee structure. The Bill attempts to balance flexibility through a framework based on a sub-committee system that will provide licensing authorities and, by extension, the industry with the tools to process applications quickly and efficiently.
  As I remarked earlier in our deliberations, we have sought the views of a wide range of stakeholders. including representatives of local government at all levels, and have concluded that a limit of no fewer than 10 and no more than 50 members will ensure that a licensing committee is not so small as to make decision-making unacceptably slow and not so large as to make its conduct of business unmanageable. We are still of that view. Amendment No. 37 would allow the licensing authority absolute freedom to determine the size of its licensing committee.
  It is important to remember that in the majority of cases we expect applications to be processed administratively at the official level, without any need for a hearing. Under the structure, the licensing committee will deal with the policy statement while
  382
  sub-committees will deal with those applications raising significant policy issues. Officials will be able to deal with run-of-the-mill licence applications where no significant issue of policy arises. Under those circumstances there will be no need for any member of the licensing committee to be involved if the officers are given the authority to exercise decisions in their own names.
  The policy behind the Bill is designed to promote co-operation and collaboration between licensees and the licensing authority. Most issues should be ironed out by the applicant through dialogue with the licensing authority and the responsible authorities, as well as through reference to the statement of licensing policy, before the application is even submitted. Where relevant representations are received and a hearing is required, members of the licensing committee will need to become involved. But I emphasise again that the whole licensing committee does not have to consider and decide on every application; indeed, for the entire licensing committee to be involved would be an unusual occurrence.
  The Bill provides that functions of the licensing committee may be delegated to sub-committees comprising three members that may sit in parallel. Thus, for example, for a licensing committee comprising the maximum of 15 members, five sub-committees could sit simultaneously to consider what it is hoped would be the small fraction of applications that cannot be processed administratively at the official level. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will note that, coincidentally, the sub-committee system framed in the Bill reflects arrangements currently operated by Westminster Council in respect of public entertainment licences. Those arrangements work extremely well.
  The licensing committee may delegate any of its functions under the Bill except responsibility for the licensing statement. That is why I have emphasised that the full committee will meet quite rarely. Nevertheless, in order to avoid large and unwieldy committees, we have stipulated a maximum of 15 members. I recognise that, in mentioning Ryedale, the noble Baroness made the important point that local authorities vary greatly in size. A committee of 10 members might constitute half of the total membership of certain small authorities. However, the fact that in the main the full committee need not meet will minimise the pressure put on members, while at the same time ensuring that an adequate pool will be maintained from which to draw a sub-committee, should one be required at short notice.

  In addition, and turning to Amendment No. 41 which was also spoken to by the noble Baroness, the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations setting out, among other matters, the quorum for meetings of the licensing committee and its sub-committees. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has supported these amendments and on a previous occasion expressed his concern that the Bill does not state how many members had to be present for a licensing committee to be quorate. He was right to point that out; those details do not appear on the face

  383
  of the Bill. However, the Secretary of State will be able to set limits through secondary legislation. If the Secretary of State does not make such regulations, then by virtue of Clause 9(3) each licensing committee can choose to regulate its own procedure and that of its sub-committees. So if the Secretary of State does not make regulations, then the responsibility will be devolved to the licensing committee.

  I should mention one further point. It will be in everyone's interests to ensure that where hearings are required, they can be dealt with in a timely fashion. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, pointed out in Committee, speed is often of the essence. The licensing authority must be in a position to respond quickly on certain occasions. By providing for a system of' sub-committees to handle individual applications, and an upper limit on the size of the full licensing committee, we can ensure delivery of those key priorities.
  I should also like to remind the House of the assurances I gave in Committee that fair and practical timetables for the processing of applications will be set out in regulations. Those too will be developed through continued consultation with local government, industry and other stakeholders.
  I maintain therefore that the Bill strikes the right balance. It allows for up to five sub-committees to meet simultaneously if that is necessary, while limiting the maximum size of the licensing committee to one that is manageable.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he confirm whether sub-committees will be able to deal with an important function of a licensing authority; that is, to review closure orders made under the terms of Clause 164? If so, will the three-member sub-committees be flexible in their composition so that the licensing committee could appoint any three members to deal with reviews of closure orders, in case those particular members happened to be present at the time?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. We are still involved in consultation in regard to guidance and the implementation of the Bill. The noble Lord's point is well made and we will take on board the representations he has made today.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. As regards Amendment No. 37, it is interesting that this is a deregulatory Bill and that, on the one hand, the Government are keen that much of the decision-making should be devolved to local authorities, and yet, on the other hand, the Bill stipulates what should be the size of the committee. The Government say that they envisage a structure of flexibility. Much of the nuts and bolts of the proposed new legislation for licensing is contained in the guidance, which has no legal authority and could be changed overnight, and yet the size of a licensing committee is defined in very strict terms on the face of the Bill. I find that inconsistent and extraordinary.
  384
  I am entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply in regard to Amendment No. 41. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 [Exercise and delegation of functions]:
  Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 4, line 44, at end insert—
  "( ) In a case where an authority exercises its power under subsection (5)(b), its licensing committee must (unless the matter is urgent) consider any report of any of the authorit)'s other committees with respect to the matter before discharging the function concerned."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
  "( ) Where a licensing committee receives licensing applications which involve its own local authority, it shall refer such cases to a magistrates' court for determination."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 39 seeks to amend Clause 7 of the Bill. which concerns the exercise and delegation of functions of a licensing committee. It raises the issue of conflicts of interest and attempts to resolve it.
  As noble Lords are aware, the Bill transfers all licensing functions to local authorities. There will be a number of occasions when licensing authorities will apply for licences for themselves and will therefore he judge and jury on their own applications. This raises an issue of transparency and public confidence which has not yet been fully addressed by the Government.
  The issue was debated in Committee, where my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon said that,
  "the courts have become ever more careful to ensure that there is not only no actual conflict of interest, but no perceived conflict of interest either".—[Official Report, 13/1/03; col. 13.]
  I have read carefully what the Minister said in Committee. The main plank of his argument was that this issue is already covered in two existing statutes— the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. But one Act dates from 1963 and the other from 1982. So, in one case, the legislation is more than 20 years old and, in the other, 40 years old. The Government have failed to understand the extent to which public opinion and best practice have moved on. Therefore this is an issue which deserves and needs further consideration.
  Will people who are opposed to the grant of a licence by the local authority to itself believe that the local authority will hear their case properly and fairly? Equally, on the other side, will commercial providers of competitive services—be they alcohol or entertainment-related—be confident that their case will be properly weighed? It is unfair as much as wrong to put the local authority in this position.
  I have scanned the guidance notes but I cannot see any reference to the issues raised in connection with a local authority considering its own applications. Indeed, paragraph 6.44 refers extensively to the difficulties of ward councillors receiving complaints

  385
  from residents within their own wards. That micro example seems to apply macro to a council as a whole when considering a licence for itself.
  As presently drafted, the Bill is a recipe for disappointment locally in this regard. It is not in keeping with modern practice; it is old fashioned and out of date. We should have clarity and transparency. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has presented his case as ably as he did on the previous occasion, when I was taken somewhat by surprise because I had not anticipated that this was a particularly contentious issue.
  Not all Acts of Parliament from the past are necessarily dated. If they have given good service and have not raised public concern, we will do well to rely upon the precedents they have established. I quoted the two Acts to which the noble Lord referred—the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and, perish the thought, one that went back 40 years, the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963—because both Acts govern the actions of local authorities when they are involved in self-licensing in regard to public entertainment.
  We are not crossing a new bridge but extending the existing one. Local authorities will now be involved in licensing issues which relate to the sale of alcohol—the obvious feature of the Bill. But they have been involved in self-licensing for a considerable period of time under the existing Acts, and issues of conflicts of interest have not arisen in the way foreshadowed by the noble Lord in regard to this Bill.
  We are basing our position on the reasonable precedent that local authorities know how to handle these issues. They will have to go through all the same procedures as anyone else who applies for a licence. Their applications will need to be advertised and notified to all the responsible authorities identified in the Bill; it will be open to the responsible authorities and interested parties, including local businesses, to make representations; and it will be open to anyone involved in the process, if they disagree with the decision eventually arrived at, to appeal against the licensing authority's decision to the magistrates' courts. So the local authorities are obliged to follow, at every stage, exactly the same procedures as anyone else applying for a licence.
  We have designed the new licensing system with this degree of openness and transparency in mind. It was a major priority in the legislation, although not for the precise reasons alluded to by the noble Lord. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which a licensing authority's decisions might be influenced by a conflict of interests in an untoward way. I find it even harder to think of circumstances in which the public, and in particular the industry—were the decisions adverse to it—would let the authority get away with it.
  Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to recognise that the Bill extends into the field of the sale of alcohol—an existing precedent in terms of local authorities acting
  386
  in a way that might lead to a conflict of interest. The procedures with regard to application are open to guarantee that everyone can make appropriate representations.
  I have listened carefully to the noble Lord making his point with some force for the second time. We should be happy to include in the guidance the rules governing standards and conflict of interest which already apply to local councillors. We shall reinforce that point so far as concerns local councillors. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord may feel that we have met the substance of his point and will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
  11.30 a.m.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful for that last reassurance. We move into a new world as we move to a new licensing system. Praying in aid what has gone on in the past is not as relevant as all that.
  I accept the point that an appeal will be to the magistrates' court anyway. It seemed to me that it would be quicker to deal with local authority cases by going there straightaway and starting there rather than having to go round the route through the local authority first. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having agreed to insert some further words in the guidance. I think that that takes the matter far enough for me to be able to withdraw the amendment and beg leave to do so.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may introduce a correction. I made a slip of the tongue a moment ago which I want to correct for the purposes of the record. I think I said in relation to Amendments Nos. 37 and 41 that the responsibility for the licensing policy statement is that of the licensing committee. I meant the licensing authority. For the purposes of the record I want to make that clear. I apologise to the House for intruding at this juncture.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 [Requirement to keep a register]:
  Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 5, line 13, at end insert—
  "( ) the name and address of any person who has an estate or interest in the premises whether as owner or lessee, prior or paramount to that of the occupier."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 94 and 114.
  I said in Committee that I would return to this issue. The industry is keen for it to be included in the Bill. It also has the support of the Licensed Victuallers Association. I want to present four arguments for its inclusion.
  First, an owning company will often be in a position to promote the licensing objectives through its contractual agreement with the tenant or lessee. Notification of breaches of the premises licence would allow the registered party to enforce the terms of such

  387
  an agreement to the effect that the terms and conditions of the premises licence must be complied with. The registered interest would want to protect its rights in the property whose value is linked to the possession of a premises licence. This situation is particularly prevalent in the pub sector, where thousands of pubs are owned by pub companies and leased to tenants.
  Secondly, the ability to register an interest will enable the owning company to meet its reversionary interest in the event of the demise of the tenant. This can be useful to both parties in the event of death or incapacity. It is also beneficial where a tenant absconds leaving the business adrift. The owning company, by virtue of its interest, can step in, appoint a personal licence holder and maintain the business quickly and efficiently.
  Thirdly, the beneficiary of a superior legal interest which is currently protected is entitled, as a matter of natural justice, to seek to ensure that its interest in a property, the value of which is linked to a significant degree to the possession of the premises licence, is properly recognised.
  Fourthly, the register of interest will make it much easier for companies to retain premises as going concerns, thereby protecting the jobs of those employed and, equally importantly, those employed indirectly such as musicians who are dependent on pubs and other licensed premises.
  We believe that there is value in adding these amendments to the Bill. The industry is prepared to take on the further responsibility that the amendments set out. We believe that such provision would be of value to the industry but also to those who live in the vicinity of the pubs and to many tenants. I beg to move.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support these amendments and have added my name to them, as has my noble friend Lord Luke.
  We debated this issue at length in Committee, but we were unable to persuade the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has set out what we believe are sensible reasons for the amendments. We have been approached repeatedly by those in the industry through the British Beer & Pub Association and believe that they have a strong case.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, a right to register interests already exists in Section 32 of the Licensing Act 1964. This needs to be preserved in the proposed legislation and linked into all sections where the investment of the party with the superior interest is threatened by the actions of the designated premises supervisor, the premises owner or other circumstance.
  Notification of breaches of the premises licence would allow the registered party to enforce the terms of such an agreement to the effect that the terms and conditions of the premises licence must be complied with. The registered interest would want to protect its rights in a property whose value was linked to the possession of a premises licence. That is an important
  388
  point, particularly in relation to the pub sector, where large breweries own and manage a large number of premises leased to tenants.
  Amendment No. 80 relates to Clause 27, which provides that the licence shall lapse automatically upon receipt of the licensee's notice of surrender. At present, the interests of those owning licensed premises are protected by established case law—the decision of the High Court in Drury v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) Ltd v Scunthorpe Justices (1992). It is wrong, therefore, to suggest that similar provisions are made under existing legislation. Furthermore, existing protection represents a proprietorial interest and necessary protection for property owners. If lessees who have an interest in the premises which is subsidiary to that of the lessor are able to surrender licences without the consent of the lessor, that would place at risk a key element of the property which the lessor has made available to the lessee, so depriving the lessor of that "possession" without a corresponding or equivalent public benefit. This consequently goes against Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act 1998.
  Furthermore, the availability of a contractual remedy in such circumstances will, in practice, rarely be of comfort to the lessor.
  I turn to Amendment No. 94. The requirement for the licensing authority to give such notices will, in view of the terms of the proposed subsection, be relatively infrequent and the cost of such a process can be covered entirely by the revenue generated by the initial registration of such interest. Amendment No. 114 is consequential.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while I agree with every word that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have said in support of the amendment, it is clear that registrable interests are a gap in the new scheme introduced by the Bill.
  However, I observe that in effect the first amendment would add a new paragraph (e) to Clause 8(1) which may—I hope we are about to be told—not be necessary, because Clause 8(1)(d) states that the register should contain:
  "such other information as may be prescribed".
  I hope that the gap for which explanation has just been given will indeed be filled by prescribing exactly that kind of information. I hope that that is what we are about to be told.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I add my support to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Increasingly, breweries are letting long leases of 21 years to tenants who, after four or five years of work, make the pub very profitable. The tenants then sell the remaining 16 years of the lease because of the additional value that they have created. That is increasingly part of the way in which the sector operates. Entrepreneurs come in, such as a husband-and-wife team who build up a local reputation for good food. There is nothing wrong with that—it is very desirable. But the tenants want to be free to sell

  389
  because of the increasing value and the lease allows them to do so. However, if the premises are sold to someone who does not run the business as well as the person from whom it was purchased, in due course there will be conflict over the licensing objectives. The position of the owner of the underlying asset is not properly safeguarded, and I therefore support the amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the last-minute intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, perfectly illustrates the problem with these four amendments. The issues he raises are contractual issues between landlords and tenants. He did not even suggest that they should be issues for licensing law. They are nothing to do with the objectives but relate to the commercial viability of the businesses.
  We believe that the licence holder's responsibility in respect of his licence is to the licensing authority. If there is any dispute or issue with the owner or lessor of the property, it is not an issue for licensing law. That is why it has not been included and why there is what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, calls a gap in the Bill. It is quite deliberate. The Bill improves on the current situation by ensuring that there is a clear focus on matters which properly concern the licensing regime.
  The current system ties liquor licences to the individual business in a particular premises. It makes sense for those with an interest in the premises, often pub companies and breweries, to be able to register an interest. If a pub manager leaves, a new justices' licence is required. But under the Bill, which splits the personal and premises licence, any pub-operating company will be able to hold a premises licence itself and designate managers as the premises supervisor. The Bill does not require that managers must hold the premises licence.
  Where pub-owning companies choose to delegate the responsibilities and duties attached to holding a premises licence to managers, they will still have access to information about authorisations, notices and applications relating to it. An owner of the premises can get the same information. The Bill provides that each licensing authority must keep a register recording all this information. It will be available for inspection by anyone, and copies can be supplied. To require licensing authorities to inform anyone with an interest—there is quite a wide range of interests—of almost any application or notice would make the system more costly, complex and time-consuming, and would damage the deregulatory benefits and savings which the Bill will bring. Notification can, and probably should, be a requirement of the contractual relationship between the operating company and the manager or the landlord and tenant. It should not be an issue for licensing law.
  The Bill sets out quick and easy procedures to deal with transfers and changes of premises licence. An interim authority notice can be given following the death, insolvency or mental incapacity of a licence
  390
  holder. This reinstates the licence for two months, and an application for transfer can be made in that period. Clause 46(2) sets out those people who can give an interim authority notice. Because we are concerned with the need for continuity of business, it is intended that paragraph (a), which refers to a person who has a prescribed interest in the premises, will capture pub-operating companies and owners of premises. I do not know whether that goes some way towards satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
  Amendment No. 114 would replicate provision for some of those whom the Bill is already intended to cover. In the case of the death of the premises licence holder or where a licence is surrendered, if it is known who will take over a the business, a transfer can be applied for with immediate effect.
  It seems unreasonable to suggest that tenants who are premises licence holders, with whom the responsibilities and duties associated with the licence would rest, should be required to seek the permission of landlords to surrender those responsibilities. Notice of surrender is recorded on the register. Under the present justices' licensing system, there is no requirement to notify a landlord of a surrender of a justices' licence.
  The Bill offers protections for businesses, provides quick and simple procedures where changes are needed and requires licensing authorities to record and make available information about all authorisations and notices. Surely the Bill must be focused on matters that properly relate to licensing. It cannot be extended to cover contractual relationships between landlords and tenants.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, this is the second time we have gone over this matter. The Minister has put forward the Government's view that this should be dealt with through contractual law. We believe that on the face of the Bill there is a gap which, if filled, would help to further the licensing objectives. I believe that the difference of opinion on that will not be reconciled through debate. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
  11.47 a.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 92.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Addington, L. [Teller]

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L

  Alderdice, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Buscombe, B.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Butterworth, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Byford, B.

  Avebury, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  Bradshaw, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  391

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Denham, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

  Dholakia, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Dundee, E.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Elton, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Palmer, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Geddes, L.

  Peel, E.

  Geraint, L.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Renton, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Roper, L.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Hooson, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hylton, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  King of Bridgwater, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Strange, B.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Swinfen L

  Liverpool, E.

  Taverne, L.

  Livsey of Talgarth, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Luke, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Lyell, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Tope, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  McNally, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Maddock, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Walmsley, B.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Gale, B.

  Andrews, B.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Golding, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Billingham, B.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Blackstone, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Blease, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Blood, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Carter, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Jones, L.

  Crawley, B.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  David, B.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

  Elder, L.

  [Teller]

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  392

  Morgan, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Sewel, L.

  Orme, L.

  Sheldon, L.

  Parry, L.

  Simon, V.

  Paul, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Pendry, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Rea, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  11.56 a.m.
  Clause 9 [Proceedings of licensing committee]:
  [Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
  Clause 13 [Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities]:
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 8, line 10, leave out "statutory functions" and insert "lawful powers"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights places duties on public authorities to take measures to protect individuals from nuisance. Those obligations are currently binding on licensing authorities through statute and through duties of care in common law. Both legs of the law are subject to interpretation that gives effect to convention rights under Article 8. Statute is subject to interpretation in Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the common law is subject to interpretation by the courts, which are public authorities under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  However, the wording used in the Bill removes from its scope those common law duties of care, which are important tools through which the convention is given effect. It therefore excludes important aspects of the positive obligation on local authorities under Article 8 of the convention. The amendment would bring those duties of care back within the ambit of the Bill. The amendment, taken together with the amended licensing objectives, would ensure that local authorities had powers as well as duties to promote human rights, as set out in the convention. I am speaking only to Amendment No. 42. The others in the group are consequential. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blackstone:My Lords, this group of amendments would substitute "lawful powers" for "statutory functions" in the definition that describes an environmental health officer in the subsections dealing with authorised persons and responsible authorities in Clauses 13 and 68. The amendments would supplement that change by defining legal powers as,
  "any powers, duties and obligations conferred by or under any enactment or statute, or by a decision of the Court".

  393
  I do not understand what practical addition to the Bill the amendments would make. As I told the House previously, the Bill adopts the statutory definitions of individuals doing work related to the pollution of the environment or harm to human health—in other words, environmental health officers. Departing from accepted statutory definitions used in other enactments could risk confusion. To be clear, the Bill allows environmental health officers, who often have responsibilities and expertise relating to noise pollution and health and safety, to be consulted and to make representations when an application for a premises licence is made. It also brings them within the definition of an authorised person, so that they will enjoy the powers of entry and inspection described in the Bill.
  I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, can accept that his amendment could cause confusion. I therefore ask him not to press it.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the thoughtful way in which she responded to the tone of the amendments. In light of what she said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 8, line 17, at end insert "or any other person who, or organisation which, the licensing authority considers may be affected by the use of the premises for licensable activities"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 and Amendments Nos. 130 and 131. I shall speak to the subsequent ones on a group basis.
  Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 are consequential on Amendments Nos. 43 and 46. The local authority has a duty under the convention to hear the representations of those whose rights may arguably be affected by its decision. The duty arises under the doctrine of proportionality that underlies the whole convention. The Bill will require the local authority to refuse to hear from those who do not fall within the definitions of interested party, even if their convention rights were affected by the decision.
  Who might be affected by that decision? Article 34 of the convention defines such a person, who is called a "victim", as,
  "a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation of the Convention"—
  that is, anyone who has good grounds to claim that their rights are affected by the decision of the licensing authority and any non-governmental organisation, including a business, in the same position. That is a much broader class of person than is to be found in the definition in Clause 13. It specifically includes non-governmental organisations that are not businesses.
  Section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows any person who is,
  "a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention",
  to rely on their convention rights in any proceedings involving a public authority, including licensing decisions, or to bring proceedings against the authority in the courts on human rights grounds.
  It is difficult to list all the rights that may be at issue in licensing, but there is sufficient case law to suggest that the following may, but not necessarily will, be engaged. Article 2 refers to safety issues, and by extension to crime and disorder; Article 3, to positive obligations to prevent inhuman treatment caused by noise, for example; and Article 6, to common law rights in nuisance and negligence. Articles 8, 10 and 14 refer to non- discrimination with respect to convention rights afforded, particularly in the case of qualified rights. Article 1 of Protocol 1 is also relevant.
  Amendments Nos. 43 and 46, and the amendments consequential to them, would ensure that all those who have convention rights that may be violated by the licensing authority have the right to make representations in licensing matters. The safeguard against abuse of rights of audience lies in the right of the licensing authority to make the decision as to whether the rights are engaged, which is provided by the amendment, and in the rights to shut out frivolous and vexatious representations in other parts of the Bill.
  I have tabled Amendment No. 44 because Clause 13(3) introduces unnecessary restrictions on which members of the public can object to the grant of a premises licence. Under present law, it is not necessary for a person to live in the vicinity of the premises for his objection to be considered by a local authority or the licensing justices. Any person who can show that they,
  "may be affected by the use of the premises for licensable activities".
  should have the right to be heard. That is an elementary requirement of natural justice as well as, arguably, an entitlement under Article 6 of the convention on human rights. The amendment is designed to remove that restriction.
  The removal of the restriction is particularly important considering the requirement that the Bill imposes on licensing authorities to grant in the absence of "relevant representations", whether or not the grant of the application would promote the licensing objectives or be in accordance with the authorities' licensing policy or be consistent with the Secretary of State's guidance. The right of an "ordinary person" to object to the grant of a premises licence will be especially important, given that he has no such right to object to the grant of personal licences in Clause 118 or the holding of temporary events in Part 5.
  Amendments Nos. 45 and 48 make reference to a change to a "person or" body. They would allow individuals to represent people—in other words, a solicitor, a friend or a relative. Amendments Nos. 47 and 49 relate to the understanding that the Government accept that other organisations, such as schools, trade unions and hospitals, can make

  395
  representations in their own right. I believed that the Bill would he amended to make that clear on Report. If that is not done, a BUPA hospital, being in "business", could make representations, for example, while an NHS hospital could not. No such amendments seem to have been tabled, so I have tabled my own as a probing amendment, to find out what the state of play is. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, will the Bill comply with the ECHR without these amendments? Might there he problems that give rise to expensive litigation?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Bill complies with the ECHR without the amendments. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has received representations about some of these matters. It has not found any problem with the provisions as they stand.
  As noble Lords know, an interested party is a local resident, a residents' association or a local business or trade group that may want to make representations on applications for premises licences or club premises certificates, or may wish to apply for a review of the licence or certificate. If we expanded those groups too far, we would add to the bureaucracy of the system, which would put a burden not only on industry but also on licensing authorities. Simplicity is something that we should value.
  Having said that, one of the Government's aims in introducing the legislation is to give a real voice and influence to local people who are affected by the decisions taken. It is something that industry understands but about which it has legitimate anxieties, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is aware. Local economies need the investment and employment that the hospitality and retail businesses bring, but those businesses also need some certainties if they are to make the investments needed. We therefore need to strike a balance in the Bill.
  Some of these amendments would include persons, organisations or bodies representing persons that,
  "the licensing authority considers may be affected by the use",
  of the club or licensed premises. That is an open-ended definition that means that none of us could be completely sure today who might he given those rights. No person or organisation would know if they were legitimately entitled to make representations until a judgment had been exercised by the licensing authority after the representations had been made.
  I would certainly find it extremely irritating to have considered myself entitled to make representations or seek a review of a premises licence, only to be told by the licensing authority after I had collected all the necessary evidence that I was not such a person. We need clarity in the rights we describe.
  I appreciate that some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, believe that the impact of new licensed premises may fall as hard on those living near to taxi ranks or fast food outlets some distance away, where customers may go after visiting the licensed premises. I would need to know how what
  396
  distance from the premises is intended by the amendment, and how anyone beyond a certain distance would be supposed to show that the problems related to one licensed premises rather than another.
  If we are talking again about cumulative effects, that is a matter to be addressed holistically and broadly, as our debates have already shown. Licensing can he only one strand of a more complex approach. It is not a panacea. Other mechanisms in the Bill provide the necessary protections. We need simple and clear definitions which allow people to know where they stand and which strike the right balance.
  I must make absolutely clear that a person living in the vicinity of the premises or club in question may be represented by any other person. He can ask his solicitor to do so, or a friend, his local councillor or his Member of Parliament. Nothing in the Bill prevents him nominating any personal representative to represent his views. So it is wholly unnecessary to include a person in subsection 3(b) of Clause 13.
  A body is included in subsection (3)(b) to ensure that residents' associations have a voice without the need to take direct instructions from their members on every single matter. I understand the desire to include the term "organisations" to cover the eventuality that a school, church or hospital might be free to make representations. However, as I said at Committee stage, I do not believe that that is necessary. Any parent or governor living in the vicinity of the premises can make representations. Similarly, any member of the hospital staff in the vicinity can do so, too. Of course any member of a church living nearby can do so. We really do need to try to avoid over-complicating the arrangements. It is right that businesses are included because livelihoods may be affected. They should have a say in developments.
  So, in striking a balance between the needs of the community for investment and employment and the need for security and peace, we have to focus on what is necessary and proportionate. I think that the definition in the Bill of interested party does that; we believe that it gives a proper voice for the community directly affected by the premises involved.
  One of the Bill's merits is that it gives local residents a voice whereas in many circumstances they are currently denied one by the existing legislation. Against that background, I have to resist the amendments and ask that they not be pressed.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the comprehensive way in which she responded. I am grateful also for her indication on where she thought the amendments unnecessary as the rights are already enshrined in the legislation. I hope that I may be allowed to ask her whether I was wrong in thinking that the Government were thinking of providing extra definition, to which I alluded in the final group of amendments that I quoted, in relation to which they may table further amendments. Perhaps the Minister said that she would consider it and the Government have decided against. Perhaps I misunderstood the Government's previous intention.

  397
  The Minister knows that my particular concern is the swathe of entertainment area that stretches between Bayswater and Covent Garden, particularly in the context of Soho. When I was the Member of Parliament for that constituency, 20 times as many people worked in that constituency as in the average seat. If I shook the hand of someone on the street, I had a one in 15 chance of shaking the hand of someone who had the right to vote for me. I think that the Minister is being perhaps a little optimistic if she assumes that the organisations to which I referred would automatically have someone who was resident in the vicinity.
  One has only to quote the figure of 750,000 people coming into work each day in the City of London and south Westminster to be perfectly clear that they are all coming from outside the constituency itself. The working population of the constituency is about 50,000, so 700,000 are commuters. Unless I misunderstood the Minister, none of them is eligible to make a complaint on behalf of the institution. So I can see cases in which, although the Minister is confident that someone in the organisation could make representations, organisations are "disenfranchised" under the law simply because they do not live in the vicinity. If I have misunderstood what the Minister was saying, I am entirely happy to be corrected.
  12.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, if I gave the impression that we intended to make changes to the clause in terms of further definitions, I am very sorry because I do not believe that that is our intention. On the second question, it is perfectly clear under the Bill that any business can make representations. So the employers of those to whom he referred, whose hands he shakes, can make representations. However, if those people are commuters coming in who do not live in the vicinity, they obviously cannot do so as residents. I think that that is the point at issue, is it not?
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, as I understood it, the Minister was explaining why businesses were in the Bill and other organisations were not—in order to keep matters simple. I understood from her reply that those other organisations would he represented by individuals who had an association with them. If she is saying that they do not need to be local residents, then I have no problem. However, if any organisation that wishes to make representations has to produce a resident in order to make it, that would seem to be a deficiency.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, any other organisation can make its representation through the responsible authorities. So they can approach the police, the environmental health officers, the fire
  398
  authority and so on. There are so many routes through which people can make representations that I really do not believe that this is a problem.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am a bear of very little brain. The fact that I had some difficulty in being absolutely certain about the rights of people in the vicinity of premises suggests that it is just possible that others living in the vicinity of those licensed premises may have the same difficulty in being absolutely certain of their rights. However, I take the noble Baroness's word absolutely at face value—I greatly respect the manner in which she has conducted the Bill—and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 not moved]
  Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 8, line 30, at end insert—
  "( ) the local planning authority within the meaning given by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) for any area in which the premises are situated,"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I apologise and ask noble Lords' indulgence for saying a brief word on Amendment No. 50, which we have already debated. The Minister, and indeed noble Lords who have been following these proceedings, will recall that Amendment No. 50 was placed in the middle of a previous group. In my innocence as a novice in your Lordships' House, I felt that it would be wrong to speak to the amendment—which embodied the Government's commitment in Committee to bring forward an amendment at Report stage—in advance of the Minister speaking to it herself. As soon as she sat down, my noble friend Lady Buscombe withdrew the lead amendment, which she had moved. It was therefore not possible to comment on government Amendment No. 50. I shall speak very briefly to it. However, as it was a central issue in Committee, I should like to have the opportunity to react to it.
  The draft guidance was a big step forward in recognising that cumulative impact is a valid consideration for licensing policy statements and in the determining of licensing applications. Licensing authorities can consider if the granting of further premises licences would undermine the licensing objectives.
  Cumulative impact would have to be addressed in the context of the individual merits of the application. That is the opposite of the way in which a local authority might wish to consider it; that is, the local authority might wish to consider the individual merits of a case in the context of cumulative impact.
  Saturation policies are not regarded as grounds to remove existing licences. The stress area policies of a local authority such as Westminster, and the way in which they are applied, very generally conform to the view of saturation areas in the guidance, but they

  399
  might require further development, refinement and justification for inclusion in the licensing policy statement.
  The responsibilities of a local authority are many and varied. It is necessary that they are organised into departments and sections where the required specialist knowledge to carry out those responsibilities resides. A detailed understanding of licensing policy will not always be part of the knowledge base of officers in planning departments, environmental health departments or the council officers who are responsible for the day-to-day routine of processing licence applications.
  It is a matter to which we can obviously return on a future occasion, but it would be helpful if the Bill could allow for local authorities to operate as they do at present, with an officer of a licensing authority who takes no part in processing or determining the application advising those who do perform those functions what the authority's licensing policy has to say about an application. That has operated successfully for many years and it would be helpful if it could continue to do so.
  I apologise to the House for returning to the matter. I shall quite understand if the Minister does not give a detailed reply at this stage.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for apologising for returning to the matter at this point. It would, of course, have been open to him to speak to any amendment in the group when the group was discussed. As regards the point he made, the Government believe that they have made a considerable concession both in terms of the way in which the guidance has now been drafted and in making local planning committees one of the groups that can make representations. I have no doubt that, in taking on that function, planning officers will acquire the expertise that is needed. They will also work closely with officials responsible for licensing with regard to a planning issue and questions of saturation that may need to be discussed. I am confident that the system will work perfectly well.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 8, line 31, leave out from "authority" to end of line 34 and insert "for the area in which the premises are situated"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 51, and Amendment No. 53 which is grouped with it, are important amendments if local democratic accountability is to be preserved. The Bill provides in Clause 18 that applications are to be granted in the absence of relevant representations made by an interested party or a responsible authority. The Bill requires licensing authorities to promote the licensing objectives as set out in Clause 4, and to have regard to the licensing statement and, as the Bill stands at present, any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
  It ought to be the case that a licensing authority should have the power to refuse an application for a premises licence in a case where the licensing objectives would not be promoted by a grant and/or where to grant the application would be contrary to the licensing statement or the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
  The licensing authority should therefore he entitled to take into account the licensing objectives, its policy and guidance, even where there are not relevant representations from interested parties. As the Bill 'was originally drafted, the licensing authority itself could make relevant representations only in its capacity as an environmental health authority under Clause 13(4)(d). Although we welcome the fact that the Government listened to representations made in Committee that the provision was far too narrow, and recognise that under government Amendment No. 50 a planning officer from a local authority will be able to make representations, we still feel that this is unnecessarily restrictive. Thus, either Amendment No. 51 or Amendment No. 53—I refer to the Minister's helpful remarks on Amendment No. 50 in this context—will enable the licensing authority to draw to its own attention, by means of making relevant representations, the impact of a grant upon the licensing objectives, its policy and central government guidance. I sought to illustrate the manner in which that might be done in my remarks on Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. This is an important issue. It must be right for the local authority to have a say, even where there are not relevant representations from interested parties. It would be otiose of me to repeat all that my noble friend said. However, I make it clear that we support very much Amendments Nos. 51 and 53.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the promotion of the licensing objectives underpins the Bill. The duty on a licensing authority is to carry out its functions with a view to promoting the licensing objectives. By way of general comment on these amendments, it is difficult to see why reference is made to enhancing the duty when the duty is an absolute obligation.
  Judgment of the merit of an application against the licensing objectives should be left to the experts. The experts on crime and disorder, and the protection of children from harm are the police, and so the police have a voice. The experts on public safety are the health and safety and fire authorities, and so they have a voice too. The experts on public nuisance are the local environmental health authority. It follows that they should have a voice too, and the Bill provides them with one. The experts in what it is like to live and do business in a particular area are local residents and businesses. As I have said on a number of occasions, we are providing them with a voice in the licensing regime for the first time.

  401
  What we are not doing, however, is allowing the licensing authority to make representations in its own right. One of the fundamental principles of the Bill is that applications should be granted administratively where the experts have not raised any concerns about them. Where those circumstances apply, there is no reason for the licensing authority as regulatory authority to give a second opinion to those experts, and it would be wrong to give it that opportunity. These amendments would turn that state of affairs on its head, and the Government cannot accept them. That said, we recognise the need for licensing authorities to be able to address local issues effectively, and, as noble Lords know, we have brought forward a package to do just that.
  First, to give a further expert voice on the licensing objectives, particularly on issues relating to cumulative effect, we have added the local planning authority to the list of responsible authorities that the licensing authority must consult on an application. Under the Bill therefore, the relevant experts will have a voice, and the notion that the licensing authority will ever be in the position of being powerless to address a pressing local circumstance is, frankly, unrealistic.
  Furthermore, we have made it clear in the guidance that a licensing authority may include in its licensing policy statement reference to the cumulative effect of licensed premises, where such an effect can be demonstrated to exist on the promotion of the licensing objectives, and the fact that this will be taken into account in determining applications. It will then be open to, for example, the police and the environmental health authority to make representations concerning cumulative effect and its impact on the licensing objectives in relation to an application.
  If we accept these amendments, we drive at the very heart of the Bill, and there is no reason to do so, particularly in view of the additional measures that we have provided. We must remember that many people affected by the Bill are concerned, to say the least, by their fears—which I hope are largely unfounded—of local authority officers acting over-zealously or with scant regard for the real world. The amendment would exacerbate those concerns, and I very much hope that it will be withdrawn.
  12.30 p.m.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what she said. However, she did not explain precisely why, if local authorities have had such an officer fulfilling that role and therefore becoming expert in it with great effectiveness over many years, it is sensible to throw away that particular virtue. I will not go back to arguments about conservatism, but the fact remains that it is a tried and proven part of the licensing process that historically has worked well.
  402
  I shall not engage the Minister in a Socratic dialogue about the particular kind of expertise that an officer who had historically fulfilled that role would have. However, I am quite certain that Socrates, in dialogue with her, would do an admirable job in regard to whether it was sensible to dispose of the person who had that expert quality.
  I have not consulted anyone else in the House before saying what I am about to say. As the resource is valuable under the existing system, is known to work well and does not seem, at least to me, to have any down side or disadvantage, it would seem sensible to test the opinion of the House.
  12.31 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 97.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Addington, L.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Liverpool, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Livsey of Talgarth, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Luke, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Avebury, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Blaker, L.

  McNally, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Maddock, B.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  [Teller]

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

  Byford, B.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Newby, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Denham, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Peel, E.

  Elton, L.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

  Falkland, V.

  Rawlings, B.

  Finlay of Llandaff, B.

  Redesdale, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Roper, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Russell-Johnston, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Hanham, B.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Hanningfield, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Higgins, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Howe, E.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Strange, B.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  King of Bridgwater, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  403

  Trumpington, B.

  Wilcox, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B

  Walmsley, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Howe of Idlicote, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Howellsof St. Davids, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Bhatia, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Blease, L.

  Jones, L.

  Borrie, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Brett, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Carter, L.

  [Teller]

  Chandos, V.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Christopher, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Nicol, B.

  David, B.

  Orme, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Paul, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Elder, L.

  Rea, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Sheldon, L.

  Gale, B.

  Simon, V.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

  Golding, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Goudie, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Wilkins, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  12.42 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 53:

  Page 8, line 35, leave out "(other than the relevant licensing authority)" and insert ", including the relevant licensing authority,"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
  Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 55:
  Leave out Clause 13.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the scheme of these amendments is, first, to consolidate the definitions of "authorised persons", "interested parties" and "responsible authorities" into one new clause; that is done in Amendment No. 250, which replaces the existing definitions in Clauses 13 and 68. The Minister said a few minutes ago that simplicity is something that we should value. I hope that at least the concept of the amendment will be welcome to the Government.
  I hope that the Minister will pay a little attention to what I am saying. Since I am quoting her, she might pay attention to me. The concept of the amendments is to consolidate the definitions into one single definition and to avoid the duplication that is currently in Clauses 13 and 68.
  Secondly, the meaning of "authorised person" is extended to any officer of the local authority who is authorised by it for the purposes of the licensing objectives. That would enable the amendment to Clause 18, which ensures that an assessment by an authorised person and the consequent satisfaction of the licensing authority that the likely effect of the grant of the application would be to enhance the promotion of the licensing objectives are preconditions for the award of the premises licence. Although the noble Baroness earlier today again said that the promotion of the licensing objectives underpins the Bill, the functions of an authorised person and the responsible authority as the Bill is currently drafted are far more limited than that. We do not have a direct connection between licensing objectives and the actual mechanics of the Bill, which I seek to insert.
  The amendment to Clause 51 similarly ties a review to an assessment by an authorised person showing that the licensed activities enhance the promotion of the licensing objectives. We have the promotion of the licensing objectives written into the mechanics of the Bill and the functions of the authorised person and local authority. The local authority is made the "responsible authority" where it has any statutory functions exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated, in relation to the licensing objectives and not merely in relation to a subset of the licensing objectives—that is how the Bill is currently drafted.
  "Interested party" would be amended to persons and businesses in the "neighbourhood" rather than the "vicinity". That is because, so far as I am aware, there is no definition of "vicinity" anywhere in statute. The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong. The word "neighbourhood" is used in, for instance, the Licensing Act 1988, the Health and Social Care Act 2001, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and a large number of statutory instruments. The courts would have less difficulty interpreting the word "neighbourhood" than when dealing with the new and untried concept of "vicinity".
  I have also taken the opportunity of having only one set of persons in the navigation authority supervising licensable activities and another supervising qualifying club activities, instead of the two sets of persons. as the Bill is currently drafted.
  The amendments to Clause 106 eliminate the "authorised officers" of the licensing authority, and use the same "authorised persons" who are to conduct the assessments under Clause 18, as amended, to assess the likely effect of a temporary event concerned with crime and disorder. I beg to move.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I do not propose to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, although I support what he said. Four of the amendments grouped with this amendment—Amendments Nos. 188 to 191—are in my name and I hope that they will be supported.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for setting out the structure of this group of amendments. He rightly said that the most obvious effect of the amendments would be to remove Clauses 13 and 68—that would be done by Amendments Nos. 55 and 135—and replace them, through Amendment No. 250, with the new clause after Clause 187 in Part 9 of the Bill, which deals with miscellaneous matters.
  Clauses 13 and 68 set out the meaning of "authorised persons", "interested parties" and "responsible authorities" in two places deliberately. One is the premises licences part of the Bill—that is, Clause 13—and one is the club section of the Bill, or Clause 68. I refer to Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill.
  It is entirely deliberate that the Bill is repetitive in that sense. It is because the Government recognise the importance of the club tradition in England and Wales and the fact that different considerations apply in respect of clubs, which are essentially private premises, that the Bill seeks to preserve the distinction between them and those using other premises. The Bill seeks to reflect the fact that clubs attract different considerations and therefore makes different provisions for them. If we were going to adopt the structure of this group of amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described it, we should do that far more widely than in relation to this point. We should in effect wipe out the special consideration of clubs. I wonder whether those who advised the noble Lord have thought of that.
  Clubs attract different considerations and we make different provisions for them. They must meet a series of conditions to qualify for authorisation under club premises certificates. That is why they are dealt with separately in Part 4. Where possible and where appropriate, that involves the same conditions as have been applied to licensed premises and qualifying clubs. But that is not always the case, and those who are responsible for clubs have made that clear to us. We should be very sorry to lose that distinction—it would damage a significant part of the structure of the Bill.
  In making the change to wipe out the distinction between premises licences and club licences, significant changes are then made in Amendment No. 250. The most significant of those was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who seeks to replace the term
  406
  "vicinity" with the term "neighbourhood" when defining an interested party. I consider that to be misguided because I believe it could lead to an effect opposite to the one that he intends.
  The term "vicinity", in an unqualified form, was chosen deliberately to ensure that those who are likely to be affected by individual applications can have a say in those applications. However, those who are simply interested in an application without having an interest in it do not have a similar right. That is not the same as the legislative examples which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quoted. "Vicinity" is a term that will be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. It will not exclude individuals who live a few streets away from the premises and are affected by the application from making representations. And, under certain circumstances, it could be interpreted to cover a neighbourhood or district if the case warranted that breadth of scope. It is chosen because it will allow for the circumstances of each application to be taken into account. That is what the licensing authority will do.
  There is a further effect of extending the definitions of "authorised persons", as set out in Clause 13(2)(d), Clause 13(4)(d), Clause 68(2)(d) and Clause 68(4)(d). But, to some extent, that has been pre-empted by the decision of your Lordships in relation to the previous amendment, and I shall not go into that any further.
  The additional amendments are concerned with right of entry. As they were not spoken to, as I understand it, by either the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I shall, with their permission, not refer to them.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am disappointed. To start at the end of the noble Lord's speech, I did refer, in allusion, to the responsible officers mentioned in Clause 106, together with the responsible persons, who are dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. I did so only to say that it was useful to have one power to appoint those persons for the different functions that they have to exercise in Clause 106, as for those covered earlier in the Bill. It seems to me normal that local authorities should have the power to appoint a person who does not have a function different from that of the officer who is to deal with the duties exercisable under Clause 106.
  The noble Lord believes that the term "vicinity" is more flexible than the term neighbourhood". He says that a person who is a few streets away may still be able to make his case and have it heard. But the point about that is that he will not be sure of it. The term "vicinity" introduces an uncertainty which I am afraid may lead us into trouble. Many people who are several streets away from a premises may wish to exercise their right to object, and they will not know whether they have the right to a hearing until someone interprets the term "vicinity". They will be in the position to which the noble Baroness referred earlier of people being aggrieved because they find that they do not come within the scope of the Bill when they feel that there is every reason for their representations to be heard.

  407
  Therefore, I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord said about the preference for the term "vicinity". However, as I see it, because the term "neighbourhood" has a statutory ancestry and can be easily interpreted by the courts, people would know more readily where they stood in terms of their right to make objections.
  With regard to the noble Lord's first point concerning the separate treatment of clubs and licensed premises, nothing in my amendments would affect that. I have not sought to change any of the provisions in Part 4; I have sought only to ensure that the same powers of the local authority apply to clubs as to licensed premises and that the authorised persons are defined in the same way in relation to both sets of conditions.
  I believe that my amendments would greatly simplify the scheme, and they would have the effect, which I have already mentioned, of ensuring that the licensing objectives are fully incorporated into the roles of the authorised persons. However, I am sure that I shall not convince the noble Lord at this stage. Therefore, I shall take away what he said and consider whether or not, in the light of the previous amendment agreed to by the House, it may be advantageous to bring back the matter at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15 [Meaning of "designated premises supervisor"]:
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 9, line 8, leave out from "individual" to end of line 9 and insert "who has been nominated as the premises supervisor by the applicant for or holder of the premises licence and who has consented to act as such"
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 56, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 71, 73, 74, 79, 95, 104 to 113, 119, 121, 237, 241, 266, 269 and 274 to 279. I shall he brief.
  First, I thank the Minister for kindly affording us a meeting in relation to this and other subjects with regard to the Bill. The issue of the designated premises supervisor is very important. We had a full discussion with the Minister and the Secretary of State. However, I am sorry to say that we were obviously still not satisfied and have therefore brought forward this large group of amendments.
  In Committee, I pointed out that the designated premises supervisor had no functions or duties in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that the designated premises supervisor would normally be the person responsible for day-to-day management of the premises. That may or may not happen in practice but there is nothing to stop a premises licence holder from appointing someone who has nothing to do with the premises as the designated premises supervisor, provided that that person has a personal licence. Indeed, it would be open to a chain of pubs to appoint a director of the main board as the designated premises supervisor of 200 pubs, and he could not possibly have time to take any part in the
  408
  management of any of those premises. The designated premises supervisor need have no connection whatever with the relevant premises.
  However, under the procedure in the Bill, a vast bureaucracy is being created, built around the designated premises supervisor. A premises licence must always specify the designated premises supervisor and, if there is a change in the identity of the designated premises supervisor, an application must be made to the licensing authority for a variation of the premises licence to specify another individual as the designated premises supervisor.
  That will involve expense not only by the holder of the premises licence, who must prepare the relevant application and pay the fee, but also by the licensing authority, which must consider the application and then give notice to the chief officer of police for the relevant area of the application in order to give that officer the opportunity to object to a variation of the premises licence so as to prevent the appointment of a new premises supervisor. The chief officer of police will incur some expense as well. This vast bureaucracy is being created solely for the purposes of generating hot air about someone who has no functions and no duties in the Bill.
  We also question why the chief officer of police for the relevant area should have a specific right to object when there is a change of premises supervisor. What possible grounds could he rely on in support of his objection when the designated premises supervisor has no functions or duties? I appreciate that if a drug dealer is appointed as the designated premises supervisor of a pub well known for peddling drugs, the chief officer of police may well want to object, but he already has that power under Clause 50.
  Under that clause a responsible authority, which includes the chief officer of police, can apply for a review of the premises licence. On such a review the licensing authority has power under Clause 51(4) to remove the designated premises supervisor. The chief officer of police already has power under this clause to object to the designated premises supervisor. I cannot see why he should have this further power and the right to be notified whenever there is a change in the identity of the designated premises supervisor.
  This procedure, which must be adopted whenever there is a change in the identity of the premises supervisor, creates unnecessary bureaucracy for no useful purpose. I beg to move.
  1 p.m.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we cannot add anything to that. We support these amendments.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we debated this matter at length in Committee and we have talked about it since—clearly to inadequate effect. There are different approaches that involve either the removal of the concept completely or the removal of the requirement to include and therefore to vary details in the licence itself, or which reduce the police powers to intervene. The different amendments in the group take

  409
  alternative views. They could not all be adopted. Decisions would have to be taken as to which of the varied approaches could be adopted, even if we were inclined to assent to them.
  For example, it is proposed that the premises licence holder would be required to notify only the licensing authority of the change, but not the police. The licence, or a part of it, would not be sent for amendment. The police would have no entitlement to object to the new premises supervisor in any circumstances.
  The Government have made their position clear on the issue. The approaches mentioned in this group of amendments weaken the provisions in the Bill which are intended to promote the prevention of crime and disorder. They are done so at the request of and on agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers. The designated premises supervisor is an important safeguard, and one that will be vital for the police and other enforcement agencies. It is not burdensome; it is not huge bureaucracy. The process involves a straightforward and transparent notification.
  The alternative approach avoids the specification of the new premises supervisor in the premises licence itself. In doing so, the balance we seek between reduced bureaucracy and effective public protection slips towards the vested interests of the retail, hospitality and leisure businesses.
  Under the Bill, the transfer into new premises of a new designated premises supervisor would be achieved by the simple notification to the police and application to the licensing authority when the individual arrives. It involves the submission of only part of the licence—a schedule, which is probably only one sheet of paper. It is not burdensome; it is not bureaucratic.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, argued that the designated premises supervisor has no functions under the Bill, and that he could live at one end of the country while the pub was at the other. That is true in theory, but it would be an astonishing risk for any business to take. If there was no controlling manager acceptable to the police, can it be doubted that at the first sign of trouble the police would seek a review of the licence and that the licence itself would be in jeopardy? The enforcement agencies need to have confidence in the managers of premises where alcohol is to be retailed. They need to know where to go and where the buck stops.
  Under these arrangements, the amendments would deny the police the right to intervene at all and the premises licence itself would not require any details of the designated premises supervisor upon it. Therefore, even in the exceptional circumstances for which the Bill allows, the police could not raise their concerns that a particular individual at a specific premises could undermine the crime prevention objective. For example, a certain holder of a personal licence may
  410
  have a record involving convictions for possession of drugs but has retained his personal licence. He arrives at a pub that has some history of drugs problems. Should not the police have a right to intervene? Would it be in the public interest to deny them that right? The amendments would.
  We do not want routine interventions which would undermine the portability of the personal licence. We believe that the Bill prevents that by focusing only on exceptional circumstances. We are determined to ensure that representations are only made by the police in genuinely exceptional circumstances. The draft guidance states that if a licensing authority believes that the police are routinely making representations on un-exceptional grounds, it should raise the matter with the chief officer of police. However, we must not allow the vested interests of business to outweigh the real and proper concerns that ACPO and others in the police service have expressed.
  We support the desire to minimise bureaucracy. We believe that the Bill goes as far as it possibly can in that respect. The amendments fail to recognise the key importance of the designated premises supervisor in respect of the premises licence and the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed licensing regime. I understand the desire to avoid the need to vary the premises licence when a new individual is to be specified, but we have already made it plain that only the part of the licence which gives these personal details must be sent in.
  The Bill deals with the change of the designated premises supervisor in a different way from other variations. These amendments still require the sending of a notification and I presume that some acknowledgement or receipt would have to be transmitted back. So I ask: what would be gained in terms of saving on bureaucracy, compared with the risks of crime and disorder that would flow from these amendments?
  The provisions for the review of the premises licence are a powerful means of securing the promotion of the licensing objective. They are reactive provisions which are designed to deal with problems as and when they arise. We need to recognise that exceptional action should be taken when a particular personal licence holder marries up with a certain set of premises and produces a damaging mixture.
  After a review, the licensing authority may take any necessary steps for the promotion of the licensing objectives. One of those steps could be the removal of the designated premises supervisor. Far from being disadvantageous to the industry, I suggest that these arrangements work in its favour. Often, problems that arise at licensed premises are likely to be associated not with the activities that take place there, but with the actions or omissions of the designated premises supervisor. We offer the option of removing the individual concerned, rather than applying potentially restrictive or burdensome conditions to the licence by

  411
  suspending it or revoking it altogether. The tiny saving that would be brought about by these amendments in terms of bureaucracy is simply not worth the candle, compared with the lack of protection of the public in terms of crime and disorder. I very much hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I hear what the Minister has said in his full response. We have argued the case. Both sides have worked hard to try to persuade the other, without success. What the Minister said about the Association of Chief Police Officers supporting the Bill as drafted was interesting. The Association of Chief Police Officers was keen for broadcast entertainment to be regulated, but its views were ignored in that regard.
  We feel strongly about the matter. We have not been convinced that the amendment would in any way weaken the provision of the Bill designed to prevent crime and disorder, because Clause 50 is alive and well to allow for a review of the premises licence. I think that it is time to test the opinion of the House.
  1.9 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 101.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Hanningfield, L.

  Addington, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Allen by of Megiddo, V.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Howe, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Howe of Idlicote, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Broughiim and Vaux, L.

  King of Bridgwater, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Buscombe, B.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Byford, B.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Livsey of Talgarth, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Luke, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  McNally, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Denham, L.

  Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Elton, L.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Methuen, L.

  Finlay of Llandaff, B.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

  Fookes, B.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Newby, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  412

  Peel, E.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Redesdale,L.[Teller]

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

  Rees, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Renton L

  Tordoff, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Roper, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Saatchi, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Wilcox, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Hollisof Heigham, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, 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.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Jones, L.

  Blease, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Burlison, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Carter, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Chan, L.

  [Teller]

  Chorley, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  May of Oxford, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Nicol, B.

  David, B.

  Orme, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Radice, L.

  Elder, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Falkender, B.

  Rooker, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  St.John of Bletso, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Sheldon, L.

  Gale, B.

  Simon, V.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Golding, B.

  Strange, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Tenby, V.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Grocott, L.[Teller]

  Whitaker, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  1.20 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
  Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No. 59:
  Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
  "( ) where the relevant licensable activities include the supply of alcohol, a statement that the applicant will—

  (i) not require anyone employed to work at the premises to work, without their prior consent, different hours as a result of the new licensing regime implemented by this Act;

  (ii) financially compensate anyone employed to work at the premises for any increase in antisocial hours worked as a result of the new licensing regime implemented by this Act; and

  (iii) if requested to do so by anyone employed to work at the premises who finishes work between 11 p.m. and 6 am, pay the fare of a taxi or minicab to the person's usual home address,"

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for tabling this amendment on Report, but I could not attend when it was down for consideration in Committee. There are three main areas of concern in the employment field. The first is requiring anyone to work different hours as a result of the new licensing regime; the second is the need to financially compensate anyone employed in anti-social hours as a result of the new regime implied by the Bill; and the third is the difficulty of getting home in the middle of the night. We can all see the social and safety consequences involved; hence the proposal that there should be transport by taxi home.
  This is a probing amendment in the sense that the whole territory is tied up with current employment law. It would be a useful start to have a definitive statement outlining the extant legal provisions covering the sort of questions that concern industry staff as reflected by their trading representatives. Those endeavouring to represent people in the field find it notoriously difficult to ensure that the quality stipulated in contracts of employment is observed. For example, in well-recognised national chains with very high reputations among customers, it can be quite normal to tell staff members at short notice that they must work on a Sunday or throughout Saturday night. Technically, it may be possible to make such demands under a contract of employment. But, even if it is not, only a brave man or woman would say, "I will not do it".
  The reason for increasing the amount of legislation in this field—the National Minimum Wage Act, the working time regulations, health and safety regulations, and so on—is that employers exercising best practice can be, and often are, undercut by those who would otherwise fail to observe best practice. We are all producers and consumers at some time. We all recognise the legitimate requirements and interests of employers as well as employees. But the quality of contracts of employment is important to everybody, whether here in Parliament or in a car factory. Bar work is a notoriously fluid job market. Students can
  414

  easily work at night, by definition. Many work in bars in London with a work permit status, which is in question.
  The hospitality sector is very large. The bar, pub and hotel industry is one of the biggest sectors in the country and employs I million people. It is astonishing that changes in the culture and context of the employment structure towards 24-hour opening—it is already well over 20 per cent—have not been the subject of any discussion in any forum between the industry and the trade unions, or in a tripartite forum. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not think that I am.
  That leads me to question whether the industry is ready to agree guidelines on these matters. We often hear it argued that employers do not like regulation and would far prefer to act on a voluntary basis through a voluntary arrangement. What voluntary arrangement? There is no voluntary agreement. Where is it? When is it proposed to make one? That is the challenge. There is a coalition of the industry. We have all received correspondence from organisations ranging from the British Beer & Pub Association to the British Hospitality Association. But I do not think that there has been any tripartite meeting. Will my noble friend take on board that, given the situation with the Lords and Commons stages, there is now time to ask for a tripartite meeting to find out the legal position and whether there is a code of best practice? That would enable us to make progress in this field. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I sympathise with the intentions behind my noble friend's amendment. Nobody can argue against the need to provide adequate protection for employees. That is why the range of domestic and European employment protection law has been strengthened consistently over many years.
  The working time regulations set a minimum standard of employee protection that all employees must observe. Among other things, the regulations state that no worker can be forced to work more than 48 hours a week against his will. They also set standards for minimum rest breaks. The regulations represent a powerful safeguard against abuse by unscrupulous employers, but one that is balanced by flexibility. Individual employees may, if they wish, work longer hours than those stipulated.
  However, nothing in current employment law requires employers to remunerate employees with different rates of pay for what we might term "anti-social" hours. People are often surprised, for example, to learn that there is no legal requirement for an increased rate of pay, or other compensation, for working on bank holidays. That position reflects the view of this and previous administrations that, subject to certain minimum standards—in our time they are embodied in the working time regulations—terms and conditions of employment are primarily a matter of contract between the employee and employer.

  415
  Employees' working hours form part of their contract of employment. Once agreed, the terms of such contracts are binding on employer and employee. Any subsequent changes must be negotiated and agreed between them. If an employer changes his employees' working hours without their consent, they can seek legal redress for breach of contract. So part of the protection sought by the noble Lord in his amendment already exists.
  As the noble Lord will recognise, employers need to attract staff of the right calibre and will frame the rewards that they offer accordingly. Except for chefs, of which there is a general shortage, there are no reports that the hospitality and leisure industry has any great difficulty in recruiting staff, although retention is sometimes a problem. That is often due to the image of work in the industry being in some cases short term. Many work for a limited time in the industry. It is an image that I know various organisations—the British Hospitality Association and the British Institute of Innkeepers, to name but two—seek to address. It is certainly an unfair image. Few industries offer the same equality and duration of opportunity as the hospitality industry.
  My noble friend will recognise that the Government wish to see best practice in employee protection widely disseminated. The Department of Trade and Industry has published several good practice guides. One of them, Crewing a Work-Life Balance—A Good Practice Guide for the Hospitality Industry, is particularly relevant to this case. It makes clear that a positive approach to work-life balance makes good business sense for employers by producing better motivated and happier employees. It also has a role in attracting new employees to the business, improving productivity and reducing labour turnover. The guide was developed in co-operation with organisations in the sector.
  There is another factor to consider. It will be recognised that many employees in the hospitality sector work shifts. Let us not forget that we envisage, at least in the early days, that any extensions of licensing hours will be relatively modest in the vast majority of cases. But any extension is unlikely to provoke employers to seek any great increase in the workload of individual employees. It is likely, however, to increase employment opportunities within the sector, which we would all welcome.
  To sum up, provided basic minimum standards are in place, further protection, such as compensation for anti-social hours or taxi fares home, must be the subject of employment law and individual contracts of employment.
  Although I fully appreciate what my noble friend seeks to achieve with his amendment, the basic safeguards already exist in law. The Government are encouraging best practice to raise standards further. My noble friend suggested that a tripartite meeting should take place. In the context of the Bill, I am not in a position to comment positively on that. Of course the industry realises that when the Bill becomes an Act some significant changes will be implemented that we
  416
  consider are overwhelmingly for the good of the industry and for the good of the wider community. Therefore, for the industry to seek to engage its workers fully in the implications of the changes is entirely desirable. We expect that to occur. In the mean time, the Government sustain their position in favour of establishing good practice. They hope and expect that the industry will follow those guidelines.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that disappointing reply. He acknowledged no new qualitative problems, except for a reference to new issues being created by this legislation. This is not incremental legislation; it moves us into a qualitatively different work culture. I repeat my request that my noble friend takes away the proposal that the Government convene a tripartite meeting—that is, a meeting with employers and unions—to draw up a list of the employment law matters that are affected, indicating where gaps may appear, and to rule nothing in or out of this field. The issue has not been the subject of scrutiny in this House and it should be examined during the Bill's parliamentary stages. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until after Starred Questions.
  Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 1.32 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

  Church of England: Sex Discrimination Act
  Baroness Perry of Southwarkasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they consider that an amendment is needed to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to remove the exemption of the Church of England from the provisions of the Act.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 exempts organised religions in the case of employment that is restricted to one sex to comply with doctrine or to avoid offending

  417
  the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of the followers of that religion. There are currently no plans to amend Section 19. However, we shall continue to keep the law as it applies to the Church of England under review, in the light of developments in European Union law.
  Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; it was not entirely unexpected. Does he agree that it is extraordinary that, in a country that has a good record on anti-discrimination legislation, the national Church—the established Church—is still able to deny to women the right not only to be promoted but to hold any of the many posts that are still advertised with the words "No woman need apply".
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am interested in the noble Baroness's question. Her original Question went wider than the question of the employment of women priests, and I took it to relate to the employment status of all priests, men or women. The details of the spread—if that is the right word—of unemployment of women priests are a separate issue, which was resolved in the Church of England by the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993.
  The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister join me in sending greetings to Archbishop Rowan Williams at this moment of his enthronement in Canterbury Cathedral?
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
  The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the standing committee of the House of Bishops of the Church of England has indicated to the General Synod on more than one occasion that it agrees that there should be a review of the arrangements made by the legislation on women priests, once the Synod has received the final report of the working party of the House of Bishops on women in the episcopate and has decided what action to take on it? Does he agree that, in reviewing those arrangements, the Church will have to take account of the need not only to ensure fair and proper treatment for its women priests but to consider the position of those—including many women—who cannot, at this time, accept that ministry in conscience?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to join the right reverend Prelate in extending greetings to the new Archbishop of Canterbury. We look forward to welcoming him to the House on, I think, 12th March.
  We are aware of the working party. It has wider terms of reference and covers issues such as freehold. I understand that there is an undertaking to report to the Synod and to have decisions made not later than 2006.
  Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is rather odd that the Church of
  418
  England "by law established" should be from law exempt? Will he urge the Government to lean more heavily on the Church of England to consider the experience of other Churches—not least those in the Anglican communion—of the leadership of women?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as an unbeliever, I am the last person to comment on issues between and within the Churches in this country. As far as the Government are concerned, the issue is not the internal organisation of the Church of England, established by law or not, but whether the conditions under which priests in any Church, whether women or men, are engaged—I cannot use the word "employed"—conforms to our legislation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, knows, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 deliberately excluded the Churches, and we have no plans to change that status.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, there is still political involvement in the appointment of bishops, although it may not last for ever. Bearing that in mind, does my noble friend agree that the comment on the "Today" programme this morning by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about seeing the appointment of the first women bishops within five years is welcome? If they were appointed earlier than that, many of us would welcome it.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two alternative answers to that. The first is that it does not follow from the Question on the Order Paper, and the second is that it is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I was partly responsible for the exemption in Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as a matter of policy. I am surprised by the Minister's Answer, to which I listened carefully. Does not the Equal Treatment Amendment Directive of 2002 require the Government to make regulations? Will it not be necessary, in order to comply with the directive, to narrow the broad exception in Section 19 in respect of employment and occupation in the Church of England, as elsewhere? Will the Government consult on the regulations with regard to that issue?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Sex Discrimination Act implements the Equal Treatment Directive, but it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, that there have been amendments to the directive. The amendments cover a wider range of occupations, and we are taking legal advice on the matter. It is not yet clear whether the wider range of occupations covers the occupations relevant to the Question. If it appears that legislative changes are necessary, we will, of course, consult widely, as the noble Lord would wish.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  3.7 p.m.
  Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
  What steps they are taking to reduce the spread of bovine tuberculosis.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling bovine tuberculosis. We are spending £35 million to £40 million a year on a programme of public health protection measures, cattle testing and research. Last week, we announced a review of the current TB strategy as an integral part of the animal health and welfare strategy.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Will he acknowledge that the disease is running out of control? There are more cases of TB today than there were of foot and mouth disease during the crisis. The noble Lord referred to yet another consultation, but we cannot wait until 2007 to tackle the cause of the disease. What will the Government do about it?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is partly correct. There is a significant number of cases of TB. It will not be fully established, until we have cleared the backlog of testing, how much the rise in TB has escalated. It was increasing at 20 per cent before the foot and mouth disease crisis. The testing programme was suspended during that period, and we are still catching up, although we have made substantial progress. It is a serious situation. About 4,000 herds are or have been at some time in the past year under TB restrictions. That amounts to about 4 per cent of the whole herd.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that almost all farmers and most people in the countryside think that badgers are the source of bovine TB. Given that there are no badgers in New Zealand but bovine TB is still to be found there—people are convinced that the possum is the source of the disease—does not that suggest that wildlife, whatever the species, is the most likely source of the problem?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, anyone who has had anything to do with this matter will know that strong views are held about badgers. Some feel that badgers are the sole cause of the transmission of bovine TB. We are holding a number of trials to assess the degree to which transmission takes place via badgers. My noble friend is well informed as regards the situation in New Zealand. However, scientific evidence also supports pretty strongly the view that much of the spread occurs from animal to animal in cattle. Regrettably, some of the spread in the northern regions relates to the restocking that followed the foot and mouth outbreak.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, given that the speed of the spread of the disease seems
  420
  to be escalating and the fact that the Krebs trial was halted for years during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, so much so that it had to start again practically from square one, are the Government considering a different line by reinvestigating the possibility of vaccination? The commercial development of an appropriate vaccine has moved forward since it was last considered by the Government.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, no reliable method of delivering the vaccine has yet been made available, either to cattle or to badgers and other wildlife species, although some progress has been made. The Krebs trial is intended to establish once and for all whether the growth of the spread of badgers is the main cause of the increased spread of the disease. To interrupt or change the trial would lead to our being unable to answer that question.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, the Minister referred to the backlog of testing, inevitably brought about as a result of vets being taken off TB in order to deal with foot and mouth disease. Can the Minister give the House a firm assurance that the TB tests will be carried out as quickly as possible and that the necessary resources will be made available to ensure that they can take place?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have already made additional resources available in the form of £3 million specifically for testing. At the end of 2001 the backlog of tests stood at 27,000. That backlog has now been reduced to 7,500 tests, so we are making substantial progress.
  Lord Christopher: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any data have been collected on the incidence of bovine tuberculosis on non-organic farms as against organic farms? Furthermore, are there any data on the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle in areas where there is a large population of badgers as against those areas in which there is a small population?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, in response to the second question, some information has been gathered, but it is not comprehensive. That is in part what the Krebs trial is directed to ascertain. On the first point, so far as I am aware, no reliable data are available which distinguish between organically reared cattle and others. Assertions have been made that organically reared cattle are less susceptible, although there is no definitive proof.
  Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, while I am sure that everyone welcomes the Krebs trial relating to the control of tuberculosis in cattle, the results will not be known until around 2006. In the meantime, TB in cattle is spreading in what are in effect the non-controlled areas, causing great concern to dairy farmers. It has even affected those who restocked after the foot and mouth crisis, where there

  421
  should be no incidence of TB at all. What is the Government's policy for dealing with infections occurring outside the Krebs trial areas?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the government strategy includes a new package on TB introduced last October. It is a combination of testing, restriction of movement and continuation of the trial. If we were to engage in badger culling outside the trial areas, it would distort the results. I know that pressure is being exerted by large sections of the farming sector to do that. However, I have to say that substantial pressure is also being exerted to maintain what is the current status of the badger, which is that of a protected animal. Noble Lords will know of recent incidents within the Krebs trial areas which makes this an extremely difficult issue on which to strike a balanced approach.

  Hunting Bill: Effects on Shooting
  3.14 p.m.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as chairman of the Standing Conference for Countryside Sports.
  The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Hunting Bill will compromise the sport of shooting.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, as stated in the Labour Party manifesto, it is certainly not the Government's intention to compromise the sport of shooting.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that curt and direct response. He must be somewhat surprised that his right honourable friend Mr Michael, the Minister for Rural Affairs, yesterday voted against his own Bill in the Commons to vote down the use of terrier work underground. How will the Government reassure the tens of thousands of full-time and part-time gamekeepers who need to use terriers to protect not only game birds, but also a whole range of ground-nesting birds which, as research has demonstrated, now thrive only on areas where keeping is taking place? Is this not in fact another example of the Government perhaps not being as truthful as they might be? The Hunting Bill undoubtedly will have an adverse effect on shooting, contrary to what the Government have told us.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Bill is currently still being considered in Committee in another place. A number of votes have been taken in Committee and no doubt further votes will take place on the Floor of the House in another place. I think that we shall need to consider the Bill as it emerges from another place.
  As regards the amendment on terriers, it was clear that the intention behind the amendment was to outlaw the use of terriers in the course of hunting. It
  422
  was not directed at the use of terriers in terms of preserving game for shooting. Furthermore, my right honourable friend Alun Michael made clear his position by saying that he would have to consider tabling amendments to protect the position of gamekeepers and to ensure that animal welfare considerations are applied consistently and in detail. Perhaps I may quote for the noble Earl the reaction to that statement received from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. It stated that it was "encouraged" that Alun Michael recognises that. The association is already in discussions to work out how best that could be achieved. We are intent on preserving the position in relation to gamekeepers.
  Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, can the Minister help with regard to the principles of the Bill on which, according to the Minister in another place, it was to be based? He has set a test according to the principles of utility which, as it stands at present, could not be met either by reared bird shooting or, indeed, possibly by catch-and-release fishing. If and when animal rights organisations turn their attention to those activities—they have already begun to do so—will those principles continue to be maintained by the Government or will they be jettisoned?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they are allowing Parliament to legislate under a free vote on the issue of hunting with dogs. There is no intention on the part of the Government to bring forward legislation relating either to shooting or to fishing. The principles enunciated in the Bill therefore apply to the Bill itself and any implication that further action is to he taken on other sports is erroneous and has been directly denied in the Labour Party's manifesto.
  Lord Livesey of Talgarth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 73 per cent of foxes in Wales are controlled by gun packs and terriers; that is, by dogs? The Hunting Bill as presently drafted will direct that significantly less suffering must occur before registration of those packs can take place. However, as it stands, the proposed legislation on hunting with dogs will place impossible hurdles in the way of the operation of gun packs. Surely those hurdles must not be imposed, given the evidence on the pest potential of predation by foxes on farm livestock in Wales?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, once again I urge noble Lords to restrict their interpretation of the Bill until we receive from the House of Commons the Bill that your Lordships will have to consider. No doubt we shall have some lengthy discussions on the same.
  As regards terriers, I repeat that the intention with regard to terriers sought by the amendment tabled in Committee in another place—it was not a government amendment—was to stop terriers from being used in a process of hunting whereby the dogs would be used for catching. We are not talking about flushing out for shooting purposes. There will be some difficulties with definition and we shall need to clarify that, both in the

  423
  Bill and in terms of government interpretation, should the Bill emerge in the form that the noble Lord anticipates. However, I urge all noble Lords to wait until we have the terms of the Bill.
  Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is able to help me. He may not be aware that once I was a master of hounds. At the time I employed a terrier man on the Wednesday of each week. On each Tuesday and Thursday my terrier man was employed as a keeper. Can the noble Lord explain exactly what was the difference between what he did for me on Wednesdays as an employee of the hunt and what he did on Tuesdays and Thursdays—on the same land and using the same dogs against, ostensibly, the same foxes? Is that the kind of principle on which the Bill is based?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, it had not escaped my attention that the noble Lord was once a master of hounds. It is clear that he is meticulous in his employment practices and feels the need to separate the job designation for Tuesdays and Thursdays from the one for Wednesdays. The point, however, is not what an individual is doing but what he is doing it for. If he is doing it in aid of hunting, the amendment relates to hunting with dogs. If he is doing it in support of game-keeping, different considerations apply which are not covered by—and which are not intended to be covered by—the Bill. My right honourable friend Alun Michael made that clear in his reaction to the amendment in another place.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, if there is to be a distinction between a terrier used for hunting and a terrier used for other purposes, how will the terrier know?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, as it is clear that a master of hounds did not know, I do not think we can expect a terrier to know.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, at the Committee stage in another place, Mr Michael admitted that the new Clause 11 would affect shooting. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why Mr Michael then voted for the new clause?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall have to check the voting list. My understanding is that my right honourable friend made it clear that this was not a government amendment and that the Government would have to consider its consequences. He said that he would have to table amendments to protect the position of gamekeepers, which is what I have said. If the purpose for which the terriers are used is not in relation to hunting with dogs, it should not be covered in the terms of the Bill.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I find the Minister's response odd. The Minister in another place brought forward his Bill and then supported an amendment that altered it. The Minister is suggesting that there will be another way out further along the line. I do not
  424
  see how there can be. Either the Government believe what they are saying or they do not. Why did the Minister take the tack that he did on the recent vote?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I find the noble Baroness's question odd. I have often accepted arguments in Committee—many from the noble Baroness herself—that have asked me to look at the Bill again. I have brought forward amendments to Bills—accepted amendments to Bills—and I have voted for them. That is not unusual. Mr Michael said that, because of the amendment passed in Committee, he will now have to consider further amendments. It is normal committee procedure, both in this House and in another place, that amendments are made to Bills, some of which are supported by the Government.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that there is no question of compromising the sport of fishing? It is estimated that at least 2 million people in this country enjoy that sport.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hoped that I had made that clear. In their manifesto and subsequently, the Government have made it absolutely clear that they are not bringing forward legislation in relation to shooting or fishing. As far as I am aware—although greater experts on field sports than I will let me know if I am wrong—terriers do not play a significant role in fishing.

  English National Opera: Dispute
  3.24 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Rodingasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they have any plans to intervene in the redundancy dispute at English National Opera.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no, the Government have no such plans.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Minister's reply is entirely as expected; I have seen the letter that she wrote to Equity a few days ago. Is it not now time for a radical reappraisal of the role of the English National Opera in bringing opera to a wider public, as suggested, for instance, in the excellent leader in The Times yesterday? If so, Ministers cannot wash their hands of this issue and their responsibilities. Will the Minister ask the Arts Council to institute a review, as a matter of urgency, before this great national institution shakes itself to pieces?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is fully aware that, because of the arm's length principle, it would be entirely wrong for Ministers to intervene in detailed management issues that are for the board and the senior management of the ENO. The noble Lord is absolutely right to imply in his question that the Arts Council has a role in this respect. I can reassure him that the Arts Council is in

  425
  discussion with the ENO, its board and management, about these issues. Indeed, the management of the ENO and its board have undertaken detailed work which has shown that there are substantial problems with the financial model under which it has been operating for some time. The Arts Council is working with them to ensure that this is dealt with.
  Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the Minister should know better than anyone in your Lordships' House that selling the arts to the public is an inherently risky business and that management, by its very nature, does not like risk. So, when things go wrong, management tends to look at the heart of the business, which is the risky part—in this case it is obvious—and usually it has the good sense to look elsewhere for cuts. In this case it is looking at the heart of the business—that is, the orchestra and the choir. Does the Minister agree that the only way this company will get out of trouble is by singing and playing its way out? Let us have less management and fewer accountants, if anything.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course the chorus and the orchestra are central to the success of the English National Opera, as they are in any other opera company. I do not think that it would be fair to say that the English National Opera does not take some justifiable artistic risks in the kind of productions it stages, nor would it be fair to say that it does not also meet the need for popular works to be shown in a city such as London. The ENO is currently looking at a whole range of different measures to ensure that its financial position can be put right. It is not looking only at the size of the chorus and the contracts of the orchestra.
  Baroness Warnock: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are strong analogies between the state of the Royal Opera House 10 years ago and the present parlous state of the Coliseum? The difference is partly in the changes that have come about in the Arts Council during the past decade. Do not the Government recognise that they have some responsibility—in spite of the arm's length principle—towards preventing the demise of the great opera houses of this country? Do they not agree that it is no use insisting on the arm's length principle if what lies at the end of the arm—the hand, the operative part—has become so paralytically incompetent, as the Arts Council seems to have become?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I could not disagree more with what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said about the Arts Council as it is currently operating. It is not in any way paralysed and is undertaking its work in an excellent way. Ministers are constantly in touch with the Arts Council about the problems of the ENO and, indeed, about many of the other issues faced by the Arts Council. The noble Baroness is unduly pessimistic in suggesting that the great opera companies in this country are, in some
  426
  sense, in demise. The Royal Opera House recovered very successfully from the difficult period it went through. The ENO will do the same.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is a classic industrial dispute? On the one hand, the management want to get rid of what used to be known as Spanish practices in the chorus; and, on the other hand, Equity, the trade union, has put forward other proposals. Could not this matter reasonably be referred to ACAS?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. This is a classic dispute between management and the employees of a particular organisation, albeit a special kind of organisation. As I understand it, ACAS is willing to intervene if it is requested to do so by the parties to the dispute.
  Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure she is—that the more grand operas a company undertakes and the larger the house in which it performs, the more choristers it requires; and that a company which performs a large number of grand operas in a large house is unlikely to save much money, if any, by cutting the size of its permanent chorus and engaging freelance choristers where necessary? Is she further aware that the ENO's problems with its chorus are symptomatic of much wider and more fundamental problems of a kind that have bedevilled it intermittently since it moved to the Coliseum? We need an English National Opera company. If we cannot afford the ENO as it is, with its existing repertory policy and performing mainly in the Coliseum, will the Government consider setting up an inquiry, or asking the Arts Council to do so, to review what the role of the ENO should be within the national operatic framework, what repertory policy it should follow and where its home base should be?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are many questions in what the noble Lord proposes. I do not agree that there is a need for the kind of review that he suggests. Substantial lottery funds are being spent on improving the Coliseum for use by the ENO. That project is working on budget and to time. I believe that the Coliseum is an appropriate venue for the English National Opera.

  English National Opera: Dispute
    Nottingham City Council Bill [H.L.]
    Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

  Liaison Committee: Select Committee Report
  3.32 p.m.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

  427
  Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 57) be agreed to. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
  Following is the report referred to:
  Select Committee on London
  1. The Committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Marsh for a select committee on London. A letter from Lord Marsh to the Chairman is printed a Appendix I to this Report.
  2. We consider that many of the issues raised by Lord Marsh are under active review by other bodies. Moreover, some of the bodies responsible for London are not directly responsible to the Government or, through Government, to Parliament; it is by no means clear to us to whom a report of a select committee might be directed. Furthermore the kind of inquiry envisaged by Lord Marsh seems to call for continuing review of a kind not well-suited to an ad hoc select committee. We do not therefore recommend the appointment of a select committee on London.
  Select Committee on the Equality Bill [HL]
  3. The Committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Lester of Herne Hill that certain of the matters addressed by his private member's bill on equality he considered by a select committee. A letter from Lord Lester is printed as Appendix 2 to this Report.
  4. Some members of the Committee felt that the inquiry proposed was sufficiently specific and time-limited, and that the subject would benefit from the taking of evidence in a select committee. On the other hand it was recognised that many government initiatives and consultations on equality issues wore currently envisaged—for example on age discrimination, disability discrimination, civil partnerships and the future shape of institutions to promote equality in a whole range of areas. Much of this activity was already so far advanced as to make duplication of effort by a select committee undesirable. We were also concerned at the length of any such inquiry, even if it were to be confined to the points listed by Lord Lester in his letter. We do not therefore recommend the appointment of a select committee on equality issues on the lines proposed by Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
  5. While we are aware that there is a general presumption in favour of the House's setting up one ad hoc select committee at any one time, we do not recommend a committee on either of the issues proposed to us. Moreover we recognise that there will be other demands on the resources of the Committee Office in coming months, in particular pre-legislative scrutiny as outlined in a memorandum we received from the Leader of the House (printed as Appendix 3) and the possible establishment of a sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Committee to examine the Finance Bill, to which the House has already agreed in principle.
  Appointment of two additional sub-committees of the European Union Committee
  6. The Committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Grenfell that two additional sub-committees of the European Union Committee be appointed. A letter from Lord Grenfell to the Chairman is printed as Appendix 4.
  7. Lord Grenfell's request is related to the recent review of scrutiny of European instruments conducted by the European Union Committee. We think that it would be premature at this stage to come to a view on Lord Grenfell's proposal before the House has had an opportunity to debate the European Union Committee's report and before the Government's response has been received. We recommend that a decision on this proposal be deferred.
  Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments—the "Sifting Committee"
  8. The Committee agreed that, with effect from the next session of Parliament, a select committee be established to consider the merits of statutory instruments. The Committee further agreed that the Procedure Committee be invited to agree the orders of reference of the Committee.

  Liaison Committee: Select Committee Report

    APPENDIX 1
    Letter and Note from Lord Marsh to the Chairman
    Just over a year ago, the Group arranged a structured programme of meetings with the following terms of reference:
    To inquire into the reasons for the delays in making progress with transport improvements in London, including particularly the institutional arrangements and decision-making processes, and to report.
    In the course of this programme we held a number of very informative meetings in this and other related areas, including the Minister for Transport, the Mayor of London and the Transport Commissioner for London. We have also received a considerable amount of written material.
    It became apparent that, to state the obvious, not only is transport one of a number of key elements in shaping London's future, but the unique scale, complexity and interdependence of the other key elements in the Mayor's draft London Plan raise fundamental questions about the ability of the current institutional arrangements and decision making processes to manage the project to a successful conclusion. These include:
    —the difficulty of achieving delivery of key infrastructure projects
    —the Mayor's lack of resources to ensure implementation of projects for which he is responsible
    —the slowness of the planning system
    —the lack of coherent priorities for resource allocation and institutional blockages likely to obstruct co-ordinated action.
    I am enclosing a note setting out these issues more fully.
    Members of the Group are aware that the draft Plan will be subject to an Examination in Public in the spring and that some of the responses to the Regional Government White Paper are likely to touch on some of these issues.
    We would stress that the Group is not concerned with the wider political issues of regional government. We arc concerned solely with the decision making process and the overall management of the London Plan in its totality to a successful conclusion.
    The Group is unanimous in its belief that there is an urgent need for a more systematic and authoritative inquiry into this issue and to that end I should welcome the opportunity to make a short presentation, with two of my colleagues, to the Liaison Committee in support of a Select Committee inquiry into the credibility of the structure envisaged in terms of financing and implementation of the draft London Plan.

    Note by Lord Marsh
    Why should London have special treatment?
    —London is the capital city
    —It has a population of 7.4 million
    —It has a GDP of £118.5 billion a year—larger than Portugal, Greece or Ireland
    —London is Europe's most successful city at attracting foreign companies
    —London's economic success is a major driver of the UK economy: failure to maintain its international competitiveness would be damaging for the whole of the UK.
    What special issues does London face?
    —Its population has grown by 600,000 since 1989: it is forecast to grow by a further 700,000 by 2016
    —London has the second highest unemployment rate in England (after the North east): the rate for ethic minorities is 13.5%
    —43% of London's children are living in poverty
    —with the average cost of a home over £250,000, people on moderate incomes—including key workers such as nurses and teachers—cannot afford to live in London
    —investment in public services—health, education, housing and transport—of £110 billion is needed over the next 15 years to make good past neglect and cater for growth.
    The complexity of the issues
    Responsibilities for London are diffused among a range of institutions, including Government Departments and the Government Office for London, the Mayor, Assembly and GLA functional bodies, boroughs, Corporation of London, agencies such as the Housing Corporation, English Heritage, Environment Agency, Learning and Skills Councils, NHS, Strategic Rail Authority, Royal Parks etc.
    Why is there a need for an inquiry now?
    —it is not at all clear who is responsible for delivering solutions to London's problems—there are obstacles in the way of action on many major issues from transport to building new homes to sports stadia
    —the Mayor has published a draft London Plan to set the future strategy for London's development, but lacks the powers or funding to implement it
    —there is no clear focus for decisions affecting London within central Government
    —there is no basis for determining what share of resources London should receive in relation to either its needs or the tax revenue it generates.
    Why a Select Committee?
    —there is an urgent need for an objective review of the arrangements for London government
    —the GLA Act is an unusual piece of legislation for which there is no precedent: there are issues of the balance between local and regional levels, funding, the uniqueness of London and its evident problems.
    —the All Party London Group has looked at these issues over a number of years, but they need to be considered on a more formal footing
    —legislation will be brought forward on regional assemblies: it is important that it should be informed by the experience in London and that
    —the opportunity should be taken to make any necessary changes in the London structure.

  APPENDIX 2
  Letter from Lord Lester of Herne Hill to the Chairman
  My Equality Bill had its First Reading on Tuesday. The Second Reading debate has been arranged for Friday, 28th February.
  The Bill results from several years of study, review and consultation under the auspices of the Centre for the Public Law at Cambridge University, led by Professor Bob Hepple QC and his team. It seeks to create a coherent and enduring framework for tackling unjustifiable discrimination, and promoting equality of opportunity in a way that is user friendly. I enclose a copy of the Bill and of the Explanatory Notes.
  If the Bill is given a Second Reading I hope that it may be possible for it to be the subject of an enquiry by a Select Committee of the House to enable evidence to be taken from the various specialist bodies and interest groups.
  Thirty years ago, a House Select Committee considered a Private Member's Bill on sex discrimination. They heard a considerable amount of evidence on the extent and type of discrimination and produced special reports on proposed amendments and an analysis of the evidence they had taken (H.L. 81 and 104 of 1972–73). The work done by that Committee and by a Commons Committee was valuable in enabling the Government to develop policy on what became the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Subsequently, many Private Members' Bills on various types of discrimination have been introduced in both Houses, but no bill has sought to tackle all the main grounds of discrimination in a single measure, and neither House has considered the issues in the round.
  A Lords Committee would be able to address some of the matters addressed in the Bill that are of general interest and importance. For example, and these are only suggestions, they might take evidence and report upon the following issues: (a) whether British
  430
  law should reach further than the EU equality directives which are to be implemented by subordinate legislation under the European Communities Act 1972, that is, beyond the field of employment; (b) the contexts in which it is legitimate to impose positive duties to promote equality of opportunity and treatment; (c) whether the grounds of discrimination should be closed or open-ended; (d) what the potential costs and benefits of equality legislation are to business and other; and, (e) what the potential advantages and disadvantages of employment and pay equity plans would be. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether it would be sensible for a Committee to consider whether there should be a single Equality Commission since this is already the subject of public consultation.
  The great advantage of this approach would be that it would enable the subject-matter of the Bill to be investigated in the light of evidence and consultation. That would advance public understanding of the issues and assist future development of legislation in this area.
  I should be grateful if my suggestion were considered by the Liaison Committee at the appropriate stage. If any further information is needed I would of course be delighted to provide it.

  APPENDIX 3
  Memorandum from the Leader of the House to the Committee
  The purpose of this memorandum is to present the Liaison Committee with the Government's proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny of the first three draft bills to be published in this Session.
  Electricity (Trading and Transmission)
  We published on 30 January a draft bill to implement the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA). Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office.
  The House of Commons Trade & Industry Committee has decided to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny between now and Easter, and we do not propose anything further. That Committee is well placed to consider BETTA, having reported on Security of Energy Supply only a year ago (2nd Report 2001–02).
  Corruption
  We aim to publish within the next few weeks a draft bill to reform the law of corruption in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The bill would implement the White Paper Raising Standards and Upholding Integrity: the prevention of corruption of June 2000 (Cm 4759), which was based largely on a Law Commission report of March 1998 (No. 248). It would also make certain amendments to the limitation periods for civil actions relating to corruption in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to enable the UK to ratify the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption.
  We propose to remit this to a Joint Committee of seven members of each House, to report by mid-July. We will table the first of the necessary motions shortly.
  Housing
  We will publish a draft Housing Bill later in the spring. The draft Bill will seek to improve housing standards by rationalising and modernising the controls on "Houses in Multiple Occupation", by giving local authorities powers for selective licensing of private landlords in areas of low housing demand, and by introducing a new evidence-based system for identifying unacceptable housing conditions. It will also introduce the "seller's pack" to the home buying and selling process.
  The bill will fall squarely within the remit of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We anticipate that they will wish to conduct pro-legislative scrutiny, and we do not propose anything further.
  The Government will bring forward further draft bills in due course, and I will keep the Committee informed as to our proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny in each case.

  APPENDIX 4

    Letter from Lord Grenfell to the Chairman
    Introduction
    As you know, the European Union Committee has recently concluded a review of scrutiny, which began last session under your chairmanship. The Leader's Group indicated that we should report our findings to the Liaison Committee. I accordingly enclose a copy of our report as published.
    This letter makes the case for an increase in the number of the Sub-Committees of the European Union Committee, on which the Committee would welcome the views of the Liaison Committee.
    I would be happy to discuss these issues further at the next meeting of the Liaison Committee on 17 February.
    Present work
    At present, the Select Committee itself performs the following functions:
    —Scrutinising the Commission's Annual Work Programme and in future possibly the Council's Strategic Agenda as well;
    —Hearing evidence from the Minister for Europe after every major European Council;
    —Hearing evidence from the Ambassador of every incoming Presidency;
    —Inquiring into matters which do not efficiently fall to an individual Sub-Committee, including major institutional questions (such as the report on the Second Chamber) and crosscutting inquiries (such as the review of scrutiny);
    —Approving reports prepared by the Sub-Committees;
    —Considering Government responses to our reports;
    —Appointing the members of Sub-Committees;
    —Appointing specialist advisers for the Sub-Committees.
    The Committee currently has six Sub-Committees, of up to 12 members. The individual Sub-Committees at present scrutinise policy in the following areas:
    —Economic and Financial Affairs, and External Relations (A).
    —Energy, Industry and Transport (B).
    —Common Foreign and Security Policy and International Development (C).
    —Environment, Agriculture, Public Health and Consumer Protection (D).
    —Law and Institutions (E).
    —Social Affairs, Education and Home Affairs (F).
    Drivers for change
    There arc three drivers for change that have drawn us to the conclusion that the number of our Sub-Committees should be increased: our own sense of the case for change, given existing work; our own willingness to make scrutiny more effective by doing more; and external pressures.
    First, it is clear that our members feel that the present division of policy responsibilities means that each Sub-Committee is examining too wide a range of policy areas and cannot always give proper attention to them all. This is supported by the relentless increase in the number of documents deposited for scrutiny: since the Jellicoe review of our work in 1992 the number of documents deposited each year for scrutiny has increased from around 800 to about 1400. Our review has recommended that certain documents no longer be deposited for scrutiny but as these are documents which would normally be cleared by the Chairman's sift this change will not noticeably cut the workload of Sub-Committees.
    Secondly, our review has endorsed the fundamental principles on which we work, namely that documents are sifted by the Chairman and referred to expert policy Sub-Committees for examination. Our review nevertheless proposed new areas of activity designed to enhance and strengthen the House's scrutiny of European legislation. These will mean increased responsibilities for Sub-Committees including:
    —more regular scrutiny in advance of Council meetings, including of Government officials;
    —more short studies to complement major inquiries;
    —more emphasis on the follow-up of work;
    —more analysis of cost impact assessments;
    —more scrutiny of Comitology decisions;
    —more emphasis on ensuring that our work is of use to the House;
    —a greater effort to disseminate our work in the outside world.
    As we recognise that these are additional responsibilities, we have also accepted that we need to make the best use of the time we spend with witnesses. We nevertheless conclude that these new functions will, overall, mean an increased workload for Sub-Committees.
    Thirdly, there are outside pressures for change which, we believe, will lead to an increase in our workload. It is a clear and significant theme in the Convention on the Future of Europe that there should be an enhanced role for national parliaments in the European Union, to help redress the disconnection between the citizen and those governing the Union. There are already specific proposals for national parliaments to have a more formal role in monitoring subsidiarity; and suggestions that matters of Justice and Home Affairs might be brought under the Community method, requiring an enhanced scrutiny of an increased. number of documents. Enlargement too may mean more legislation to consider. There is also pressure for closer working with other national parliaments (through COSAC) and for a closer working relationship with our colleagues in the Commons, which we have welcomed.
    Our conclusion
    We have always kept under review the balance of work between our Sub-Committees and the number of Sub-Committees has varied over the years. As part of our recent review, we haw considered whether the present balance of work between the Sub-Committees is right, given the likely future priorities of the Union. We have concluded that there is a prima, facie case for increasing the number of our Sub-Committees and we make a proposal to that effect.
    One way of deciding which policy areas Sub-Committees should cover would be to examine the existing structure of Government departments. Another would be to mirror the Council of Ministers which now operates in nine formations (see annex). It would therefore be possible to argue that each Council should be scrutinised by one of our Sub-Committees, giving a total of nine.
    We rejected this idea, however, for two reasons. First, none of these existing Councils uniquely fits with the work of our Sub-committee E (Law and Institutions) which, chaired by a Law Lord, provides valuable scrutiny of legal matters across the board. Secondly, two of the Councils (Education, Youth and Culture; and Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs) do not in our view generate a full Sub-Committee's worth of scrutiny work.
    Eight Sub-Committees
    Our proposal is accordingly for eight Sub-Committees combining policy areas (such as environment and agriculture) but to a lesser extent than with our present six Sub-Committees, as follows:
    1. Economic and Financial Affairs (elements of existing A)
    2. Transport, Telecommunications and Energy (elements of existing B and D)
    3. General Affairs and External Relations (existing C)
    4. Environment and Agriculture (elements of existing D)
    5. Law and Institutions (existing E)
    6. Justice and Home Affairs (most of existing F)
    7. Social Policy and Consumer Affairs—including Healthcare and Education (most of existing D and F)
    8. Competitiveness and International Trade Policy - including the Internal Market, Industry, Worker Protection and Research (elements of existing A and B)
    Resources: members
    It would be our intention that these be the areas of primary responsibility for each Sub-Committee; but that, as now, flexibility is maintained to ensure the best deployment of resources by agreement between Sub-Committees.
    We would not, however, wish any expansion of the number of our Sub-Committees to take place unless a sufficient number of Members of the House were available with both the expertise and time necessary to do the work and put it to good use. We stress here that we believe expertise and commitment to be more important factors than party balance.
    We support the rotation rule in its present form although we would welcome a wider pool of names coming forward to allow us great flexibility in co-opting members to Sub-Committees. We have no wish, however, to increase the number of Members serving on individual Sub-Committees. Indeed, if there are to be more Sub-Committees, we would welcome smaller Sub-Committees, each with an expert and active membership. We also have no objection to members of the House serving on more than one Sub-Committee.
    Our six Sub-Committees currently have a maximum total membership of 12, meaning up to 72 Members of the House can serve on our Sub-Committees (although a few places have deliberately been kept vacant to assist flexibility if the overall number changes).
    It is our view that ten members is about the right size for a Sub-Committee (provided that all members are reasonably regular attendees). Dividing our current 72 among our proposed eight Sub-Committees would mean finding only eight more Members of the House to reach the desired number.
    Any change in the number and responsibilities of Sub-Committees would, of course, mean a consequential need to redistribute our existing members among a new series of Sub-Committees.
    Resources: stuff
    As far as staff are concerned, the Leader of the House told us that he hoped the House would "will the means" to deliver the necessary resources for our work, although he stressed that the time taken to recruit clerks of a suitable calibre would always be a factor.
    We would not wish to see extra work being undertaken without the necessary resources to undertake it. Each Sub-Committee needs their own dedicated Clerk and Assistant. The work of our three new European Policy Researchers has assisted the Select Committee and the Sub-Committees but with only three posts it has not been possible to allocate a researcher to each Sub-Committee. Our Sub-Committees accordingly remain much less intensively resourced than the Commons departmental select committees which they in some ways mirror.
    Conclusion
    We recognise that, even if there is acceptance of the need to increase the number of Sub-Committees, the need to find suitable members and recruit suitable staff may mean a timetabled introduction of any additional Sub-Committees. We nevertheless consider that the present division of work overloads the Sub-Committees; that changes are needed to enhance the House's scrutiny of EU legislation; and that existing problems will only get worse in the future. The time to act is now, to ensure that the House is ready to meet the new challenges we will face.

    Annex

    Table 1: Distribution of Competencies

    Council of Ministers

    EU Sub-Committee

    UK Government Dept.

    General Affairs and External Relations

    A,E,C

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Dept. for International Development; Ministry of Defence

    Council of Ministers

    EU Sub-Committee

    UK Government Dept.

    Economic and Financial Affairs

    A,E

    HM Treasury

    Justice and Home Affairs

    E,F

    Home Office; Lord Chancellor's Dept.

    Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs

    D, F, E

    Dept. For Education and Skills; Dept. of Health; Dept. for Trade and Industry; Dept. for Work and Pensions

    Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry and Research)

    A,B,E

    Dept. for Trade and Industry

    Transport, Telecommunications and Energy

    B

    Dept. for Transport; Dept. of Trade and Industry

    Agriculture and Fisheries

    D

    Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Environment

    D, E

    Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Education, Youth and Culture

    F

    Dept. for Education and Skills; Dept. for Culture, Media and Sport; Home Office

    Table 2

    EU Sub-Committees

    Council of Ministers

    UK Government Dept.

    A—Economic and Financial Affairs, Trade and External Relations

    2. Economic and Financial Affairs; 5. Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry and Research)

    HM Treasury; Dept. for Trade and Industry

    B—Energy, Industry and Transport

    5. Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry and Research); 6. Transport, Telecommunications and Energy

    Dept. for Trade and Industry; Dept. for Transport

    C—Common Foreign and Security Policy and International Development

    1. General Affairs and External Relations

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Ministry of Defence; Dept. for International Development

    EU Sub-Committees

    Council of Ministers

    UK Government Dept.

    D—Environment, Agriculture. Public Health and Consumer Protection

    4. Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs; 7. Agriculture and Fisheries; 8. Environment

    Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Dept. of Health; Dept. for Trade and Industry

    E—Law and Institutions

    1. General Affairs and External Relations; 3. Justice and Home Affairs 4. Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs; 5. Competitiveness

    Home Office; Lord Chancellor's Dept.; Law Officers Dept.

    F—Social Affairs, Education and Home Affairs

    3. Justice and Home Affairs; 4. Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs; 9. Education, Youth and Culture

    Dept. for Work and Pensions; Dept. for Education and Skills; Home Office; Dept. for Culture, Media and Sport,

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not covered in this table.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    3.33 p.m.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 17.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 11, line 9, leave out "Regulations may" and insert "The Secretary of State must by regulations"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government gave undertakings in Committee that certain matters relating to administrative and procedural detail would be set out in regulation, not on the face of the Bill itself, to ensure that, should changes be needed in the light of experience, we should not have to amend primary legislation.
The Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform made helpful recommendations: first, that the Bill should provide expressly that regulations under Clause 17(5) and similar provisions must secure that there is an advertising and representations procedure; and, secondly, that there should be an express requirement for consultation in relation to orders under Clause 169. These amendments address those two recommendations.
As a result of amendments in this group, instead of having a discretion, the Secretary of State will have a duty to make regulations providing for an advertising and representations procedure in relation to applications or, in the case of Amendment No. 134, a review following a closure order.
Amendment No. 229 will insert into Clause 169 a requirement that before making an order to relax opening hours for special occasions, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as she considers appropriate.
Amendment No. 228 has the same effect as government Amendment No. 229, so I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will not move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:My Lords, I am extremely gratified. I thank the Minister for having drawn attention to the fact that Amendment No. 228 is so close to the government amendment. I shall be content not to move it.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, my amendment is grouped with this one. The Minister has brought forward the issue of regulations and the amendments are very welcome. I had proposed an amendment relating to regulations which would be positive, not negative, in their resolution. I shall read the Minister's remarks carefully. At this stage, I shall not move my proposal on regulations. I shall study the matter closely and retain the hope of bringing back my amendments at the next stage if these provisions do not match up to our expectations.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I welcome and support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Determination of application for premises licence]:
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Ramsay of Cart vale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 62, I should inform the House that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments No. 63 to 66 inclusive.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 11, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not speak to Amendment No. 63, but shall speak to Amendments Nos. 65, 77 and 78. Thereafter, many of the amendments are consequential.
Amendments Nos. 62, 67 to 70 and 72 deal with the possible violation of convention obligations by a licensing authority that could arise because the licensing authority is compelled to grant a licence pursuant to Clause 18(2) in circumstances when it believes that such a course of action may violate the rights of individuals—even when there are no relevant representations. The DCMS agrees that a licensing authority cannot be put in such a situation but points to Clause 18(1) as giving the licensing authority a power "not to determine the application" in such circumstances at all.
But the convention obligation on the licensing authority is to make a determination and to reach a balanced decision—one that is proportionate. Having

437
regard to all the circumstances. The DCMS argument is unsatisfactory as refusing to make a determination is an interference in the rights of licensees and others. A determination, once an application is made, is required. That means that a hearing will have to be held and the licensing authority will have to consider representations from those who might be affected. In the light of all the material considerations, the licensing authority would have to make a decision and grant the licence subject to conditions, if appropriate, rather than rejecting or allowing it without modification. Then there would have to be rights of appeal against the decision of the licensing authority.
Clause 18(1) makes no provision for all this. Furthermore, it does not allow the licensing authority to reach a proportionate decision; nor is it drafted with sufficient clarity for it to bear the meaning proposed by the DCMS. If Clause 18(1) were interpreted in the way suggested by the DCMS, that would give rise to great confusion about the role of Clause 18(3). There is correspondence on the matter—from a residents' association in Soho to the Government dated 2nd December 2002; a letter from the Joint Committee, dated 5th December 2002, to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone; Dr Howells' reply to the Joint Committee, dated 10th January 2003; and a further letter from the residents' association in Soho dated 28th January 2003. All contain important details.
The amendments that I have identified propose to simplify the Bill by, first, leaving Clause 1 to have its original meaning, as set out in the Explanatory Notes—a decision that can be delegated to officers; secondly, to remove Clause 18(2) from the Bill altogether; and, thirdly, to amend Clause 18(3) to allow the licensing authority to determine applications in the light of the licensing objectives, which include the protection of human rights if the amendment to Clause 4 is accepted, and make decisions, including imposing conditions that are proportionate.
Control over abuse of power by the licensing authority would exist through the rights of appeals by licensees, responsible parties and interested parties. If the earlier amendments proposed to Clause 13 were accepted—I believe that they were not—interested parties would comprise all those who have arguable rights to bring convention claims in the courts by virtue of Section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
On Amendment No. 65, in relation to Clause 18(2), the Secretary of State's guidance should make it clear that the licensing authority has power to insert conditions that relate to securing aspects of the licensing objectives in accordance with matters contained in its statement of licensing policy. Otherwise, local licensing policies cannot be effectively met. The Civic Trust, on behalf of whom I moved this amendment, asked for support for that.
Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 are marginally different. The licensing authority is required to give reasons for granting as well as refusing applications, whether or not there are relevant representations to ensure that those who did not or could not make relevant representations can know the reason for the
438
decision and can challenge it if they believe that their rights have been violated. Such parties may have no rights of appeal to the magistrates' court, so their avenue of appeal will be to the administrative court by way of judicial review.
I believe that all subsequent amendments are consequential, but if the Minister tells me that I am wrong, I shall have to leave without having spoken to them. It is my impression that they all refer back to the group that I have moved. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I have listened carefully to my noble friend's comments in respect of Amendment No. 62. He has not quite clarified the matter in my mind, or cleared away all my concerns.
As I understand the matter, Clause 18 will require the authority to grant the licence, provided that conditions have been properly met. If we removed subsection (2), the whole matter could be reopened again, and we would create a situation in which a second bite of the cherry was possible. That is an issue on which I have had concerns in the past, and on which I shall be concerned with amendments that we have yet to debate. I may have misunderstood the thrust of my noble friend's remarks, but his amendment seemed to introduce a degree of undesirable uncertainty.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I have seen the correspondence to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred, and in particular the letter written by the DCMS to Jean Corston MP, who has the chair on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That left me with some residual anxieties.
The DCMS appears to rely entirely on the operating schedule to set these matters correctly in their context. The letter says that if,
"the operating schedule does not address any of the matters it should address e.g. it does not set out the steps which the applicant will take to promote the prevention of public nuisance, the duty imposed upon a licensing authority in clause 18(2) to grant the application would not apply".
I look at that the other way around. If the operating schedule complies with the licensing authority's requirements and does not contain anything that explicitly contravenes the licensing objectives, the duty to grant the application under Clause 18(2) applies. There is no explicit mechanism by which the licensing authority can take into account the matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, believes it should. The original correspondents—the Meard and Dean Street Residents' Association—first raised that matter with the Select Committee.
Will the Minister explain the mechanism by which human rights considerations are to be considered, in the event that the operating schedule does not contain anything that explicitly contravenes the licensing objectives set by the licensing authority?
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the amendments strike right at the heart of the Bill. They tip the balance too far in favour of the licensing authority. I was not

439
surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, intervened in that regard. They would increase massively the regulatory burden on the industry, the cost of running the system and the ability of the new licensing regime to promote the diversity of provision in the late-night economy that we hope will do so much to make our cities safer and more attractive.
The amendments would remove from the Bill the basic principle that hearings must be convened only when relevant representations have been made. The Government firmly believe that, when the experts are satisfied that a particular application raises no issues that might undermine the licensing objectives, it should normally be granted automatically and administratively, with no costly or burdensome hearings required. Amendment No. 62 and those consequential upon it would totally undermine that principle.
Let us examine the responsible authorities—the experts—under the Bill, who will have a voice on applications. They include the police, the fire authority, the local health and safety authority and the environmental health authority. It also includes, as a result of action we have taken to respond to issues raised in this Chamber, the local planning authority. At least two of those bodies—the environmental health authority and the local planning authority—will, in the vast majority of cases, be drawn from the same local authority as the licensing authority. Interested parties include local residents and businesses, and organisations that represent them. All those organisations and individuals can make representations on an individual application.
Given the range of opportunity for concerns to be raised about an application, it is surely totally unnecessary for a hearing to be held where no representations are received from those quarters. In such circumstances, there is no reason for the public interest regulatory role of the licensing authority to come into play. The degree of scrutiny afforded by the Bill will ensure that, when problems arise, the chances of them not being picked up are absolutely minimal.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I should say that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its latest report on the Bill, found that the provisions which would result in the grant of an application for a premises licence where no representations are received were compatible with convention rights.
Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 would allow the licensing authority, under circumstances in which no relevant representations had been made and therefore no hearing was required, to attach conditions to the licence that were,
"consistent with the licensing policy and planning guidance",
rather than only those that are consistent with the operating schedule. The amendments would have a serious deleterious effect, by discouraging the collaborative approach that the Bill seeks to engender between the police and the responsible authorities. After all, why would applicants go to the trouble in advance of talking to the police—for example, to make
440
sure that they had got their application right—if the licensing authority could then impose conditions of its own? That makes little sense.
Similar issues arise in relation to Amendments Nos. 69, 89, 101, 118, 141, 154, and 159, which would allow the licensing authority, when holding a hearing, to take into account, in addition to relevant representations, "any other material considerations". Again, the Bill is designed to focus on a clear and transparent set of licensing objectives. "Other material considerations" is so vague as to make it nearly impossible for a licensee to produce a well thought-out and effective application.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 149 would give the licensing authority more latitude in its requirement to notify an applicant of a decision following a hearing. Instead of being required to notify the applicant of its reasons for taking any of the steps mentioned in Clause 18(3)(b), it must simply give reasons for its overall decision.
I recognise the wish to remove the perceived strictures on the licensing authorities in that respect, but it again tips the balance too far. It will be of great importance not only to individual licensees but to the trade in general to build up experience of the type of action a licensing authority is likely to take in relation to a particular application. That will improve the quality of applications over time and, I hope, further reduce the need for hearings. It is vitally important that reasons for decisions are provided which are sufficiently detailed so that those affected by t hem can decide whether to challenge them.
These amendments pull the Bill apart. I very much hope that they will not be pressed.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the trouble she went to in responding. I am also in the paradoxical situation of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for coming in in support of me with his particular expert knowledge. Of course I express appreciation to my noble friend Lord Hodgson, whom I recently assisted in a small pairing matter, for having drawn attention to infelicities in Amendment No. 62.
The Minister was kind to respond to Amendment No. 66, to which I had not actually spoken. As a plea is contained in what I would have said, I shall allude to it in responding to her. The point that I would have made is that the licensing authority must be able to use its own knowledge in deciding the weight of representations and not burden residents with providing the evidential base. Many residents will be lay people and it may be the first time that they have made representations or appeared at a hearing. The local authority must be able to decide the weight to give to representations even when these have not been articulately put, let alone founded upon some sort of evidential base. Not to do so would be to create a complete inequality under the European Convention on Human Rights. Local authorities will have knowledge from registers held and from inspections and their other functions, but that evidence must be capable of being brought to bear.

441
The plea that I was going to make is that this matter might be considered in guidance. Given the problems encountered by those making representations without professional experience, guidance might afford a degree of latitude to the local authority in deciding the weight of those representations.
There were suggestions that, this morning, I shot a bolt into the heart of the Bill. So far no experience from outer space has avenged that act. However, it would be foolhardy of me to run the risk twice with the Minister. I shall not complicate her life further in this regard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 74 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Grant or rejection of application]:
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 13, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) A determination under this section does not have effect—

(a) until the end of the period given for appealing against the decision;

(b) if the decision is appealed against, until the appeal is disposed of."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 76 are all consequential to it and reflect the same concept in Clauses 35, 75 and 84.
The convention requires that the procedures by which convention and civil rights are determined create "equality of arms"; and convention rights, including the right to a fair hearing in civil matters (in Article 6), are subject to a requirement (in Article 14) that there should be no discrimination between people in analogous positions with respect to their convention rights. As currently drafted, the Bill seems to violate that principle because the licensee is given rights in this clause to commence trading as soon as the licensing authority has granted the application. However, in Clause 51(11), on a review where the licensing authority has made a decision to terminate or amend the licence, that decision is not given effect until after the time for appealing is over. That is an imbalance between the parties and a violation of the presumption against interference in Article 87.
The belief behind this amendment is that the most proportionate amendment is, first, to delay the coming into effect of extensions of the property rights that arise from a decision to grant a licence under Clause 18 until after the appeal is over and it has been demonstrated that there is a pressing social need for the restriction on residents' rights, which is the requirement in Article 8; and, secondly, to allow the licensee to continue trading after an adverse decision following a review under Clause 51 until the appeal has
442
been determined. The purpose of such amendment would be to amend this clause and leave Clause 51 (11) unchanged. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, Clause 22 provides that licensing authorities must give notice to applicants and those who made relevant representations following the determination of applications for premises licences. Clause 75 sets out the same procedure in respect of club premises certificates and Clauses 35 and 157 for the variation of premises licences and club premises certificates. These amendments would introduce unacceptable and unnecessary delays into the process by preventing decisions of the licensing authority from coming into effect until either the period for making an appeal came to an end, or until the appeal that had been made was disposed of.
Clauses 22 and 75 concern the procedure following a determination, not the determination itself. As I said during our debates in Committee, I wonder whether these amendments really have a place in those clauses. Aside from that observation, however, the general position in law is that where an appeal against any decision is made, the decision stands and is effective until overturned. The licensing system has to be efficient and effective and provide certainty. The net effect of the delay which these amendments would impose on the industry would be enormous.
No licence or certificate or variation of them could come into effect for at least 21 days. Some businesses could be shut down for a long time pending the hearing of appeals, which would affect not only the owner of the premises but any staff employed there, too. It is not simply an applicant who has a right of appeal against a decision of the licensing authority, but anyone who has made relevant representations as well. The applicant may be very happy with the decision and want to go about his business as quickly as possible. Why should that be denied for at least three weeks just in case someone decides to appeal? Why should we depart from the normal position in these cases?
I know that the noble Lord tabled these amendments, at least in part, because he was concerned that once an application for a licence or certificate, or indeed a variation of either, had been made, a court would not be able to overturn that decision on appeal. I think that he suggested that the only remedy for an appellant would be to seek judicial review. In fact that is not the case. Clause 176 provides that on an appeal in accordance with Schedule 5, which applies to all of the circumstances dealt with by these amendments. a magistrates' court may either dismiss the appeal; substitute for the decision appealed against any other decision which could have been made by the licensing authority; or remit the case to the licensing authority to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the court.
I believe that these amendments are unnecessary and would place an unnecessary burden on the industry. Given the existing protections in the Bill, and the reassurances I have given about the ability of the

443
magistrates' court to overturn a licensing authority's decision, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
4 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, again I express my appreciation for the manner in which the Minister has responded. She is right that we discussed this in Committee and has a very clear recollection of our exchange. It was her noble friend Lord Davies who responded to my original amendment seeking to add to the licensing objectives the protection of human rights which we debated just after dinner last Monday. I indicated then that there would be a series of human rights amendments thereafter, which have been discussed between the residents' association in Soho, the department and the Select Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred.
I am appreciative of the further information the Minister has given on Clause 176 in relation to avoiding the necessity to go to judicial review. In the light of the Minister's reassurance and the revisiting of the matters that we discussed in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Form of licence and summary]:
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Surrender of premises licence]:
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 15, line 34, leave out from "he" to end of line 35 and insert "shall give written notice to the relevant licensing authority and any person who has registered an interest in the premises under section 32(6) and the licensing authority shall not accept such surrender unless satisfied that the person so registered duly consents"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Application for a provisional statement where premises being built, etc.]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 16, line 21, at end insert "and information specified in section 17(3) and (4)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, by virtue of Clause 18(6)(d), interested parties and responsible parties are prohibited from making relevant representations about provisional licences after a provisional statement is issued. But these parties have the opportunity to make representations in relation to provisional licences before the provisional statement is issued by virtue of Clauses 29 and 30. It is important, therefore, that interested parties and responsible parties have the same information in respect of the provisional licence as they would in respect of the final licence. The amendment would ensure that the information requirements are the same. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Clause 28 provides that where a premises is being built, extended or altered for use for licensable activities, a person with an interest in the premises may apply for a provisional
444
licence. A provisional statement will give a degree of assurance to those who are investing in such work that the premises can be used for carrying out licensable activities once the work is completed.
The Bill currently provides that an application for a provisional statement must be accompanied by a schedule of works. A schedule of works is a document in the prescribed form which includes a statement including particulars of the premises to which the application relates and of the licensable activities for which the premises are to be used; plans of the work about to be or being done at the premises; and such other information as may be prescribed.
The amendments would remove the need to supply a statement including particulars of the premises and licensable activities and replace it with the operating schedule in Clause 17(3) and (4). An application for a provisional statement would need to be accompanied by a plan of the premises to which the application relates and, if the licensable activities which are to be undertaken include the sale of alcohol, a form of consent from the individual the applicant wishes to have specified in the premises licence as the premises supervisor.
Clause 17(4) provides that an operating schedule includes information on a number of matters relating to the operation of the premises, including the licensable activities that are to be undertaken there, the times when they will take place and the person who is to be the designated premises supervisor.
By its very nature, a provisional statement will be applied for only where work is to be carried on at a particular premises or, indeed, a new premises is being constructed. The work will often be carried out by an individual or company who have no intention of operating the business but intend to lease or sell the premises to another party who will operate the business. Clearly, under those circumstances, they could not be expected to provide all the information which is provided for in an operating schedule.
A developer might intend to build a multi-use leisure complex with cinemas, bars and restaurants. He will wish to have some assurance that permission to carry on licensable activities at those premises will be granted, so he will apply for a provisional statement. In that application, he will say that he expects there to be a certain number of bars, restaurants and cinemas, give an idea of their size and the kind of activities that will take place there. He will clearly not be able to state the precise hours when these places will be open or the name of the designated premises supervisor.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, might say that an applicant for a provisional statement who could provide all the information required by the operating schedule should he required to do so. But if the applicant has all that information, he might as well just apply for a premises licence straightaway. That would save him the fee associated with applying for a provisional statement as well as giving him greater assurance.

445
If we accepted these amendments, we would be getting rid of the provisional statement procedure. We would be getting rid of a relatively simple way of providing an assurance to somebody who will spend money on developing or constructing licensable premises that they can go ahead in the assurance that, subject to no material change, they will have a licence when the work is complete. I cannot imagine that the industry would be happier with that. It seems out of keeping with the kind of development work and investment that we wish to see in the licensable trade.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will forgive me if I say I had the sense that he was, in the latter stages of his speech, engaging to establish eye contact with my noble friend Lord Hodgson in the hope of receiving an assenting nod. The Minister made a cogent case, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]>
Clause 29 [Advertisement of application for provisional statement]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84:
Page 16, line 35, leave out "power to make regulations under" and insert "duty to make regulations imposed on the Secretary of State by"
Page 16, line 38, after "made" insert "under section 17(5)(a)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 30 [Determination of application for provisional statement]
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 89 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 17, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) From issue, provisional statements granted under this section shall have effect for three years."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I was encouraged by the Minister's response to the previous amendment in relation to Amendments Nos. 90 and 93. As drafted, Clause 31(3) allows a "relevant person" to raise objections to the opening of licensed premises following construction, even though no such objections were raised at the time of the operator's application for a provisional statement. It appears that objections can be raised where the individual concerned can show that he or she could not have raised that objection at the time of the original provisional statement or had a good reason for failing to do so. Similarly, objections can be raised where there has been a material change in circumstances relating to the premises or to the area in the vicinity of those premises.
The creation of a power to object, following the completion of a development, creates a substantial, potentially insurmountable, barrier to investment. The retail and leisure industries are major players in assisting the achievement of regeneration policy across the United Kingdom. But operators, developers or lenders in respect of a project to construct a new
446
supermarket, hotel, leisure centre or public house will be unable to establish whether a local residential property is likely to change hands prior to the completion of their project, thus creating the risk of a late objection.
The Explanatory Notes give the example of a local resident being in hospital as a reason for having failed to object earlier. Presumably, an opportunity to object would also arise if the householder could establish that they were, for example, on vacation at the time that the original application was advertised.
How could any developer protect himself against such an eventuality? The amendment would provide for a closer alignment between licensing law and planning law and would provide more certainty for operators. It is proposed that provisional statements should be time-limited in the same way as planning consents and should have the same three or five-year time frame. We assume that that will be confirmed in the next planning Bill, which we hope to see. Provided building works are started within the life of the planning consent, there should be no grounds for a second round of representations on the planning consent or the provisional statement. However, if work has not started within the appropriate period, the planning consent and provisional statements expire, but can be renewed, with representation invited if there are any material changes in circumstances.
That is a sensible solution that is mindful of the rights of those living in the locality to make representations, but also provides a necessary level of certainty for operators, which is crucial to avoid inhibiting future retail and leisure investment. I beg to move.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread plc. I try to deal with issues on this Bill that in my view are of practical significance. I support Amendment No. 90. It is clear from our discussions on a number of clauses that we have to keep a balance between two sets of interests. In this case, we need a balance between the possibility for representations to be made and properly considered in Clause 30—there is nothing wrong with subsections (1) to (7)—and some element of stability or at least some years of certainty for the proper planning of the provision of new premises or the renovation, development or improvement of premises.
We have a full system for representations. There is no difficulty about that. However, Clause 31, headed, "Restriction on representations following provisional statement" —but not, "exclusion of representations"—refers clearly to:
"Where,

(a) the application for the premises licence is an application for a licence in the same form as the licence described in the application for the provisional statement, and

(b) the work described in the schedule of works accompanying the application for that statement has been satisfactorily completed".

I commend that drafting to the Plain English Campaign. It is clearly intelligible: there has been no substantive change. Surely, if there has been an

447
opportunity for representations on the provisional statement and there has been no substantive change, we need to be able to give a clear assurance that no further representations will derail what has already been agreed.
A company or an individual hotel, pub or restaurant owner might well hesitate to carry on with their plans for new premises or amendments or improvements to premises if they might be derailed later, when resources had already been committed to the improvement. This is a modest amendment that would give an assurance of stability to the developers of new or renovated premises for three years. That is not a lot to ask. It seems reasonable and I support it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I have two amendments in this group and have added my name to a third. We discussed the issue at length in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I clashed over the use of "and" or "or". The source of our confusion was that the Explanatory Notes said "or" and the Bill said "and".
The issue is the second bite at the cherry. We have talked at length about the need to promote investment and the necessary timescale. The heart of our difficulty relates to the material change in circumstances specified in Clause 31(3)(b), particularly the words,
"to the area in the vicinity or.
I had hoped for some clarification in the guidance notes, but paragraph 6.53 on page 41 more or less repeats what is in the Bill. There are concerns about how material changes in circumstances and the area in the vicinity could be interpreted. For example, it has been put to me that the construction of a block of flats close to the proposed location after the original provisional statement could be a change to the area in the vicinity, so the people who moved into the flats should have a chance to object. Another example was soaring crime figures in the area, which could be a change in circumstances that might give rise to the chance of restricting the original proposals.
The costs of a subsequent refusal are a considerable issue. However, restrictive conditions that were not originally envisaged being imposed on the premises licence would be a less draconian but still very expensive outcome. Such conditions could include a reduction in the allowed opening hours or a reduction in capacity. That could change or undermine the commercial viability of the project. Perhaps the most likely outcome is that the opening of the premises would be delayed while the lawyers fought out exactly what the two phrases in question meant, during which time the fully kitted out entertainment facility—a pub or whatever—would be eating interest costs, unable to be opened. That would also be unsatisfactory.
I have no problems with the three-year timescale proposed by my noble friend in Amendment No. 90. If the operator or developer chooses to change the situation completely and does not complete the works in the way that was originally envisaged, all bets are off. However, the current drafting leaves open the
448
possibility of developers of entertainment facilities who have acted in good faith being undermined by people with an axe to grind. I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, only to the extent that the wording of the guidance is more or less identical to the Bill and does not give any further interpretation of what is meant by material changes of circumstances to the premises or to the area in the vicinity.
I have a different anxiety, which arises from our debate on the last amendment, when the Government opposed the presentation of information about opening hours in the application for a provisional statement. It is possible for a person to have complied with all the requirements to get a provisional statement by saying that he wishes to convert the premises from their existing use within the A3 user class—for example, there might be a series of cafés next door to one another—into a larger establishment to be used for drinking purposes. As we heard earlier, he would not have to say what the opening hours would be. What happens if the potential objectors in the vicinity think that it will be an ordinary establishment that closes at 11 o'clock, but when the operating schedule is submitted for the full licence they find that the proposal is to open it until 3 o'clock in the morning? Will that be a material change of circumstances which restores the right that would otherwise be excluded under Clause 18(6)(d)? There may be a misprint in Clause 31(2) with reference to Clause 18(6)(d), which the noble Baroness may wish to address, but that is a small point.
However, there is a serious point here as regards the rights of objectors to make representations where the nature of the occupation of premises changes between the issuing of the provisional statement and the application for the full licence. Therefore, I should like the Minister who will reply to satisfy your Lordships that representations will not be excluded in cases where no one had any reason to suspect that the premises would be open until three or four o'clock in the morning at the time the provisional statement was issued but people were then suddenly confronted with that situation at the time of the licence application. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that such persons would still have the right to make representations, notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 31.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Amendment No. 90 proposes time limiting a provisional statement for a period of three years, which aligns it with the period after which a renewal of a planning consent will be required in the future. That would require applicants to make a new application every three years, as they would in respect of planning permission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, on each occasion of a new application, local residents would have their say.

449
If Amendments Nos. 91 to 93 had been proposed in isolation from Amendment No. 90, I should have been inclined to oppose them. However, by matching the three-year limitation with the possible deletion of Clause 31(3), I see greater merit in the amendments. The limitations in Clause 31(2) would still apply.
Both the approach taken in the Bill and in this group of amendments attempt to preserve what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, rightly described as the very delicate balance between the needs of investors for some degree of certainty before they commit to major building projects and the need for proper protection for local residents. If the approach suggested by these amendments maintains that balance but would provide industry with greater confidence than the Bill does now, we should be prepared to look at the proposal.
We need to examine the implications and talk to people involved in the industry and stakeholders before we reach a final decision but I am happy to take the matter away and consider it. I cannot promise to return with an amendment at Third Reading, or that an amendment on the face of the Bill will be necessary. However, we are certainly sympathetic to the objective behind the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that the Government opposed a statement of opening hours in the provisional statement. I did not say that. I said that in many cases it would not be possible to give a statement of opening hours or, for example, the name of the designated premises supervisor, as would be required by the operating schedule. If that information is known, there is no reason at all why it should not be provided or, indeed, why it should not be required.
I do not think that the noble Lord is right with regard to a misprint in the reference to Clause 18(6)(d), but I shall write to him on that point. With those assurances, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if someone did not know what the opening hours of a particular premises would be at the time of the provisional statement being issued, and then suddenly discovered that the relevant premises would be open until three or four o'clock in the morning, would they have forfeited their right to make representations?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have thought that if that circumstance were entirely unexpected it would constitute a material change. Therefore, people would have the right to make representations. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am rather disappointed in the Minister's reply given what he said in response to the previous amendment and our efforts to come up with what we feel is a sensible suggestion; namely, the proposed three-year period in relation to provisional statements. The Minister said that it was
450
important to consider the needs of investors for some degree of certainty before they committed themselves to major projects, and for them to be confident that, subject to no material change occurring, they would get a premises licence when the relevant work was completed.
The Explanatory Notes refer, for example, to the possibility that someone may be confined to hospital during the period in which representations could have been made. They state that the restriction on making representations following the issuing of a provisional statement would not apply to someone in those circumstances. We do not believe that that is a valid point.
There is a delicate balance to be struck here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for his support. It is helpful to have the benefit of noble Lords' practical experience in this field. In many cases considerable investment is made in the projects we are discussing and that follows lengthy periods of planning. It is not always a case of big businesses investing in these projects, but rather all kinds of establishments. It may not always be the large supermarket operators and the big hotels and leisure centres which invest in the projects we are discussing. Smaller operators may invest in a project which they believe will contribute to local industry or to the tourist industry. I thought that we were encouraged to develop a more attractive, liberalised culture. However, they may be stopped in their tracks under the current provisions.
The Minister said that he wanted to take the amendment away and think about it further, but we have considered the matter for two-and-a-half years. I should like to be confident that the Government will bring back an amendment at Third Reading. However, our amendments have been tabled for some time. We debated the matter at length in Committee. With some regret I believe that it is right that we—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, obviously, I have not made my position clear. I said that we agreed with the thrust of the amendments. I said—if I did not, I apologise—that we thought that the amendments reflected the delicate balance which needed to be maintained. We have said that we think there is much to be said for integration with the planning arrangements. I said that we would consider sympathetically Amendments Nos. 90, 91, 92 and 93. What I could not say is that we would be ready by Third Reading, and what I did not want to say was that there would necessarily be changes in primary legislation. But my intention is to be entirely sympathetic to the group of amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I feel that I am stuck between a rock and a hard place. I entirely accept what the Minister said. He wishes me to back off with regard to the amendments. I am tempted to do so. However, we should feel more comfortable if the Minister could give us an assurance that a measure will he brought forward at Third Reading.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe,

451

before Third Reading but the gap between Report stage and Third Reading is very short. When we bring forward new thoughts on matters, we always consult those concerned. We would consult the industry and residents before making what is a significant change. Although the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Williamson, were sympathetic to the change, it has not necessarily been raised before with the industry. I am very unconfident that we would be able to consult to the extent that we would need to do between now and Third Reading. But that does not mean that we do not intend to do something about the measure.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his further assurances in relation to the amendments. I hope that he will accept that I seek to do my best for the industry which feels strongly about the issues we are discussing. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the amendment is withdrawn, I should say that I am not taking the amendments away for the sake of the industry. I am doing it because there is a balance to be maintained between the interests of public nuisance, public safety and those of people living in the vicinity of licensable premises and the proper concerns of the industry. If I gave the impression that our consultation would be only with industry, that was not the impression that I wished to give.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I hear what the Minister is saying. What I really meant was that I appreciate that further consultation is necessary. I regret that such consultation was not dealt with earlier, because I think that the point being put forward is one of common sense. We all agree that there is a delicate balance to be struck, as I said earlier. However, I accept what the Minister has said, so I look forward to seeing what happens in another place on this important point. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 31 [Restriction on representations following provisional statement]:
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 93 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Notification of change of name or address]:
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 18, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) Upon the application of any person who has an estate or interest in the premises whether as owner or lessee, prior or paramount to that of the occupier, the relevant licensing authority shall enter the name and address of that person and the nature of such interest upon the register of licences, subject to the payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
( ) It shall be the duty of the relevant licensing authority as soon as reasonably practicable to notify any person registered under the preceding subsection of any matter entered in the licensing register under section 8(I)(c), save for notices recorded under paragraphs (b), (g), (h), (m), (r), (s), (t), (u), (v), (w), (x) or (y) of Schedule 3."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Application to vary premises licence]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 19, line 15, leave out "power to make regulations under" and insert "duty to make regulations imposed on the Secretary of State by"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Determination of application under section 33]:
[Amendments Nos. 97 to 101 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Supplementary provision about determinations under section 34]:
[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Application to vary licence to specify individual as premises supervisor]:
[Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Circumstances in which section 36 application given interim effect]:
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Determination of section 36 application]:
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Duty of applicant following determination under section 38]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Request to be removed as designated premises supervisor]:
[Amendments Nos. 110 to 113 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Interim authority notice following death etc. of licence holder]:
Viscount Falkland moved Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 27, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) that person has registered an interest in the premises under section 32(6) of this Act."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Application for review of premises licence]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 29, line 27, at end insert—
(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the chief officer of police for the police area in which any premises are situated must apply for a review of the premises licence for those premises if he is aware that there is being, or had been, carried on at those premises the sale, letting for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes in circumstances which amount to an infringement of copyright for the purpose of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48).
(1B) In subsection (1A) "sound recordings", "films", "broadcasts" and "cable programmes" have the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (copyright)."
The noble Baroness said: We are now coming to the amendments on infringement of copyright. Again, we tested the point in Committee and had some considerable debates. We were disappointed by the Government's response.
Many people who buy, or permit their premises to be used for the sale and use of, pirated material do not consider that the theft of intellectual property seriously harms those businesses which are legitimately using it and whose fees paid, either directly or through collecting societies, remunerate the distributor, producer and artistes. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said on 16th January 2003 that he believed that the current law was sufficient. That can be found in col. 335 of Hansard.
It is accepted that piracy is a major funding source for crime and is one of a number of methods of money-laundering. Page 64 of the draft guidance, under paragraph 8.52, states in relation to Clause 177 that the licence does not need to spell out the legal requirement, but advises that failure to observe the law in practice could lead to a review of the premises licence.
It is well known that the cost of piracy is great. The police are reluctant to act so, unless there is pressure on them to undertake actions by anti-piracy clauses in the Bill, there is a distinct danger that one of the licensing objectives—the prevention of crime—will not be pursued with vigour.
We are grateful to the Government for tabling Amendment No. 194, which is welcome so far as it goes. However, it is effective only in respect of the sale or use of pirated material where alcohol is used at licensed premises. It would not apply to entertainment facilities as set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 such as a church or village hall or community centre. Such places are regularly used as venues for car boot sales, where many pirated products are sold to the public.
Will the Minister reconsider our amendment, which is rather more far-reaching and would cover the area that we believe is not covered sufficiently by the government amendment? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her reference to Amendment No. 194. Both amendments address the problems of the use of copyright material without appropriate permissions, which includes films, sound recordings and cable television. We are well aware of the problems caused for many industries by infringement of copyright, and we are committed to constructive solutions to the problem. To that extent, we are at one on the matter.
We have had representations from the British Video Association, the Cinema Exhibitors Association and Phonographic Performance Ltd. They have suggested ways in which the issues might be addressed through the Bill, and I am pleased that we can help them through Amendment No. 194.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that although I clearly share her concerns on the matter I cannot accept Amendment No. 115, which would make it compulsory for the chief officer of police to apply for the review of a premises licence in any instance where the sale, letting for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings, films, broadcasts or
454
cable programmes had taken place in infringement of copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. No provision in the Bill compels either interested parties or responsible authorities, such as the police, to apply for a review because of a particular offence committed at the premises, even though conviction would not be a requirement if the amendment were accepted.
The Bill provides discretion for those authorities to decide for themselves when to apply for review, and that discretion should be preserved. I see no reason to compel the police to apply for a review following an infringement when they are not compelled to do so for other—dare I say it—more serious offences. If the amendment were accepted. the police would be required to request a review of a premises licence if a licensee played music to his customers for which he did not have the appropriate permissions. However, if the premises is the scene of repeated outbreaks of violence, it may or may not be subject to review.
The situations envisaged by the amendment can be dealt with by the Bill as currently drafted, as interested parties and responsible authorities may apply for the review of a licence if an offence is committed under the 1988 Act or any ground relating to the licensing objectives, which includes the prevention of crime and disorder. Of course, a breach of the 1988 Act is a crime. In that way, a cinema might make an application if a licensed premises was showing films for which it did not have the necessary permissions. However, to require the police to request a review would be disproportionate.
Amendment No. 194 will provide a very valuable tool to help the licensing authority and the police address that issue. It would add certain offences committed under the 1988 Act to the list of relevant offences for the purposes of the Bill. That would mean, for instance, that a relevant offence would be committed by someone convicted of playing recorded music or exhibiting a film without appropriate permission. A person convicted of having in their possession for commercial purposes any unauthorised decoder would be guilty of a relevant offence.
Under the Bill, applicants for personal licences will need to reveal whether they have committed any relevant offences. If they have, the licensing authority will be required to notify the chief officer of police and, if he is satisfied that granting a licence would undermine the crime prevention objective, he must issue an objection notice. That would lead to a hearing, and the authority could reject it if it believed that that was necessary to promote the crime prevention objective.
When any personal licence holder is convicted of a relevant offence, it will be open to the court to order the forfeiture of the licence or its suspension for up to six months. In deciding whether to order forfeiture or suspension, the court will be able to take into account any previous conviction of the licence holder for a relevant offence.
We have listened to the industry. Amendment No. 194, which I stress is supported by the industry, underlines how seriously we take the issue of copyright

455
infringement. It will ensure that those who wish to he personal licence holders under the new regime will he subject to scrutiny as a result of committing those offences and should therefore ensure that they are deterred from doing so.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will support Amendment No. 194 and acknowledge that it will address the concerns of industry about the use of intellectual property without appropriate permission.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, will he respond to my concerns about Amendment No. 194, which we welcome? My concern was that the amendment would not apply to an entertainment facility such as a church hall, village hall or community centre, or to places that are regularly used for car boot sales. This is an important aspect of the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. Amendment No. 194 is in Schedule 4, which is entitled: "Personal licence: relevant offences". Schedule 4 is triggered by Clause 111, which seeks to provide the authority for "relevant offence" and "foreign offence". I do not see in Schedule 4 or Clause 111 a restriction to premises where alcohol is being sold.
However, my understanding is that I cannot give the noble Baroness. Lady Buscombe, the assurance that she seeks. The industry is principally concerned with breaches of copyright in pubs. It asked for the amendment to reflect that and we understand that it is content with our response.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it would be worthwhile for the Government to consider my point. We entirely support Amendment No. 194: I hope that there is no misunderstanding there. It involves an important step forward. The area of copyright needs constant revision. A generation of people who are growing up now simply do not believe that it involves theft; they do not even look on what they do as piracy. They believe that the more that they can borrow each other's records and other material, use that to their own ends and share and multiply it among themselves, the better. They do not believe that there is anything wrong with that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I can be of more help to the noble Baroness. I should have said that Schedule 4 and Clause 111 refer to personal licences. She rightly said that personal licences apply only to premises for the sale of alcohol. Premises licences, to which she seeks to extend this arrangement, cover any of the licensing activities, including entertainment, and they can be reviewed if there have been copyright infringements. That is already the case.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clarification. We should continue to watch and
456
review this matter. We are grateful that a step forward is being taken in the Bill. We and the Government know that this matter concerns the industry. There is a huge difference of opinion in this regard beyond your Lordships' House about whether people who are effectively stealing sound recordings, films, cable programmes and so on, are doing anything wrong. We are grateful to the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 29, line 30, leave out "Regulations under this section may" and insert "The Secretary of State must by regulations under this section"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 51 [Determination of application for review]:
[Amendments Nos. 117 to 119 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 31, line 3, at end insert "or
( ) to take such other actions as it deems necessary in the circumstances"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. The amendment deals with the need to give the licensing authority powers to act proportionately. The steps in Clause 51(4) do not allow the licensing authority to issue warning letters, for example, which may be the most appropriate outcome of a review in many cases. I have reason to suppose that my noble friend Lord Hodgson will disagree with the amendment. I hope that I have given him a reasonably narrow target at which to aim.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I shall not disappoint my noble friend, although he has given me a very narrow target indeed! When we have applications for review, open-ended provisions of the sort proposed in my noble friend's amendment are undesirable because they open up a wide, as opposed to a narrow, target. I have been critical of the Government when they sought to add such catch-all phrases in various clauses in the Bill. I feel that logic means that I must oppose my noble friend's proposal.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, once again, the question of balance comes in. As I explained in Committee, the ability to seek a review of premises licences and club premises certificates, which is set out in the Bill, is new. At present, licensing justices have two routes open to them if a licensee has failed to observe his obligations. They can either revoke the licence altogether or do nothing at all. The licensing justices are often reluctant to take any action, particularly for minor transgressions. There is no ability or opportunity to consider a justices' licence in the absence of a breach of obligation. It severely undermines the ability to regulate the licensed trade.
That is why the Bill introduces a much more flexible arrangement through which an interested party or a

457
responsible authority may seek a review of a licence or certificate on a ground that is relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives. The steps available to the licensing authority in determining a review include the following: to modify the conditions of the licence or certificate; to exclude a licensable activity or qualifying club activity from the scope of the licence or certificate; to remove the designated premises supervisor where one exists; to suspend the licence or certificate for a period not exceeding three months; or to revoke the licence or certificate.
I am sure that the House will appreciate how much finer the degree of control will be under the new system and the review process will be available even where there has been no breach of obligation. The review process is a significant and powerful one. The steps that the licensing authority may take following a review provide it with all the levers it needs to monitor and regulate the licensed trade effectively in the absence of non-compliance. At the same time, they ensure fair treatment for industry. The steps are the result of long consultation with stakeholders and I believe that it would be unwise to unpick them at this stage.

Finally, Amendments Nos. 120 and 160 would allow the licensing authority to impose its own bespoke outcome to a review process. That would completely undermine the openness and transparency that we have sought to achieve. It must be remembered that the system of review is just that—a review—and is not an alternative to the taking of proceedings. It is designed to allow the continuation of an authorisation to be considered in the light of an application that sets out grounds that are relevant to the licensing objectives. The steps available to the licensing authority in determining the review must be proportionate and consistent. The amendments would make the system arbitrary and introduce widespread inconsistency throughout the country.
If we really want to inflict damage on the industry, I suggest that we go ahead and agree to the amendment. If, on the other hand, we want to operate a system that is fair and transparent and which is completely clear about the duties of licensees, and the steps that might be taken where a review identifies concerns, we cannot agree to the amendments. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will withdraw them.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I must necessarily have a certain protean quality if I can provide simultaneously both a narrow and a broad target. I am perfectly clear what target my noble friend Lord Hodgson was aiming at, but at whichever target the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was aiming, she has reasonably hit it in my case. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Fees]:
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Baroness Thornton Baroness Thornton moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 32, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) and insert
"(b) prescribe guidance for licensing authorities when setting the amount of the fee and what may be charged for under the fee."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 122, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 162. Both address the same issue, with one amendment relating to premises and the other to clubs. First, I apologise to your Lordships for not being in attendance to speak on these issues in Committee as I was ill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for conveying my apologies to the House as we were speaking to the same amendments at that time.
The reason for returning to this question is that there has been a material change in the reasons that the Minister gave in her answer to the Committee on these amendments. In addition, the discussions between the Local Government Association and the DCMS on this situation are ongoing. I thank the Local Government Association and, indeed, Camden Council, for the briefing and information that they provided for me. Perhaps I should also declare an interest as a council tax payer in the London Borough of Camden.
The current statement in Clause 54 refers to regulations that may,
"prescribe the amount of the fee".
The DCMS has said on numerous occasions that it will ensure that the centrally set application fee and annual fee will cover all the associated costs. That is a welcome assurance. By costs, I assume that the DCMS means the costs of policy development, pre-application discussions, adequate consultation, hearings, mediation, inspections and enforcement, and not only processing applications. However, it is hard to envisage how the DCMS will come up with a one-size-fits-all fee that does not involve local authorities either making a loss or making a profit.
The amendments that I propose today would still impose statutory regulations on fee setting as it would tightly control what may be charged for under the fee and how the fee should be calculated. But within those guidelines, local authorities would set their own fee in consultation with licensees, residents and business.
I wonder why the DCMS would want to involve itself in that kind of local government business. My assumption is that, in principle, this Government would normally, I hope, allow independent decision-making to be taken at the lowest level. That, in any event, seems to fly in the face of that principle. Therefore, why would one size not fit all?
In Committee, the Minister said that the DCMS was considering introducing a separate fee band for London and the South East because of higher costs. That would be a step in the right direction. But that alone will not achieve a fair licensing fee for both local authorities and licensees. Apart from anything else, what about places such as Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds?
I understand that DCMS civil servants are due to meet the LGA to discuss the results of an LGA fee questionnaire of rural, town, metropolitan and

459
London local authorities. That will demonstrate that in every possible area of the licensing process—from numbers of full-time staff to average salaries to numbers of inspections, and administrative costs for processing applications—rural, town, metropolitan and London councils have varying costs. I do not want to pre-empt the questionnaire results or the meeting, but I want to give noble Lords two examples of the differing costs that local authorities incur.
In terms of the associated costs for local authorities, I shall name but two. The first is wage costs. Those will impact on the cost of every part of the application process, from policy development, inspections, enforcement and the actual processing of applications. London weighting is an obvious example of that. If the DCMS calculates an "average" wage cost for the whole of England and Wales, London boroughs and metropolitan councils will lose money but rural councils, with lower wage costs, may make money.
The second is travel expenses. In rural districts where licensed premises are spread over a wide area, travel costs associated with inspections and enforcement will be far greater than, for example, those in inner-city boroughs, notwithstanding the congestion charge. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the DCMS to give a petrol allowance as part of the fee, as many urban local authorities do not use vehicles to get around. So, again, there may be an unwelcome result, with some local authorities making money on travel costs and some losing money. I believe that those are legitimate questions that need to be addressed.
The DCMS and some groups within the licensing trade seem to believe that some local authorities are currently making vast profits from their licensing fee. In Committee, the Minister said:
"Local authorities have had their chance [to set fees] and they have failed".—[Official Report, 16/1/03; col. 343.]
As a result, as my noble friend argued, imposing a nationally set fee was justified.
As the basis both for the argument for a nationally set fee and to guide the setting of a national fee in the regulatory impact assessment, the DCMS has used figures from a CIPFA report. However, I am informed that the CIPFA figures on the annual profit that local authorities make from fees were misquoted in the Committee debate on 16th January. In the debate, a figure of £8.9 million was quoted as the net profit made by local authorities nationally. My understanding is that, in reality, local authorities nationally make an annual loss of £7.1 million. Therefore, it appears to me that the DCMS's argument for taking fee setting out of the hands of local authorities is fundamentally flawed.
I am grateful to the Minister, who acknowledged in a letter to me that there will indeed have to be some reassessment of the RIA. I ask what exactly that would mean, because it seems to me that there needs to be a complete reinterpretation.
However, the LGA acknowledges that a minority of councils make a profit from the licensing fee. But the vast majority operate at a loss—and sometimes a huge
460
loss. I want to take Camden Council as a case study of how the £100 to £500 regulatory impact assessment might work.
At present, Camden Council's licensing responsibilities involve 175 premises. That number will rise to 1,500 when all the premises with liquor licences are included. The guidance framework for the Bill notes that the Government's expectation is that local authorities will receive "a very considerable income" during the transition period. That is based on the fee income expected to arise from existing premises transferring their licences to the new regime. Under the regulatory impact assessment, all licensed premises will be required to pay a one-off fee of between £100 and £500 during the transfer from the old to the new licensing system.
If we assume that the midpoint of that range is £300, then Camden can expect revenue of around £0.45 million from its 1,500 premises. The inadequacy of such fee levels is exposed by the fact that Camden's current licensing costs are more than £0.5 million. That is for processing some 300 licences annually, including some occasional licences. Therefore, current costs already exceed the expected fee income, and I believe that there is a problem here.
Camden Council also estimates that the volume of variations likely to be received during the transition period could be considerable. A preliminary survey of business responses suggests that between 400 and 500 existing businesses will apply for a variation in the licence. Again, that is a conservative estimate as many businesses are not yet familiar with the Bill and have not yet considered what changes they may make.
Surely a much fairer system for both licensee and local authority would be for the Government to prescribe guidance on how to calculate the fee and what may be charged under the fee but not to prescribe the amount of the fee. That is why the amendment has been tabled. Regulations would need to make clear the process for calculating fees and would need 10 be transparent and open to scrutiny. Local authorities would then need to consult local businesses and residents and so on before setting the charge. Indeed, auditing and scrutiny of local authority systems are already in place. That would also ensure that local authorities do not make money out of the fee.
In conclusion, I reiterate that if the fee is set centrally, not only will thousands of local authorities lose money but, perversely, some local authorities which have lower costs will make money. I suggest that that is not a welcome scenario for the Government, the licensees or the local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall speak extremely briefly. Many points have been raised, especially regarding the issues of which I am well aware in Camden. I shall ask the Minister one question about fees. The fees are now to be set by regulation. We have already discussed the joys of centrally set fees in regard to regulations for public entertainment licences, which will make the system a good deal easier. If fees are to be set by regulation, which groups will be consulted on

461
a change in the fee bands at a later date? Does the Minister have a set procedure on groups which should be consulted to discuss whether the fee structure is working?
5 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 237A which stands in my name and which is grouped with the amendment. It is concerned with the question of fees. It seeks to give an applicant a specific right of appeal against an unreasonable fee. First, I apologise for not being present in Committee, which was due to my being absent from the country. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for raising the issue on my behalf in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that,
"fees will be set centrally by the Secretary of State, following consultation. There will be no scope for variation by the licensing authority and, as a result, no need for appeal against them.—[Official Report, 20/1/03; col. 464.]
Clauses 54 and 90 of the Bill state that,
"regulations may"—
I stress the word "may"—
"prescribe the amount of the fee".
Amendment No. 122 raises the question whether the provision will be a prescription or guidance as to the fee. It would be difficult, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, to set fees centrally for the wide diversity of, in particular perhaps, public entertainment licences.
My questions for the Minister are: is the matter a question of prescription or is it guidance? What is to stop the local authority/licensing authority in any event adding to the fee? In the event of an additional or unacceptable fee, will the applicant be able to appeal?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for having moved the amendment. She provided some examples in the context of Camden. I shall take the liberty of providing some information in the context of Westminster. I shall do that in particular because—and it is not a secret to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—Westminster City Council has both this morning and this afternoon been conducting a seminar for local authority officers from all over the country to discuss the Bill and its implications. I say that it is not a secret because the department was invited to be present and to take part in the panel. It is no surprise and no discourtesy on the part of the department that, because of its preoccupation with the business in the Chamber today, it was not able to attend. I mention it in order to demonstrate that the seminar was in no way being conducted behind the Government's back.
I cite the seminar because a local authority officer from Southampton said that he received a telephone call from the department last week, which was the first contact that Southampton City Council had had on the matter, to ask what fees it currently charged. That gave the impression that perhaps the amount of data
462
available to the department at this stage in the proceedings is not as far advanced as it might be. I had the privilege of commenting on the parliamentary progress of the Bill. I went out of my way to praise the courtesy with which the Minister and indeed her two colleagues on the Front Bench had treated the House.
I have some figures of a similar nature to those for Camden. They are somewhat larger because of the greater number of premises in Westminster. It is projected that Westminster will have 3,241 liquor licences transferring in the first year and that on average there will be 54 new licences per year during the next 10 years. The base for those figures was supplied by the magistrates' court. They were then applied to a logarithmic equation to project the figures over 10 years from 2004 to 2014.
Based on fees in the DCMS regulatory impact assessment, Westminster's income is estimated to be £7.285 million on a best case basis and £2.293 million on a worse case basis. The anticipated cost to the council of providing the service over 10 years is £27.4 million. The best case scenario therefore envisages a net loss to the council over 10 years of just over £20 million. On a worst case scenario the net loss to the council over 10 years is £25 million. The cost per licence of the council was based on the cost per licence for a public entertainment licence and a night café licence. The logarithmic equation was based on the growth of public entertainment licences and night café licences since 1992. It has been assumed that the rate of growth of liquor licences follows the same trends and timescales.
On personal licences, where the figures are much more modest, it is projected that there will be 454 personal licences created for Westminster in the first year, and that on average there will be seven new licences per year during the following nine years. The percentage of people in Westminster who will require a personal licence is based on the number of street traders living in Westminster applied to the number of new premises that will have a liquor licence.
Based on the figures in the DCMS regulatory impact assessment, Westminster's income is anticipated to be £15,000. The anticipated cost to the council over 10 years will be approaching £60,000. The cost of a personal licence is based on the cost of a door supervisor's licence. Therefore, the net loss to the council over 10 years would be £43,000. The figures in the first category of premises licences—where the best case scenario is of a net loss to the council over 10 years of £20 million and the worse case scenario a net loss to the council over 10 years of £25 million—underlie the anxieties of local authorities up and down the country as to the economic consequences of this new licensing arrangement as regards both their costs and their income. I hope those details may be of some service to your Lordships' House.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we had a constructive debate on the issue of the central setting of fees in Committee when my noble friend was ill. I emphasised then that fees will be set at a level which will allow all licensing authorities to recover the costs

463
of administration, enforcement and inspection. Fee levels will be decided following extensive consultation with local authorities and local authority bodies, as well as other stakeholders, and will be set in regulations made by the Secretary of State and made subject to the negative procedure. I hope that that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. So there will be extensive consultation with everyone involved.
The Government will of course consider whether the fact that some geographical areas have significantly higher overheads relating to labour and accommodation should be reflected in the levels of the fees. Our intention is that fee levels will take into account the size of premises because the costs relating to a large night club could differ from those of a small pub or bar. But fees will allow all licensing authorities to recover their costs and will be structured in such a way to ensure that that is the case.
One answer to my noble friend's question of why the Government want to set fees is the current large variation in both the level of fees and the way they are calculated. Fees differ significantly across the country. Furthermore, some places, on top of a flat fee for public entertainment licences, charge per person above a certain number. Others do not. Some areas increase the fees to premises in town centres and some do not. Some charge a higher fee if the licence is to operate at later hours. All this inconsistency leads to uncertainty and confusion for businesses and others seeking to apply for public entertainment licences.
The Bill seeks to make the licensing process simple, straightforward and transparent. An important means to achieve that is by setting appropriate and fair fees centrally. The principle that fees will be fair and proportionate would be undermined by Amendment No. 237A. I should perhaps add, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that the licensing authority will have no legal powers to impose additional fees.
The House should also appreciate that there is nothing radical in our proposal to set fees centrally. The 155,000 holders of alcohol licences pay fees to the licensing justices that are set centrally by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Similarly, the fees for the 40,000 occasional permissions are set centrally for the 22,000 organisations seeking them each year. The fees for cinema licences are set centrally by statutory instrument. The businesses paying local authority-set fees for public entertainment, theatre and late night refreshment are very much the minority under the existing regimes.
I should tell my noble friend Lady Thornton that, under the new regime, premises licences will not have to be renewed. It is important to avoid drawing direct comparisons between the old system and the new one—they will be very different.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, one must wonder why the figures that he cited have not been passed to my department, despite promises that were made. I certainly do not accept those estimates of the cost of the new system. However, no doubt when
464
they are presented for challenge, we shall be able to have a more constructive debate about fair and reasonable fee levels. Given my assurances that fees will be set at a level that will allow all licensing authorities to recover costs, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
I should perhaps add a word about the CIPFA figures. The department's interpretation of the CIPFA figures was incorrect, for which I apologise. That of course means that my assertion that local authorities make a net gain from entertainment licensing was incorrect. That was a genuine mistake. We are updating the regulatory impact assessment but, even taking account of that, our estimate of a premises licence fee in bands between £100 and £500 is still correct.
I do not accept what my noble friend Lady Thornton said: that that requires a complete reinterpretation. The CIPFA figures were not the only justification for setting licensing fees centrally—far from it. We want to institute a national system that does not contain all the awful inconsistencies of the current one, but I reassure my noble friend and others who have spoken that we shall continue to discuss the issues with the Local Government Association as we work on setting precise fee levels.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks and her explanation. I am not sure that I am reassured, or that local government will be, but I am pleased to know that discussions are continuing and will continue. I thank noble Lords for their support.
This is not a London conspiracy or just a London concern; there is great concern across the country. It essentially concerns the quality of the scheme. There is no point in having a brand-new scheme if it is under-funded and therefore ineffective. I urge further discussion, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thornton Baroness Thornton moved Amendment No. 123:

Page 32, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) If the annual fee is not paid by the prescribed time, the relevant premises licence will lapse on that date.
(5) If a licence lapses under the provisions of subsection (4), the former holder of that licence may for a period of three months, commencing on the date the licence lapsed, seek reinstatement of the licence.
(6) The applicant for reinstatement shall pay to the relevant licensing authority the annual fee together with such reasonable reinstatement fee fixed in advance by that licensing authority.
(7) The premises licence shall be deemed to have been reinstated as soon as the requisite fees have been received by the licensing authority."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 163, which addresses the same issues as Amendment No. 123. They concern the problem of defaulting. My noble friend addressed the issue in Committee, but on reading the Official Report of our debates, I felt that the issue and its

465
implications—which are important for how the whole system will operate—were not fully explored and explained.
Currently, the law states that if people do not pay the performance entertainment licence fee before the expiry date of the licence—usually after one year—their entertainment licence lapses until the operator pays the fee. The Government propose that local authorities will effectively be able to chase up the fee—which will be for all licensable activities, not just entertainment licences. That will cause significant problems, which is why new subsections (4), (5) and (6) have been tabled.
First, under the new legislation, the majority of premises licences will run continually until surrendered or revoked. What possible incentive is there, therefore, for operators to pay their ongoing annual fee? The Bill appears to contain no redress or active action that local authorities can take. It is a bit like people saying that they want to defer their car tax for a month or so, because they cannot afford it this month. The principle is exactly the same.
Secondly, there is the issue of the unnecessary time and resource burden on local authorities who will have to chase up the fee. The Bill assumes that local authorities will have the time and resources to chase up fees—a concern to local authorities across England and Wales. In the real world of local authorities' priorities, they will have to choose whether to spend council tax payers' money on subsidising a debt collection service for the licence fee or whether to spend the same money on teachers, books or other things that they may think more important.
The potential impact of a reduction in the cash flow necessary to keep the licensing system running should not be underestimated. Local authority budgets cannot sustain year-on-year under-achievement of income because licensees have no incentive to pay. The result could be an under-funded, inefficient service of benefit to no one—especially not to responsible licensees who pay on time.
In essence, that is the heart of the issue. If 5 per cent of the 1,500 licensed premises in Camden council's area—to cite that example again—do not pay up on time, that amounts to 75 premises. First, they must be identified. Then letters need to be sent to them—which is, perhaps, two full days' work. Then further chasing will be needed. Then the matter will have to be passed on to the finance section for further chasing. If, say, 20 of the 75 still do not pay up, legal fees, bailiffs, debt collectors and possibly court proceedings will be involved. That cannot be a sensible use of our council tax payers' money.
In fact, it is highly likely that the cost to the council of recovering the annual fee from licensees who are slow in paying will be equal to, if not significantly more, than the value of fee. That will be in addition to the extra costs and resources that local authorities will have to find to process the initial increase in applications. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but I observe that paragraph 8 of the draft guidance to local authorities includes a large section—which does not spring immediately to mind—regarding conditions attached to premises licences. As the noble Baroness said, the payment of fees is vital to the proper administration of the scheme by local authorities. I cannot see any reason why a condition should not be attached to the licence specifying that fees must be paid annually on whatever date is necessary—presumably, the anniversary of the application for the licence, but that may not be so. I ask the Minister: is such a provision in mind under the conditions that attach to premises licences?
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we also support the amendment. I had assumed that a premises licence included a public entertainment licence, so that the two would not be divorced. However, if regulations are to be set, will the provisions be added to them, or do they need to be in the Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the conditions in these amendments would make the penalty for late or non-payment of the annual fee a suspension of the premises licence or club premises certificate. As I said when the amendments were discussed in Committee, the approach is disproportionate. I cannot agree with my noble friend.
She is being unduly pessimistic in her assumption about non-payment also. So far as I understand it, there is not a serious problem of non-payment of fees for entertainment licences, for which local authorities are currently responsible. I see no reason why there should be problems with fee payment for alcohol licences either. Any unpaid fees will be recoverable as debts. Local authorities already have powers to recover debts. But the actions proposed by these amendments in cases of non-payment or late payment of fees could threaten the livelihoods of many people, not just premises licence-holders. I agree entirely that fees should be paid, and that that should happen on time. I am sure that local authorities will encourage licence-holders to do just that. But late or nonpayment of fees could be the result of something as simple as administrative oversight, and one reminder could produce the fee. In such cases, suspending a licence is not an appropriate or proportionate sanction.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked whether a condition about the payment of the fee would he attached to the licence. Such a condition does not relate to the licensing objectives, so it would not be appropriate to attach it to the licence. Payment of the fee is a matter of law and is legally enforceable. I suppose that it would be perfectly feasible to include a provision about fee payment in the regulations, but I do not think that the Government intend to do so at present.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, my understanding is

467
that, at present, a public entertainment licence lapses if the fee is not paid. Without a penalty, there is no incentive to pay. Is the Minister saying that the Government regard past practice as totally unsatisfactory and unfair, when it has worked perfectly satisfactorily? Because there is a penalty, licence-holders have made sure that they pay the fee on time.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am extremely sorry; if the noble Lord is right, I stand corrected. I was not aware that the present system of entertainment licensing involved the immediate suspension of a licence if the fee was paid late, or if there was a delay in passing the fee to the local authority. If I am wrong, I shall let the noble Lord know and place a letter in the Library.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answer and other noble Lords for their support. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton-Mandeville, was my precise reason for moving this amendment. I understand that the licence lapses if the fee is not paid. It is a jolly good way of making sure that people pay their fees on time. The approach works well, so it seems sensible to extend it to the whole licensing system.
I shall withdraw the amendment. But I ask the Minister to look again at the matter, which we can perhaps discuss at some other time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No, 124:
Page 32, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) In regulations made under this section, the Secretary of State shall prescribe a nil fee to certain categories of premises which shall include—

(a) church halls,

(b) village halls.

(c) parish halls,

(d) community centres, and

(e) similar community buildings."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this important amendment would result in nil fees for certain categories of premises. We considered it following an extensive and fruitful debate in Committee. The amendment is straightforward and self-explanatory. We moved a similar amendment in Committee in respect of which we argued that the financial burden of a full premises licence on community and parish halls would be potentially crippling and stifle the use of such buildings for local events.
The Bill has raised a multitude of fears among non-profit-making organisations. Notwithstanding full debate and full responses by Ministers at previous stages, particularly in Committee, we are still receiving a significant amount of lobbying from all kinds of organisations—particularly non-profit-making bodies—that remain deeply concerned about several aspects of the Bill.
I am pleased to say that Amendment No. 124 is tabled in response to encouraging noises made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in Committee. She set out to clarify the position on the setting of fees in regulations, saying:
"The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to set a reduced or, indeed, nil fee for categories of premises in the regulations. We are looking at the position of all the premises types covered by the amendment, with a view to trying to minimise the financial burden so far as we can. That may well involve waiving the fee altogether, although various issues obviously need to he considered".—[Official Report, 16/1/03; col. 357.]
In the light of that positive response, I hope that we may be assured on the issue by the inclusion of details in the Bill. The Government clearly agree with our point in principle. Although the rest of the fees may be decided by regulation, such exemptions for premises hosting a range of community events would allay the fears of many small-scale, non-profit-making venues. We are clear in our amendment. We are looking simply at church halls, village halls, parish halls, community centres and similar community buildings. This is an occasion where something should be set in stone in the Bill rather than in regulations. We all know what happens with regulations in practice. They can be changed, but obviously there can be debate.
This issue affects so many people, particularly volunteers, who are not out to make a profit but simply to do all that they can to support their local community. Over the years we know that that will become increasingly difficult for communities. In that case, we believe that it would serve the Government well if they accepted this amendment and made clear in the Bill that there should be no fee for activities in those premises. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments, which are also in the name of my noble friend Lord Falkland. The amendment is eminently sensible in the bodies that it sets out. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that issues would arise from the nil fee for those premises. There will be a cost implication for local councils, if they are still expected to inspect the premises involved. However, the cost must be weighed against the social benefit of ensuring that the organisations involved are viable.
Village halls, in particular, are the lifeblood of many rural communities, and are under severe threat. Even the smallest charges are difficult to meet from the limited funds of many such bodies.
A further consequence of no inspections would be the safety implications. Obviously, inspections should continue on a regular basis. The Government indicated that churches will be exempt from inspections. Will the Minister give an indication of the level at which inspections will take place on these buildings if no fees were set under regulation? I hope that the Minister accepts the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I support the amendment. If the Minister is not ready to come forward with this solution, will she at least tell your Lordships the issues

469
that need to be considered? She mentioned them on 16th January at col. 357 of the Official Report, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. If they are not complex issues, the Minister has had almost six weeks in which to consider them. I should have thought that at least a description of the issues could be put forward so that we know precisely what is involved. Small village halls work on extraordinarily precarious economics. They even have whip-rounds. My former home was in the village of Down in my former constituency of Orpington. Every so often I receive a letter asking whether I will contribute to the cost of running the village hall; and I am delighted to do that. That demonstrates that the economics of such village halls mean that they cannot break even on the activities that take place in them, but need to be subsidised by the generosity of local residents and anyone else that can be roped-in. To charge village halls fees on top of other costs which they already incur while maintaining what is essentially a service to local people, would be an additional burden that they do not deserve. I hope that the Minister will agree to this amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not want to waste the time of the House, but I want to say that all these halls and community centres operate on a shoestring. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I receive letters from the new town—except I suppose that these days it is an old new town—of Skelmersdale, and my family has not lived there for three generations. Perhaps I am a little more divorced from it than the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
It is important that the lowest possible fee—which ideally should be a nil fee—be charged for licences for these types of places. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised health and safety issues. During the passage of the Bill, we have been told time and again by Ministers that certain aspects of linked but somewhat extraneous law are outwith the purposes of the Bill. Fire inspections and health and safety inspections of village halls, community centres and so forth, must fall into that category.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. If the Minister rejects the amendment, has she considered charging a nominal fee? That would overcome our difficulties.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government have taken seriously the many representations that we have received on this issue. On 7th February we confirmed that we intend to exempt church halls, chapel halls and other similar buildings occupied in connection with a place of public religious worship. In addition, village halls, parish or community halls and other similar buildings will be exempt from the fees for entertainment under the licensing regime.
Our intention mirrors current licensing law outside London where such premises are already exempt from the fee for an entertainment licence, although not from
470
the licensing regime itself. Inside Greater London a fee is payable. Our scheme therefore represents a considerable liberalisation within London.
However, we do not agree that it is necessary, or would be helpful, to set these arrangements out on the face of the Bill. It would weaken the flexibility to extend the fee exemption to other classes of premises if it became clear, in the light of experience of the new system, that that would be desirable.
I hope that those on Benches opposite accept that this is a firm undertaking to carry out the proposals in the amendment. We are now on record in the House and elsewhere that this is what we intend to do—and we shall do it. It is to be hoped that noble Lords agree that the Government's clear statement of intent ensures that small local entertainment, so vital to our communities, continues to thrive and develop as a result of this concession. On that basis, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. We are grateful for the concession that the Government have made with regard to these particular types of premises. I also thank noble Lords who supported the amendment. However, I take issue with the Minister at the suggestion that having this list clearly on the face of the Bill would limit the ability of the Government at a future date to extend the exemption. Having the list on the face of the Bill should not be considered exclusive. However, I am grateful that during today's debate, and in a letter to me, the Minister has confirmed that the Government are keen not to exempt, but to ascribe a nil fee to these categories of premises. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 [Inspection of premises before grant of licence etc.]:
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Clause 61 [The general conditions]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 35, line 28, at end insert—
"(7) Nothing in the following condition applies to a club which restricts membership to persons of one sex.
(8) Condition 6 is that the club does not practise sex discrimination (within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65) (sex discrimination against women)) in the arrangements made or operated as regards the rights of participation in the governance of the club."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked me to move this in his place. He has had to leave in order to fulfil another commitment. Amendment No. 126 stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 127 and 128, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Lester.
We have reached Part 4 of the Bill, which deals with clubs. In order to obtain a club premises certificate under this part, a club must be a qualifying club. Under Clause 60, if a club wishes to provide alcohol or

471
entertainment or both, it must satisfy each of the five conditions set out in Clause 61. If the club wishes to supply alcohol, whether or not it also provides entertainment, it must also meet the three additional conditions set out in Clause 63.
It might be helpful if I spoke first to Amendment No. 127, although that might take us out of numerical order. That amendment deals with a relatively straightforward point, which is distinct from the point raised in the other two. Amendment No. 127 would impose an additional condition along with the general conditions set out in Clause 61. It says:
"Condition 7 is that there is no finding by a court in proceedings under section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976 … that the club has done an act which is unlawful by virtue of section 25 … of that Act".
That condition would not apply in cases in which the finding was made before the clause came into force or more than three years before the application.
The Race Relations Act 1976 applies to clubs. If a club is found guilty of discrimination on grounds of race, legal proceedings can be started against it and sanctions can be applied. Amendment No. 127 would create an additional sanction, the effect of which would he that, for three years after there had been a finding against the club, the club would not be able to apply for a club premises certificate, as it would not be a qualifying club. That sanction should be applied. It would be a powerful sanction against racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is a serious evil, and banning such a club from applying for a club premises certificate for three years is a proportionate penalty for breaching the Race Relations Act.
Amendments Nos. 126 and 128 apply to the question of sex discrimination. The position is different because the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not apply to private members' clubs. As is well known, private clubs retain the right to be men-only or women-only clubs. However, there are clubs to which women are admitted as members but in which they are excluded from certain rights enjoyed by men who are members. We are particularly concerned with the right to participate in the management and governance of the club, and we feel strongly that such exclusion is a breach of the spirit of the Sex Discrimination Act.
The exemption of clubs under that Act was intended to protect a long-standing right—it may now be thought by many to be anachronistic, but it has a great deal of tradition behind it—to have clubs of which only men or only women could be members. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill is in a better position than, perhaps, anyone else now living to know about the Sex Discrimination Act, as he was involved in its creation. The intention of the Act was not to allow women to he admitted to membership of a club only as second-class members. We believe therefore that the appropriate step to take would be to say that a club which allows women to join, but then makes them second-class members because they are not allowed to take part on an equal basis in the governance of the club, should not be entitled to a club premises
472
certificate. In order to gain the certificate, the club must admit women on terms of full equality as regards its governance.
I understand that an amendment tabled in Committee would have gone still further by providing that a club premises certificate could be issued only in a case where women were equally entitled to participate in all the functions and benefits provided by the club. We have narrowed that down and are now bringing forward an amendment to apply only where women cannot take part on equal terms in the management of the club.
Amendment No. 126 adds a further condition to the general conditions set out in Clause 61 which would exclude the right of a club to be a qualifying club if it practised sex discrimination,
"in the arrangements made or operated as regards the right of participation in the governance of the club".
Part of the amendment also makes clear that that condition does not apply to single-sex clubs. However, whenever a club admits members of both sexes, then the condition as regards participation in the governance of the club must be satisfied.
Amendment No. 128 deals with Clause 63, which sets out the three conditions for those clubs wishing to sell alcohol. It requires that the purchase of alcohol must be managed by a committee whose members are,

"(a) members of the club;

(b) have attained the age of 18 years; and

(c) are elected by the members of the club".

It may well be that under the provision, women would be entitled to take part in the voting procedure, but it would be legitimate to say that although they might he able to vote for the committee because they were members, the club could validly have a rule that excluded women from membership of the committee which purchased the alcohol. We feel that that activity is also an important part of the governance of the club and therefore, for the avoidance of doubt—although it may well be implicit in Amendment No. 126—we believe that it should be spelt out as suggested in Amendment No. 128. Membership of the committee as well as the right to vote for members of the committee must be open to members of both sexes.
We believe the amendments to be important and useful. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, I have added my name to Amendment No. 126.
The three amendments take forward our debate in Committee on the issue of sex discrimination in clubs. At that stage I moved an amendment which sought to make unlawful discrimination in the provision of goods and services, access to facilities and participation in the governance of clubs.

473
The crucial piece of legislation which is to be repealed by this Bill is Schedule 7 to the Licensing Act 1964, which deals with the governance of such clubs. The schedule states that the affairs of private members' clubs,
"must be managed by one or more elective committees",
and that,
"There must … be a general meeting of the club at least once in every year",
at which the voting must be confined to members. The 1964 Act goes on to say,
"all members entitled to use the club premises must be entitled to vote, and must have equal voting rights".
However,
"the rules may exclude from voting … women if the club is primarily a men's club, and men if the club is primarily a women's club.
I think it fair to say that in Committee some confusion arose about whether the repeal of Schedule 7 to the 1964 Act left the situation better or worse than before. My concern was that repealing the schedule would make the situation worse because it would remove the modest protection for governance.
When my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham replied to the debate—I believe that I am paraphrasing what he said fairly accurately—he tended to agree and said that he would look further at the matter because it was not desirable, obviously, for the situation to be made worse. He was kind enough to offer a meeting with himself and his officials, which was held on 11th February. It was attended by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and myself. We had an interesting discussion on these matters and the officials promised to come back to us with further advice on how the Bill would affect the governance of clubs.
Noble Lords who attended that meeting received today, at lunch-time, a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in which he states that the primary escape clause is repealed. However, if I understand the letter correctly—I hope that my noble friend appreciates that I have not had long to study it—the Bill represents a modest step forward as all full and associate members, men and women, will be empowered to vote for the committee.
I hope that this means that committees elected as a result of these new governance arrangements will, if they wish, be able to eliminate discrimination in the provision of facilities and access to them. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will confirm that that is the case. If it is, and the situation is taken forward and improved as a result of the Bill, I would not encourage the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to press his amendments.
Tomorrow, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will introduce the Second Reading of his Equality Bill, which deals with this and many other equality issues. I am looking forward to taking part in that debate and to supporting him on that occasion as well.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, having recently returned from the dentist I have had even less
474
time to read the Minister's letter. I support entirely everything that has been said about all three amendments. It is absolutely crucial that the position is made clear. Unless the Minister can assure us that what he states in the letter is accurate and can be referred to should the need arise, we would wish to press the matter further. But, in the meantime, that is quite enough from me.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I feel slightly irresponsible in that what I am about to say is purely a jeu d'esprit. I declare an interest as a member of both the Beefsteak Club and Brooks's Club, which admit ladies as guests but not to membership.
In the 1930s, in the latter of those two clubs, Brooks's, a noble Duke—presumably, at that stage, a Member of this House—was dozing in an armchair when he became conscious that a man and a woman had entered the room. He waited for them to leave the room. When they did so, he pressed a button and a club servant arrived. The Duke said, "What was that?" The club servant said, "That, your Grace, was the club secretary and Her Majesty the Queen". "The thin end of the wedge", said the Duke, and shut his eyes.
I feel that somewhere in another place the shade of that noble Duke will be enjoying the fact that at least three-quarters of a century later we are still discussing these matters.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I cannot accept these amendments. It is not the business of the Bill to make judgments on the composition of clubs. I am probably old fashioned, but in general terms I believe that the purpose of clubs is to bring together like-minded souls. It is for the club to decide its own rules.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I should not be surprised if the focus is mostly on clubs in London. However, I got the impression that the clubs mainly affected by the proposal will be golf clubs. I abhor the game of golf—I find it boring and cannot play it. However, the amendment may be able to remove a perennial problem that arises in many golf clubs around the country, which I find anachronistic: namely, women not being allowed full voting rights. This issue should be moved forward and the Bill should address it. Many golf clubs rely heavily for their continuance on the income from bars. I raise the matter partly because I had a long and detailed argument with my brother-in-law about voting rights in golf clubs.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when, a few moments ago, I raised the matter of paragraph 10 of the draft guidance, the noble Baroness the Minister slapped me down, very nicely but very firmly, by pointing out that the conditions refer to licensing objectives. Surely, if that is the case as regards premises, it ought to apply to clubs. There is nothing in the objectives, so far as I can see, which covers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. It follows on from the very

475
full debate that we had on this subject in Committee. I have spoken on this issue on a number of occasions in this House. I do so with the support of Her Majesty's Opposition, as a matter of policy. We will not support any proposal that makes women second-class citizens.
Noble Lords have talked about being old-fashioned. They might feel differently were they to be put in the invidious position of being allowed only into certain parts of a premises. At a reception I attended recently I met a wonderful lady who explained to me how one day, as the first woman member of the board of British Rail, she was put in a very difficult position. A luncheon was held in a club that shall remain nameless, a club that invited women in as guests. The luncheon was held on the first floor. The other members of the board of British Rail walked up the stairs and she was in the awful position of having to go up the hack stairs. The other members of the board were rightly embarrassed by the situation. It had not even occurred to them how she might feel having to use the back stairs as though she were a second-class member. Having met her, I suspect that she was indeed first-class and ahead of her colleagues.
I need add little to what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. This is an extremely important area. I am sorry that I was unable to attend the meeting on 11th February when this matter was discussed fully and sensibly. I feel that I have been "meeting-ed out" lately and for some reason I could not be present. I regret that, because I may have been tempted to see whether I could put my name to, for example, Amendment No. 127. I want to show great sympathy for this important amendment. As explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it represents a powerful faction against racial discrimination. In that regard, I have a great deal of sympathy for the proposal, as I hope the Government will.
I hear what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale says about whether such a proposal is apparent in the licensing objectives. But I believe that in this House we are in a privileged position. When scrutinising legislation, we can look for any opportunity to try to put right matters which we passionately believe—in different ways; we have the wonderful right to differ—to be discriminatory and unfair and which compromise the quality of people's lives for no good reason. I have great sympathy in relation to Amendments Nos. 127 and 128. It is an extraordinary situation when a woman has the right to vote for a committee but no right to have membership of the committee. That happens in many cases still, and it cannot be right. I appeal to all noble Lords who have never been in the position of being discriminated against to imagine what it feels like to be compromised in that way.
6 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we had an extremely interesting debate in Committee on similar
476
amendments. My noble friend Lord Faulkner took the leading role in that debate. The debate has been interesting again today.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was present at the meeting to which noble Lords referred when we discussed these issues and after which he tabled the amendments. He has a great reputation for the work he has done in this area. I regret that he is not with us today, but the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did more than an ample job of stepping in for him, as noble Lords would expect. He presented the amendments with customary force.
I make the obvious point that the Government support the broad concept behind the amendments. We recognise exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, spoke about—the adverse effects of discrimination. She is not the only contributor to this debate who could have made that point with force. Only temporary ill health may have restrained the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, from speaking about the issues with force.
Discrimination on sexual grounds is not acceptable in our society, and we want it to be removed. There is another amendment dealing with the equally important issue of racial discrimination. The Government recognise that substantial work is being done in this Session of Parliament to address those issues. A Private Member's Bill is passing through the Commons with government support. My noble friend Lord Faulkner referred to the fact that tomorrow we will discuss another Private Member's Bill on equality. There is activity in Parliament to promote the principles of equality.
Our contention is that the Bill is not a suitable vehicle for advancing these issues, which need to be addressed more comprehensively. When they are addressed, the subsequent provisions will be valid for all institutions in the land. This Bill is concerned only with licensing; it has a restricted objective.
I was concerned in Committee by the contention that the Government, by repealing the Licensing Act 1964, were weakening the defences against discrimination. I am happy to take this occasion to reinforce what I conveyed in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to which noble Lords who attended the meeting have also had access. It is important that the whole House should be aware of the fact that we are not reducing the protection against sex discrimination in clubs by repealing Schedule 7 to the Licensing Act 1964. This important issue was raised in Committee when I expressed my concern about the need to address it. I am now able to assert that the Bill marginally strengthens the position rather than, as some who spoke in Committee feared, weakens it.
As we know, sex discrimination in club membership is currently not unlawful. In determining whether a club may be registered for the purposes of the 1964 Act, the magistrates, in cases where a club does not conform to the provisions in Schedule 7 to that Act, have a discretion to consider whether it is established and conducted in good faith. Schedule 7 as a consequence, gives no absolute protection with regard to the mandatory application of its provisions.

477
There is only one area in which magistrates have to apply the provisions of Schedule 7 and have no discretion, and that is in the area of elective committees of clubs. Even here, however, the provisions of Schedule 7 provided a derogation. Although Schedule 7 applies certain voting requirements for elective committees, to the effect that all members entitled to use the club must be entitled to vote for the committee, there is an important exception. Where the club is primarily a men's club, women may be excluded from voting. Where the club is primarily a women's club, men may be excluded from voting. That obviously undermines any value which Schedule 7 has in reducing sex discrimination. The Bill removes that anomaly in the mandatory area and therefore improves the position.
Clauses 61, 62 and 63 clearly improve the position. Under the Bill, where a club supplies alcohol, the committee which purchases the alcohol must be elected by the members of the club. The effect of the formulation in Clause 63(2)(c) is that all members of the club of any class of membership must vote for the committee. For these purposes, the reference to "member" would not include "associate members" as defined in Clause 66. They are members of another recognised club or a guest of such a person. Unlike Schedule 7 to the 1964 Act, this provision does not have any exceptions and can therefore truly be seen as a strengthening of the voting rights from the standpoint of the prevention of sex discrimination. I therefore feel that we have taken on board the representations made in Committee and have ensured that the Bill marginally improves the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also emphasised the significance of Amendment No. 127 on the issue of race discrimination. I believe that that stems from a concern that the Bill, when enacted, would override the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. However, it is already unlawful for an association, which would include a qualifying club, to discriminate on the grounds of race under Section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1976. That is a specific provision in law, and the rules of statutory interpretation mean that the provisions in the 1976 Act will not be overridden by the provisions of Part 4 of the Licensing Bill. Therefore, although I have listened to the noble Lord's comments on Amendment No. 127, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 127 also has the disadvantage of being somewhat disproportionate as it would impose the further condition, for a club to be a qualifying club, that it had not committed an unlawful act under Section 25 of the Race Relations Act in the three years prior to the application for a club premises certificate. I realise that the noble Lord regards that as a powerful sanction. However, the Government maintain that the provisions of the 1976 Act will apply in relevant cases to counter any abuse.
478
I have made it clear that the Government have every sympathy with the intention behind these amendments, but this issue is best tackled by means of sex discrimination legislation. As I have indicated, the race relations issue is covered by existing legislation.
The Bill improves on the current situation and will not remove any protection against discrimination on the basis of either sex or race afforded by existing legislation. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said. He will recognise that on this occasion, his was a minority voice. It is a voice that we hear on many occasions, the last time being in Committee. However, the Government stand four square with the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, identified in her concluding speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the provisions that would be affected by Amendment No. 128. If all the members of the club have voted for the committee, it would surely seem odd to then place a form of control on the way in which members of private members' clubs elected members of the committee. Surely there should be freedom of choice for the club, as long as we guarantee that all members have the right to elect the committee. Under this licensing measure, they have the right to apply for a licence.
I understand that there is no way in which I can satisfy all the representations made on these amendments. They stem from a position of real principle deeply felt by Members on both sides of the House, and I am dealing with a measure that is on the margins of these issues. I hope that I have given the assurance necessary that the Bill makes a marginal step in the right direction. In addition, we have other legislation on the stocks to which noble Lords will address themselves in due course.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, my noble friend's reply was very helpful, but will he assure me that a committee of a club that is classified as primarily a men-only club which, under the new rules, would have to change, will not be allowed to pass a series of regulations which disfranchise women members who are associates from taking part in future elections?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Bill does not prescribe how private clubs should operate. The committee applying for the licence must reflect the membership of the club because it will take responsibility respecting all the provisions of the Bill when it is enacted. Within that framework, women members of the club can participate.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I imagine that the Minister will not be surprised to hear that his response comes nowhere near satisfying me. I am very grateful, as, I am sure is my noble friend Lord Lester, for the general, though not universal, support that the amendments in the group have received.
The Minister says that Clauses 61, 62 and 63 marginally improve the position. I can only say that the improvement is so marginal as to be almost invisible. I can see no justification for saying that

479
although women are now entitled to vote for membership of what I call the alcohol committee under Clause 63(2), it is perfectly legitimate for the club to pass a rule that women cannot be elected as members of the alcohol committee. If the Government are prepared to legislate to give all members a right to vote for the alcohol committee, it is wholly appropriate and logical that they should take the further step of saying that any member, subject to an age restriction, must he eligible to be a member of that committee.
However, in the circumstances, I do not intend to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Clause 63 [The additional conditions for the supply of alcohol]:
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Clause 68 [Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 129 to 131 not moved]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 39, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) the local planning authority within the meaning given by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) for any area in which the premises are situated,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Other definitions relating to clubs]:
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
"(ab) the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of the club to a member of the club in person for consumption off the premises where the supply takes place, or"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as an active member of the Parliamentary All-Party Group for Non-Profit Making Members' Clubs. This is a straightforward amendment to correct an omission in the Bill.
If Clause 69 is passed in its present form, members' clubs, including organisations such as the CIU, the Conservative Association, the Labour and Socialist Clubs, the Liberal Democrat clubs, the British Legion and others, will be deprived of a service that they have enjoyed for over 40 years: the right for a club to sell to its own members in person alcohol to be consumed off the club's premises. That right is enshrined in Section 39(2) of the Licensing Act 1964, which the Bill will replace. It says:
"No intoxicating liquor shall, on any premises in respect of which a club is registered, be supplied by or on behalf of the club for consumption off the premises except to a member in person".
I have been a member of members' clubs for more than 50 years and I have never known any difficulties or problems in relation to the operation of that part of the 1964 Act. It is not a major contribution to any club's prosperity; it is simply a service to its members.
I suspect that the right of clubs to sell liquor to their own members in person—I stress that no one can walk off the streets and purchase liquor for consumption on or off the premises in a club of which they are not a member—was overlooked when the Bill was drafted. There is nothing in the draft guidelines referring to this strange omission. I trust that my noble friend will accept my amendment and restore to members' clubs the status quo that they have enjoyed for more than 40 years. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I emphasise that the Government recognise that there is much to be valued in this country's club movement and the role that private clubs play in our society. Of course, different considerations arise in relation to clubs, which are private premises to which public access is restricted. That is why they are treated differently and separately from pubs, bars and other licensed premises. It is why the supply of alcohol for consumption by members and guests on premises for which there is in a force a premises certificate is subject to a different regime, with lighter controls.
However, that applies only where clubs are run properly, where they do not pose a threat to the licensing objectives and where they do not seek, or encourage, trade from non-members. Safeguards are necessary here, as they are throughout the Bill, to prevent crime, disorder and public nuisance and to ensure public safety and the protection of children from harm. My noble friend, who has played a significant role with regard to working men's clubs, will confirm that the vast majority of such clubs present no problems in regard to the objectives I mentioned.
However, the amendment seeks to alter the definition of the supply of alcohol in relation to qualifying clubs. In doing so, it would affect all of Part 4, which sets out the new system for private member's clubs, and would broaden the scope of activities covered by the system of club premises certificates to allow for the supply of alcohol for consumption off the club premises.
Under the Bill, club premises certificates would not permit the supply of alcohol to members or guests for consumption off the premises—a premises licence would be needed for that.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the remark about guests. Guests have no right whatever to purchase alcohol in a club for consumption on, and definitely not, for consumption off the premises. The right of an individual member to purchase alcohol for consumption off the premises has existed for over

481
40 years, and exists today, and has never constituted an abuse at any time under any circumstances of which I am aware.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I stand corrected on the point with regard to guests and their ability to purchase alcohol. I shall not try to compete with my noble friend's knowledge with regard to the purchase of alcohol at private clubs. However, no one has asked us to change the position. Indeed, we have received representations from certain quarters that we may have been overly-protective of the club movement. We listened to those representations but concluded that the club tradition in this country is so important to the life of the country that it is worth preserving as it is. That is what we set out to do and I firmly believe that the Bill achieves that.
Requiring clubs to apply for a premises licence to supply alcohol for consumption off the premises would require the specification of a designated premises supervisor and ensure the presence within the club of at least one personal licence holder. As noble Lords will know, under the Bill, to qualify for a personal licence, individuals must be over 18, not have had their licence forfeit in the previous five years, have no relevant unspent convictions and possess a recognised qualification. That qualification would cover issues of social responsibility and all the offences relating to the sale or supply of alcohol.
The requirement for a premises licence is justified in relation to off supplies or sales on the grounds of promoting the licensing objectives as it would also ensure appropriate powers for the authorities to deal quickly and effectively with premises that have become a source of disorder, nuisance or crime.
My noble friend's amendment would substantially change the position. We seek to preserve the present position, recognising the value of clubs. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty of my noble friend in that he is not particularly au fait with the whole situation with regard to the club movement. I confess my dismay at his reply but, as I say, I understand his difficulty. Will my noble friend Lord Davies and my noble friend the Minister consider the matter further before Third Reading? I shall certainly consult the clubs association—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will allow me to intervene as the only opportunity I have to respond to that point is to intervene in his speech. I hope that he will forgive that rudeness on my part. I recognise that he presented the issue forcefully and contended that the provision
482
would cause serious harm to the club movement. I should be only too happy to discuss the matter further with him.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that remark. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 [Application for club premises certificate]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 41, line 4, leave out "Regulations may" and insert "The Secretary of State must by regulations"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Determination of application for club premises certificate]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley): My Lords, if Amendment No. 137 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment No. 138.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 41, line 26, leave out from "application" to end of line 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as we made clear in Committee, the Government recognise that different considerations arise in relation to clubs, which are private premises to which public access is restricted. That is why they are treated separately from pubs, bars and other licensed premises. I made that point when responding to my noble friend's amendment a few moments ago. It is why the supply of alcohol for consumption by members and guests on premises for which there is in force a club premises certificate are subject to a different regime with lighter controls.
In drafting the Bill, where appropriate, provisions have been applied to both premises with a premises licence and those with a club premises certificate. Clause 72 seeks to apply what is a mandatory condition for premises licences—that, where the condition is attached to a licence that door supervisors are required, the licence must include a condition that those supervisors are registered with the Security Industry Authority—to club premises certificates also.
As a result of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, as consequentially amended, that mandatory condition does not apply to premises used exclusively by clubs with a club premises certificate. That means that Clause 72 is disapplied in relation to the very premises to which it actually applies. It is therefore unnecessary, and Amendment No. 145 seeks to remove it. Amendments Nos. 138, 143, 155, 161, 280 and 281 are consequential, removing references to Clause 72. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe:Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 139 to 142 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 41, line 40, leave out from "objectives" to end of line 42.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
Clause 72 [Mandatory conditions.' door supervision]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 145:
Leave out Clause 72.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Grant or rejection of application fir club premises certificate]:
[Amendments Nos. 146 to 149 not moved.]
Clause 82 [Application to vary club premises certificate]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 46, line 23, leave out "power to make regulations under" and insert "duty to make regulations imposed on the Secretary of State by"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Determination of application under section 82]:
[Amendments Nos. 151 to 154 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 47, line 17, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Supplementary provision about applications under section 82]:
[Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 not moved.]
Clause 85 [Application for review of club premises certificate]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 48, line 19, leave out "Regulations under this section may" and insert "The Secretary of State must by regulations under this section"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Determination of application for review]:
[Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 49, line 32, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Fees]:
[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]
Clause 98 [Temporary event notice]:
Lord Clarke of Hampstead Lord Clarke of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 163A:
Page 55, line 40, leave out "ten" and insert "twenty-eight"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 166, which proposes a new clause to Clause 102, to Amendments Nos. 170, 174, 176 and 178 in Clause 103 and to Amendments Nos. 179, 182 and 184 to 186 in Clause 104. Most of those amendments, noble Lords will be pleased to know, are consequential.
This group of amendments deals with extending the notice period and the grounds for objection to cover all the licensing objectives, and to make provision for the fire and licensing authorities to object to an application if they believe that that is necessary. The House heard many of the arguments in favour of the amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. While I do not want to delay our proceedings unnecessarily, it is right that comments should be made on the replies given in Committee by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We considered proposals to, among other things, extend the notice period that must be given to local authorities from 10 to 28 days; allow local authorities and fire authorities—not simply the police authority—to object; extend the "notice to object" period for police, fire and local authorities from 10 to 28 working days; and give powers to the relevant authorities to object on the grounds of all of the licensing objectives and not simply the crime prevention objective. I hope that the Government will reconsider their objections to the amendments.
I recognise and support the Government's plans to simplify the temporary events application procedure. In answer to the inquiry posed by my noble friend Lord McIntosh in Committee—he was explaining, why the relevant authorities need more than 10 days' notice—I say to him and the House that it is recognised that in the vast majority of cases, applications for temporary events, such as church fetes, will be uncontroversial. However, there will be a minority of cases, such as an application for music festivals and other events involving, for example, marquees, where local authorities will have a duty to investigate the application and undertake noise and safety checks.
In addition, there will be some cases, such as a proposed event being put on by a major club promoter that is likely to attract more than 500 people, when local consultation will need to happen. Ten working days will not be enough time in which to send out letters to residents and receive responses. Twenty-eight days is the current notification period, and it is a reasonable notice period for any event, whether a pop festival or a church fete. Organisations putting on events usually advertise those events well in advance to attract people to the event. It is clear that the Government recognise the importance of having a reasonable notice period.
In the draft guidance relating to Clause 177, temporary event notice 9.9 states:
"Ten working days is the minimum possible notice that may be given. Licensing authorities should publicise locally their preferences in terms of proper notice and encourage notice givers to provide the earliest possible notice of events likely to take place".
If the Government acknowledge that a longer notice period of 10 days should be given, why can it not be included in the Bill? A better solution would be to formalise the process and increase the notice period in the Bill. In that way regional variations of notice will be avoided.
I turn to the amendments that deal with extending the grounds to object to cover the licensing objectives and allow the fire and licensing authorities to make

485
objections. I again refer to the points made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who said in Committee that allowing fire and licensing authorities to object on the grounds of all the licensing objectives would make life difficult for applicants. He also said that it would require them to "jump through hoops".
It is my firm belief that allowing licensing and fire authorities to object will affect only a small number of applications. I refer, for example, to music events and other events where authorities have legitimate grounds for believing they will attract more than 500 people, the permitted limit for temporary events. It is inconceivable that local authorities will want to object to school fetes or Women's Institute coffee mornings; they would have no reasonable grounds, time or resources to do so. Increasing the number of objectors who can be considered is necessary to ensure consistency and uniformity through the Bill. That will simplify the application process.
The legislation as it stands requires a potential event organiser to apply to the local authority for an occasional licence. The local authority then surveys the venue and takes into account the size of the venue, the type of entertainment and any special effects, and so on. It assesses the suitability of the premises, sets an accommodation limit and ensures that noise nuisance is minimised.
Under the proposed new system of temporary event notices, local authorities would not be able to object. Therefore, it is possible that applications will be received for venues which are not suitable for public entertainment, regardless of the numbers attending. The police are not qualified to assess the suitability of premises or to calculate capacity. Under the new system, therefore, the possibility of the use of unsafe venues for one-off events is greatly increased.
Without the wider objectives being taken into account, there will be instances when safety and noise legislation cannot be brought to bear. For example, an event put on by volunteers is not subject to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as no one is at work. It is obvious that the legislation would not apply in those circumstances. That means it will not be possible to protect public safety at such events. That cannot be right.
Considerable noise nuisance can be caused by such events and it will be difficult for local authorities to take action once the event is under way. An organisation cannot be said to be asked to "jump through hoops" if it is simply asked to indicate how it will comply with the law.
Section 9.10 of the draft guidance, which deals with temporary event notices, states:
"Licensing authorities may not seek to attach any terms, limitations or restrictions on such events other than those set down in the legislation. It is however desirable for licensing authorities to provide local advice about proper respect for the concerns of local residents; of other legislative requirements regarding heath and safety; noise pollution or the building of temporary structures".
486
Providing local advice about public safety and public nuisance is good practice. However, there seems little point in doing so if local authorities are then unable to assess the premises to ensure that the measures taken by the organisers to address public safety and noise pollution are sufficient and, if the measures taken are not sufficient, to have the right to object to the temporary event taking place. As I said, current safety legislation cannot deal with these matters.
In conclusion, we are all aware that police resources are stretched in most areas of the country and therefore the police will not always be able to respond to public safety or public nuisance call-outs on the day of the event. It is much better to consider these objectives at the time of application for the temporary event.
A further consideration is the tragedy of the fire at Rhode Island last Thursday night. That occurred as a result of the unauthorised use of pyrotechnics. Under the current system of occasional licences, local authorities would pick that up and control the use of pyrotechnics through conditions. Under the proposed system, local authorities would not be able to object to the event, even if they knew that pyrotechnics were to be used by an inexperienced person in an unsuitable building. It is worth noting that the licensed capacity of the venue was 300. That event, which resulted in tragedy, would not have needed a premises licence under this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, my name appears in this group in that I have tabled Amendments Nos. 164 and 173. From the wording of Amendment No. 174 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, it will be apparent that essentially we are barking up the same tree. It was a tree that we visited in Committee.
When I withdrew certain amendments to this same effect in Committee, I expressed concern that we might find ourselves ruing a great tragedy at one such event because we did not have tighter regulation. I gave the Minister the benefit of the doubt on that occasion. He was eloquent in expressing his desire to secure deregulation, but I continue to have the concerns reflected by the noble Lord. Lord Clarke. Therefore, I am happy to support him.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we also support these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, anyone who sat through Second Reading—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is saying that he did not—would be somewhat surprised by the amendments. The whole thrust of criticism was that under the guise of deregulation the Bill in fact imposed new regulations. A number of examples were given of bodies which in the past had not been regulated. There were of course extreme examples, such as bell ringers, carol singers and so on. Specific examples used were those of village fetes and garden parties. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was particularly eloquent in that area.

487
The Government's answer was that instead of the full premises licensing procedure we have temporary events notices. We explained that temporary events notices were available only for a maximum of five occasions in any one premises during the year, or for a maximum of 12 applications from any one person; that the events could not continue for more than three days, so that they could last for a weekend but for no longer; and that there was a maximum number of persons who could attend such a temporary event. We explained that the temporary event notice procedure was as simple and unbureaucratic as possible in order to meet the concerns of the large number of speakers at Second Reading who thought that the Bill was regulatory rather than deregulatory.
Now we have amendments that would bring the temporary notice procedure into a premises licensing procedure. Amendment No. 163A would extend the period of notice required and all the amendments would extend the number of people needing to be consulted and the basis on which objections could be raised. I do not say that this is the full premises licensing procedure, but it is different from the deregulatory procedures we set out in the Bill.
Amendment No. 163A is slightly different from the other amendments. It proposes that the period of notice should be extended to 28 days. I was never sure in which parts of my noble friend Lord Clarke's speech he was quoting me or when he was speaking for himself. He did not change his tone of voice when he was quoting me. So I am not sure which pearls of wisdom were from him and which came from me.
We made it clear that 10 days is the minimum period of notice. We would encourage people to give more notice. A large number of temporary events are known about in advance and there is no reason why notice should not be given in advance. However, there are occasions when a voluntary or charitable group might want to make arrangements at the last minute and 10 days has been agreed with the police as being a reasonable minimum period in order for them to look at an application from the point of view of crime prevention. Therefore, we are unwilling to increase the burden on charitable and voluntary groups and those putting together temporary event notices and extend the period.
I think that I inadvertently gave a wrong figure. I said that an individual could give 12 notices in a year. An individual can give five notices a year if he is not a personal licence holder. A personal licence holder can give 50 notices.
I turn to the other amendments in the group.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for giving way. I wondered about his figure of 12 instead of 50. He may recall that in Committee we had a short dialogue as to how a record would be kept in relation to the figure of 50 during which he was not relieved with a note from those in the Box. He very kindly said that if he received an answer at a later stage he would write to me. I am
488
not in any way remonstrating with him over the subsequent silence, but since the point about the figure of 50 has arisen, I remind him of that exchange.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is entitled to remonstrate with me and he will receive a letter; I am sorry that he has not yet received one.
I turn to the other amendments in the group. Clauses 102, 103 and 104 set out the arrangements for giving temporary event notices to allow a licensable activity to be a permitted temporary activity carried on without a premises licence, or a personal licence holder, where alcohol is sold, following a simple notification to the licensing authority, acknowledgement from the licensing authority and compliance with the requirement to copy the event notice to the police. The premises user must also give a copy to the chief officer of police, who is the only authority with the power to object, if he is satisfied that allowing the premises to be used for the temporary event would undermine the crime prevention objective.
The amendments have several effects that would only make life difficult for the large number of individuals who may be running ad hoc events for charities, hospitals or voluntary organisations—in other words, amateurs, not the licensed trade. They would bring into play all the licensing objectives when deciding whether to issue an event notice, not just the crime prevention objective. They would allow the fire and licensing authorities to issue objection notices. In later amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, wants us to go further than that. They would allow a licensing authority to issue counter-notices following consideration of all the licensing objectives—not just the crime prevention objective.
Garden fetes, charitable fund-raisers and dances in local village halls should not be subjected to the additional hoops that many of the amendments would require. There is no need to expand the number of bodies needed to scrutinise them. As long as the police are satisfied with the proposals for the event and it meets the appropriate conditions—the permitted limit on numbers—there is no reason to impose any additional bureaucracy. If we were to accept the amendments, we should be giving the lie to many of the assurances that we have given on other aspects of the Bill. The system, and the Bill, allows those who do not ordinarily engage in such activities—amateurs, as I said—to carry on licensable activities on a temporary, strictly limited basis without having to fulfil the more rigorous requirements of a premises licence. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, but I express my surprise that he is surprised by the amendments. I should have thought that, given his long experience of local government and the time that he has spent in the House, he would not be surprised at anyone, on issues

489
of public safety, trying hard to get a provision added to the Bill if he considers the Bill inadequate. I apologise to my noble friend for my tone of voice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not criticising my noble friend.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: Well, my Lords, I had the impression that my noble friend was. He referred again in his reply to the point that I cited—he said that people would have to jump through hoops. The Minister said so again this evening. I was referring to that. In Committee, I thought that that was overdoing it a bit.
My noble friend refers to five cases a year. One tragedy in five years would be one tragedy too many. Police are professional in their job; so is the fire service. There is a role for both to play.
It is impossible for me to press my amendment, but I hope that even at this stage, the Government will consider that people's safety must be paramount at all times. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 [Objection to notice by the police]:
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 57, line 24, leave out "48" and insert "96"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I heard the rumble from the Minister about my producing even more strenuous amendments than those that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and I tabled in Committee, to which he responded. As the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, moved the original amendment, he spoke after the Minister.
The Minister, in caricaturing what we were about, mildly misrepresented our position by emphasising a certain kind of event. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, moved amendments on the subject of garden parties and fetes, which the Minister used to characterise those events.
The Civic Trust's view was that events such as raves and small pop concerts were treated within the same purview. Local residents' concern about such events is necessarily much more vivid and occasioned the anxiety that prompted these amendments. Amendment No. 165 would provide the police with a longer period to object to temporary event notices. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, most of the arguments are as they were on the previous group of amendments. This is a system with a light touch. It provides only that a person giving notice to the licensing authority must give a copy of it to the police, and that that must be done at least 10 working days before the day on which the event period starts. We provide that the chief officer has 48 hours to give an objection notice. The noble Lord's amendment would provide 96 hours—four days—in which to respond. I
490
have no objection to the police having longer to respond, but that would leave less time for the local authority to hold a hearing, unless we extended the temporary notice period beyond 12 days. I have given my reasons for opposing that. It would be re-regulatory and contrary to the thrust of the temporary events notice procedures.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, when I have addressed noble Lords on the Bill I have been more preoccupied about inner cities than rural areas. But it would surprise me if the issue did not arise in another place, where there may be greater rural representation. For the time being, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 167:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause—
"OBJECTION TO NOTICE BY INTERESTED PARTIES, ETC
(1) Where an interested party or responsible authority wish to object to a temporary event notice, they may give a notice ("an interested party notice") which must state the reasons why they object and be given to—

(a) the relevant licensing authority, and

(b) the premises user.

(2) The interested party notice must be given no later than 14 days after the temporary event notice was given."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak initially to Amendment No. 167 but also to Amendments Nos. 168, 169, 171, 172, 175, 177, 180, 181 and 183. I shall make an additional comment at the end on Amendments Nos. 246 and 247. I move these human rights amendments on Report because we did not deal with them at length in Committee.
On Amendment No. 167, the convention requires that those whose rights are affected by a decision of a licensing authority should be heard in connection with such a decision. Temporary events in the Bill are likely to engage rights of individuals and non-governmental organisations by virtue of Article 2, which relates to positive obligations on local authorities to take measures to protect safety; Article 8 on nuisance; Article 14 on non-discrimination, and Article 1 of Protocol 1. The amendment ensures that such affected parties have rights to make representations.
From the tenor of the Minister's response to the previous two groups of amendments, I am conscious that he would regard these as diminishing the climate with which the Government wish to surround such events. The other amendments in the group as far as Amendment No. 177 are consequential on the amendment introduced after Clause 102.
The amendment also brings the full scope of the convention into the decision by placing an obligation on the licensing authority to have regard to licensing objectives which, if the amendment to Clause 4 were accepted—it was not—will include the protection of human rights.
Finally, the provisions in Amendments Nos. 246 and 247 allow interested parties to appeal against decisions to grant permissions for temporary events. I suspect that in Committee in another place Members will return to some of the implications of the proposal. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nearly all the arguments which I need to deploy, I deployed in respect of the previous amendments. This is a light-touch regime and is designed to meet the legitimate concerns of those who thought that things which are not now regulated should not be brought into the premises licence and person licence regime. I think they are right.
The system of permitted temporary activities is designed to be easy and simple, reflecting the temporary nature of the event, the use of the premises for a temporary period and the range of organisations and individuals who might make use of them. These amendments would make that more difficult. It seems to us that provided that the police are satisfied with the proposals for the event, and it meets the appropriate conditions in terms of permitted limits, numbers of persons and events, there should be no reason to impose any additional bureaucracy.
As these are by definition temporary events, there is no need to provide for objections by interested parties. I used the example of the school playing field opposite my house in London. Not more than five times a year, the former pupils of the school have a very loud party on a Saturday night which goes on until 4 a.m. As it is a wooden building, the recorded noise is very loud and unpleasant. But I do not want to set up a regime under which I can object to an activity which is legitimate and enjoyable for them just because it is inconvenient for me a few times a year. If there were to be a major nuisance, it would come to the attention of the police and they would have an opportunity to object. But to extend the process of objections to interested parties, as the amendment would, is over the top.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is not my responsibility that the amendments were grouped in this way and that the Minister was obliged to give the same answer three times in response to three groups of amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and I had cause to table.
However, perhaps because fatigue is setting in late in the day, and the Minister has had to give the answer three times, I thought I heard him say in the final part of his last answer that the police would object if they thought there was something to object to. He implied that that would be the level of nuisance and noise. I understand that the only ground on which the police can object is that of crime prevention. Anything else does not fall within their purview. The Minister is anxious to ensure that I have understood correctly, so I will give way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is right
492
and that that was what I meant. If there were any risk of crime—a matter to which I would want to object, too—the police would know about it.
I am now in the fortunate position of the bellman in The Hunting of the Snark. By dint of having three groups of amendments, what I tell you three times is true.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords. I am appreciative of the Minister having borrowed a phrase which I used the other day. Imitation is an extremely sincere form of flattery and I give the Minister a guarantee—as indeed I would have given to the bellman—that I was perfectly prepared to believe him the first time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Clause 103 [Counter notice following police objection]:
[Amendments Nos. 168 to 178 not moved.]
Clause 104 [Modification of notice following police objection]:
[Amendments Nos. 179 to 186 not moved.]
Clause 105 [Counter notice where permitted limits exceeded]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 59, line 33, at end insert", and
(c) are not in respect of a village hall"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 105 contains restrictions on the number of events that can be held by any one person or in respect of any one premises. If the person holding the event has a personal licence, he or she can hold 50 events in a year. If the person holding the event does not hold a personal licence, the number of events is restricted to five a year. In the case of a particular premises, there is a similar restriction to five events a year. The restriction on premises will create problems with village halls.
We can live with the first two restrictions. If anything, the first restriction is generous. It is difficult to envisage someone holding a personal licence and wanting to hold an event every week without having any premises on which to hold the event regularly. The second restriction is slightly more difficult. It restricts people without a personal licence to only five events. Institutions such as the Women's Institute can probably get around it by having different members hosting events throughout the year. The same cannot be said of the last restriction as regards village halls.
Village halls serve the community in various ways. In a typical small village in rural England, the Women's Institute, the Mothers' Union, the village horticultural society, the church, the scouts, the football and cricket teams and the village hall committee will hold many events in the course of a year in the village hall. Members of the public will often be invited to those events, and, often, alcohol will be sold. There will be no bar, and the alcohol will usually be a

493
glass of red or white wine obtained with a ticket, with additional glasses thereafter being sold at a pound each. Outsiders may use the hall in a village. Again, alcohol may be served at such events, and the public might be invited.
In most villages, the village hall is the central point for the community. We have made that point all through the debate on the Bill. It is unacceptable for there to be a limit of only five events a year at which alcohol may be sold. When I raised the point in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, accepted that village halls were a different matter but said:
"They already require both licences to sell alcohol and public entertainment allowances".—[Official Report, 16/1/03; col. 3861
That may be correct for village halls in larger villages where there is a bar and regular entertainment of one sort or another. However, it is not the case in smaller villages where there is no bar and whoever puts on the event provides the wine or whatever is drunk that evening. The organiser will apply for a temporary licence, which is what happens in villages throughout the countryside.
If the Bill is enacted in its present form, no more than five events at which alcohol is sold will be allowed. By the end of February, there will be no more events in the village hall, which will lose a substantial part of its income for the rest of the year and become unviable. I spoke about that at Second Reading with regard to my village of Goring-on-Thames. There are events every night in our village hall. We have no bar, but we have a strong community that holds itself together well through local events put on by volunteers taking up their time to get involved.
It is no use the Government suggesting that the village hall committee should apply for a premises licence. Everyone serving on a village hall committee in a small village will be a volunteer. They will have neither the time nor, necessarily, the expertise to apply for a premises licence. Village hall funds are already modest. The cost of preparing the application for a premises licence and the fees would consume a significant part of their income. As the Bill is currently drafted, village halls will have to stick to five events a year and that would be an absolute disaster. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, the noble Baroness's description of her village hall sounds as though it could apply to our village. Her amendment is eminently sensible.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already been cited as the bellman and now I am in the role of Dr Doolittle with a pushmi-pullyu. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lord Clarke want to make the rules for temporary events tougher, while the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, wants them to be relaxed.
I love the idyllic picture both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have painted of village halls. However, I noted with interest that the noble
494
Baroness's earlier amendment on village halls included in the list of venues community halls. Those are much more my experience. I represented Tottenham on the Greater London Council. That constituency contained a notorious council estate which was at the centre of serious riots during the 1980s. The estate had a community centre. Ultimately that centre was run by a relatively small clique of people who excluded many of those who wanted to come in. The hall had a premises licence and a bar, which to an extent was the basis of the hall. That centre was as far removed from the idyllic picture of the village hall painted this evening and throughout the passage of the Bill as anything that you could imagine. Today the centre is totally different. Everything has been cleaned up and the entire estate is a model of community action.
However, how can we distinguish in legislation between these types of premises? I suggest that it would be extremely difficult to do so and that the exemption now being sought would in fact make it difficult to put in place adequate control over the kind of community hall that I have just described. The amendment would allow an unlimited number of temporary events involving licensable activities to take place in village halls. In effect that would allow widespread circumvention of the licensing laws. Furthermore, it would undermine the balance we have sought to achieve between a light-touch regime and the protection of local residents.
I had thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would oppose the amendment. It would have been logical and consistent for him to do so. We could be in danger of ending up with a system where alcohol could be sold from, or entertainment put on in, village halls all year round without the need of a licence and thus with no opportunity for local residents to object.
I understand the anxieties on both sides of the argument, but surely we ought not to be moving in this direction.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am deeply disappointed with the Minister's response. Already I am drafting an amendment to table at Third Reading. Perhaps I should extend it to apply to community halls that have no bar.
Quite on purpose we limited the amendment to cover only village halls because we are talking about what are essentially small village halls where there is no bar and people bring in any alcohol that is to be drunk that evening. It does sound idyllic, but I am proud to say that it is also real. That kind of activity and way of life, in spite of all the bullying and bureaucracy from central government, continues unabated at the local level. We should celebrate and encourage it for the years to come by ensuring that, in a Bill of this kind, we do not make life more difficult for local people working voluntarily and trying to do whatever they can to keep local communities together.
I hear what the Minister says. I do not accept it. I shall seriously consider bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading which includes

495
community halls, if that is realistic. But, for the moment, with some sadness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106 [Right of entry where temporary event notice given]:
[Amendments Nos. 188 to 191 not moved.]
Clause 110 [The relevant licensing authority]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 192:
496
Page 62, line 21, leave out from first "the" to end and insert "Central Licensing Authority"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: 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 eleven minutes past seven o'clock.

  Queen's Counsel
  Queen's Counsel
  Crown Prosecution Service: Decision-making
  Crown Prosecution Service: Decision-making
  Certificates of Identity
  Certificates of Identity
  Prison Service Pay Review Body Report
  Prison Service Pay Review Body Report
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Criminal Records Bureau
  London Underground: Public/Private Partnership
  London Underground: Public/Private Partnership
  Airports: Consultation Documents
  Airports: Consultation Documents
  Sir William Stubbs: Payment
  Sir William Stubbs: Payment
  learndirect
  learndirect
  Wahhabi Teaching in the UK
  Wahhabi Teaching in the UK
  NHS Laboratories: Bulk Procurement
  NHS Laboratories: Bulk Procurement
  Antenatal Care
  Antenatal Care
  Foetal Alcohol Syndrome
  Foetal Alcohol Syndrome
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Coal-mining
  Coal-mining
  Telephone Boxes in Rural Areas
  Telephone Boxes in Rural Areas
  Olympic Games
  Olympic Games
  National Scrapie Plan
  National Scrapie Plan
  Pest Control: Use of Dogs
  Pest Control: Use of Dogs
  Beef Special Premium Scheme
  Beef Special Premium Scheme
  Cattle Movements
  Cattle Movements
  Assured Chicken Production Scheme
  Assured Chicken Production Scheme
  Zootechnical Feed Additives: Ionophores
  Zootechnical Feed Additives: Ionophores
  Drift Net Fishing
  Drift Net Fishing