Sitting of 28 February 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
  The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No.3 (Deputy Speaker), SYLVIA HEAL, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS,proceeded to the table.
Orders of the Day

  Fireworks Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.33 am
  Mr. Bill Tynan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before I outline the main problems with fireworks and how the Bill would respond to them, I pay tribute to those who have tried to respond to public concerns over the past decade and change the way in which we deal with fireworks. The last successful private Member's Bill on fireworks was in the 1963–64 Session, so I approach this Bill with trepidation. The fireworks debate has obviously moved on at a considerable pace since then. In response to public concern, a statutory instrument was laid before the House in 1997 under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, but the Act's narrow scope limits what we can deliver on changes to fireworks legislation. The Bill would provide the opportunity for regulation to be laid before the House.
  The fireworks issue has become more important for the general public over the past few years. Many hon. Members have responded in different ways and many of them wanted to sponsor the Bill. I am grateful for the cross-party sponsors and apologise to those who were unable to add their names to the list because of the limited number of Members who can sponsor a Bill. The number of hon. Members in the Chamber demonstrates the public interest in the Bill and the concerns that our constituents have expressed over many years. I have received hundreds of e-mails and letters. Yesterday, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association successfully lobbied and spoke to many hon. Members.
  Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tynan: When I have made some progress.
  476
  There is wide interest in the issue in the UK. Some 300,000 signatures have been delivered to No. 10 over the past six months, and four petitions on fireworks were presented this week. When I decided to pursue a Bill on fireworks, I had the benefit of the experience of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), which, unfortunately, failed. She was lucky, however, in that there was no discussion on Second Reading and only one hour was spent on it in Committee. It was only when it was in the House of Lords that concern was expressed about its width and scope. The Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform concluded that it did not "inappropriately delegate legislative power". Having examined that Bill and discussed the way forward, I felt that we needed to be as inclusive as possible.
  I met various organisations, including the fireworks task group of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I corresponded with and consulted other groups that had expressed tremendous support, such as the TUC, the British Medical Association, the National Farmers Union, the Windermere campaign for fireworks control, the main groups representing trading standards officers and the national campaign for fireworks safety. If I have inadvertently left out an organisation or individual, it is because the consultation was so wide-ranging. Many groups in a large number of local authorities also offered their support. Yesterday, we were lobbied by people from Salford, who said that they support the Bill. I must also thank the all-party parliamentary group on fireworks for its guidance, help and support over the past few months.
  Starting from day one, I announced my intention that my Fireworks Bill would be as consensual as possible. I met representatives of the British Fireworks Association, the British Pyrotechnists Association and the explosives industry group of the CBI to discuss issues, exchange information and learn about the industry to reach, if possible, a consensus on the Bill's content. The assistance, support and advice from everyone has been extremely gratifying. I listened intently on the last Friday that a private Member's Bill was discussed and heard the clear message that such Bills should be simple and brief. This Bill is neither simple nor brief, but hon. Members and the general public demand it.
  The COSLA fireworks task group published an excellent report last October. It is the most comprehensive report on fireworks in the past 25 years. I pay tribute to how well informed, wide-ranging and meaningful the recommendations are that emanated from six months of consultation and inquiry, involving all interested parties. I am proud to base many of my proposals and my speech on the evidence collected by the task group and the suggestions that it made.
  The COSLA fireworks task group was established in 2001. Many local authorities throughout Scotland received unprecedented complaints about fireworks that

  477
  covered a diverse range of issues, from general antisocial behaviour to cruelty, abuse of animals and, most commonly, noise.
  Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman now give way?
  Mr. Tynan: I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
  Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks about the general nuisance caused by fireworks, and he is absolutely correct. He mentioned guide dogs for the blind. Is he aware of the permanent trauma that fireworks inflict on them, which costs between £150,000 and £200,000 a year of public money donated to the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association? More to the point, that means that some six blind people—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Tynan: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come on to the problems caused to guide dogs.
  Many people have complained to councils that fireworks are getting louder and more intimidating, and that their use is becoming increasingly antisocial. The remit of the task group was to identify the changes needed to the legislative framework governing the sale and use of fireworks, to consider and to recommend the means by which the changes could be secured, and to consider recommendations through which public concerns could be addressed. It began by examining the current legislative position on storage of fireworks, their sale and supply, and their use and abuse—issues on which I shall expand later. It considered noise issues, the legal definition of fireworks, the different categories under British standard 7114—including indoor, garden, display and professional—and the injury statistics associated with firework misuse.
  The task group examined the case for change from a number of viewpoints. All 22 Scottish local authorities that responded favour tighter controls; indeed, six favoured an outright consumer ban. The Association of Chief Police Officers was of the opinion that fireworks misuse has escalated significantly, resulting in its becoming a serious community problem that causes considerable annoyance to the general public and affects the quality of life in local communities. The Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association expressed concern about the increasing misuse of fireworks, and about the need to strengthen the current system; indeed, it has offered its support for this Bill. The society of chief officers of trading standards voiced particular concerns about the problems of storage and supply. The SSPCA reported that 90 per cent. of vets who responded to its survey had treated animals for injuries resulting from the misuse of fireworks.
  Public opinion submissions from community groups and voluntary organisations demonstrated the serious nature of many of the incidents, including arson, physical attack and the abuse of the most vulnerable. The task group also met many of the industry
  478
  representatives whom I have met, such as Martin Guest of Black Cat Fireworks, who was particularly concerned about the illegal importing of fireworks.
  The task group then looked at the current legislative framework and the Explosives Act 1875 in particular. The storage of fireworks is covered by that Act, which, with input from the explosives industry group, is being reviewed by the Health and Safety Executive. It will consider the storage of larger quantities under the terms of the manufacturing storage explosives regulation. A report is due in 2004. As I shall explain, storage of quantities of less than 1 tonne of fireworks is currently inadequate, so this is a sensible moment to introduce the Bill, and to work alongside the changes planned under the manufacturing storage explosives regulation. The report looked at the voluntary code, and it is just that: a voluntary agreement between the Department of Trade and Industry and the fireworks industry on how certain fireworks are sold. The agreement reached in the autumn on a ban on air bombs is to be welcomed, but it is just not working. In addition to differences of interpretation about the sales period, it is not possible to enforce the code. Indeed, the main industry groups have been advised that attempting to enforce the code on their members and on those who supply could be interpreted as uncompetitive conduct by the Office of Fair Trading.
  Soon after the air bomb ban was unveiled, internet messages from firework forums noted that the agreement was only voluntary, and that a business opportunity had therefore been created for the irresponsible. In the light of this, and having considered all the options, the COSLA report came down firmly in favour of the need for new firework regulations.
  Having touched on some of the problems relating to fireworks, I should like to discuss some of them at greater length. The first problem is licensing and storage. For a payment of some £13, an annual licence to permit storage of quantities of fireworks suitable for sale can be obtained. Local authorities or fire authorities in metropolitan areas cannot refuse to grant a licence, and have no powers to revoke one. Although selling illegal fireworks, selling fireworks to minors, or engaging in improper storage or sales practices may be offences in themselves, they cannot lead to a licence being revoked.
  The second problem is noise and nuisance. There is a general perception that fireworks are getting louder, and that they are now being used year-round and later at night. Fireworks have become a part of weddings and birthdays, and I have even seen them advertised for Valentine's day. I did not buy any, by the way. A European standard of 120 dB has been proposed, and is being considered. The recent report from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, entitled "Quiet Please", has argued for lower noise levels.
  In discussing this issue, I am conscious of the need to consult all interested parties, which I hope might lead to agreement on appropriate noise levels for fireworks. There is also increasing concern about the use of fireworks by those engaged in the wider problem of antisocial behaviour. The use of fireworks to destroy bins and post boxes, and in attacks on cars, has been reported in my constituency.

  479
  The third problem is injuries to humans and to animals. Statistics show that the 1997 regulations and the emergency regulations that preceded them arrested the steady increase in firework injuries, but in the past five years the figures have been increasing rapidly. It should of course be noted that the figures apply only to the four-week period around 5 November, and as such the injuries caused by increased, year-round use—including the death that occurred in 2001–02 new-year period—are not included.
  There has been increasing focus on the injuries caused to animals. Animal charities have reported deliberate attacks on domestic and farm animals.
  Mr. David Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in the private Member's Bill ballot, and on introducing such a worthwhile Bill, which most people in the UK will undoubtedly want to see on the statute book as soon as possible. Will he clarify whether it will give the police and the courts the power to deal with unscrupulous shopkeepers who indiscriminately sell fireworks to young people for a profit, in the knowledge that they will cause misery to many people and animals, and to society as a whole?
  Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. If he will allow me to continue, my speech will respond adequately to his question.
  Linda Perham: The London training centre for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is in my constituency. As my hon. Friend said, that organisation is very concerned about the waste of expensive training, as well as the stress imposed on animals. He will doubtless confirm that the Bill will give better protection to animals than that provided under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.
  Mr. Tynan: I can only agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.
  The National Farmers Union and the British Horse Society have logged incidents for a number of years, and both the Blue Cross and the SSPCA have campaigned on the issue of animal protection. Each year, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, with which I have worked closely in the past few months, has to retire as many as four dogs, and provide additional training for up to another 150, at a cost of £27,000 per dog. If we were to target only that issue, the Bill would still prove extremely worth while.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I should tell my hon. Friend that the blind people from my constituency who visited Parliament yesterday, with their guide dogs, are extremely grateful to him for introducing this Bill, and they expect the House to ensure that it has a speedy passage.
  Mr. Tynan: When my hon. Friend goes back to his constituency, he will have the comfort of knowing that the Bill has been supported by all sections of the House.
  A final area of concern is importation. Only one company—Kimbolton Fireworks—manufactures fireworks in the UK. I have visited it to see the process for
  480
  myself and to discuss these issues with the son of the owner. I spent a considerable time there. I am told that about 1,000 containers of fireworks are imported to the UK annually, mainly from the far east, of which the majority go to legitimate UK fireworks companies, where they are stored on premises licensed by the Health and Safety Executive. The industry estimates, however, that up to 13 per cent. of fireworks that come into this country are not stored in HSE-licensed premises. Containers can sometimes be driven to a lay-by—or who knows where?—where the contents are divided for distribution by rogue retailers. Companies that transport fireworks to safe and secure premises licensed and inspected by the HSE are required to have marked vehicles that are driven by trained drivers. Those who flout the law, although needing import licences, can remove containers from the port without having to confirm that they are being transported in the correct manner to licensed storage.
  John Robertson: Does that mean that, if someone drives up to a dock in a white van, loads it up with £25,000 of fireworks, drives it to the House of Commons, parks it and then lights the blue touch paper, the only time that he breaks the law is when he lights the blue touch paper?
  Mr. Tynan: My hon. Friend has read my speech.
  The industry has serious concerns about the importation of fireworks to this country. It is acknowledged that HSE-licensed premises are not a problem. However, I decided to test the Department of Trade and Industry—and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not surprised by that. I asked a friend to write an application from a private house on a sheet of A4. He sent away the form and the reply asked him to convert his figure of £25,000 to euros. He did so. He was then asked to say where the fireworks were coming in. "Felixstowe", he said. He was told that he would have to give the date. He then asked, "I haven't got the date, but can I not have the licence?" He was told that there was no problem with getting the licence but that he would have to give the date. It is therefore obvious that anyone can make an application. There are no checks that the fireworks will go to licensed premises. We have to address that in this Bill.
  When preparing for this Second Reading, I wrote to the Serjeant at Arms to ask about the possibility of bringing fireworks into the House of Commons. I was told that I would need a responsible person. [Laughter.] I was told that I would need to carry the fireworks in a closed steel container and that I would have to have a police escort while they were on the premises. That demonstrates the level of security in the House of Commons, but it also highlights the converse situation with the importation of fireworks to the country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is right. Any organisation that fills in an import licence application can find itself with a container of fireworks that it can drive wherever it wishes. That has to be tightened up.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: There is great concern about the storage of fireworks. Mine is one of the few constituencies that has a licence for explosives, but that does not cover fireworks. Many hon. Members will have

  481
  seen huge car boot sales in their constituencies at which huge amounts of fireworks can be sold without containers. Will the Bill outlaw such sales?
  Mr. Tynan: It is essential that we are able to track the supply of fireworks to this country and within this country. If we do not do that, we will end up in the situation that my hon. Friend describes. Fireworks can be sold in pubs, clubs, car boot sales or wherever. We have to deal with rogue retailers, and the way to do that is through this Bill. I expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to implement appropriate measures.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Liberal Democrats also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill. We also thank the Home Secretary for being in the Chamber for the first discussions on the Bill, showing how seriously it is being taken.
  The hon. Gentleman has spoken about importation. There have been increased sales of fireworks from the far east via the internet for private use. Will the Bill deal with that issue, about which activists in my constituency—including Mrs. Marjorie Johnston, who has led the campaign—are concerned?
  Mr. Tynan: The Bill makes it clear that consultation is necessary on a range of issues. When that consultation takes place, people will have the opportunity to have an input.
  I have clear expectations of the firework regulations that this Bill will introduce. I foresee a new regime whereby we respect fireworks as the explosives that they are but acknowledge their legitimate use. Powers would be granted to allow firework regulations to be made in a range of areas—such as the life of fireworks, import, storage, sale and use.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing a Bill that is long overdue to say the least. Later in his speech, will he touch on the problem of enforcement?
  Mr. Tynan: I hope that, as I go through the Bill, my hon. Friend will be reassured on that point.
  The aim of the Bill is to provide an effective and comprehensive solution. Now that I have outlined the problems that the Bill seeks to address, I hope that hon. Members will have some concept of its aims. I hope that this is not presumptuous, but I do not propose to detain the House with an extended clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill. I trust that that can wait until another day.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne rose
  Mr. Tynan: This is an ideal time for my hon. Friend—I mean the hon. Gentleman—to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman was right the first time.
  482
  I am entirely sympathetic to his objectives but, given the extensive regulatory powers that he seeks to give Ministers, what can he say to reassure me about the survival of the firework party held by law-abiding citizens who seek to entertain their children in their back garden?
  Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was very helpful. I think that I can reassure him. The Bill is similar to the Bill that went through the House of Lords in 1997–98. At that time, reassurance was sought on the width and scope of the Bill. That convinced the House of Lords to send the Bill back, unamended, to the House of Commons. My Bill will seek to allow the participation of people such as the hon. Gentleman who wish to let off fireworks for their grandchildren—I am sorry, for their children.[Laughter.] I am sure that he will be delighted to be able to do so.
  Clause 1 establishes the definition of fireworks. I do not intend that the Bill should extend to items such as pyrotechnic bird-scarers, small explosive charges for car airbags, amateur rocket motors or marine distress flares. I have been asked to give assurances to groups that use such devices. They are not currently classed as fireworks, and that will continue.
  Clause 2 grants powers to enable firework regulations to be made, and outlines the grounds on which they can be made. Included are protections for humans, animals and property, and a requirement to consult interested and relevant groups before making regulations. However, the scope for making emergency provisions—as happened in 1996—continues to be included.
  Clause 3 would ban sales to minors. The intention is that the current minimum age of 18 should be retained. Clause 4 would limit the times at which fireworks can be sold or used. There is scope to allow exceptions, such as a post-11 pm use at new year. The clause would introduce a year-round curfew of 11 pm.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Bill before us. It is long overdue. One reason for that is that the industry ignores its own code of conduct. Companies such as R.S. McColl sell fireworks 365 days a year and will continue to do so. Will my hon. Friend's Bill prevent that?
  Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have held extensive consultations with the fireworks industry. The industry is receptive and supports the Bill. It recognises that there is a problem and wants the Bill to address it. I think that my hon. Friend will be content with the provisions and with the discussions that will have to take place before it is implemented.
  Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill. It is most welcome and many of us hope that it will be passed quickly. Has my hon. Friend spoken to the police, the local authorities and trading standards officers about the proposed regulations? My constituents complain that existing regulations are not enforced, so we need to ensure that the police, trading standards officers and council officials realise the

  483
  importance of enforcing regulations introduced under the Bill, and that people selling fireworks to children or letting off fireworks in the street are prosecuted.
  Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The professional bodies of the UK fire service and of chief constables all support the Bill. They recognise the need for regulation.
  Clause 4 would specify the hours of day when fireworks may be used. Clause 5 would restrict the sale of certain categories of firework to people who are trained, experienced and insured as appropriate. Existing British standards categories would be retained.
  Valerie Davey: I offer my hon. Friend congratulations from my constituents and from the police in Bristol, who have experience of category 3 large display fireworks being used as hand-held weapons. When the provisions are considered in detail, will he take into account experience in Bristol, and also in Northern Ireland, where the law was changed?
  Mr. Tynan: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening intently and that she will address such points in her contribution.
  Ross Cranston: One of the valuable points about clauses 4 and 5 is that they deal with possession. At present, there are enforcement problems. The police have power to prosecute people who throw those things in public streets but they cannot catch them. The Bill includes regulations on possession that will definitely allow enforcement—at least in England—especially coupled with the valuable penalty and notice system.
  Mr. Tynan: My hon. and learned Friend is correct.
  Clause 6 would introduce conditions on matters such as training, insurance, consultation with people nearby and local authority permission for public firework displays. Those holding displays would be expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that certain standards were adhered to in respect of training and insurance, and that the impact of displays on people or animals nearby was curtailed or minimised.
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once more. Can he assure me that the Bill will do something about the irresponsible behaviour of far too many retailers? Is he aware that a survey conducted by Edinburgh city council found that retailers in more than half the premises visited were willing to sell fireworks to children who were clearly under age, even though the council had sent out a letter warning retailers that it was about to carry out that survey? Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill is successful the Government should use their powers to ensure that such practices do not continue?
  Mr. Tynan: I think that the Bill covers the problem of rogue retailers. At present, trading standards departments have to issue permits and there is no chance to revoke or refuse a licence. Retailers who sell to under-age children would certainly be dealt with under the Bill.
  Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate my hon. Friend on presenting the Bill. My constituent
  484
  Mrs. Marlene Healey has collected a petition of 9,000 signatures; one in eight of my constituents are calling for the types of change in the law proposed in the Bill.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that even at private parties fireworks can maim and kill? Can he assure the House that the restrictions on sales to which he refers will ensure that fireworks that can maim and kill children and young people will not be available for use at private parties?
  Mr. Tynan: I have been accused by some individuals—although very few—of being a killjoy. I want to make it clear that I want the Bill to promote opportunities for the responsible and safe use of fireworks. It is essential that we do not introduce a ban when there is no public demand for one. The Bill will help to ensure the responsible use of fireworks. It is important that people organising private parties understand the dangers of fireworks, and I hope that the annual safety campaigns will continue to stress how dangerous those explosives can be.
  Jonathan Shaw: On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the Bill.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that retailers who advertise, as they did in Chatham, "Free Fireworks" are extremely irresponsible? Can my hon. Friend confirm that at private parties, especially weddings, people will be able to obtain a licence without too much difficulty and bureaucracy, as long as they provide proper safeguards? My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) may be interested in that point as he is getting married in a couple of weeks' time.
  Mr. Tynan: Clause 7 would strengthen the existing system for licensing retailers. A two-tier system would be introduced, with tougher licensing and a lower tier that allowed retailers to sell fireworks for a limited three-week period around 5 November and for a short period before the new year. I recognise that, in addition to properly run displays for births, marriages and Valentine's day, there is a more than legitimate demand for fireworks for Diwali, Eid and the Chinese new year. I have held discussions with relevant communities and groups as to how we could deal with the sale of fireworks outside the defined periods.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend has just come to the point that I wanted to put to him. I represent a diverse constituency, with people from many ethnic minority backgrounds. There is concern that the Bill might prevent legitimate celebrations, starting in the autumn with Diwali and running through to Chinese new year in the winter. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, while his Bill would rightly control the misuse of fireworks, it would not prevent legitimate family celebrations for those important events in the diverse communities of my constituency?
  Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I checked on when Diwali takes place; it is normally within the three-week period before 5 November. I spoke to the Chinese embassy about Chinese new year, as I wanted to make sure that I could

  485
  answer questions such as those put by my hon. Friend, and I was told that fireworks are not used at the celebrations but that crackers are used.
  Under the Bill, fireworks would be available throughout the year, but only with a higher tier licence. There would be higher costs, and stricter standards of training and record keeping would apply. It has been pointed out that if we allowed the sale of fireworks only for a three-week period, people would buy them and store them for months. I want to avoid that. We could have a situation in which people from the different cultures existing in this country felt that they were being discriminated against. I want to avoid that.
  Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill, and I support him. On his point about training, I note that one aspect of his Bill is to enforce stricter rules on the training of those who give professional displays. I want some comfort on that. We want more professional displays—we do not want to raise barriers to them—and I am not aware that there is a major problem with the safety of professional displays. I have never had a representation from a constituent about that. Will he assure me that he will not over-regulate in that area?
  Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I have consulted widely, and the British Pyrotechnists Association is currently running a pilot scheme in four areas. It is looking at the training of operatives at licensed displays to make sure that two tiers apply to the people who operate and the people who manage. There is some merit in the manner in which they are setting up the training scheme, and consultation and discussion can take place to see whether it is a practical proposition for the future. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  Jim Knight: My hon. Friend is being exceedingly generous in allowing so many interventions. I applaud him for that and for introducing the Bill, which is being very well received in Dorset. Today, three Members have received some 8,000 representations from Dorset area residents. In response to the point about the killjoy element, is there not some local variation through local authorities regulating the licences that allows them to make judgments about traditional firework events in their area, and whether they will be carried out responsibly?
  Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that. As I said, I think that I will get a rocket if I take any more interventions. Local authorities will have such an opportunity depending on conditions. A uniform position will apply in relation to the granting of a licence to deal with rogue sellers and those who currently abuse the voluntary code, which has not been enforced. I hope that that will content my hon. Friend.
  Both tiers of retail licences could be refused or revoked, and the higher tier would apply to those selling via the internet or mail order. Clause 8 allows regulation to be made in respect of the information that must be
  486
  provided about fireworks. The intention is that that would relate to packaging and information provided with both individual fireworks and packs of fireworks.
  Richard Ottaway: I am not just supportive of the hon. Gentleman's Bill: I am highly supportive. I have a genuine question. He spoke about several things that he would like to happen as a result of the Bill, none of which is contained in the Bill, which is nothing but an enabling measure giving the Minister powers to introduce such regulations. Does he have assurances from the Minister that the things for which he asks will happen?
  Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It is important that I set out, after my consultations and discussions, the content that I believe should be included in the Bill. It is an enabling Bill, and it is essential that the Minister listen to the voice of Members and of the general public outside. Under the circumstances, I hope that that will be acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.
  Clause 9 allows regulation to be made on the impact of the importation and manufacture of fireworks. The intention of that is that information will be provided to confirm that fireworks entering the UK have been transported to legal storage, and hence that action can be taken more swiftly if they have not. Clause 10 allows for and defines the nature of training courses referenced under the fireworks regulation. It is intended that, in consultation with the industry—as I said, I understand that the British Pyrotechnists Association has already studied this area—and other interested parties, appropriate training courses and standards would be established to cover those areas.
  The remaining clauses are supplementary, covering penalties for committing an offence, a number of technical aspects, the financial provisions of the Bill, the means of firework regulations coming into law, and a number of other minor aspects. From my discussions with the industry and enforcement officers, I would not expect regulations made to have a significantly adverse effect on the business of legitimate parts of the fireworks industry, or to place too large a burden on trading standards, Customs, the Health and Safety Executive or the police.
  In presenting the Bill to the House, I am aware that there are those who may be worried by the fact that this is an enabling Bill. I, too, have some concerns about some of the visions of draconian provisions being enacted using the scope of powers granted under the Bill. I am, however, reassured by the discussions that I have had in preparing the Bill. I believe that, with proper thought and scrutiny, the regulations made under it would not be an instrument of tyranny. This is not a killjoy Bill. As those with expertise have agreed, it is a sensible, considered response to the problems of fireworks misuse, unless it is denied that there is a problem and it is thus contended that the public are wrong to be alarmed about the nuisance of fireworks.
  I trust that I will find agreement that action is needed. I would welcome comments and, as appropriate, amendments to the Bill—perhaps I should not say that—as it progresses through the House. I hope that those who may have a problem with the Bill will work to strengthen and improve it rather than dismiss it.

  487
  This Bill is a timely and comprehensive attempt to modernise how we deal with fireworks in the United Kingdom. I understand that some are concerned about any attempt to tighten the import, sale and use of any item. I trust, however, that they will agree with me, a large number of charities, local authorities, enforcement officers and the British fireworks industry itself—all those who know about fireworks—that the current situation is not acceptable, that we need to change it, and that the Bill provides the way forward. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I make a plea to all Members that, since many of them wish to contribute, they should make their speeches concise.
  10.17 am
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Last night, at about 20 minutes past 11—not 12 hours ago—there was a loud explosion of a firework of some description outside my bedroom window. It woke my daughter, aged three, who started screaming. She fell out of bed 20 minutes later, for which I will also blame the firework. Not 36 hours ago, on Wednesday evening, there was an explosion outside my front door followed by another series of explosions. It may have been the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) trying to make a point, but, instead, it brought home to me how apposite this Bill is. I am delighted to see it, and I congratulate him on his good fortune—I wish that I could win the lottery—and on his comprehensive speech in which he outlined the reasons why the Bill is being introduced.
  We should not forget, however, the enormous pleasure that fireworks give, and have given for many years, to a huge number of our constituents. Just because they have not written to us about it does not mean that they do not enjoy fireworks. It is those who are badly affected who write to us. When I was a child, we would have a bonfire in our little back garden on the edge of London on 5 November only. If it was not in our back garden, it was in somebody else's. We used to eat a lot of sausages, and quite a lot of ash that had attached to them—
  Mr. Willis: We did not have a back garden.
  Mr. Robathan: Oh dear. I suppose that the clogs were a bit rough, too. Poor old chap.
  Joan Ryan: He lived in a penthouse.
  Mr. Robathan: I thank the hon. Lady for her submission that the hon. Gentleman lived in a penthouse. That is a typical example of Liberal double standards. I suspect that she will agree with me about that.
  In back gardens around the country on 5 November, children gather and have an enjoyable bonfire night. As the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said, we do not wish to spoil their pleasure. I am old enough to remember that I was sent to the local toy shop with a letter from my mother telling the retailer that I was allowed to have some fireworks. Those were the regulations some 40 years ago. There seemed to be very
  488
  little trouble at the time, although the accident rate may have been worse. Those of us of my age need to realise, however, that the situation has now changed.
  We have all received many letters, and know that the problem is growing and needs to addressed. Hence the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South.
  For the benefit of doubt, the Bill is sponsored by two members of the Conservative Front Bench. I am sure that all the press releases issued by the phalanx of Labour Members in the Chamber will mention that.
  Mr. Tom Watson: Members on both sides of the House are genuinely appreciative of the fact that the Conservative party supports the Bill. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we did not have to do it this way? If his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—"Airbomb Eric", friend of the noisy neighbour—had not talked a similar Bill out two years ago, we would not all be here now because legislation would be in place.
  Mr. Robathan: I was going to say that I am delighted to see a phalanx of Labour Members here today. I expect my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to walk into the Chamber at any moment.
  The Conservative party generally supports the spirit of the Bill although, like the hon. Member for Hamilton, South, we do not like enabling powers. I cast no aspersions on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), but I dislike giving the Government powers that may be abused in future. Members on both sides of the House are always concerned about that. Draconian powers may be introduced, but I hope that they will not.
  Mr. Swayne: Is there not a danger that the Government might enable too much? My hon. Friend began with his fond memories of 5 November. Part of my concern about regulating powers derives from the fact that we will accommodate much wider dates than 5 November. It would be much better to have a narrower range of dates.
  Mr. Robathan: I shall come on to the dates later, as there is a big issue about the periods when fireworks can be used.
  I should like to look at three general topics—the current situation, the improvements that are already being made and the Bill itself. As the hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned, we are dealing with explosives. That needs to be stressed, as they are always dangerous. I have probably used more explosives than most hon. Members in my previous incarnation. When I was blowing up stacks of high explosives I was always worried, whether I was using an electrical circuit or a safety fuse. Those things are dangerous, especially when the detonator does not go off and you are left wondering why. Unlike a rocket, you cannot put a few pounds of plastic explosive in a bucket.
  Mr. Russell Brown: In a previous life, I spent 18 years working in the explosives industry, so

  489
  I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. As politicians we must get across to parents in particular the important point that although young children think that fireworks contain only a small amount of explosive, they burn fiercely and are white-hot. We have been very lucky not to have witnessed real tragedies on our housing estates. Only a couple of weeks ago, something went wrong in a discotheque or nightclub in America. Part of the cause may have been the building, but we saw the ferocity of the fire and the damage, devastation and death that can be caused by fireworks.
  Mr. Robathan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who rightly gives a particularly good example of the way in which the mistreatment and mishandling of explosives can have disastrous consequences. I shall not now mention it in my speech. Whether we are parents or grandparents, we should all be aware of that.
  My constituents have expressed concerns about safety, which the hon. Gentleman has just raised. We all welcome any measures that will serve to limit injuries caused by fireworks. In 2001, there was a total of 1,362 injuries—a 40 per cent. rise on the previous year, which is a worrying trend. Of even more concern is the fact that 58 per cent. of those injuries were to under-17s, and 33 per cent. to under-13s. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome anything that reduces those disturbingly high figures and prevents even one child from being blinded.
  Mr. Iain Luke rose—
  Mr. Robathan: I am conscious of the press releases that are being issued like mad, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. However, I would rather not accept too many interventions.
  Mr. Luke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave figures for the number of people injured by fireworks. Does he accept that if the numbers are not reduced with the introduction of a licensing scheme in the Bill, there will be a call for a total ban in future?
  Mr. Robathan: I shall discuss later the proportionate nature of action to be taken. There are already calls for a total ban, which I do not support any more than I support a ban on every other thing that can injure people. I know that the Government do not support a total ban either. However, we wish to see children protected. Members may have had letters calling for a ban in their mailbags, but millions of our constituents would not welcome that. We need to bear that in mind when reading letters from people who are unhappy about the noise caused by fireworks.
  Fireworks often cause a serious nuisance or disturbance, especially to older people and pets. In the past few years, we cannot have failed to notice that the use of fireworks has escalated, as I illustrated earlier, and that the period in which they are used has grown longer. We have all received many letters complaining about the considerable disturbance that they cause. Indeed, I suspect that there is not anyone in the House who has not received such a letter. A closely related issue
  490
  is noise, which goes to the heart of the matter and is particularly problematic in built-up areas. The 12 target areas of last year's campaign by the Department of Trade and Industry, snappily called "Fool with fireworks and bang goes your image", were urban conurbations, including Liverpool, Portsmouth, Gateshead and greater Strathclyde.
  Not only is the noise getting worse, but fireworks are used throughout the year. There are fireworks on 5 February, during Diwali, the Chinese new year, Eid and the new year—who can forget the millennium celebrations three years ago? Fireworks were used to celebrate the Queen's golden jubilee and her official birthday. Of course, we also have 6 May—[Interruption.] I am surprised that one or two Government Members do not know that 6 May is the official birthday of the blessed leader of the Labour party. These days, they either celebrate it or burn his effigy.
  The noise of fireworks has become relentless, and is of particular concern to those of us with dogs and other pets. I have a gundog called Otter, which I have mentioned before in the House, as Members may recall. When I get my shotgun and take Otter shooting she gets excited. She is a Labrador retriever, and that is what retrievers do. However, if she hears fireworks, she cowers under the table and is terrified.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman was not shooting his neighbours.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me.
  If Otter hears fireworks or a thunderstorm, she cowers under the table.
  Mr. Willis: Does all that happen in your back garden?
  Mr. Robathan: It certainly does not happen in my penthouse.
  Everyone in the House agrees that this issue is important, but we should not overstate the case. I should like to discuss safety, which was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). In 2001, there were 1,362 injuries and no fatalities during the period of bonfire celebrations. The previous year, there were 972 injuries, with two fatalities—which is too high, I accept. However, we should compare those figures with the DTI's figures for accidents in the home. According to the DTI website, 2.7 million accidents required visits to hospital, and there were nearly 4,000 fatalities from accidents in the home. In 2001, there were 313,000 injuries following road traffic accidents, of which 40,000 were serious, and there were 3,450 fatalities. So our response must be appropriate and proportionate.
  I have a great deal of time for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which does excellent work. I understand from the association's website that at any one time there are 5,000 guide dogs for the blind. Each dog has a working life of approximately seven years, so there is a turnover of 700 to 800 dogs a year. I am told that only four or five dogs have to be retired each year because of distress caused by fireworks. I accept that that is a problem, but

  491
  again, we should be proportionate in our response. I know that fireworks terrify animals, but we should not overstate our case. The root problem is the amount and repetition of noise and the decibel level.
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue as regards guide dogs is not just the cost of the retirement of, I acknowledge, a relatively small proportion of the total guide dog force, but the inhibitory effect that fireworks have on the lives of so many blind people, who are fearful of taking their dogs out during quite long periods of the year? If the hon. Gentleman or I are concerned about the safety of our dogs, we can go out alone, but that option is not available to a blind person. The use of fireworks substantially prejudices the blind person's quality of life.
  Mr. Robathan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My point was that we need to be proportionate in our response. The use of fireworks, especially during daytime on the streets, which is what scares guide dogs most, is already illegal. We should remember that. Incidentally, if my figures are wrong, I should be delighted if any hon. Member in the Chamber, or the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, would correct me. I understand that between four and six dogs out of 5,000 are retired each year as a result of firework incidents. Some dogs may need retraining. The figures need to be analysed, as there may be other factors that have made the dogs nervous. I am not understating the case, but we should beware of hyperbole.
  Linda Gilroy: Has the hon. Gentleman heard that there are cases in which dogs have to be drugged as a result of the fireworks nuisance, and therefore cannot be used by their owner, which causes problems?
  Mr. Robathan: As I said, I do not underestimate the problem, but we should not overestimate it, either. I draw attention to an example of hyperbole. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned animals being tortured or injured. I received a letter a couple of days ago about kittens being tortured by having a firework strapped to their back. None of us would applaud that, and it has been illegal since the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It carries a penalty of up to six months imprisonment and it should not happen. The issue is one of enforcement, as has been mentioned.
  The Act is often enforced by the RSPCA, to which I pay tribute for its work in such matters. However, I do not accept the RSPCA campaign, "Quiet Please", which aims to reduce the permitted decibel level to 95 dB. According to the RSPCA, that is similar to the sound produced by a book dropped on to a table from 1 m. I shall demonstrate that. I suspect that few of our children, the children of few of our constituents, and few of our grandchildren would welcome such a reduction in noise level.
  Mr. Chris Pond rose—
  Mr. Robathan: As the hon. Gentleman is about to celebrate his marriage with fireworks, of course I shall give way.
  Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to reassure the House and, through the
  492
  Chair, the Speaker's Chaplain that I have no intention of redoing Guy Fawkes's job by letting off fireworks in the Chapel in a couple of weeks' time. The hon. Gentleman is missing the point about the impact, especially on blind and elderly people. Regardless of the decibel level, it is the long period of time during which dogs, especially guide dogs, can be frightened or rendered less effective that reduces the quality of life for people. One of my constituents told me yesterday how he had been led across the road by his guide dog, which had been frightened while in the middle of the road. The dog disappeared and my constituent was left in the middle of the road with no means of getting across. For those reasons, we must make sure that the Bill goes through, and that there is a restricted period during which fireworks are available on the streets.
  Mr. Robathan: First, as I have not done so properly, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his impending marriage. I have done it myself, and I think that it is generally a good thing. I say that for the benefit of my wife. Secondly, I do not think that I am missing the point. I pointed out that guide dogs and other animals are terrified for a long period of time. Thirdly, from what the hon. Gentleman said, I imagine that his constituent was in the middle of the road when somebody threw a firework in the street. That is illegal now.
  The RSPCA does much good work, but its firework campaign is misguided. I am still waiting for the RSPCA to react on its report entitled "Pain and Stress in Fish", last updated in 1994, which stated:
  "The society's policy is to oppose the infliction of pain and suffering in the name of sport"—
  which is why it is opposed to hunting, and
  "the case for fish feeling pain is surprisingly complete".
  When the RSPCA writes to me to complain, I hope that it will tell me all about that.
  The situation regarding fireworks is getting worse and we need to consider why. The first reason is that fewer fireworks are manufactured domestically. The overwhelming number of fireworks come in from China. The UK is quite a small market, whereas the other markets, such as the United States, which are much larger, prefer bigger bangs. Perhaps that is because they have more space. In any event, the Chinese are making fireworks for a different market and they are being sold in this country.
  The second reason is a good example of the law of unintended consequences. The 1997 regulations banned the manufacture, sale and use of bangers—we all remember the penny bangers that used to be thrown around the street. Because bangers are banned, yobs now use air bombs. Since 1997 the price of air bombs has fallen to a quarter of what it was, so they are more accessible. They are much louder, they are directional—I have never fired one myself because I am too old, but perhaps I should go and buy one to find out—and they can be fired some 60 m, so they become almost a weapon in the hands of the teenage hooligans who mainly use

  493
  them. We should remember the law of unintended consequences resulting from regulations that we make in the House.
  Mr. Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robathan: I will not, as I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and a great many hon. Members wish to speak.
  The third reason, as has been mentioned, is the larger white van trade, as I shall call it, for want of a better term—the black market that has sprung up in fireworks, which can be bought and distributed through unscrupulous retailers, car boot sales or wherever. The boxes, I understand, are split up from containers in lay-bys, which is illegal under the 1997 regulations. I suppose we have become a more antisocial society. When I was young, I do not think people threw bangers at old people and guide dogs. Perhaps I am being naïve or showing my middle age.
  The problems associated with fireworks are compounded, as we heard from several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), by the lack of enforcement. Bangers are illegal, as we know. Throwing fireworks in the street has been illegal since the Explosives Act 1875, yet, notwithstanding all the letters of complaint that we have had, only 64 cases were brought in England and Wales in 2000. I hope that the Bill will make enforcement easier for the police, which is what we all want.
  I shall deal with improvements that are already on the way. Like the Minister who ruled out a ban on fireworks in the Westminster Hall debate on 30 October, we do not favour a ban. I commend the Government—very unusually—on the voluntary measures that they have been instrumental in introducing, which came into force on 1 January.
  The industry, with the assistance of the DTI, has banned the import and sale of air bombs. That will turn out to be the key. People have told me that they believe that it will produce the quietest 5 November and surrounding period for years and that it will remove 10 million bangs from the market, and we all welcome that.
  After eight years' discussion, the CEN, the Comité Européen de Normalisation, or the European Standards Committee—I have A-level French, although it is a little rusty—has agreed on a European standard of 120 dB. I understand that the DTI, the industry and most animal welfare groups are happy with that agreement and standard, and it could be introduced—I am sure that the Minister will tell us—this year.
  The industry will also support a ban on displays after 11 pm—except, of course, on 31 December, although licensing may be needed for that day. Of course, displays after 11 pm are already illegal under the Noise Act 1996. I do not know whether there have been almost no prosecutions under that Act but I am pretty sure that that is the case. The Government are trying out a sort of curfew after 11 pm, which would give the police a greater chance to act, but they are also trying out fixed penalties. They started trying out £40 on-the-spot fines
  494
  in four areas last August. I hope that the Minister will tell us how those trials are working and how many fines there have been.
  Richard Ottaway: May I assist my hon. Friend on that point? My constituency has one of the pilot schemes for fixed penalty notices, and precisely none has been issued against people for throwing fireworks in the street, mainly because those people are under the age of 18 and fixed penalty notices cannot be given to people under that age.
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I hope that he may say more about it in his speech. The good wishes of the House are commendable, but the actions that follow our legislation are perhaps more important, and my point about enforcement relates very much to that.
  Most of the things that we have heard about break the law already, and a lot of them come from unscrupulous importers and retailers selling to yobs, as the hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned. The biggest problem of all is the white van trade, selling broken up boxes of fireworks to small retailers, who sell them on to teenagers.
  I now wish to turn to the Bill itself. Conservatives generally are pretty wary of enabling legislation. We certainly do not like extra unnecessary regulations, but we generally support the spirit of the Bill, as I have said already. It is very much a last-minute Bill; the explanatory notes and the Library document for this debate were only published on Wednesday and the Bill was only agreed and published on 13 February, and I understand why. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South is being extremely sensible because, as we know, the Bill will be passed only if the Government give it a fair wind. That is why we have an enabling Bill, which was decided only on 13 February, so let us be in no doubt about that.
  The Bill has been hugely watered down to get Government support, as the House is aware. I shall quote the Government's position, as explained by the Minister.[Interruption.] I trust that she has not changed her position since 30 October, when she said:
  The Government do not believe that a case has been made for banning the sale of fireworks and limiting their use to organised public displays. Such a ban could lead to the development of an illegal firework market and might encourage people to produce home-made devices. Sensible and considerate use of fireworks is a popular family entertainment.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 272WH.]
  We agree.
  Of course, as a result of being watered down, there is very little substance in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South talked about what is in the clauses. Well, actually, there is nothing in them, except the opportunity for the Government to act, and we all need to be aware of that. The Bill gives the Government—I quote the title of clause 2—"Power to make regulations", and the explanatory notes, which I received only yesterday, summarise the Bill as follows:
  "The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations…which will regulate the supply and use of fireworks."
  That is all that it will do.

  495
  I have concerns about the Bill, and I should like to mention two of them. The first relates to clause 10 on training courses. As I said and as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), I think—
  Mr. Eric Forth: Wherever.
  Mr. Robathan: I am glad to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to the Chamber.
  I have blown up a lot of explosives in my time, but the easy thing with fireworks is that we light the blue touch paper and retire—that is just about all the training that people need—and I was able to do that as a boy. I am not against training courses, but I am concerned because when I was younger I went on something called a mountain leadership course. It was an excellent course in many ways, but I vividly remember being taught, in the shadow of Ben Nevis, to light a little gas stove. It was just like lighting a gas stove at home: I turned it on and put a match to it, and then I switched it off. I was taught that as part of the course and, as a result, I left the course because I thought that it was such nonsense. If there are to be training courses, they should be short, apposite, inexpensive and as unregulatory as possible. It may sound great to have training courses, but it is the substance of the course that is the test.
  My second concern relates to clause 3 on the supply to children. Of course, it is already illegal to sell fireworks to children. I understand that that clause is designed to stop unscrupulous people buying fireworks and passing them on to teenagers below the age of 18, who cannot be given on-the-spot fines, unfortunately. I am not against that provision, but is it likely—I hope that the Minister will put my mind at rest—that it will extend to giving sparklers to my six-year-old? The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) winces, but where does the Bill state that it will not do that? He has no answer because there is nothing in the Bill about it.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: We can rely on the good sense of the Minister.
  Mr. Robathan: The good sense of the Minister—ha, ha, ha—what good sense have we seen so far from the Government? Let us leave it at that.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Has the hon. Gentleman ever thought about taking up pantomime?
  Mr. Robathan: Unfortunately, I would not be able to get a place in pantomime because I know that the hon. Gentleman is already playing Widow Twankey.
  The Bill will give the Minister the enabling power to ban the supply of fireworks to children. That is what it does, and we need to know exactly what that means when we pass a Bill. We should give parents credit for being responsible. I trust that the Government will use their powers wisely and proportionately, but we need to hear an answer on that.
  I commend two points in the Bill, and this relates to what the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said. First, at the moment, there is a £13 registration fee. There should be proper licensing, and the possibility of having
  496
  two tiers of licensing is sensible. There could be a cheap licence, perhaps for three weeks around 5 November, and a more expensive licence for mail order throughout the year, so that there is proper control over how fireworks are bought. Licensing will not answer all the problems, such as stock piling, but it can be useful and it is relatively sensible.
  I also commend clause 9 on importation. That is the key to enforcement. The Chinese and other fireworks that are imported legally mostly come through Felixstowe. Although that port has the necessary explosives controls, legal fireworks are imported in containers. Where do they go when they leave Felixstowe? There is no check on them. The Health and Safety Executive does not properly check on them. Do they go to registered or licensed suppliers? We just do not know.
  Already it is reckoned that between 10 and 18 per cent. of the fireworks in this country are sold on the black market—off white vans, for want of a better term. What storage do they go to? Storage is not properly enforced or supervised currently, and more kilograms of fireworks are imported than there are licensed or approved storage facilities for them.
  The Bill has little substance, so we can only guess what will come in its wake. For that reason, we are not entirely happy. I urge the Minister to concentrate on enforcement more than on anything else. I suspect that she will because, notwithstanding what I have said, what she has done on fireworks until now has been fairly sensible. Praise indeed.
  Much remains up to the Home Office and police enforcement. I was pleased to see the Home Secretary here, unusually, on a Friday morning. However, a lot remains the responsibility of the DTI, and I suspect that the storage, licensing and tracking of goods comes under the Minister's Department.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Robathan: No? I hope that the Minister will ensure that there is sensible, non-bureaucratic enforcement. Checks should be carried out at Felixstowe so that fireworks go to properly licensed retailers. If those provisions are made and there is proper enforcement, the Bill will work. The enforcement of existing regulations on decibel levels is also the key to improving the lives of our concerned constituents and their pets, as they are genuinely troubled at present.
  I am not a killjoy. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Hamilton, South say that he was not a killjoy, and I hope to entertain my children in the future. I appreciate that the situation is worsening. We do not like extra regulation, and I hope that the Bill may help to improve the situation, so, for that reason, we wish it a fair wind.
  10.49 am
  Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his good fortune and on taking forward this Bill. I have had the pleasure of serving with him on a couple of Standing Committees and I know that he has a keen eye for the detail of legislation. He ably demonstrated that in his speech.

  497
  In 1997–98, my first year as a Member of Parliament, I was very involved with the work that the my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), the then Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, did in respect of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 that he introduced. We worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who has also done much work on firework safety. Safety was the dominant issue at that time.
  Some Members may not have seen the excellent Library briefing that charts the history of the safety issues in which we have all taken an interest. The appendix lays out the fireworks statistics for the years from 1996 to 2001. It shows clearly the impact of the regulations that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South introduced. They succeeded in reducing the number of accidents. However, over the past year or two—and, predominantly, since the turn of the millennium—the number of accidents is, sadly, increasing as fireworks become more available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South pointed out, the statistics reflect only a small amount of what is happening. The period in which fireworks are sold has been extended. They are on sale from September to February and, in some parts of the country, for even longer than that. Therefore, the statistics do not capture the full dimension of the problem.
  Helen Jones: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) compared the statistics for fireworks accidents with those for other accidents, but does my hon. Friend agree that most fireworks accidents are entirely avoidable with the right regulations? Furthermore, the statistics do not describe the misery caused by the antisocial behaviour that is associated with fireworks. It causes great concern to our constituents.
  Linda Gilroy: Absolutely. The fireworks safety campaigns carried out by the consumer safety unit every year target the key problems revealed in the statistics. They have been very successful, and I was about to refer to the hooligan use and noise aspects of fireworks.
  Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the number of accidents can be measured, the distress caused particularly to elderly people who may have small pets is enormous? Furthermore, the veterinary bills that they have to pay are something that they can ill afford.
  Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I was heartened by the initial message of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He appeared to understand the scale and nature of the problem. However, we then heard many mixed messages even on issues such as guide dogs for the blind.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend highlights a very important point. I presented to the House this week a petition signed by more than 2,000 people. A significant majority of the people who have written to me have described the effects on guide dogs. Will those
  498
  people who express concerns about the Bill accept that fireworks affect not just guide dogs for the blind but hearing dogs for the deaf? As dogs are trained increasingly to help people in a number of different circumstances, the scale of the problem could escalate. If we do not do something about the problem by controlling and restricting fireworks in the way that the Bill suggests—I heartily commend it to the House—we will store up significant problems in other areas.
  Linda Gilroy: We certainly will. Hearing dogs for the deaf is a fascinating subject. I have a letter from a constituent called Lillian who owns a guide dog called Callum. She is totally blind and wrote to me on 3 February to say:
  "Even last night fireworks were being let off in my street. I know it was Candlemas"—
  Lillian has a sense of humour—
  "but I was unaware that this was a time for letting off Roman Candles."
  She adds:
  "However, a few years back whilst walking in the local park area, with a school adjoining, during the morning, I was stopped by a couple of adults who told me not to go further as boys were tossing fireworks across the footpath. As my dog was running free, I called him back to put him on the lead and take a different route. Goodness knows the outcome if I had not done so. I have heard of several guide dog owners who have had to get tranquillisers for their dogs, which of course causes distress to both dog and owner…I trust my letter will add to all the others".
  The petition that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) is in addition to the 250,000 signatures on the petition collected by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is a UK-wide problem as reflected by the more than 21,000 signatures on the petition from south Wales presented here a month ago? There are also 250 distressing letters detailing exactly the concerns that were highlighted in the letter from which she has quoted.
  Linda Gilroy: The problem is repeated up and down the country. Almost every Member would be able to quote a similar case.
  Mr. Robathan: To avoid doubt, let me make it clear that we have enormous sympathy for guide dog owners and the constituent that the hon. Lady has mentioned. Everything that that constituent has written about is currently illegal. Just introducing extra regulations will not necessarily prevent such problems. We wish that guide dog owner to be able to walk her dog safely through the streets.
  Linda Gilroy: The hon. Gentlemen's view of regulation is not the view of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association or an impressive list of animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He should consult page 35 of the Library briefing document.
  Deregulation will be an important issue in debate on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South rightly said that the Bill had been considered by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. This Bill is to some extent modelled

  499
  on my original Bill, which was backed by the CBI's explosive industry group. In fact, the thrust of my Bill came from the industry, which wanted training courses to take place. I spoke to the annual general meeting of the British Pyrotechnists Association that was held in Plymouth where the national fireworks championships are held each year. The association is working closely with the industry to develop training courses, but cowboys can undercut the cost of supporting that training if a standard is not set for the whole industry.
  David Hamilton: I wish to emphasise that point. Many of the 1,500 people in Midlothian who signed a petition in just four weeks and the letters that I have received do not argue for a total ban. People like to see public displays and training is required for them. People using large amounts of explosive require training.
  Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend is exactly right.
  Finally on deregulation, consultation with the stakeholders and the fireworks industry and organisations is well honed. The hon. Member for Blaby should not be too concerned that the regulations would be implemented without the fullest possible consultation and consideration of the industry's views. This is a sensible Bill and I commend it to the House.
  I see that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is no longer is in his place. The House has strong associations with Guy Fawkes. The right hon. Gentleman was the leader of the pack that sabotaged the 1997 Bill and Opposition Members were called to order 38 times when it returned to the House from the House of Lords. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that he may become the "Guy Forth" for those who are interested in this issue. We will not just stick pins in the right hon. Gentleman's photograph, but will try to do some rather more robust things as well.
  10.59 am
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). My congratulations are heartfelt, because during the last Session I was in charge of a private Member's Bill and I know how much work goes on behind the scenes—the dealing with interest groups as well as the legislative drafting. It was clear from the hon. Gentleman's generosity in responding to interventions and the confidence with which he did so that he had done his homework.
  Let me say unequivocally that my colleagues and I support the spirit of the Bill, and will support its Second Reading. It should be noted that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, is a sponsor.
  Despite my support, I think it would be rather feeble to come here just to say "Hear, hear". While I think that the Bill deserves an airing in Committee, I also think that there is a need for constructive criticism at this stage. Many questions need to be asked. We should ask, for instance, to what extent an all-embracing Bill such as this, covering all aspects of production, distribution and use, is required, as opposed to the incremental approach that has been adopted so far. There is also the fact that
  500
  a "framework" Bill such as this does not address key controversies. Indeed, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman aspires to address them. One of the main controversies concerns whether there should be a ban during the three weeks before Guy Fawkes night—one of he issues in the voluntary code.
  Mr. John Lyons: Although most retailers have applied the guidance measures, one or two rogue companies have ignored it and have deemed it legitimate to extend sales beyond the three-week period. That is causing problems.
  Dr. Cable: That is a good practical point, and we should be discussing precisely such issues. We should be discussing whether a three-week moratorium is a good idea. My point, however, was procedural: I feel that the general nature of the Bill simply defers such arguments until the Minister produces a regulation.
  We talk of a fireworks issue, but there are in fact a number of issues. One is the issue of injury. As has been said, fireworks cause about 1,000 injuries a year, many of them serious. That has been the case for some years. The actions that it has led to relate to the dangerous nature of some fireworks, many of which are currently illegal, and to how regulation can be enforced.
  A second issue, mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), is the antisocial use of fireworks which, although perfectly safe in sensible and mature hands, are dangerous when abused. We are told that 40 per cent. of those injured are teenagers. The Minister has already responded to the problem by introducing regulations that aim to stop the throwing of fireworks.
  In fact the antisocial issue is largely dealt with by existing legislation. We have had a lot of legislation on antisocial issues. Indeed, both the issues I have mentioned have already been dealt with in different ways. The major issue—this, I think, is why we are here today—is noise. Loud fireworks distress elderly people and, in particular, the blind.
  I echo the tributes already paid to the Home Secretary, who made the effort to come here this morning and show his moral support for the Bill. One of the people who have lobbied me is Julia Schofield, one of the most impressive people in the country. She is a leading information technology electronic government entrepreneur, and she is completely blind. She came to me for help several years ago. As a jet-setting business woman, she had to take guide dogs around the world. Taking a guide dog around the streets of New York, Hong Kong and Frankfurt was not straightforward, she said, but it was simple compared with the process of getting a guide dog through the British quarantine system. She wanted some help with that problem. She has now explained to me, in businesslike terms, the practical problems caused to a blind person by fireworks. Dogs must often be sedated because of the distress that they suffer, and her life is made much more difficult by the thoughtless, excessively noisy and antisocial use of fireworks. That, I think, crystallises the issue for many of us.
  What, then, is the best way of dealing with the problem? Should it be dealt with through new legislation, through enforcement or through fireworks

  501
  standards? I have an open mind, but I wonder how much could be achieved had I the simpler expedient of tough industrial standards. As has been said, it is possible to impose BSSI standards on industry under existing 1997 regulations, which can then be translated into import controls; but perhaps those standards need to be tougher. As has also been said, the European standard prescribes 120 dB. Guide dog groups tell me that 95 dB—roughly the volume of a banging door—would be more appropriate, as anything above that level is distressing. I suspect that if the appropriate level were defined and then imposed through BSSI standards, and if that were properly enforced, many of the problems we are discussing would be solved.
  Linda Gilroy: The main aim of the Bill is to extend regulations dealing predominantly with the goods themselves to the use of those goods, particularly through possession. That would make enforcement easier.
  Dr. Cable: I do not quarrel with that. I am posing a question: would the need for the regulation of use be quite so great if we dealt with the definition issue, and imposed tough standards?
  Even if we dealt with the issue of standards, however, the issue of enforcement would remain. Several Labour Members have raised that point. Many of the problems are due to the absence or inadequacy of enforcement procedures. As we know, councils are struggling at present. They have too few consumer protection officers, and their environmental health departments are weak. They have been run down over the years, and often cannot deal with abuses.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: That has been a particular problem in my constituency. As in many other coastal towns, fireworks are sold in shops with either a short-term lease or no lease at all, which has caused difficulties for hard-working trading standards officers.
  Dr. Cable: That also applies in my local high street. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend means there should be legislation to deal with the problem, or more resources for enforcement, but I suspect it is the latter, as with many such problems.
  We should bear in mind—the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) tried to refer to this, but found himself in various cul-de-sacs—that there are already a number of legislative prohibitions. There are prohibitions on dangerous fireworks, or bangers. There are restrictions on the storage, public sale and the sale of single fireworks rather than boxes. If all those regulations were properly enforced, many of the current difficulties would not exist. This is an enforcement issue as much as a legislative issue, and we need an assurance from the Minister that there will be enough enforcement back-up. She has a good record on consumer legislation and ensuring that legislation is supported by additional resources for consumer protection officers. Parallel measures are needed in this case.
  In the last few minutes of my speech, I shall refer to some aspects of the Bill that will need detailed scrutiny when it passes, as I hope that it will, into Committee.
  502
  One of the key bits of the Bill is clause 2, which defines the nature of future offences in terms of not using fireworks safely. It talks about the use of safe fireworks to minimise the risk. I shall read this phrase because it is quite important. Clause 2(2) talks about fireworks causing
  "death … injury, alarm, distress or anxiety to"
  any person, or
  "death … injury or distress to"
  any animal. Setting aside for a moment the quibble as to why animals do not suffer alarm and anxiety, there is a big issue about how these rather subjective measures will be translated into the law. As I understand it, at the moment most of the offences under the regulations are quite specific and easily identified, but the Bill introduces a subjective test. The prosecuting authorities will have to define personal distress, and I am not sure how they will do so in a practical way that will satisfy the courts. That clause requires in-depth examination.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a dog required sedation by a veterinary surgeon, that would constitute distress?
  Dr. Cable: I would think so, but I am not a defence barrister, who might throw up all kinds of objections to that argument. I am simply suggesting that this definition is not straightforward—I think that I saw the hon. Gentleman nod when I raised this point—and will need a lot of critical scrutiny.
  Clause 3 relates to under-age sale, which is already illegal. There are problems of enforcement, but I do not understand what clause 3 adds to the existing prohibitions.
  Clause 4, a particularly all-embracing clause, relates to restrictions on the time of day and time of year when fireworks can be sold. As I have previously said, that raises the questions of whether it would be sensible to try to impose a moratorium before bonfire night, and how we should deal with Diwali and Chinese new year. My feeling is that perhaps local authorities should be allowed a discretion to allow sale during a festival time; it would not necessarily be 5 November. In an area with a large Asian population, the local authority would probably have a different view from an authority in Cornwall or the highlands of Scotland, but that is perhaps best dealt with at local level.
  Mr. Robathan: I am slightly confused, because the hon. Gentleman spoke about a moratorium around bonfire night. I thought that the intention was to allow sale around bonfire night, not impose a moratorium.
  Dr. Cable: I did not explain myself clearly. I meant a moratorium outside that period. I am sorry if I did not use the correct language.
  Clause 6 raises interesting and important questions about public display. Many of the provisions contained in it and the associated clause about the need for training, and the need for properly responsible people of the right age group to be in charge of public displays, are helpful and useful, but is it really necessary to superimpose a separate licensing, fee-paying system on the existing obligation on environmental health officers? These people are already under a lot of pressure, but the

  503
  clause will imply a new regulatory regime, with all the paper filling and bureaucracy involved. One wonders whether they have the resources to cope with it.
  Clause 7 deals with the licensing of suppliers. However, there is already considerable legislative control of suppliers in terms of permitted access, storage, and sales in boxes but not single units. We need persuading that there are important loopholes to be filled. In his own private Member's legislation, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) identified some weaknesses here, but the provisions that clause 7 makes possible are very wide indeed.
  Finally there is the issue of imports, which is covered by clause 8. There are provisions under existing legislation for import controls on dangerous fireworks and I am not sure what additional requirements are needed.
  I raise all these questions in a very preliminary way. They will need to be studied in detail. I support the Second Reading enthusiastically, but although I am not a parliamentary draftsman, as I read the Bill all kinds of questions came to mind.
  In conclusion, I pose a couple of questions to the Minister to which I hope that she will give clear answers. Will she explain clearly why she regards framework legislation of this kind as necessary? She has been carrying through a series of incremental steps, adding to the powers that she has. Why does she feel that that process has reached its limits? The other key assurance that we need from her is that the Government will properly support legislation of this kind—which imposes new regulatory obligations on local authorities—by providing the resources that environmental health departments will require. If we have reassurance on those two counts, I will feel completely confident that we are moving into some very secure, worthwhile and welcome legislation.
  11.15 am
  Shona McIsaac: As the Member of Parliament who chairs the all-party group on fireworks, I must say that there has been a marvellous turnout today. The group has about 150 members, most of whom seem to be present. I am just a little sad that not everyone can contribute to the debate, but I say well done to everyone for being here.
  We congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his shrewd move in selecting this subject for his private Member's Bill, because it affects every constituency in England, Scotland and Wales. We have all had letters from people complaining about the noise and disturbance of fireworks, and it is time to toughen the legislation, so I am glad that my hon. Friend has introduced his Bill.
  I did not mention Northern Ireland when I referred to all constituencies in this country, because in Northern Ireland the system that the Bill would introduce already exists. I suggest that those who doubt that the system would work look at how it is working in Northern Ireland. Much of the antisocial behaviour that was associated with fireworks—the noise and disturbance—has plummeted since the licensing and regulatory regime was introduced.
  Mr. Gardiner: I commend the work that my hon. Friend has done in campaigning on this issue for so
  504
  long. Is she aware that since 2001, when the new regulations were introduced, the number of injuries in Northern Ireland has dropped from 138 a year to just 36? That is significant in showing the effect that the Bill would have in this country.
  Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend is quite right, which is why I tell people who question whether this enabling Bill would work that they should look at how it has worked in Northern Ireland.
  We want this Bill to pass because of the noise, the disturbance, the vandalism, and the hooligan misuse of fireworks. The noise and nuisance have always been around, but they were confined to a few days of the year. The period has extended from a few days to day after day, week after week, and now month after month. I usually get my first letters complaining about the misuse of fireworks in August, but the date is getting earlier every year, which shows that the voluntary code is not working.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the marvellous work that she has done, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing an excellent Bill. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) agree that a number of people outside the House—including Councillor Tom Maginnis, who led the task group for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—are very keen not only that the Bill should be passed but that it should be implemented with all possible speed?
  Shona McIsaac: I agree. In fact, I too have held discussions with COSLA. Its research was excellent and it laid good foundations for today's debate. Yes, of course we want the Minister to use the powers that she will be given by the Bill. Some people are saying that she may go too far, but some of us think that she may not go far enough. If we give her the powers, we hope that she will use them.
  Mr. Luke: I congratulate my hon. Friend, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), on doing so much work to bring the Bill before the House. Does she agree that, despite the fact that we hope that it will become law, the all-party group should not be made redundant? The regulations may not satisfy public demand for control and provide the successful conclusion that we are all looking for, and surveys taken throughout the country show that a significant number of people, whose voice is not often heard, want a total ban.
  Shona McIsaac: I hope that the all-party group does not cease to exist when the Bill is passed. There is a lot of work yet to be done, including in Committee. We must monitor how the Bill works and see whether it reduces noise and disturbance.
  Mr. Marsha Singh: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on choosing the Bill, but does my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona

  505
  McIsaac) agree with a ban on the sale and use of fireworks, except around bonfire night and at other licensed events?
  Shona McIsaac: The Bill would restrict sales outside certain times of the year, but it also acknowledges the importance of festivals such as Diwali and Chinese new year by providing for the use of fireworks at such times. It would, however, reduce the months of the year in which disturbance would occur.
  Thousands of my constituents have been in touch with me to discuss noise and disturbance, which they want to see ended. I shall give a few examples from my area, which I am sure other Members will share.
  Mr. Paul TruswellDoes my hon. Friend share my slight dismay at the attitude of Opposition Front Benchers towards the setting of noise levels? If the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is looking for a pantomime character, Wishee Washee might be the most appropriate.
  Shona McIsaac: I will not be drawn into that. We have support from Opposition Front Benchers, and I do not want to reduce it.
  An 81-year-old asthmatic woman had to be rescued from her smoke-filled home after louts put lit fireworks through her letter box. In another example, 60 people had to be evacuated from a Grimsby pub, again after lit fireworks were thrown into the building, which filled with smoke. Fire officers said that the incident could have been serious if fires had caught hold.
  Post boxes seem to be a target for hooligans. In one incident in our area in which a post box was blown up, the firework used was not a consumer firework; it was meant to be used only in licensed displays. Such fireworks are banned for sale to the consumer, which shows how various types of firework get into circulation and are used by hooligans and louts.
  Vandals target plastic wheelie bins time and again because the plastic goes into wonderful shapes when fireworks are put in them. The phone calls of drug dealers in Grimsby and Cleethorpes are monitored, so they use fireworks to let addicts know when new supplies have come in. A woman on an estate in our area says:
  "We get fireworks going off all year round here. Even the kids know what a rocket going off means."
  We must take such things very seriously.
  Apart from the danger, vandalism, noise nuisance and disturbance, there are the safety aspects. What happened in Rhode Island has been mentioned, but we must also remember that, a couple of years ago, 282 people died in a fire in Lima in Peru as a result of fireworks triggering a fire. In Enschede in the Netherlands, more than 20 people died and thousands of people were made homeless when a place in which fireworks were being stored caught fire. That area of Enschede is still devastated.
  We should never forget that we are not dealing with toys; we are dealing with lethal incendiary explosive devices. We must toughen up the law because fireworks have become more available. A lot more are being sold and there is a lot more misuse.
  506
  This is not just an urban problem, as some people have suggested, owing to the fact that more fireworks are being let off in cities and towns, creating more noise—it is a rural problem, too. A resident from the village of Ulceby in my constituency said to me:
  "Why do people have to be so selfish? Would they want to spend eight nights outside checking on their livestock?"
  She has to go out to check on her livestock because of firework misuse. A resident from Barton wrote to me:
  "Two years ago a horse bolted, got on to the road, caused an accident and had to be put down because of its injuries."
  Rural and urban constituencies alike are affected by firework misuse.
  I am also grateful to a constituent from Barcroft street in Cleethorpes who sent me leaflets that were put under the windscreen of her car and which show the problem that we are dealing with. We should consider the prices of those fireworks. One is called a devil rocket and the price is only £1.25 for five. That is why these things are getting into the hands of hooligans—they are very, very cheap. Another leaflet refers to
  "mega loud coloured air bombs only £1.50"
  for five. The flyers also refer to rockets at £1.25 for five, making loud screeches and bangs, to £25 monster fireworks
  "that would scare the SAS".
  That says it all. These fireworks are not toys; they are designed to disturb and to create noise—that is all they do.
  Some of the other firework names are air raid, air torpedo, cruise missile, mega scud, nuclear warhead and 100-shot ack-ack barrage. Those retailers also offer free alcohol with the sale of fireworks, which I deplore. Yesterday, a resident phoned me to say that retailers were still selling, although we are outside the time of year laid down by the voluntary code for selling fireworks. He went into a shop and noticed that a firework being sold there was called missile attack, a 150-shot screeching missile at only £8. That is still being sold at this time of year in Grimsby town centre.
  We are not discussing pretty little stars in the sky with nice sparkles and fizzes; these fireworks are noisy, and I hope that the Bill halts their sale. Such fireworks are creating all the antisocial behaviour, noise and nuisance that our constituents want to see ended. I wish the Bill well and the all-party firework group supports it, so let us have all the fizz and none of the bangs.
  11.28 am
  Derek Conway: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who made many valid points and has done a sterling job behind the scenes in co-ordinating the all-party group. It is good to know that the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) has managed to obtain all-party support for the Bill. This is a challenging Bill for him to steer through the House and I hope that the usual channels, as well as Front Benchers, assist him to get it on to the statute book.

  507
  Like many Members, I have received lots of representations and petitions from my constituents. I shall not follow the example of Liberal Democrat Members by listing them all so that I can put them in my newsletters, but those in Old Bexley and Sidcup have made their views clearly known to me, and I have passed them to the Minister. I am grateful to her for her typically courteous and speedy reply. It is good that the Government have taken notice of the depth of concern in constituencies across the United Kingdom. The Minister was most prompt in dealing with that, for which I am grateful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), in an admirably early and thoughtful contribution, made it clear that those who have some concerns about the drafting of legislation are not party poopers. Sadly, most of us in this Chamber are not that young any more, but we remember with joy the time when we were children and watched fireworks go off. I seem to recall—I do not know whether it is age or not—that in those days they did not seem quite as effective. Most of our fathers had some difficulty getting Catherine wheels to spin, whereas now one could tie a human to them and they would work, so there is a difference between the fireworks that most of us and many of our more elderly constituents remember and the whiz-bang things that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes was right to mention. There is a problem with the type of firework, not just the abuse of the firework.
  I am glad that some concern has been expressed about the period of use. The population in my constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup is slightly more elderly than in many parts of the country. They know when Guy Fawkes night is coming and they are prepared for it, but they are not prepared for it starting in September. The same seems to happen to everything we do: summer time hardly changes and everyone is shopping for Christmas. It is not a problem just for the fireworks industry, and it results from a general impatience to get to periods of celebration. There is, however, a particular problem with fireworks and the length of time during which they appear, despite the voluntary code, to be readily available.
  Fireworks are undoubtedly frightening. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby mentioned their impact on his children. Their experience is widely felt, even among those who have taken their children to fireworks displays or used fireworks in the garden. Most families enjoy the spectacle rather than the volume of noise from fireworks.
  One of the things that worry me is not the display aspect of fireworks but the use to which they are put. If fireworks were used just for observation and amusement, perhaps we would not all need to be here. It is the abuse of fireworks that is the cause of the Bill. There is no need in a debate such as this to go into detail about injuries to children because everyone sees them every year in hospital casualty units. Damage is done to children who are unaware of the danger of fireworks but who have managed to get hold of them.
  John Robertson: May I add to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about children having accidents? When I was 12, a friend of mine thought that fireworks did not make a loud enough noise, so he decided to make
  508
  his own from the fireworks he had. As a result, he blew his hand off. That happened 50 years ago. Is it not sad that we are talking about these things today instead of when I was 12?
  Derek Conway: The hon. Gentleman, as he always does when he contributes to this debate, makes a telling and thought-provoking response. The consequences of the misuse of fireworks are considerable and often damaging for life.
  I perhaps should at this point declare an interest because of what I am about to say. In the Register of Members' Interests, I declare that I am the chief executive of the Cats Protection League, or Cats Protection as we prefer to be known these days, so I should like to make some observations about animal cruelty, which the hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has taken a leading role as an animal welfare charity, and everyone is impressed by the way in which it has done so.
  The animal welfare charity world can be like the world of political parties. We all know what we are doing and we all do it for the best possible reasons, but there is often a degree of in-fighting and spats. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South will be glad to know, however, that on this occasion the animal welfare charities have come together. For once, they agree on something, which does not happen often, so it is quite a triumph for him. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has led the way, with everyone's support, especially that of an excellent organisation called the National Canine Defence League, which takes stray dogs and abandoned dogs, re-homes them, cares for them and does a splendid job across the country.
  Not far from this House, the dogs home at Battersea is another superb organisation. Many people do not realise that for more than 100 years it has been helping cats, too. There is the Blue Cross centre, the Wood Green centre and an organisation much maligned in this place, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has a high political profile in campaigning, which in itself can be controversial. However, I think that all hon. Members would congratulate it on the excellent document that it has produced highlighting the difficulties faced by all species. I am particularly glad to see in his place the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), one of the patrons of Cats Protection. He has a wide interest and reputation in animal welfare matters. It is helpful that organisations such as the RSPCA and those that support it have managed to brief the House this morning so effectively. Action unquestionably is overdue.
  Cats Protection helps about 170,000 cats year, which is more than all the other animal welfare charities put together, through a network of 300 groups across the UK and 30 permanent shelters. I could keep the House going for hours, which of course I do not intend to do, discussing the difficulty with cruelty cases. What we find, particularly in the 30 permanent shelters, is that around Guy Fawkes time there is a phenomenal increase in the number of strays. I refer not to feral cats but to domestic cats that have been scared from family gardens and arrive at our shelter needing help and, often, veterinary support.

  509
  I will give the House one example of cruelty that explains what is happening. It is from Belfast, where we have a shelter in Dundonald on the outskirts of the city. Callous thugs tied to the tail of a 10-week-old kitten a firework that blew its tail off. The distressed animal was brought to our shelter, where the manager, Janice Watts, who is a superb girl with a wonderful crew, cared for the cat and gave it veterinary treatment. It was subsequently re-homed but, not surprisingly, it was a bit suspicious of humans for a very long time.
  The fact remains that cats scare easily. They do not react well to quick movement or to loud noises. They certainly do not react well to having their tails tied. These are not family displays or organised charity events to try to raise money and please everyone. As we know, sadly, on the whole, the cruelty is by very young men who are clearly stupid and who think it is a bit of a giggle and a kick to do something unspeakably horrible to an animal. If they were doing it to one another, I would perhaps have less concern, but they like to use animals to vent their stupidity.
  Mr. Luke: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about that atrocious incident in Northern Ireland gives strength to the movement towards regulation and control of fireworks throughout the United Kingdom. Does he accept that there is a quite strict regime on control of fireworks in Northern Ireland, and that we need police forces and the authorities to take stronger action against individuals such as the ones who perpetrated the attack on that poor cat to ensure that they face the full rigour of the law? That is the best deterrent we have.
  Derek Conway: The hon. Gentleman is right. Obviously, Northern Ireland, if anywhere in the United Kingdom, has a greater awareness of what explosives can do and the danger and fright that they can cause, yet still we have examples such as that. In many ways, one of the frustrations of being in Parliament, and an even greater frustration of being in the police service, is that one cannot outlaw human stupidity. That is what we are talking about in such cases. It is wanton, mindless cruelty. However, we must still try to encourage those who are less ridiculous along a law-abiding route. That is why I hope that the Bill will make progress this morning.
  Charities such as Cats Protection are more interested in finding homes for cats than in paying vet bills for animals damaged by fireworks displays, although sadly that is a large part of our expenditure at that time of the year. It is mindless cruelty. Certainly, the animal welfare sector, as well as my constituents, who are irritated by the human consequences of fireworks, will wish the hon. Member for Hamilton, South Godspeed with his Bill. I am glad that it is getting support from all parts of House.
  11.39 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I shall begin by paying tribute to a man called Malcolm Armstrong, who taught me what little more than most people I know
  510
  about pyrotechnics in one hour of a moving morning. Mr. Armstrong follows in a fine tradition of firework manufacturing in Thanet, which used to host the Astra fireworks factory. I visited Mr. Armstrong's business some years ago; it looks like a collection of garden sheds in a field, but he manufactures some of the finest pyrotechnic fireworks produced in this country, and over the years he has given pleasure to very many people.
  All visitors to Malcolm Armstrong's establishment are taken to one particular shed, which contains a workbench on which there is a photograph of his son, who worked in the business and was blown apart. Because of the care that everyone was required to take, and the careful separation, only one person—the proprietor's son—died in that accident. If I ever needed to learn, I learned then how very dangerous fireworks can be, even when they are properly handled.
  Malcolm Armstrong went on; others might not have been big enough. He did not give in; he continued to manufacture superb displays that gave pleasure to thousands of people. He manufactured the displays for the Quex park promenade concerts in my constituency, which attracted thousands of people and raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for charity—but he has never forgotten, and never forgets to tell anybody handling fireworks, or anybody operating for him or running a display, that those explosives can kill.
  All constituency Members of Parliament will have had the privilege and pleasure of attending firework displays held for charity. Any constituency Member representing a rural area will have been to village fêtes, the culmination of which, in the evening when the sun has gone down, is often a firework display. Anybody with a school in their constituency—and that means everybody—knows that schools too have displays. Everybody knows that a balance has to be struck between the hazards and the pleasure that fireworks give to many people.
  About 30 per cent. of the population of my constituency are over retirement age. Many of those elderly people are widowed, and many of them have pets. I shall not rehearse again the arguments so well deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway); suffice it to say that double distress is caused by the irresponsible use of items primarily designed for enjoyment. The constant use of fireworks throughout the year by irresponsible hooligans, often late at night, causes distress for the elderly and a second distress to their family—because their families are their animals.
  What I want to say to the Minister and the promoter of the Bill is simply this: what is being done here today is necessary, and it has my fullest support—but as one who has the privilege of scrutinising legislation from time to time, I think that another concern needs to be expressed too. The Bill is fairly loosely drafted, and has deliberately been designed to give the Secretary of State powers to introduce regulations. I hope that those regulations will strike the balance needed to control the irresponsible use of fireworks while at the same time permitting public enjoyment, not only on bonfire night but on other proper occasions throughout the year. I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) to consider that. When he takes his Bill into Committee, will he carefully consider discussing with his colleagues

  511
  in Government the possibility of introducing amendments that, at the very least, make the regulations subject to the affirmative statutory instrument procedure, so that we in the House can be sure that we are doing what we intend to do?
  11.44 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I join all the other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his success in winning the lottery and bringing forward this important Bill. I can give the House the reassurance that the Government support it. I am also pleased to hear from Members on both sides of the House about how my hon. Friend has gained the support of organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the RSPCA, the Blue Cross and many others, such as Cats Protection, which we have just heard about.
  The British Fireworks Association, which represents the fireworks industry, also broadly supports the Bill. That is important, and represents a recognition on its part that there is a growing impatience in the community about the difficulties that people are experiencing with fireworks, and that these issues need to be addressed.
  As hon. Members have said, many people have concerns about fireworks. All our postbags contain many complaints from our constituents about their misuse, and the noise and nuisance that they cause. I believe that there has been a sea change in those concerns over the past few years. At one time public concern was principally focused on injuries, and although we and the public continue to be concerned about the number of injuries, the vast majority of the letters, many of which I have received via other Members for my attention, and which I study carefully, highlight the problems that Members have already mentioned—the noise and nuisance, and all their consequences.
  Mr. Luke: I am one of those Members, and I have received no letters back from the Minister. I congratulate her on being instrumental in bringing about her Government colleagues' acceptance of the need for the Bill, but does she accept that this is simply one stage, and that if the Bill is not strong enough, stronger measures may be needed to deal with the problems of noise and nuisance that she is talking about, and which our constituents experience?
  Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend alludes to other possibilities. I could construe him, perhaps wrongly, to mean that fireworks should be banned from general public use.
  Mr. Luke indicated assent.
  Miss Johnson: That is one thing that some people have argued for. Indeed, the fireworks industry recognises that if the concerns that are preoccupying us today are not properly addressed in terms of both legislative powers and the enforcement to back them up, there may be growing support for a ban. Hon. Members
  512
  have accurately expressed the balance of views. Fireworks still give enormous pleasure and many people want their use to continue within a better framework.
  Mr. Singh: When it comes to regulation, will the Minister consider banning exceptionally loud and dangerous fireworks to the general public?
  Miss Johnson: I will consider that. I can also assure my hon. Friend that the European Union is turning its mind to the problem and a European standard may also be set.
  Mr. Truswell: Does my hon. Friend accept that people fear that the European Union may introduce a noise level that is far too high? Although the Bill contains a raft of desirable measures, does she accept that noise is at the core of the problems with fireworks? Is she attracted to the approach that we should set our own level, perhaps along the lines suggested by the RSPCA, and if not, why not?
  Miss Johnson: I am attracted to the approach that people should no longer experience undue noise from fireworks. We have to bear in mind a number of considerations. A certain explosive charge is necessary to put something into the sky which is, obviously, the minimum requirement. Beyond that, we must consider the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) rightly outlined in considerable detail. It is often the availability of cheap and noisy fireworks—how they are sold and marketed, and to whom they are sold—that is the cause of the problem. As we have heard from many constituencies, it is the way in which fireworks are used by hooligans in communities and their availability throughout the year that cause the problems experienced by the public.
  Hon. Members raised the same points in a variety of ways and we all know that we must address them. The protections necessary for humans, animals and property are major concerns. Our powers are limited at the moment and we cannot introduce those protections now. The Bill's main purpose is to provide the capability to use regulations to address the problems associated with fireworks. As hon. Members recognised, it will give us enabling powers to make regulations that control, among other things, the times of the day when fireworks can be used. We will also be able to set a maximum noise limit on all fireworks sold to the public, to require suppliers of fireworks to be licensed, to ensure that public firework display operators meet requirements before giving displays and to control the importation of fireworks. All those measures will play a role in solving the problem. So a package of measures will resolve the difficulties that many people face.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned the framework legislation. We are interested in a Bill of this nature because the problem requires a package of measures. It is also clear that it may need to be flexibly implemented to address problems as and when they occur. The main problem is not in going too far or not far enough—although both of those have been suggested to me, and it would, of course, be for the House to consider any regulations—but in making things as effective as possible. That requires us to ensure that legislation is flexible enough to respond to problems

  513
  as they occur. Indeed, some of the problems arise from the fact that legislation principally focuses on product safety. There is no longer such a large issue about firework product safety because they are mostly safe when used "as it says on the tin". Unfortunately, that is not how they are being used and we do not have the legislative support to deal with the problems that are arising.
  I know that for many people the period of sale is a big issue. The voluntary agreement worked in recent years, but we have had to press the industry to hold to it. Trading standards officers have also had to work hard to sign up retailers. Unfortunately, growing evidence last November showed that a number of retailers—mostly individual shopkeepers, but also one or two well known chains—were openly flouting the voluntary agreement. The Bill gives us the power to enforce the code, and I accept entirely the point—made by several Members—about the multicultural nature of our society, and that we must enable fireworks to continue to be used in the cultural festivals of which they are traditionally a part. The Bill will give us powers to regulate any traditional firework-using festival, and we anticipate that no group will be disadvantaged as a result of these measures.
  On enforcement, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) mentioned the use of penalty notices. Fixed penalty notices have indeed been used in some pilot areas—of which there are only a few—but not in Croydon, according to his account. It would be worth while exploring with the local authorities what the difficulties are, but I can assure him that such notices have been used in other areas. We should turn our minds to the fact that we need more complex powers not simply to provide better enforcement. We are talking about young people—mainly, young males—acquiring fireworks with hooligan intentions and using them in what are essentially hit-and-run crimes. As hon. Members well recognise, that creates a continual difficulty for the enforcement authorities. What we must do is to crack down on the source of the trouble, as well as to tackle it with more effective enforcement, and that is exactly what this Bill will enable us to do.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend has correctly pointed to the central issue. Enforcement will necessarily be dealt with if the supply is cut off. Such people do not wander around the streets throwing sparklers at each other. They use exploding fireworks; we need to attack them and ban their sale. I hope that the Government will introduce regulations to that end.
  Miss Johnson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it is for just that reason that we need to implement strong measures to deal with the hooligan element. It is a great sadness that the hooligan element in our society has terrorised our communities, and I trust that this time sense will prevail in the House on the new powers that are needed to address the problem. I believe that the last time such legislation was debated, a few spoiled things for the many. I hope that the existing consensus and the difficulties reported by many today, all of which point in the same direction, will make Members determined to take the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member
  514
  for Hamilton, South has provided, and—while continuing to make key and constructive criticisms—to support his Bill's passage through the House. Its passage is crucial if we are to achieve any diminution in the difficulties that all of our constituents are affected by.
  I am determined that we strike the right balance by regulating only where necessary, and I want to ensure that the Bill introduces no extraneous or unnecessary regulation. As I said, we must consider its effectiveness and its implications, and I shall study carefully the speech of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) as an exemplar of the avoidance of extraneous material. The Bill will undoubtedly be considered at much greater length if the House decides to commit it to Standing Committee. Assuming that it does progress, much of its detail would need to be thrashed out not only in Committee, but when regulations are introduced, and in the light of the way in which such regulations should be constructed. Given the great public concern that exists about this issue, and given that many support the Bill and want it to make progress, I hope that Members will continue to support it as it progresses—as I trust it will—to Standing Committee for more detailed consideration.
  11.59 am
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to support this Bill as a sponsor. My hon. Friend and cosponsor the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and I can demonstrate that both London and Cornwall have a considerable interest in this Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) not only on his luck in the draw, but on the assiduous way in which he has consulted on the details of the Bill, which has been a model for all who wish to take private Members' Bills through the House. I give credit to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—she and her Department are already heavily involved in discussions on how to make regulations effective.
  We must emphasise that this Bill does not put us on the slippery slope to prohibition. It is precisely to prevent the need for prohibition that we should introduce effective regulations that will deal not only with supply—which has been the main concern in the past—but with possession and use. I entirely endorse the concerns that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about making the Bill sufficiently robust and ensuring that sufficient resources are available for the enforcement of regulations. However, I am sure that everybody in the House will wish to ensure that this Bill is given all the support possible today.
  I wish to pick up on one or two points that have not been raised so far. Most of us have wondered, "Why now?" Indeed, the rather lacklustre speech from the Conservative Front Bench was all about misgivings over whether we should go any further than we have gone already and whether existing legislation is sufficient. Most of us feel that it is not sufficient. A number of hon. Members have worked on this issue and I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) for the work that they have done to draw attention to the inadequacies of existing legislation, making them all too clear.

  515
  The increased availability of fireworks is a problem and reference has been made to the incredible products that are now available cheaply. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes read out a list that sounded like an inventory that might be sent by President G. W. Bush to any country in the middle east that was trying to buy arms. It was extraordinary. Other problems include the length of period during which fireworks are now used, the scale of displays and the simple power of the explosives that are now used, even for private displays.
  Another problem that I wish to highlight is that of confusion. At a time when we are all alert to the dangers of terrorism, there is a particular reason for ensuring that regulations are robust. I can recall sitting in the Members' Tearoom just a few days after 11 September. Suddenly, there was an almighty explosion. From the Tearoom we could not see what it was. It turned out to be a fireworks display on the south bank but—believe me, Madam Deputy Speaker—some elderly Members leapt out of their seats.
  The threat of confusion is important. Hon. Members will appreciate that in Cornwall and Devon it is extremely important that the emergency services can immediately recognise a distress maroon signal from a boat or ship anywhere along the coast. The confusion that can arise because of expensive fireworks can be very dangerous indeed.
  North Cornwall has a large number of elderly people and people who live in remote rural areas. I entirely endorse the point that was made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes: this is not just an urban problem. Indeed, in a way, fireworks can be more dangerous in rural areas because the explosion is much more dramatic when there is not a lot of background noise. That can be dangerous for livestock and pets—and we know that some 8,000 pets a year may be affected—and can also be very disruptive for elderly people in remote communities.
  One particular issue has rightly diverted this morning's debate. Fireworks can cause permanent damage to guide dogs, but they can also cause the disorientation of the dogs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who was here earlier, mentioned that the Royal National College for the Blind in his constituency is very concerned about such disorientation. It can not only be disruptive to a dog, but lead a person into a dangerous situation.
  North Cornwall has, in the past, been somewhat notorious for attracting holidaying snob yobs to beach parties. In addition to burning boat equipment for their barbecues and bonfires, they let off fireworks at various times through the night, which is terribly disruptive in comparatively quiet neighbourhoods.
  Like other Members, I want to speak briefly so that we can bring the debate to a successful conclusion. In cold print, the explanatory notes set out excellent justification for the measure. Existing powers are limited to the supply rather than the use of consumer goods. We must deal with use, possession and irresponsible attitudes. Yes, powers are available to the Minister for dealing with supply, although they may not be sufficiently well enforced. I understand the point about imports; it was made strongly in the debate and is extremely important.
  516
  It is demonstrable not only from what our constituents tell us but from the big turnout in the Chamber that the Bill is extremely important and timely and should be supported this morning.
  12.5 pm
  Richard Ottaway: Time presses so I shall not dwell on the niceties, other than to congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing the Bill.
  The problem with legislation of this type lies in finding a balance: we want to deal with a nuisance without interfering in people's reasonable enjoyment of fireworks in appropriate circumstances. There is no doubt about the inappropriate growth in the use of fireworks in recent years. It affects elderly people and, above all, pets and animals. It is no surprise that many Members referred to cases involving animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) made a powerful speech in which he drew attention to the effects on animals. That is the engine room for reform.
  We all have horror stories about the distress caused to animals by inappropriate use of fireworks. Recently, a constituent wrote to me to say that she had had to have her dog put down because it had bitten her child after it was distressed by a firework display. An excellent briefing document from the RSPCA draws attention to the problems for horses, cats, small mammals and nocturnal wildlife such as badgers and foxes.
  If pet owners receive notice that there is to be a firework display, they can take action to lessen the distress that could be caused to their pet. They can sedate animals or move horses. It is distressing to witness the anxiety caused to animals by fireworks. Dogs often shake and shiver from head to foot; they whimper and hide under beds to try to get away from the noise. Owners feel helpless in such situations because we cannot explain what is going on.
  In recent years, there has been a growth of municipal displays, such as the large ones held on the other side of the river. They have taken over from the family, domestic type of event held in the back garden, with sausage rolls and dad trying to light a pathetic small fire, after which everyone retires early. There is real growth in the use of fireworks, especially in the London boroughs, so it is no surprise that many London MPs are in the Chamber.
  The types of fireworks used are on the up. In an excellent speech, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) set out the wide range of fireworks on display. There are shops that appear in the weeks leading up to 5 November where one can buy a huge container with just one fuse. It costs about 70 or 80 quid and is a complete, self-contained display. I admit that my constituency is fairly affluent and many young people buy such things; they give them to their younger brothers and off they go.
  Unsurprisingly, many injuries are caused by fireworks—a point that has not been much mentioned today. The DTI briefing noted that 1,300 people were injured by fireworks last year, a quarter of the number of people injured in road traffic accidents, which was about 5,000. Given the amount of money devoted to the prevention of road traffic accidents, the Bill's proposals are modest by comparison.

  517
  As many Members have pointed out, the regulations are not working. The Minister dealt with the point that I raised in an intervention: no notices have been issued under the fixed penalty pilot scheme in Croydon because, as has been said, the offenders are mainly young kids aged under-18 who cannot be issued with such penalties. That is one of the problems that the Minister said that she would address.
  Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Richard Ottaway: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not. He has only just arrived in the Chamber.
  As a typical Conservative, I am reluctant to introduce powers if regulations are seen to be working. There is a common consensus, however, that those powers that are currently available are not seen to be working. I am wary about the enabling Bill, and I was comforted by the Minister's speech, when she said that she would consider these matters seriously. What is important is not just what can be sold and when they can be sold, but when they can be let off—we should contain the period within which fireworks can be let off—and to whom they can be sold. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, this problem seems to occur earlier and earlier—fireworks seem to go off throughout the autumn, and often through the night. The House must deal with that situation.
  I return to the theme to which many Members have referred—animal welfare. That is desperately important, and I hope that the Bill will be given a fair wind.
  12.11 pm
  Mr. Michael Weir: I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing this important Bill, which strikes at a serious problem in all our communities. It is not often that he will receive a compliment from an SNP Member, and I hope that it does not damage his career too much.
  I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that this is not just an urban problem. I cite the example in my constituency of one small village where more than £2,000 worth of damage was caused to a house when a firework was jammed through a letterbox in the early hours of the morning. If that fire had not been discovered quickly, it could have turned out to be fatal to the family sleeping in the house. That is how serious this matter is.
  Fireworks are meant for enjoyment and celebration. Unfortunately, they are misused by a small minority, which causes huge distress to our constituents and to animals. It is perhaps no coincidence that fireworks are governed by the Explosives Act 1875. Sadly, many of those most at risk in our society are the most vulnerable. It has been noted that the numbers of injuries are increasing. In Scotland alone, in 2000–01, there was an increase of 35 per cent., which is seriously worrying. Last year, I pursued this matter through parliamentary questions to try to ascertain the dates of accidents
  518
  involving fireworks. The answers showed that the majority of incidents took place before and after 5 November, not on the date itself. Perhaps even more worryingly, the majority of those injured were under 18.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked why this measure was a framework Bill rather than having the incremental approach that has been adopted until now. It is true that after the Government introduced the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which, along with other measures, restricted the sale of fireworks to those over 18, the number of injuries from fireworks decreased. The level of injuries reported in 2001, however, was higher than in 1996, and substantially higher even than in the millennium year, 2000.
  If the increase in the number of injuries is worrying, the age distribution of those injuries is even more disturbing, especially when one considers that, under those regulations, youngsters should not be able to buy fireworks. Injuries to under-13s account for 34 per cent. of the total injuries. A further 25 per cent. is made up of 13 to 15-year-olds. In essence, therefore, 59 per cent. of all firework-related injuries are to children under the age of 16—the very people who should not have access to fireworks. It seems clear, therefore, that the age restrictions in the 1997 regulations are not working and that further action is required.
  I appreciate that time is short, but I want to raise the issue of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. My constituency has long been associated with guide dogs because of the presence of the Scottish training centre. The training centre is actually in Forfar, which is just across the border, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). Much has been said about the problem for working guide dogs, but it goes further than that. Throughout the boroughs of Angus, many people look after and train puppies for the association. Many of those dogs are affected by fireworks before they even become working guide dogs. The problem is therefore serious and should not be underestimated, as it affects the association's puppies as well as the working guide dogs that assist our blind constituents.
  Much has been said about the fact that the Bill is effectively an enabling measure, which is both a strength and a weakness. The weakness is obvious, as we are not entirely certain what the regulations will say, and trust the Minister to be reasonable. However, I was reassured by her speech and I believe that acceptable regulations will be introduced. The strength of such regulations is that they can be adopted more quickly than primary legislation. In an area like this, that is very important and, interestingly, was used by the industry as an argument in favour of the voluntary code. It argued that the code could be quickly amended. However, the code is simply not working because it is voluntary and, as has been noted, several retailers are not sticking to it, which has led to the need for regulation. If the Bill is not successful, there will be calls for a total ban. If there are no improvements, it will become more difficult to resist those calls.
  12.16 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: Last year, I received more complaints from constituents about fireworks than ever before, as did Bournemouth

  519
  borough council, which serves my constituency. In response to those complaints, it passed a resolution on 26 November last year calling on the Local Government Association to make the strongest possible representations to the Government to ban the sale of fireworks to the public and ensure that fireworks are supplied only to qualified organisers of displays. My local paper, the Bournemouth Daily Echo collected a petition in the form of over 4,000 completed coupons signed by its readers in response to its "Bang Out of Order" campaign, together with a separate petition supported by 3,500 signatures, both of which were presented by its senior reporter, Paula Roberts, to the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for South Dorset (Jim Knight) and myself outside St. Stephen's entrance at 9 o'clock this morning.
  Any initiative to reduce the nuisance of fireworks will therefore have the widest possible support from my constituents. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing his Bill today, but I shall suggest some ways in which it can be improved. The complaints and nuisances that have already been cited in justification of the Bill's introduction echo very much the complaints that I have received over the years against the unregulated and indiscriminate use of fireworks, which can have a serious effect on young children, the elderly and, indeed, all of us who cannot avoid an involuntary jump in response to a loud bang outside the home or anywhere for that matter. The effect on dogs, cats, aviary birds, horses and livestock is also distressing for the owners, particularly when pets and other animals have to be put down as a consequence.
  The nuisance extends well beyond midnight, when most of us are trying to sleep. It needs only one bang to set off a chorus of dogs barking in the neighbourhood. The period in which we have to endure such nuisances seems to widen every year, starting well before Halloween and not ending until after the new year. Indeed, fireworks are used throughout the year, as we have heard. Many hon. Members have rightly stressed the traumatic effect of fireworks on guide dogs for the blind and on their owners—it can bring the dogs' useful work to a premature end. The conclusion we should draw from the ever-widening experience of our constituents is that the fun of fireworks for some does not justify the widespread misery that they cause for many. The Government's response has been to rely on voluntary restraint by the industry to reduce the level of noise and to reinforce the voluntary sale agreements with retailers, together with other initiatives, but the Bill goes further in enabling the Government to introduce new regulations on the use and supply of fireworks and in introducing other measures.
  What will happen when the Bill becomes law? Will my constituents immediately be better protected? That will not necessarily be the outcome. As the hon. Member for Hamilton, South acknowledged, his Bill is neither simple nor brief. It is also extremely bureaucratic, and I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) that it may prove to be unworkable. I want much clearer proposals in the Bill. I would not restrict the sale of fireworks. Instead, I would restrict when fireworks can be used and by whom.
  520
  Although I am a Roman Catholic Member of Parliament, I do not propose that Guy Fawkes night should be abolished, as it is so much part of our national culture. I am also a monarchist and a democrat, and believe that he should not have attempted to blow up the King and Parliament. The weapons inspectors did good in discovering the gunpowder plot—I hope they do the same in Iraq.
  I propose that the private use of fireworks and the holding of bonfires should be restricted to seven days a year, which include 5 November and the nearest weekend to it. For the rest of the year, fireworks should be only for public display by organisers who have obtained an occasional licence from the local authority. That should also apply to private parties. There should be a curfew of midnight for all fireworks on every occasion.
  How should these restrictions be policed? Because my proposals are much clearer than what the Bill proposes, I believe that public pressure and self-restraint could prove surprisingly effective. It would simply be considered antisocial to behave otherwise, even by young people towards those who offend. I believe that what I have proposed would have much more support than what is proposed in the Bill. I look forward to support from the promoter of the Bill for my proposals, and I wish him success in the passage of the Bill.
  12.22 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I shall not detain the House long, as there is a general consensus in support of the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing it. We all know the growing problem. Year on year as Members of Parliament, we get more letters, more complaints and more hassle from constituents. We have heard well-rehearsed arguments about the problems caused to guide dogs for the blind, young children and the elderly, and the trauma caused to pets.
  There is undoubtedly an argument for more controls on those who use fireworks. We are not killjoys, but the balance is wrong and we need to redress it. I support the Bill, although I have a number of concerns because it is an enabling Bill. I welcome the Minister's assurance that many of the regulations will be available for the Standing Committee and certainly before the Bill comes back to the House, so that we can see what the Government intend to do.
  I also welcome the training aspect of the Bill, which is vital. Even those who are experienced should undergo training at regular intervals. Not much has been said about the provision of information. We can legislate all we like, but giving information to people and changing attitudes will be tremendously important. We have heard throughout the debate about abuse, largely by teenage boys. Much more can be done. Over recent years, the Department of Trade and Industry has provided much better information, but as the legislation goes through, there should be a commitment from Government to spend a little more on promoting good practice and highlighting the dangers of fireworks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South

  521
  (Richard Ottaway) said, according to the most recent figures, 1,300 people were injured and taken to hospital. That is far too many.
  Shona McIsaac: For the record, those injury figures are only for the month of November. There are probably more injuries than that, but the figures are collated only for that one month.
  Mr. Syms: The hon. Lady makes a good point. As has been said, there are many injuries because of the extended period over which fireworks are used.
  I support the principle of the Bill. We shall have to look carefully at the detail. My constituents will welcome the measure. As we have heard from Dorset Members today, firework safety is an issue in Dorset and the Poole-Bournemouth conurbation. The Daily Echo has conducted a strong campaign. I wish the Bill well and hope that it makes good progress.
  12.25 pm
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I will be very brief and try not to repeat points, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on presenting his Bill so clearly today. I am impressed with the amount of support that he has gathered from such a large number and wide range of organisations.
  Like all hon. Members in the Chamber today, I have an enormous mailbag of letters about the problems caused by fireworks. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) has just said, this morning, I was party to the presentation of a petition from out local paper, the Daily Echo. The petition was absolutely enormous, with readers writing to the paper day after day, saying that fireworks are going off all hours of the night, that they are louder than ever, that they terrify pets and the elderly and that they are being let off over a longer period of time. I do not think that that is just a perception; those are facts. Matters are getting worse and we need to do something about it.
  I am also concerned that fireworks are getting into unauthorised hands, and I have an example from my constituency. A 1.5 m long firework—labelled "For display only. Made in China"—was found after badly damaging a roof in a residential area, and the incident was unrelated to any organised firework display. Those very large fireworks are really frightening. They might go through the glass roof of a room where people are sitting. All sorts of things could happen.
  Many organisations have been mentioned, and I should like to add another: the Townswomen's Guilds—a very formidable organisation—carried out a survey among its 70,000 members last year. More than 90 per cent. of them were concerned about firework nuisance and believed that there should be more regulation.
  I am concerned about how local councils deal with consumer protection complaints. I have a letter which states:
  522
  "It is so obviously true that it is such a cop-out. It is difficult for us to investigate private displays, as we never know where and when they will occur, so don't do anything about the noise at unsocial times."
  Paul Farrelly: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Brooke: I really have not got time to give way.
  Local councils are looking for help, and I was very pleased to hear what the Minister said. The letter goes on to say:
  "We appreciate that the Government is looking into the question of retail sales of fireworks, but until legislation is made, we are not in a position to take any action."
  That is much appreciated.
  We have heard much about the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, and I share all those thoughts.
  As a Liberal Democrat, of course, I should like to quote one of my constituents. She wrote to me—this is very moving—saying:
  "Our beautiful large dog has to have 14 expensive tablets a day to calm her down and is still under the vet for a medical condition caused through stress and fear."
  All the local vets are saying that this is the worst year ever. That is the point: things are getting worse and worse. Vets and doctors are being involved in emergency call-outs because of the injuries. Apart from the cost to the individuals who are hurt, there are all the add-on distress, medical costs and so on.
  I am very pleased that we are making progress. I am pleased to hear the level of support today. I am certainly not a killjoy—I really do enjoy celebrations and having a good time—but if we do not take action now, we will be face very strong calls for a ban, and we would all be worse off if we had a total ban on fireworks.
  12.28 pm
  Andrew Selous: I, too, am pleased to support the Bill, although I am concerned that it has been watered down by the DTI, and I noted that the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said that he hoped that it would be strengthened in Committee.
  Among the incidents that have been reported to me by my constituents, I received a letter from a lady in Houghton Regis early last week saying:
  "We dread the month prior to and following Bonfire night."
  She spoke of a firework display near her house that went on from 7 in the evening until 1 am, depriving all her household of sleep. A lady from Leighton Buzzard wrote to me to say that the local vets now put out advice leaflets to all who go to their surgery. They have never before had to tell owners how to deal with animals that are distressed by the use of fireworks.
  Figures from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association tell us that four guide dogs are prematurely retired every year because of injuries caused by fireworks. Some 150 guide dogs have to be taken away from their owners every year and retrained, and we can imagine the distress that that must cause to their owners. It also estimates that up to £200,000 of publicly donated money is wasted because of fireworks. It is a serious issue and we are grateful to the association for providing that information.

  523
  Another constituent from Leighton Buzzard wrote to say:
  "Some of the explosions round here remind us of the blitz."
  Two other incidents were also extremely worrying. Only a few weeks ago in Leighton Buzzard, a rocket was fired at a house. It went through a window and only just missed a five-year-old child who had just left the room. Had the child been in the room, there could have been a casualty or even a fatality. Similarly, in the village of Kensworth in my constituency, rockets were recently fired at local shops and even at the Methodist church.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trouble that we now face results from the sheer size of many fireworks? That is the feature that has changed so much in the past few years. Much bigger and more dangerous fireworks are available to the public when, in the past, they would have been used only at displays. I hope that the Bill will cover that point.
  Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) for reading a list of the type and size of rockets that are freely available to the public.
  The current law and regulations are failing. The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 have not done their job. We have already heard that it is not possible to give on-the-spot fines to those aged under 18, so that penalty will not be effective. My concern is that the police are simply unable to enforce the legislation that is on the statute book. That is the sad reality. We can pass laws in this place, but we have to examine whether the police are able to enforce them.
  South Bedfordshire district council tells me that it cannot take action against offenders unless the offence is persistent. Except in a few cases, the same household is not likely to cause a problem again and again. The problem for our constituents arises when many different households and individuals cause offence and when the local authority cannot do anything about that.
  John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The police cannot arrest anyone unless the evidence is on the person or unless that person is seen lighting the firework. The police have an impossible job. We need to amend the law.
  Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why I want the Bill to do two specific things, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton, South will deal with these points when he responds.
  First, the Bill must end the sale to the public of noisy fireworks. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is right when it says that a 95 dB level should apply to the fireworks available to the public. Its evidence is that such a limit is needed because of the effects on animals. It has widespread public support. Secondly, the Bill must stop the sale of rockets to the public. We have already heard that they are used as missiles against people's houses.
  Noisy fireworks and rockets can be used at the large properly organised public displays, but they should not be available for sale to the public. The public's use of
  524
  them should be made illegal. I do not want to stop private individuals using sparklers and holding quiet colourful displays. They are fine. However, the public must be prevented from using noisy fireworks and rockets.
  12.34 pm
  John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his good fortune and all the other Members who have worked on this issue over the years. The hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) have done a lot of work on it.
  The issue has been brought to my attention by people in both the urban and rural parts of my constituency. Yesterday, I took a petition containing the names of more than 3,000 of my constituents to Downing street. The petition is the result of a campaign that showed the depth of feeling in Edinburgh, and names are still flooding in. That is why I support the Bill, and I am glad that many Members have given it a fair hearing.
  I am not anti-fireworks, and do not favour an outright ban. Like many others I enjoy a good fireworks display, and those who have visited Edinburgh will know that my constituency is part of a city that hosts some of the most magnificent displays in the world, both at Hogmanay and during the Edinburgh festival. However, as has been said today, we need tighter restrictions—limits on the times of year during which fireworks can be bought and sold, and limits on the time of day during which they can be set off to end displays that take place throughout the night.
  Clause 7, which I consider the most important part of the Bill, addresses one of the main deficiencies in the current law: the lack of a proper system to license the sale of fireworks. The question of licensing has given rise to a great deal of debate north of the border following the introduction of a private Member's Bill in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Government will consult the Scottish Executive to ensure that the issue can be tackled comprehensively on a cross-border basis.
  We need the Bill because the current laws are not working, and because some retailers do not always behave responsibly and consider public safety. The Bill would provide an opportunity, which has never existed before, to require proper training of suppliers and retailers not only in the legal position but in simple matters such as storage. I was amazed to learn that such training did not already exist.
  Despite the current laws, serious problems are still being caused by the sale to under-age people. In parts of my constituency major problems are being caused by very young children. That is partly because a minority of shopkeepers—I stress that they are a minority—are still prepared to sell fireworks to under-age children despite the law.
  Clause 7 also makes a bold but necessary provision enabling licences to be issued for a set period only, reinforcing the Secretary of State's power effectively to limit the times of year in which fireworks are available. In some parts of the country they are sold throughout the year. When a voluntary code of practice fails, we must have a Bill to remedy the problem.
  Paul Farrelly: Like many other Members, I have been inundated with complaints about the nuisance of

  525
  fireworks and the distress that they cause children, dogs and other animals, and elderly people. Some of my constituents have asked me to investigate the possibility of a byelaw. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that national legislation such as this is needed, rather than a patchwork of local pilot schemes and byelaws?
  John Barrett: Absolutely. The Bill has been a long time coming, but now that it is here it is very welcome.
  The Bill is urgently needed for another reason: animals need better protection. Much has been said about guide dogs for the blind. Last year, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is based in my constituency, produced a chilling report on the impact of firework misuse on animals following a comprehensive survey of Scottish vets. The report included a catalogue of stories relating to injuries and deaths caused by fireworks. In a single year, 8,000 animals needed veterinary attention, but perhaps more significant was the long period during which animals were exposed to firework injury and stress. They continued to suffer for many months after the event. Some of the worst instances cited in the report were deliberate attacks on animals with fireworks, which deserve total condemnation. There must be strict penalties to deal with people such as those described in the report.
  This is a popular Bill, and many who have spoken have already covered issues that I would have raised had I been called earlier. Let me end by repeating that the Bill is strongly supported in my constituency. The police and the fire services there tell me how much time they must spend responding to incidents involving fireworks, and those in medical centres tell me how many injuries they must treat. Vets and people involved with Edinburgh zoo tell me of the distress and deaths that
  526
  fireworks cause. As I have said, the Bill has been a long time coming, but it is urgently needed and I give it my full support.
  12.39 pm
  Mr. Tynan: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will be brief, because other Bills are on the agenda. I hope that other Members will understand and respect that.
  Hon. Members have shown today the strength of feeling, not only in the House but in the nation, on the question of fireworks. The turnout today was incredible, and that was down sometimes to organisation and sometimes to the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), an old campaigner in the House, gave me tremendous support and advice as regards organising to ensure that Members were in; I thank him for that. I also thank all colleagues for taking time to attend on a Friday, because I know how precious it can be to be in one's constituency. I am delighted.
  Once again I emphasise the broad support that the Bill has received from outside the House. The National Campaign for Firework Safety—one organisation that I may have inadvertently omitted to mention—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the explosives industry group, the CBI and the British Pyrotechnists Association have all been exceptionally helpful to me. In order to get consensus, I believed that it was necessary to have discussion and debate.
  I believe that the Bill is a timely, comprehensive and consensual solution to the problems of fireworks for the future. I commend it to the House.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.41 pm
  Mr. Keith Simpson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I begin by providing some background to the Bill. Parliamentary interest in this issue arose out of an unsuccessful appeal to the Community Fund by the Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal 2000 for a grant towards an endowment fund. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) introduced a private Member's Bill, the National Lottery (Amendment) Bill, which sought to give the National Lottery Charities Board an additional power to consider, and indeed award, grants towards the endowment of charities under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, as amended in 1998. The Bill received the support of every Norfolk Member, and many of us were present in the House and I spoke in support of that Bill at its Second Reading on 23 March 2001.
  Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend also aware that that Bill received the implicit support of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Support, when it too recognised that there needs to be endowment to ensure, when capital grants are given, that progress can be made over the years in fulfilling the projects that they support?
  Mr. Simpson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who was present during that private Member's Bill debate on 23 March 2001. He is a leading member of the Select Committee; he adorns the Committee, and always speaks knowledgeably and with great force. I am grateful to him for drawing to the attention of the House the fact that the Select Committee particularly supported that private Member's Bill.
  I note that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) is in the Chamber and intends, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to support the Bill. I received apologies from the hon. Member for Norwich, North, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). All those hon. Members support my Bill, as do many other hon. Members outside the fair county of Norfolk.
  I pay particular tribute to the hard work of the hon. Member for Norwich, North, who worked very hard in the last Parliament to get his Bill on the statute book. As you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill received a Second Reading, but the general election prevented it from reaching Third Reading. Following the general election, Lord Walpole of the county of Norfolk sought to introduce a similar Bill in the other place, but it was withdrawn before Second Reading.
  The purpose—the key objective—of my Bill is to make it clear that all lottery distributors, including the Community Fund, which is the lottery distributing body
  528
  that gives grants to charities and the voluntary and community sector, can distribute lottery moneys by funding endowments, including permanent endowments, for the purpose of establishing endowments as well as for contributing to those already in existence.
  The powers of distributors under current statute give lottery distributing bodies power to distribute lottery money for meeting expenditure of the types specified in section 23 of the 1993 Act. However, it does not define what is meant by "for meeting expenditure" or contain any explicit reference to the funding of endowment funds. This private Member's Bill would amend those sections of the Act that refer to "for meeting expenditure" to clarify the fact that, in each case, the term includes funding of endowments.
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport previously advised that distributors other than the Community Fund could fund endowments, and some distributing bodies have made such grants. The Bill would have retrospective effects, which are in clause 1(9).
  What are the benefits of the Bill? It would clarify the powers of all the distributors, put the Community Fund on the same legal footing as other distributors in being able to fund endowments and benefit charities such as the Eastern Daily Press "We Care" 2000 fund, which wants to apply for lottery funding and which I want to comment on.
  Many of us in Norfolk became involved with the appeal. With the support of the Eastern Daily Press, a fund was set up in Norfolk to endow the Norfolk millennium trust for carers. It aimed to raise £1 million in cash to establish the trust, which is registered as a charity, and to enable it to become long lasting as well as to provide financial help for an estimated 130,000 unpaid carers in the county of Norfolk. Its purpose was to respond to the identified need of such carers, and it sought to help with the purchase of equipment and improving the quality of life for carers.
  So far, the appeal has raised approximately £635,000 and has made more than 100 grants to pay for equipment, holidays and support for carers. I do not have to describe to the House the emotional, financial and physical burden endured by carers, or the loneliness, frustration and sheer exhaustion involved for many of them, some of whom are among the most elderly members of the community.
  I pay particular tribute to two groups of people who have been involved in the appeal. I must mention the work done by the editor, Mr. Peter Franzen, and the deputy editor, Mr. James Ruddy, of the Eastern Daily Press in driving the appeal forward and the trustees, in particular Mrs. Paddy Seligman, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the fund. As with other charity funds, it involves tens of thousands of local people and organisations, who run everything from jumble sales to sponsored walks.
  We in this country are proud that although considerable public expenditure is given to support the needy, and rightly so—I pay tribute to the work done by previous Governments and by this Government—a lot of money, work and sheer commitment are given by thousands of individual volunteers as well as the voluntary sector. It is not an either/or. They provide

  529
  something that is extra that is not just money. The mission statement of the Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal is
  "to relieve the elderly, infirm, sick or disabled in Norfolk by providing financial aid and practical support to carers, either individually or through carers' groups."
  It is estimated that one in seven of the population in the United Kingdom are unpaid carers. In the county of Norfolk, that comes to some 110,000 people, which means about 12,000 in my constituency of Mid-Norfolk. It has been calculated that, nationally, carers save the Government approximately £34 billion a year, so anything that we can do to help carers not only saves the Government and the taxpayer literally billions of pounds but, most important of all for organisations such as the "We Care" campaign, brings relief to tens of thousands of carers, who often have to do a job in addition to looking after a sick parent, partner or child.
  At the moment, all lottery distributors are able to make grants to endowments but the Community Fund is not. Charities such as the "We Care" appeal and other local voluntary groups cannot bid to the fund to augment their endowment funds. My Bill would give the Community Fund power to fund endowments and would clarify further the powers for other distributors to make grants to endowments.
  What are the benefits of endowment funds? They can be a useful way of providing long-term revenue funding, particularly for voluntary sector bodies. They can enable bodies to plan strategically and with some certainty on the security of funding, enabling them to operate more effectively on behalf of their client groups. They can also improve creditability with potential third-party funders and partners secure in the knowledge that core funding is guaranteed.
  Nevertheless, I recognise that endowment funds require large sums up front to provide reasonable returns in the longer term and that future income levels are subject to variations in interest rates. However, the power in my Bill is a permissive rather than a mandatory power for distributors. It would ultimately be up to the distributors to determine how to treat applications for grants to endowment funds against other calls for lottery funding. I understand that, should my Bill be successful, the Minister's Department intends to assist distributors by issuing guidance.
  What is the regulatory cost of the Bill? I suppose that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would expect a Conservative to look with a gimlet eye at the cost of regulation. As a permissive power, there would be no regulatory cost to businesses or the voluntary sector resulting from my Bill. Indeed, the measure is intended to assist charities in the sector and other good causes by enabling them to apply for lottery funding to help set up or augment their endowment funds, and thus to help manage their operations more effectively.
  That power may result in additional calls on distributors' resources, but, ultimately, it would be a policy decision for distributors on how to prioritise such applications against others for non-endowment grants. Therefore, it would be a permissive, not a mandatory power. That is the great appeal of the Bill. There would be no impact on the expenditure or manpower of central
  530
  or local government. I am sure that that would appeal not only to hon. Members present and the Minister but to the Treasury, which oversees all public expenditure.
  This Bill would affect all national lottery distributors' powers and therefore would be UK-wide. The policy for the lottery is a reserved issue, but I understand that the Bill has attracted the support of the devolved Administrations.
  This Bill is the outcome of a Bill that was introduced as a private Member's Bill in the previous Parliament. It has been redrafted and enjoys, I believe, widespread support. I hope that the Government can support the principles of my Bill, which will enable endowment funds to be drawn upon by a wide range of charities and voluntary organisations, not only directly saving national and local expenditure, but also bringing relief to the tens of thousands of our fellow citizens who work so hard to care for many of the most vulnerable people in our community.
  As Members of Parliament, it is not often that we can do something really constructive. Two or three years ago, my son, who was then about nine or 10, asked me about my job, and I explained about the parents of his friends in his class who were teachers, doctors or farmers; he understood all that. Then I attempted to explain what a Member of Parliament's life was like, and what one did. He fixed me with a sceptical look, as young children do, and said, "Yes Dad, but what exactly do you do?" That is usually the problem—but, occasionally, we in Parliament can do something practical beyond the narrow confines of party politics and the constraints of party discipline.
  I hope that the House will approve the Bill today. I commend it, and hope that it will find widespread support.
  12.56 pm
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing a high place in the ballot and introducing the Bill. My comments will be very brief, first because he has already adequately covered all the points, and secondly because there are three or four other private Members' Bills to be debated.
  It is hard not to feel a slight sense of déjà vu as we discuss this Bill, because we debated a similar Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) two year ago. As we all know, that Bill eventually failed because of the general election, but we hope that the same fate does not await the Bill before us today.
  The fact that we are again assembled here today to debate a Bill whose main aim is to allow lottery distributors to fund endowments is a remarkable testament to the degree of cross-party support for the idea, because it was a Labour Member who introduced the private Member's Bill in the last Parliament, and the Bill that we are now debating was introduced by a Conservative Member. If I can be a little parochial for a moment, I might add that it is also a testament to the unity of the hon. Members representing the county of Norfolk, because they have been the driving force behind this legislation.
  I pay tribute to those who support the Bill, but I must also congratulate the Eastern Daily Press on its "We Care" appeal. It was the EDP that originally drew

  531
  attention to the anomaly in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 that the Bill seeks to address. I know that the appeal's director, Mrs. Paddy Seligman. has worked hard to raise funds, and I add my congratulations and thanks not only to her but to Peter Franzen, the editor, and James Ruddy, as well as to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk.
  I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister for Sport, who is here today, also support the Bill, so we hope that in due course it will make it on to the statute book. The purpose of the Bill is expressly to permit all lottery distributors to distribute lottery moneys by funding endowments, including permanent endowments—both establishing endowments and contributing to endowments already in existence.
  When we debated this matter in 2001, there was some discussion about whether it was a good idea to make the change. It was pointed out that granting an endowment would inevitably tie up a relatively large amount of capital, so it might be better for the money to be distributed to more recipients in the short term. It was further argued that the current low returns on endowments were another reason not to make the change. Although I appreciate those arguments, I do not agree with them. The Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal provides a perfect case study of why the proposed change should be made.
  The amount raised by the appeal stands at £650,000, which is a magnificent effort. All the income produced from investing that sum goes in awards to carers throughout Norfolk. I was pleased to learn that, as the capital is invested for safe income rather than capital growth, the rate of return has not been badly affected by recent falls in the stock market. However, the "We Care" appeal target is £1 million because such an investment would provide a sufficient return to allow the organisers to deal adequately with the requests for assistance that they receive from carers throughout Norfolk. I am told that they are not always able to grant the full amount requested, even in the most deserving cases, because they do not have enough funds. Although they have demonstrated great persistence, determination and professionalism to raise £650,000, the law does not allow them to apply to the lottery for assistance to reach the £1 million target simply because the fund is constituted as an endowment.
  It seems wrong in principle that those who are in charge of the various lottery distributors, who discharge the difficult duty of deciding which groups should benefit from lottery funds, should have their hands tied by not being allowed to make grants to endowments. It may be that the present low rates of return on investments and the long-term tying up of capital militate against the funding of endowments in some cases, but surely we should trust those who have been empowered to make such decisions and allow them the flexibility to consider the widest range of possible applicants for the widest range of benefit to the community.
  In any case, there is another thing in favour of funding endowments, as I told the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when it invited responses to its Green Paper, "Review of Lottery Funding". Put simply, the long-term and stable nature of the funds that an endowment provides is desirable. No Government have stressed the value of long-term economic stability, nor
  532
  done as much to bring it about, as this Government. So if we can give the lottery fund distributors the freedom to encourage that outcome for those who receive their grants, we should do so.
  I understand that there is a difference between today's Bill and the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North in 2001. This Bill is more widely drawn and specifically allows all the lottery distributing bodies to fund endowments. The purpose of the previous Bill was to allow the National Lottery Charities Board to fund endowments, which, at the moment, it is specifically not allowed to do. The situation for the other lottery funding boards is unclear but would be clarified by the Bill. A welcome effect of that would be to include not only charities but the range of voluntary groups as possible recipients of lottery endowment funding.
  I know from my constituency how deeply ingrained the culture of volunteering is in our society. Last year, I held a reception for representatives of voluntary groups in the borough and was shocked to find that in my constituency of 90,000 people there are no fewer than 350 charitable and voluntary groups. I am hopeful that, if the Bill is passed, some of them will be successful in applying for lottery endowment funds. So I hope that it proceeds with the wholehearted support of the House.
  1.3 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on his success in coming high in the ballot for private Members' Bills and on taking the opportunity to reintroduce a Bill, suitably amended, that secured widespread support when first introduced by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) two years ago.
  The original Bill focused on the anomaly in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 which prevented the National Lottery Charities Board from distributing funds to local charities in the form of endowments. A particular charity was mentioned at that time and the change was proposed in a campaign run by the Eastern Daily Press, in conjunction with the hon. Member for Norwich, North, known as the "We Care" appeal 2000. The aim was to raise £1 million to establish an endowment fund for unpaid carers in Norfolk. In my hon. Friend's eloquent speech, he re-emphasised the importance of funding carers in his county. Not only is that vital to him and his constituents, but it serves as a timely reminder of how important carers are in our communities throughout the country.
  When the original Bill was debated, although there was general support for it, concern was expressed on all sides about its rather narrow and prescriptive proposals, linked as they were to only one of the seven lottery fund distributors—the National Lottery Charities Board. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said at the time:
  "The question for us is whether the proposed change is desirable, whether it would improve the working of the NLCB and provide greater equity of opportunity to obtain grants from the board, or whether it would have adverse consequences for the work of the board or the operation of the lottery funding bodies."—[Official Report, 23 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 594.]
  It is the latter point that is crucial. Would a facility offered exclusively to the NLCB have adverse repercussions for any of the other distributing bodies?

  533
  This point was not teased out in Committee because the original Bill fell with the looming general election of 2001. However, the Government did then share that concern, along with spokespeople on the Opposition Benches.
  These problems have, in our view, been properly and wisely addressed in the amended Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk. It adds to the powers of distributing bodies by including the distribution of money for the purpose of establishing, or contributing to, endowments in each appropriate section of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993: sections 22, 25, 25B, 38, 41, 43 and 44. My hon. Friend's Bill now gives each and every distributor of lottery funds the option of contributing either to the establishment of a new endowment, or to an existing one.
  The previous debate also cited the endowment funds of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts as a precedent already established by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and as a template for possible national lottery endowment funds to follow, given the similarity between NESTA and various registered charities. Not only was the method of funding by endowment at that time praised; the freedom and continuity afforded to NESTA trustees, without undue interference from Government, was noted as both preferable and positive when targeting particular groups in need of support.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk has pointed out today, however, one of the downsides to the endowment route is the variation in interest rates. Only a few weeks ago, the Minister and I confronted each other, in a statutory instrument Committee, on this very point. NESTA, in receipt of an original endowment, found that the income that it was anticipating—and was presumably spending—had decreased because of lower interest rates. NESTA appealed to the Government and to the Minister's Department for additional capital moneys to put into the endowment fund. So a real problem has raised its head in respect of NESTA, which, at the time, was described as a useful template for others to follow and to adapt.
  Another potentially detrimental aspect of the Bill's proposed amendments is that in funding endowments, less money would be readily available for projects in need of immediate funding. This is due, of course, to the large sums needed to initiate an endowment fund. Potentially, that would deny projects immediate funding in the short term. However, the benefits of establishing an endowment fund that can provide funding for an unfixed and prolonged period may prove more advantageous and beneficial in the long run.
  As I understand it, the legal position for an endowment is that the money is conferred upon that endowment in perpetuity. Indeed, the Bill's amendment to section 44 of the 1993 Act specifically refers to "permanent endowment". Of course, that has the considerable advantage for the recipient bodies of guaranteed continuity of income, and overcomes the problems faced by many bodies currently in receipt of lottery funds, including charities, when their short-term funding—usually of three to five years—comes to an end. But what happens to endowed funds if the recipient body ceases to exist, for whatever reason? Does existing
  534
  legislation allow sufficient control to avoid funds falling into the wrong hands or being misappropriated in any way? Who would have the ultimate responsibility? Would it be the recipient charity controlling the endowment, or the lottery distributing body that countenanced the funding to the endowment in the first place?
  This Bill highlights an anomaly in the original National Lottery etc. Act which denied the funding of endowments by omitting it from the defined expenditure of the various funding distribution boards. No reason has been specified for denying funding of, or contribution to, endowment funds. Since the original Act, the NESTA fund has provided a framework, and precedents, for the establishment of endowments in all areas of national lottery funding.
  As I have said, the short-term effects of a change may he detrimental in denying money to organisations that require immediate funding, as the cash will be directed into the establishment of an endowment fund. However, by allowing the funding of endowments, the long-term benefits include prolonged and sustained funding to worthwhile projects.
  On this side of the House, we will need reassurance on the technical issues that the Bill raises. However, we are confident that those can be teased out in Committee. The lottery has been a major success since its introduction by the Government of the former Member for Huntingdon. Nevertheless, it is in need of reform to meet changing circumstances. We believe that the Bill introduces welcome—although overdue—reform. We intend to give it a fair wind on this, its Second Reading.
  1.11 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on the persuasive way in which he introduced the Bill. He has made great efforts to ensure that this is a non-partisan, cross-party Bill. He has involved the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright)—from the opposite side of the House—as well as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who I am sure would want me to do all I can to expedite the progress of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk highlighted something that I recognise from constituency work. Organisations that are involved with carers face particular difficulties in raising funding. It is a difficult and unique problem. In my constituency, there is a wonderful group called Home Link, which is associated with St. Augustine's church. The group specialises in providing day respite care for carers. Carers come, and their elderly or disabled relatives are left for the day. Such organisations perform an enormously valuable social function, but they genuinely find it difficult to raise funding because they fall down the crack between health and social services. They may get a bit of cash now and then from hospitals, but they are not directly related to health care and do not provide mainstream primary hospital care; similarly, social services departments are always strapped for cash and are therefore reluctant to take on optional items such as respite care. As a result, such groups struggle constantly. They have to pay professional fundraisers and find themselves on a perpetual treadmill of fundraising

  535
  activities. I can therefore see the logic of what the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk is proposing. Secure, long-term funding that provides an income stream is exactly what such groups require to give them stability.
  Michael Fabricant: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. I feel strongly that funding of this type should not be used to breach the additionality principle, but does the hon. Gentleman feel that hospices should be considered in this discussion? Although partly funded by the state, they are mainly funded by charitable organisations.
  Dr. Cable: That is a sensible and helpful suggestion, and I am sure that hospices could be included if this Bill progresses. The basic problem that hospices face is a lack of government support. Many of us have tried to address that issue.
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke about NESTA. It provides a legal precedent and it also handles large amounts of money. I understand that the endowment for NESTA is about £200 million. That involves a substantial undertaking and provides a lot of useful funding, particularly in scientific innovation and the arts.
  My final point is not a criticism of the Bill, but I would like to ask a question that the Minister may also wish to address. What effect will this type of approach to the use of lottery funding have on the overall success of the lottery?
  Currently, we are not dealing with a successful concern; the lottery is in considerable trouble and people are increasingly reluctant to use it. There are many reasons for that. Lotteries all over the world peak and then decline as people become used to them and get bored. There may be a particular problem for the UK lottery because it has such huge jackpot prizes with a small tail of lesser prizes, so the incentive to keep playing it is eroded.
  A subsidiary reason for the loss of appeal is that many punters see only a distant connection between the money that they invest and the good causes. There is a danger that endowments might make that problem worse. The punter putting in his or her money will not see the end product because the money will go into a financial investment vehicle, although of course it will be working for good causes. Considerable promotion will be required to explain to the public that endowment is a useful good cause and that they will not lose the direct connection between the money that they put on the lottery today and the money given to good causes tomorrow. That is a psychological danger and it should be addressed, although it is not a fundamental argument against the proposals. It is part of the lottery problem.
  Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. When we get some of our own money back from the European Union, we have to erect a big plaque and a flag to show that it is EU money, so perhaps it should be compulsory to do something similar for anything funded under the auspices of the Bill—shortly, I hope, to become an Act. Perhaps the Minister might consider that point.
  Dr. Cable: In my area, such appreciation is advertised and expressed to the fund for most projects that receive
  536
  substantial lottery funding, but I am not sure that we should make that practice highly prescriptive, nor what penalties should be imposed on charities that do not show due appreciation. However, the hon. Gentleman obviously has a fund of ideas, so perhaps he should make a speech and give us the benefit of them.
  That is the limit of my contribution. I acknowledge the effective way in which the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk introduced the Bill. I support him and my colleagues and hope that we can consider the more technical aspects in Committee in due course.
  1.17 pm
  Michael Fabricant: My chance to speak has come sooner than I anticipated; I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on his ingenuity in coming so high in the ballot and on his good sense in promoting the Bill. I was in the Chamber when the earlier Bill was discussed. It had support on both sides of the House and only the general election, which sadly had to come about, meant that it did not pass at that time.
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, said:
  "The Government sympathise with what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North"—
  as has been said, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was the promoter of the original Bill—
  "is trying to achieve. We may wish to offer technical improvements should his Bill make further progress, but we shall not oppose it today."—[Official Report, 23 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 621.]
  I hope that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport will treat my hon. Friend's Bill in the same way [Interruption.] He nods in affirmation. There will not be a general election in the immediate future, although one might wonder about that given the way things are going, so I hope that the Bill will become law sooner rather than later.
  I very much welcome the Bill. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, one in seven people are carers and the Bill is particularly directed at the National Lottery Charities Board. The measure would provide many opportunities for lottery money to be used to support carers throughout the country. However, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the money need not be used only for that; some of it could also be used for hospices, because the Government do not support hospices at present.
  Many people have been touched by hospices, either because relatives are there or because they work in charities that support hospices. I have a hospice in my constituency—the St. Giles hospice—and huge amounts of effort go into supporting it. If it could receive additional support by virtue of this Bill becoming an Act, many people will appreciate it.
  As others have pointed out, this measure has expanded since the original Bill, as it will also take into its orbit the other lottery boards. At the moment, there is a lack of clarity. I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk that the Select Committee, under the flamboyant chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman),

  537
  examined the funding of organisations by lotteries. It was accepted that, often, large grants are given to museums, theatres and so on, which then find that they do not have the money to fund running costs. I am therefore particularly pleased that this Bill will enable lottery boards to provide endowments—if those are the most suitable means—for organisations such as theatres and museums. I suppose that I should mention that one museum in my constituency, the Erasmus Darwin museum, would be a particularly suitable recipient of such funds. That would provide additional flexibility to organisations such as the Arts Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund to provide funding for those organisations, which are so worth while.
  I appreciate, however, the caveats that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). Controls must exist to ensure that, over time, moneys received from long-term endowments are used wisely and as was originally planned. I hope that the Minister will assure me and other Members that such provisions will be in place to ensure that moneys cannot be misused.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham talked about the fact that moneys coming into the lotteries have fallen. That is true. Their total income has fallen by something in the order of 5 per cent. since April. Camelot says that interest in the main lotto game is declining for all sorts of reasons, one of which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, was simply familiarity with lotteries. That was not helped by somebody—I think she was the chief executive of Camelot—stating the obvious fact that one stands a greater chance of being struck by lightning than of winning £6 million or more. For whatever reason, however, income has fallen.
  Camelot has said that one reason why interest in lotteries has fallen is that grants have been made to unpopular causes. It would be interesting to consider a couple of examples. The Rhondda Community Development Association received £200,000, which sounds fine until we find that the money was to improve the lives of Bolivian miners. At least a kind of synergy exists between Bolivian miners and miners in the Rhondda. The Blue Cross animal charity, however, received more than £180,000 to expand a helpline for mourners of pets. When income has fallen by 5 per cent., and there are so many worthwhile causes, one wonders about grants to mourners of pets. I remember once being mugged, and I had ladies from Victim Support constantly phoning me up, and I had to say, "Actually, I'm okay." If Victim Support does not receive lottery money, why should mourners of pets do so?
  To me, the most amusing example, however, was the £295,000 given to a Worcestershire charity to breed giant guinea pigs in Peru. I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have walked in Peru, and I can tell you that giant guinea pigs are not kept as pets in
  538
  Peru; they are eaten. I have to confess—I know that I will receive many letters for having done so—that I have eaten a giant guinea pig in Peru.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that my son's girlfriend is currently in Peru, but that has as much relevance to the debate as his comments.
  Michael Fabricant: I am fascinated to know that, Sir. I only hope that your son's girlfriend does not try a giant guinea pig in Peru or elsewhere.
  We must think wisely and carefully about where the money goes. It is particularly poignant to learn that the Royal British Legion was refused £500,000 for a residential home and that the Battle of Britain Historical Society was refused money for a memorial. We must always consider carefully how the money is spent. On balance, the Bill is overdue. Personally, I think that it should not be called the National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Bill but simply the Norfolk Bill. I commend all Norfolk Members as well as the Eastern Daily Press on being its progenitors.
  1.26 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is fast becoming a national treasure. I wish that he had time to tell us how the guinea pig tasted before he was stopped in his tracks.
  The lottery has not always been disastrous in its handing out of funds. I should like to touch on one or two successful appeals in my constituency. Herefordshire Headway provides education, day care and rehabilitation for adults with brain injury, and was lucky enough to receive £198,000. Bromyard public hall, Age Concern Leominster, and North Herefordshire and Tenbury area council for voluntary service all received lottery funding, for which they are extremely grateful. I was deeply concerned that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) found that it was occasionally difficult for a Member of Parliament to be constructive. I suspect that he was referring to his time in the Whips Office.
  It is important to declare my interest as a trustee of the Eveson charitable trust, which gives large donations to charities. The Bishop of Hereford, other trustees and I spend a great deal of time and effort to try to ensure that the best causes receive funding and focus particularly on who will do the most good locally. I do not envy people who have the job of making such decisions on behalf of the lottery. It would be a tragedy if they were prohibited from giving endowments, so I hope that the Bill is successful in altering that. I should also like to declare an interest as someone who has been lucky enough to get five numbers in the lottery. Unfortunately, I was part of a large syndicate of 18 colleagues, and we won the princely sum of £25 each. I sat next to the young man who chose the numbers and I was appalled to overhear a colleague say, "Well, why didn't you get the sixth one right, you idiot?" That just shows how ungrateful some people can be.
  When looking at endowments to charities, we should remember that their purpose is to ensure that charities' good work continues. I recall a visit to the volunteer

  539
  bureau in Leominster, where I witnessed something that most Members who have visited such bureaux will have witnessed. People were trying desperately hard to do something good—working hard for charity—only to find that halfway through their term they had to turn their attention away from charitable work and start to concentrate on funding their work for the next three years. Endowments would make that unnecessary, so the proposed change is thoroughly commendable.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for mentioning the hospice movement. I am a patron of St. Michael's hospice in Bartestree in my constituency. Palliative care touches people so intensely personally, and the Government should consider the funding of it.
  I am pleased to have had an opportunity to speak on this important subject. Like all those involved in charitable work, I believe that we should do it to the best of our ability and ensure that the work continues unabated. To that end, I support the Bill.
  1.30 pm
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on his successful introduction of the Bill. As many hon. Members have said, it is pleasing that he took the opportunity afforded to him to bring the Bill before the House. I know how much the issue addressed by the Bill means to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the wider Norfolk constituencies, many of whom are present and have contributed to the debate.
  I put on record a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) who, as has been mentioned, introduced a similar Bill back in 2001, seeking at the time to apply the Bill's provisions solely to the Community Fund. My hon. Friend's Bill reached its Third Reading before the general election intervened to prevent further consideration. That was unfortunate, to some more so than to others. Although we believed the Bill to be technically flawed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) explained from the Front Bench, we were sympathetic to the principle. That, together with the help of my Department, has enabled the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk to produce a Bill that is technically sounder than the previous one.
  It would be remiss of me not to mention the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about the lottery in general and the subject of good causes in particular. Several hon. Members have referred to their experience with the lottery. I remind the House what an institution the lottery is, and credit for its existence is due to both sides of the House. The lottery has raised £12.4 billion for good causes. One or two have been highlighted today, including guinea pigs in Peru. That £12.4 billion has benefited 127,000 individual projects. Independent audit has shown the UK lottery to be among the most efficient lottery operators in the world, and it is considered to return more money to good causes than do lotteries in many other countries. The Lotto, which is a large part of the portfolio—Camelot is looking into that—ranks in the top two lottos in the world. By any standards, it has been a huge success.
  Bob Spink:I am listening carefully to the Minister. Does he accept that it would help the
  540
  lottery to get more money in and facilitate endowments under the Bill if we could attract more support for the lottery? One way of doing that is to ensure that the lottery money is spread more evenly among the constituencies, and that constituencies such as mine, which receive only the bottom 5 per cent. of receipts, receive more lottery funds.
  Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman was successful in raising questions on the matter a little while ago, and I responded in detail. He knows that, with agreement across the House, we have tried to refine the distribution of lottery receipts for good causes, and we will continue to work at that. I told him that I would write to him about the possibility of his constituents making more applications—they can get the money only if they make an application, and unfortunately his constituents had not made as many applications as others.
  Finally on that point, I have had discussions—as late as this week—with Camelot about hon. Members' genuine concerns about the decline in lottery sales, although, as I say, such things are relative and must be put in context. Camelot is very mindful of that and, I think, will produce some innovatory ideas about how it can return to the growth path and encourage more people to participate.
  I wish to say very genuinely that although it is easy to make fun of one or two of the causes being supported, it is incumbent on all hon. Members to get behind the lottery because at the end of the day all our constituents gain from it. If hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree on that, it will be a win-win situation for everyone. Indeed, at the beginning of this month the tally was that about £135 million had been awarded to good causes just in Norfolk, including £21.6 million from the Community Fund to charitable and voluntary bodies.
  We have heard very firmly that the Bill was originally inspired by the Eastern Daily Press "We Care 2000" appeal, which was launched back in October 1998, with the aim of raising £1 million to establish an endowment fund entitled "The Norfolk Millennium Trust for Carers". So I join many hon. Members in saying "Thank you very much" to the Eastern Daily Press, particularly its editor and deputy editor, as well as the fund's trustees who have undoubtedly done a sterling job.
  It is pleasing that, from time to time, the House focuses on groups of people throughout the country. We sometimes forget carers. Indeed, they are the unsung heroes who deserve our admiration and support for the work they do week in, week out; year in, year out. It is great that the House can acknowledge that, and a paper, such as the Eastern Daily Press, can bring that to the fore.
  It is unfortunate that the existing lottery legislation does not expressly refer to the power of distributors to fund endowments. I am sure that it was not the deliberate intention, when the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 was originally drafted, to prevent any distributor from awarding grants to establish or augment endowment funds, so it is good that we can take this opportunity to tidy up the legislation in the way that the Bill will allow.
  I asked my office to take a quick look at the other endowments, as we tend to home in on the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts,

  541
  which is the big one. I wish to say briefly that the New Opportunities Fund has given £50 million to a 10-year endowment, as part of the fair share initiative. The Millennium Commission has awarded £16 million, as a 10-year expendable endowment, to the millennium seed bank. Under the stabilisation and recovery programme, the Arts Council of England has given three awards to endowments, totalling less than £2 million. The Heritage Lottery Fund has also given a few awards to endowments—probably three or four—totalling about £15 million. So we can see that endowments have been used effectively to top up or stabilise certain funding.
  I hope that we can tidy up the legislation that is already on the statute book That is why I welcome the Bill, which expressly provides all distributors, including the Community Fund, with the power to use lottery money to set up or contribute to endowments if they choose to do so. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk has highlighted, the Bill will clarify that all the distributing bodies have powers to fund endowments, so it will ensure that charitable bodies are not put at a disadvantage in gaining access to lottery funding. Expressly enabling charities to create or augment endowment funds through lottery money would allow voluntary sector organisations to manage their funds much more effectively.
  The Bill also fits in well with the key theme emerging from the Department's review of lottery distribution, and I refer the hon. Member for Twickenham to the review that we have undertaken. A number of announcements have been made earlier this week, including on bringing together the community programme and the NOF.
  The general thrust of that consultation has been mentioned in the debate, and we must ensure that lottery decision making ties in with what people believe the lottery should be used for in their localities. That would help to bring certainty back, and we will endeavour to achieve that over the coming months and years. Making lottery funds more responsive to the needs and priorities of local communities is important. Giving distributors express powers to fund endowments will give them much more flexibility to respond to the needs of applicants and help to give charitable organisations a little more flexibility in managing their resources.
  I would now like to respond to some concerns highlighted in the debate. Several hon. Members asked about the powers that we would have to make sure that the moneys would continue to be spent well. Section 23(3) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a statement on financial requirements to each distributing body. It is quite a wide power, so the House can be reasonably certain that we will keep control of the matter. However, it is always possible for the House to challenge the Department or the Secretary of State.
  We recognise the concerns expressed over the value for money of grants to endowment funds. Although endowment funds can be a useful way of providing long-term revenue funding for voluntary bodies and enable them to manage their funds in a more effective way, it is true—we have had experience of this—that they require large sums of money up front to provide a reasonable
  542
  level of revenue in the longer term and that future income levels are subject to variations in interest rates. Nevertheless, I do not believe that those factors should prevent us from clarifying the powers of distributors in this area. As has been suggested, this is a permissive, rather than mandatory measure, enabling distributors to grant funding for endowments should they choose to do so. It will be a judgment for the distributors.
  There is little evidence that distributors intend to use the power on a regular basis or that they would be flooded with applications for grants to endowment funds. Nevertheless, I can announce that, should this Bill proceed—I hope that it will—my Department will issue guidance to distributors on this matter, and that a draft of the guidance will be made available to peers during the Lords stages of the Bill.
  Another related issue has been the effect of the measure on non-endowment applications. As I have already said, endowment funds can and do tie up large sums of money in the short term. This is, however, a factor that distributors will need to bear in mind in the grant assessment process against other, non-endowment applications. I expect this issue to be flagged up in my Department's guidance note to distributors. Distributors will need to make difficult decisions on the best use of lottery funding, but it should be remembered that they already have to make hard choices in assessing grant applications. The contributions of hon. Members have already made that clear, and there will be nothing to prevent bodies from applying for non-endowment funding.
  This has been a good debate and the Bill has received all-party support. However, when I read the Hansard report of the previous debate on the issue, I saw that the then right hon. Member for South Norfolk—now Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market—made a number of predictions. I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk has not gone that down route, but Lord MacGregor responded to the statements that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) had made in the opening remarks of that debate by saying:
  "I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in the ballot, and I am delighted that he has chosen this subject. I agree with everything that he said, apart from two points. In his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), he suggested that his seat might be in jeopardy. I assure him that that is not the case. My hon. Friend has done remarkable work in his constituency, which will be well rewarded by an increased majority."
  The then hon. Member for North Norfolk lost his seat. Lord MacGregor continued:
  "The other point on which I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman was when he said that he hoped to be performing in one of the appeal's charitable concerts in the summer. I do not know when the election will be, but I am sure that he is hoping that it will be way beyond the summer, because I am sure that he will not want to participate as an ex-Member."—[Official Report, 23 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 587.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North was re-elected. Those predictions were not very accurate.
  In our view, the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk said, my Department has also prepared a regulatory impact assessment for the Bill that I will place in the Libraries of both Houses.

  543
  We consider the Bill useful, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing it. It will clarify the powers of all distributors to fund endowments should they choose to do so, and will put charities on a footing equal to that of other applicants for lottery grants. I am happy to offer the Government's support.
  1.45 pm
  Mr. Keith Simpson: I shall speak briefly, because another hon. Member wishes to speak on his Bill.
  I am much heartened by the support of a number of hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) for his support, and for what he said about the impact of charities on his constituency. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) rightly raised points about the future of the national lottery, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who also raised technical issues that I hope will be dealt with in Committee if I am lucky enough to secure a Second Reading. I thank him for his generous support. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) provided strong support; we shall probably never know about the giant guinea pigs in Peru, but they may be the subject of a future Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) was also very supportive.
  I thank the Minister for his comments and his general support. I was grateful for the technical help that I received from officials in his Department. He mentioned the former Member for North Norfolk, my friend David Prior. I know that, despite his slightly chiding comment, the Minister will accept that David Prior raised thousands of pounds for the Eastern Daily Press "We Care 2000" campaign. I also know that Members on both sides of the House believe he will be a great success as chairman of the Norwich and Norfolk hospital trust.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Marine Safety Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.47 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon:I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill principally concerns merchant vessels. It contains exclusions for naval vessels and Government ships. I was assisted in its preparation by the Secretary of State's representative Robin Middleton—of whom more later—and John Mairs of the Department of Transport, as well as their staff. I thank them all for their advice, and for their hard work in drafting the Bill.
  I have always been fascinated by the sea. Although I now live inland and represent an inland constituency, I was born on the banks of the River Douglas, which flows into the Ribble and out to sea in an estuary between Southport and Lytham St. Anne's. I was once quite familiar with the Lancashire coastline, including the dangerous Ribble marshes. My secondary school education was in Southport, and I also attended the local technical college. My father's business interests often took him to Liverpool and he let me travel with him—usually by lorry—to the docks to pick up cattle food for a mill in our village, Tarleton, on the west Lancashire plain.
  In those days, the Liverpool docks were extremely busy with the transatlantic trade. The largest ships in the world visited them—both merchant ships and cruise liners owned by famous companies such as Cunard and P&O. Liverpool had an overhead railway—long since demolished, sadly—which ran the full length of the docks. My father and I often took a return trip on the railways just to get a glimpse of those impressively large ships.
  I have had few regrets in my life, but one is that I never learned to sail. Another is that I have never owned a boat, although one of the happiest times in my life was spent crewing a catamaran hired in Teignmouth along the French coast and around the Channel islands.
  Even though nearly all my constituents are landlubbers, many of them—possibly all—are dependent on the sea in one way or another, so the Bill is as relevant to them as to any coastal constituent. Some of us use cruise ships; others cross the seas using ro-ro ferries, hovercraft or other means of marine transport. In any case, most of us are reliant on goods transported by merchant vessels. I am told that worldwide trade by sea has increased significantly and is still increasing. At the same time, fortunately, the number of incidents at sea is going down. Nevertheless there are still far too many accidents involving shipping, and many lives are still lost at sea.
  When I was elected to Parliament in 1997, my attention was drawn to the existence of the all-party parliamentary MV Derbyshire group. Like the existing members of the group at that time, I was astonished by how long it had taken to get justice for those who had sailed on that ship, lost their lives and, in the case of the crew, even been accused of negligence; but that is another story, which we have placed on the record previously.

  545
  Nevertheless, it is a sad fact that bulk carriers are still going down at the rate of one a month worldwide. Since the Derbyshire sank in 1980, 3,000 seafarers have lost their lives on bulk carriers alone. The MV Derbyshire group now concentrates on improvements in marine safety. That is why I have decided to take charge of this Bill, which I truly hope will have the Government's support and that of all the Opposition parties.
  We are never far away from a major disaster at sea. The most recent incidents best known to us are the sinking of the Tricolor and the loss of the Prestige, noteworthy for the fact that the Spanish authorities refused to give the Prestige a place of refuge, which might have allowed most of its oil to be offloaded. Of course, pollution is a common consequence of sea disasters, and that is what the Bill is partly about: avoiding pollution and dealing with it when it occurs.
  A national contingency plan for marine pollution from shipping and offshore installations exists. Command and control of the tasks associated with a major maritime incident involving pollution, both marine and terrestrial, is divided into four distinct theatres of operation: search and rescue, salvage, clean-up of the sea and clean-up of the shoreline.
  Let me give the House some statistics, because no debate in this place is complete without them. Currently the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—MCA—receives more than 1,000 reports of pollution incidents a year. Between 6 October 1999 and 31 December 2002, the SOSREP was involved in a total of 262 incidents and was required to give directions in 30 of those. In 30 of those incidents that he was involved in, there was a spillage of oil greater than half a litre. The incidents are almost equally spread between summer and winter seasons. They involve all kinds of ships, most commonly general cargo vessels, 53 incidents; fishing vessels, 45 incidents; tankers, 34 incidents; and bulk carriers, 23 incidents. There were 65 engine failures, 52 groundings of vessels, 38 collisions and 25 fires amongst the incidents involving the SOSREP during that period.
  In the 10 years from 1991 to 2001, there were 347 fires on vessels within the United Kingdom 12-mile limit. On 21 December 1997, for example, the Kukawa, a ro-ro cargo vessel, developed an engine room fire 25 miles north-west of Guernsey, which spread into the accommodation. The fire services of both Guernsey and Cornwall were involved. The ship was towed into Falmouth and the fire extinguished, an incident that lasted three days. This is the important point. A court ruling declared that the fire services could not recover their costs, which was a serious blow to offshore firefighting provision in the UK.
  The Suffolk fire service's last offshore incident was extinguishing a fire in the engine room of the passenger ferry Norsea, off Norfolk on 2 September 2002. Firemen were airlifted to the ship to assist the crew. Funding problems have caused them to revoke their declared facility status today.
  Public attention in the UK focused on the impact of major oil pollution in March 1967 when the tanker Torrey Canyon hit the Seven Stones rocks between the Scilly Isles and Land's End.
  Michael Fabricant: Sounds like Tory Canyon.
  Dr. Iddon: I beg the House's pardon.
  Michael Fabricant: Do not blame us.
  Dr. Iddon: I am fixated on Tories. The pace of interest quickened with the 1993 Braer disaster in the Shetlands, which led to a report by Lord Donaldson that resulted in the strategic placement around our coast of the first Government emergency towing vessels. Today, those number four. Then came the Sea Empress disaster, as recently as 1996.
  Between 1967 and 1996, a statutory basis for the Government's powers of intervention in such incidents was created. Those are enshrined in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which was amended by the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997. Following the Sea Empress incident at Milford Haven, Lord Donaldson conducted a review of salvage and intervention, and of their command and control. His report was published in March 1999, and one of its recommendations was the establishment of a Secretary of State's representative, or SOSREP, as the post has become known.
  The holder of that post, Robin Middleton, is based at the MCA's headquarters in Southampton. The MCA came into being on 1 April 1998 as a result of the merger between the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency. Lord Donaldson recommended that the
  "SOSREP must be a considerable, and, preferably, charismatic, personality".
  I can assure the House that Robin Middleton certainly is that. Although his office is based in the MCA's headquarters, he is independent of it and answerable directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Of course, the SOSREP works extremely closely with the MCA.
  I emphasise that the SOSREP's intervention powers are regarded as ones to be used only in exceptional circumstances. Provided that the control of an incident at sea is going well, the SOSREP merely monitors that incident. Only in cases that appear to be getting out of hand will he take over control and command of the incident.
  Although our coastal waters extend for 12 miles around the UK coastline, the UK's pollution zone—the zone of responsibility for dealing with marine pollution or even the threat of it—extends 200 miles seaward, save where it meets the pollution zone of another state. That happens in the English channel, the North sea and the Irish sea.
  Since the post of SOSREP was established, two gaps have been identified in his powers, which the Bill is intended to rectify. Clause 1 would give the SOSREP powers to make directions when he takes over an incident, which he does not possess. The 1995 Act would be amended by the insertion of proposed new section 108A in part 4. The safety directions that clause 1 refers to are set out in schedule 1, which would become new schedule 3A to the Act.
  One of the greatest difficulties for those who deal with such incidents is finding a place of refuge for a stricken vessel. Under section 137 of the 1995 Act, as amended,

  547
  the SOSREP may give directions to the owner, master or pilot of a vessel, the salvor and the harbourmaster, or the harbour authority where the vessel is in waters that are regulated or managed by a harbour authority. However, in an incident, the SOSREP cannot issue a direction to the riparian owners and managers of facilities such as berths, wharves and jetties to require them to make their facilities available to help to deal with that incident.
  My Bill would empower the SOSREP to commandeer such facilities, as and when they are required, to deal much more effectively with a stricken vessel. Let me illustrate that through an important real-life example. In July last year, a fully laden oil tanker was approaching a jetty to unload its cargo when it suffered an engine fault. The master did not want to shut down his engines at sea in case he could not restart them and lost control of the ship. For purely economic reasons, a leading oil company would not allow that tanker to berth at its jetty to offload the oil. That might have prevented other tankers berthing while the ship's engines were being repaired. Instead the ship was sent out to sea again in the eye of a gale. Clearly, that was an unsafe practice that could have had serious consequences. My Bill would give the SOSREP the powers to direct that such ships should be berthed in order to offload their cargoes of oil. Fortunately, the SOSREP in that case was able to issue a direction to the ship's master for him to re-enter fresh water in Milford Haven and a tug was placed on standby.
  Lord Donaldson recommended in his report, on page 13, paragraph 29 and again on page 26, paragraph 2.9, that the Government be given the powers to require the aid of
  "the riparian owners or managers of facilities, such as berths, wharfs and jetties, which may well be required to moor a stricken vessel whilst a potentially polluting cargo is discharged."
  Without going into too much detail, because the details are given in the explanatory notes, schedule 1 to the Bill, which will become schedule 3A to the 1995 Act and entitled "Safety directions", details the circumstances under which those powers would be activated and enforced. The ships to which the schedule applies are detailed too, and allowances are contained in the Bill for the Government to pay compensation as and when required to do so, for interruption of business when a facility is put out of commercial use for some time.
  Bob Spink:I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He has recognised expertise in this area. Samuel Plimsoll, a former Member of the House, would be proud of him. I am here to support the hon. Gentleman. Does he have any estimate of the number of times that the SOSREP might be called on to use those powers in the Bill?
  Dr. Iddon: I am told by those who know better than me that private facilities would be commandeered—I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to—on very few occasions. I do not think anyone could put an actual number on it.
  The circumstances under which costs can be recovered through the ship's owners are detailed in the schedule. Various definitions that apply to the Bill are contained therein. Fines for non-compliance with a
  548
  SOSREP's directions are also identified. Disputes between aggrieved parties will lie with the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of Session.
  Many disasters at sea involve a vessel on fire. Clause 2 allows an important amendment to section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which is concerned with the supplementary powers of fire authorities. At the moment, a fire service's legal authority ends at the low water mark of a coastal fire service. Because of that, there have been problems recently. It has been extremely difficult or even impossible for a coastal fire service to recover its costs for fighting a fire on board a ship in an estuary, a harbour or out at sea.
  Coastal fire services have added burdens in that their personnel have to be highly trained to deal with ship fires. Obviously, that requires special skills and equipment and can be even more dangerous than fighting a terrestrial fire. Because of the difficulties that I have outlined, the number of coastal fire services willing to train personnel to deal with those incidents is declining. My Bill is intended to halt or even to reverse that decline by making it far easier for those services to recover their costs outside the borders of their current legal authority. At a recent meeting of the offshore firefighting working group of the Department for Transport, it was reported that only 10 fire brigades are still prepared to consider providing offshore firefighting services. That is very serious.
  Subsection (2) of clause 2 amends section 3(1)(e) of the 1947 Act to put it beyond doubt that a fire authority may use its brigade for purposes other than firefighting in its area, in the area of another fire authority or at sea especially. Subsection (3) amends that section to include a provision that gives fire authorities in England and Wales and in the Scilly Isles power to recover costs they incur in fighting fires at sea outside any fire authority area. A fire at sea could be beyond territorial limits, perhaps on a ship or an offshore installation such as an oil rig or pontoon.
  Clause 3 refers to schedules 2 and 3, which cover the minor and consequential amendments to the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 that will follow should the Bill be enacted.
  Clause 4 covers commencement of the Act and clause 5 its extent; clause 6 gives its short title.
  To summarise, the Bill proposes to confer on the Secretary of State for Transport powers to give directions to the owners of certain facilities used by ships, such as berths, wharves, jetties and so on, to make those facilities available to reduce or prevent pollution and safety hazards caused by ships, and to allow fire authorities to make a charge for firefighting services carried out at sea outside the area of every fire authority.
  I hope that I have convinced right hon. and hon. Members of the extreme need for the legislation, and I hope that the House will agree to give my Bill a Second Reading. I commend it to the House.
  2.6 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) both on introducing the Bill and on the lucid way in which he expanded on a complicated piece of legislation; I felt much better educated by the end of his speech.

  549
  I apologise in advance to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for having to slip out slightly before the end, because at 3.30 pm I have to be back to meet the owner of a sex club involving what is described as a "group of housemothers". As I opposed the installation of that club in the middle of Twickenham, those people are visiting me to persuade me to be less puritanical—and I hope that the House will agree that that is a suitable reason for my catching my train on time.
  As the hon. Gentleman spoke, I began to appreciate the full significance and importance of what he was saying. In an earlier incarnation, I understood the importance of this subject because I worked in an oil company before becoming an MP, and my time there was framed by two major disasters. One of those was the Exxon Valdez, which not only did enormous damage to the coast of Alaska and its wildlife but virtually killed off, in terms of capitalisation, what at the time was the world's largest company—Exxon, which almost sank as a result of the disaster. Shortly before I left the company there was the Piper Alpha disaster, and the terrible loss of life associated with that.
  Both those events were reminders of the enormous capacity for damage and loss of life as a result of maritime accidents and the importance of dealing with such matters in a preventive way. One of the key points that emerged from the presentation by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East was the way in which the authorities have always reacted to disasters. It was in the aftermath of the Braer disaster, and also of the Piper Alpha disaster, that new regulations and procedures were introduced. It was entirely proper to react in that way, but the lesson to learn is that it is better to deal with such problems in anticipation than in retrospect. The hon. Gentleman's Bill is therefore helpful, in that it provides a framework for dealing with such possibilities before they happen rather than after.
  I picked up from the hon. Gentleman's speech the fact that the Bill will make three fairly substantial contributions to the law. First, by clearing away some bureaucratic legislative obstacles, it will help to allow a rapid reaction to disasters. A point that he made in the context of the recent disaster off the coasts of France and Spain is that speed is essential: hours, let alone days, are crucial. Everything possible should be done to ensure that there will be no territorial arbitration and no boundary disputes, so that problems can be dealt with rapidly. If the Bill helps in that respect, it will be admirable.
  The second point that the hon. Gentleman made is important too. He reminded us that the existing framework of fire legislation is somewhat restrictive and archaic. Several people, including the Government Whip on duty today, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), have campaigned to have the fire service regulations updated, because they are restrictive and narrow and prevent the fire service from reacting with the flexibility and speed that would be desirable. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East correctly explained, there are difficulties with the extra-territorial duties of highly specialised firefighting services. Those are not covered by existing legislation and it is appropriate that we should deal with them.
  550
  The Bill makes a third valuable contribution by addressing the issue of funding. We know that fire services are severely stretched financially for a variety of reasons, including pensions. Anything that they are not required to do in a narrow mandatory way will tend to be passed up. I was struck by the information that only 12 fire services can cope with offshore disasters. The principle of fire services recouping costs needs to be treated with care. A few weeks ago, I saw the film "Gangs of New York". It was a reminder of how the fire service used to be funded in the free-for-all days of the 19th century, when competing fire services would turn up and put out the fire depending on whether a suitable amount of cash was available. We do not want to return to those purely market principles of dealing with fires. None the less, the principle of recoupment in limited circumstances, especially if they involve a fire outside territorial waters, is sensible and prudent. It would ensure that fire services are properly reimbursed. There are admirable reasons for pursuing the Bill. I give it my full support and hope that it makes progress.
  2.11 pm
  Mr. John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on introducing the Bill. Just over a year ago, I was lucky enough to introduce a private Member's Bill which also dealt with marine issues. Sadly, the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill foundered on the rocks in another place. I wish the hon. Gentleman better luck.
  Conservative Members believe that the Government must do everything possible to protect our environment from pollution damage. Some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world lie close to the British coast and it is imperative that the necessary contingency plans for dealing with marine incidents are in place. That is why we broadly welcome the provisions.
  I see from the front page of the excellent explanatory notes accompanying the Bill that they were provided by the Department for Transport with the consent of the promoting Member. I infer from that that the Government not only broadly welcome the Bill, but positively support it. If that is the case, why are the provisions in the form of a private Member's Bill rather than Government legislation? The Minister and I are serving on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. Although we would have been denied the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, the provisions could have been included in that. The same was true of provisions in the recent Aviation (Offences) Bill. Although I do not want to carp too much on that, we should remember the devastation that was caused late last year by the sinking of the Prestige. If the Bill falters on the reef elsewhere, I hope that the Government will consider introducing the proposals in Government time.
  Clause 2 would allow fire authorities to charge for firefighting services at sea outside the area of every fire authority. A major research project, the "Sea of Change", was launched last month to review the response by UK fire brigades to incidents at sea. The primary aim of that project team is to research and submit recommendations to the project board, which will co-ordinate the implementation of a local authority fire brigade's integrated response to firefighting, chemical incidents and rescue at sea.

  551
  The project has been acknowledged by the United Nations International Maritime Organisation, and expressions of interest in it and its outcomes have been received from Canada, Sweden and Germany. I mention this simply to point out that extensive and thorough work is now being undertaken on the role of fire brigades in marine incidents. Perhaps it would have been slightly more sensible to wait for the project's findings to become a little clearer, so that we could benefit from that research in considering legislative provision.
  Figures show that the number of recorded oil tanker accidents off the UK coast has risen from 17 in 1992 to 22 in 1999. Those are the incidents that capture the headlines and the public imagination, but it is worth bearing it in mind that it is operational pollution—day-to-day operational incidents or illegal discharges—that accounts for more than 73 per cent. of incidents. Most of those day-to-day incidents occur in harbour and estuarine areas, most of which are environmentally extremely sensitive.
  Shona McIsaac: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's mentioning that point. My constituency has large oil refineries, and oil tankers offload into the pipeline, but the adjacent Humber estuary also contains areas of special scientific interest. Many local residents fear the potential for accidents, so I welcome the Bill.
  Mr. Randall: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I know that she takes a great interest in this issue; indeed, I seem to remember her speaking forcefully on behalf of seals.
  In the aftermath of major incidents such as the Braer in 1993 and the Sea Empress in 1996, there are always loud and distinct calls for action. However, it is important to remember that, alongside the more major incidents, minor ones such as those that the hon. Lady referred to occur each and every day. Given that 90 per cent. of our overseas trade and 7 per cent. of our internal trade is carried by sea, a huge number of ships ply our waters. That gives rise to the potential for a disaster, and we must be prepared for that.
  As was said, the Bill makes provision to confer powers on the Secretary of State to give direction to a person in charge of land next to, or accessible from, UK waters. That is a worthwhile provision, but we should take account of the problem of pollution once it reaches the coast. A key recommendation of the Donaldson inquiry into the Braer disaster, and of the inquiry into the Sea Empress, was for local authorities to have a statutory duty to plan for and undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents.
  That was mentioned in the National Audit Office report that was published at the end of last year. It states that the Government
  "should consider the case for taking powers to require all coastal local authorities to have up to date oil spill contingency plans consistent with the National Contingency Plans, so that the United Kingdom as a whole is properly prepared to deal with maritime pollution incidents in compliance with international conventions."
  Perhaps I am getting a little old and cynical, but the reason why there is no statutory duty on local authorities to plan for, and to undertake, shoreline clean-ups might be because the Government would have to fund the additional responsibility.
  552
  Raising this issue enables me to highlight current general deficiencies in the resourcing provided for local authority emergency planners, who are often the unseen saviours in the event of a major incident such as an oil spillage on our coastline. They have been short-changed in recent years. They face growing responsibilities, yet they have received no corresponding growth in budget or in recognition.
  Accidents are a product of human fallibility and error. They cannot be subject to absolute prediction or guaranteed prevention. However, measures can be taken to limit the likelihood of occurrence and to mitigate the degrading environmental consequences. Preventive action is the only option for a disease that has no cure. It is all very well for a national authority to look outwards, beyond its frontiers, to international agreements, but such agreements will count for little unless local authorities are able to act effectively.
  The marine ecosystem is a very precious part of our environment; for too long, it has been the Cinderella part of the environment. If a Second Reading is obtained, we will wish this Bill well in its later stages. If it goes to Committee, we will be able to consider its more detailed parts. I hope that it will not founder and that, in time, the Bill will become an Act. If not, I hope that the Government will find sufficient time to introduce legislation, because legislation is needed.
  2.20
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the slot for this Bill and on the way in which he presented his case. His arguments were well informed and clearly set out—although I would not have expected anything else from him. I noted his long-standing interest in these matters, so it must have given him considerable pleasure to introduce such legislation in the House.
  The Government take safety at sea very seriously and we welcome the proposals in this Bill. Any fire is a frightening experience, but a fire on a ship or installation causes unique problems. The fire can be many miles from shore, a ship can be carrying toxic or explosive cargo, and even the act of fighting the fire can cause a ship to lose buoyancy if hoses are used.
  Ships' crews are trained in the basics of firefighting. However, nothing can replace the benefits of expertise and specialised equipment that professional firefighters can bring to an emergency. The proposals encourage fire authorities to continue to provide their expert and lifesaving services, and I welcome that.
  The conferring of powers on the Secretary of State to give directions has been proposed. We saw all too plainly, with the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige off the coast of Spain, the severe damage that can occur when such a vessel gets into difficulty. That incident has caused enormous devastation to the coasts of Spain and France; it is likely that its effects will be felt long into the future. It can be vital for a stricken ship to have access to the kind of facilities that are available on wharves and jetties, where remedial work can take place. The Secretary of State should be given the power to issue directions to the owners of such facilities.
  The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked how often such interventions would take place. I hope that the need for them would be infrequent.

  553
  Nevertheless, an incident may be extremely serious and intervention may prevent an enormous amount of pollution from coming on to our shores.
  Michael Fabricant: Such proposals risk breaching article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights. Has the Minister's Department considered that?
  Mr. Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, for all Bills that come before the House, that issue is considered. The promoter of the Bill will have to consider it as well. The Bill consolidates all the existing provisions to issue directions in a single document, and that, too, is welcome.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East reminded us, the United Kingdom has suffered three of the world's largest recorded oil spills: the Torrey Canyon—his pronunciation was correct. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) laughs, but he was not in the Chamber earlier when the jokes were being made. Opposition Members were making the jokes, not Labour Members, although when we think about crashing and wreckage, the Tory party comes to mind at the moment.
  The Torrey Canyon spillage took place in 1967, with the Braer in 1993 and the Sea Empress in 1996. Indeed, the Sea Empress incident led to Lord Donaldson's recommendation in his "Review of Salvage and Intervention and their Command and Control", published in 1999. In at least one case, permission for the use of facilities was refused and the Bill would make good that deficiency, as my hon. Friend pointed out in his opening contribution. We have learned lessons from those major oil pollution incidents and now make it a high priority to reduce the risk of oil spills and to minimise the impact of any spill that occurs.
  My hon. Friend congratulated Department for Transport officials for their work in assisting him. I am pleased that we could offer him that facility for such a worthy measure. I, too, have taken a private Member's Bill on a marine-related matter through the House. Indeed, I was ably assisted by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is now shadow Leader of the House, so it has been interesting to observe his position on such matters during the past few years. Sometimes, the passage of private Members' Bills can be precarious; they rely on mutual support from both sides of the House. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East that we shall give him every assistance in getting the Bill through.
  The hon. Member for Castle Point, who is unfortunately no longer in his place, made some good points about the powers of the SOSREP to instruct ports to take ships in, although such a facility would be used only rarely.
  I, too, congratulate our SOSREP, Robin Middleton. He is astonishingly able and extremely well thought of in the marine world. The difference between the approach
  554
  taken in the United Kingdom and that taken in most other countries is that our representative is independent of the political process. Although he is ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State, he can act independently.
  Questions were asked about the amount of goods that travel by sea around our coast, or to and from the country. I am informed that more than 96 per cent. of the weight of goods going to and from this country are transported by sea. That point is often not generally understood by the public. Such transportation is usually quiet and safe, but when a disaster happens it has an enormous impact.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has managed to see the sex shop owner. At one stage, I felt that he was at risk of giving us too much information. None the less, he raised several points about the inadequacy of current legislation and I thank him for his support.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) asked why the provisions could not have been included in another Bill, although the Opposition are always complaining about the size of Bills. The matter was originally going to be dealt with in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, but we have not yet found parliamentary time for that, so we are happy to support this measure.
  I give the Bill my full support and I hope that it receives the full support of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    HOUSING (OVERCROWDING) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 April.

    CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 March.

    HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY AMENDMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 May.

    Village Halls
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Kemp.]
    2.30 pm
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I should begin by warning the Minister that this debate, if we are successful in the forthcoming ballots, is merely the beginning of a sequence of similar debates that will emerge from Members of all parties in Dorset, and increasingly, I hope, from rural Members around the country. Our rough intention is to keep holding debates until the point at which the Minister, who I know has a considerable amount of patience, nevertheless eventually loses patience and urges his officials to do something about the problem.
    We do not intend to pursue this campaign, however, in any of the vigorous ways that some other campaigns that currently afflict the Minister are being conducted. I assure him that there will be no demonstrations to which he will be subject, other than the occasional and regular Adjournment debate.
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life(Alun Michael):I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving good warning of his intentions. In the same spirit, will he recognise in his remarks the increased support that this Government have been giving to village halls, and the way in which we have initiated discussion with those who promote the work of village halls to see what more can be done in future?
    Mr. Letwin: Oddly enough, the answer to that is no, as that is not the impression that we have on the ground. I shall certainly welcome the second part of the Minister's remarks, however, in relation to improvements that may come about through discussion.
    First, I should explain why we seek to raise the issue of village halls at such a time, when we are faced with the exigencies of the Iraq situation and terrible problems for the Government in law and order, public services and public spending. Why should we concentrate on such an apparently minute issue as village halls? The reason is extremely clear. There is always something that is ostensibly more important and more urgent than village halls. On that principle, over many years, Britain's sewers declined—there was always something more important than dealing with the funding of Britain's once splendid Victorian sewer system. Chancellors of the Exchequer always found something more pressing, and, with the effluxion of time, after about 100 years, the sewers were in a most dreadful condition, as nobody had done anything about them. Village halls stand in danger of being treated in the same sort of way. They are never the most urgent item, so there is a dreadful possibility that they will receive no attention at all.
    The second question that I need to address is this: why do village halls matter? Someone might reasonably ask: why do we not concentrate on the dreadful problems of our inner city estates, where drugs are rife, gangs control the estates, pimps organise young girls into prostitution and many people find themselves virtually imprisoned in their high-rise flats as a result of the horrors that afflict them when they go out? Why do we concentrate on villages and village halls when the average village is in so
    556
    much better a condition than the average inner-city estate? Even the worst village is in much better condition than the worst inner-city estate.
    Those of us who care about the promotion of the neighbourly society—as I have preached for the past 18 months in another capacity, it is critical that the nation take steps to reintroduce the neighbourly society in inner-city estates, where it has all but crumbled—know that it is important that we do not allow a slow erosion of that society in places where it still vibrant. It is important that we do not create, slowly and unwittingly, problems in areas that are not at present a problem while we solve, at great expense and with great difficulty, the severe problems in areas that are a problem. Villages fall into the category of areas that, on the whole, display a vibrant neighbourly society, and we must not let it diminish or disappear.
    To have a neighbourly society in a village, it is important that the inhabitants know and talk to one another, and understand enough about one another not to fear one another but to regard one another as good neighbours. To encourage that kind of society it is important that there are places where people can naturally meet and talk. The tradition in most villages in my constituency in West Dorset and many other rural areas is that such conversations go on in the pub, the village shop, outside the church and in the village hall. The Minister is as aware as I am—I do not blame him for this any more than he will blame me—that pubs have often disappeared for want of custom as habits have changed. Pubs that serve food survive, but those that do not broadly do not. The Minister will also be aware—neither he nor I is responsible for this either—that church attendance has diminished greatly in the past 50 to 100 years. There is nothing that the Government can be expected to do about that.
    There is however something about which the Government could have done something, although I do not blame the Minister personally or his Department. Some Departments have disregarded the policy of Peter Lilley—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I mean my right hon. Friend for Hertford and wherever.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that the right hon. Gentleman means the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
    Mr. Letwin: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Social Security, he steadfastly refused to remove the arrangement whereby benefits were paid through post offices. The disregard of that long refusal by the relevant Departments under the present Government has led to an accelerated collapse of rural post offices and the shops associated with them. As footfall has diminished, those shops have become increasingly non-viable. I blame the Government for that, but not the Minister.
    Steps have now been taken to improve that situation, yet we all know that in many cases, alas, they will not be successful. In too many cases, we are therefore left with only one village institution, at least in villages that do not have a primary school—the village hall. It plays a special role, because it is the place where social capital is built, as it is a site of active participation. People do not go there to be passive recipients as if they were in front of

    557
    a television set, but go there to act together, sometimes literally—they may act together in a play—or sing together, engage in auctions to raise money for good causes, have meetings about mutual concerns, or allow their Member of Parliament, as I have been allowed in various villages, to hold a surgery and meet people with particular concerns.
    In all these respects, the village hall functions as the centrepiece of the neighbourly society of the village. Its importance has risen rather than declined with the other changes that I mentioned, so it is of the utmost importance that village halls should be supported.
    The Minister said he hoped that I would acknowledge the massive efforts that the Government have made to support village halls. For quite a long period, village hall renovation was the order of the day, because lottery funding was available in significant quantities to support bids for the renovation of village halls. I am sure the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) will echo that, as will the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who would have liked to be present and who shares our concerns. Each of us would recognise that for quite a long period, many of our villages were able to obtain funds from the lottery to renew village halls. All over West Dorset there are village halls that testify to the success of that enlightened regime, which persisted into the early years of the present Government.
    Now, alas, we find that although it has never been officially acknowledged, the lottery has been virtually closed to applications for the renovation of village halls, at least in my constituency.
    Alun Michael indicated dissent.
    Mr. Letwin: I hope that the Minister will explain why he dissents from that. I shall send him a record of the applications that have been made and the responses—
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that with the shrinkage of funds, the applications have become more complicated, and there is a feeling that the goal posts are continually being moved? Perhaps businesses can cope with that, but for volunteers in villages, with all their other activities, that is enormously off-putting for them to carry on. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are looking for incentives for people to keep going and keep their villages alive, as they want to do.
    Mr. Letwin: The hon. Lady is right. There is undeniably huge complexity. The goal posts do seem to change; the criteria seem to change. In part, that causes a problem because of the difficulties to which she refers—those of keeping up with the need to change the nature of the applications. In part, I fear, the criteria have been altered precisely to push money towards the inner cities. Although I utterly recognise the claim of the inner cities to public funds, I do not believe that measures that effectively exclude many village hall applications are justified.
    Alun Michael: I can deal with those points in my response, but it would be unfair not to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been an increase in the amount of finance available to village halls over recent years. I am concerned about targeting and assisting with the quality of applications, which is sometimes a problem. However, the amount of money available to village halls has increased.
    Mr. Letwin: All I can tell the Minister is that this is one of those strange events in which the appearance that he presents and the reality as we observe it on the ground appear to differ. There may be many explanations for that, but people who make applications have been informed by officials of his Department and by staff at the lottery that those applications are not likely to succeed, as they are no longer the flavour of the month. If the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of what is being said, he needs to be aware of it. I will present him with a full dossier of evidence about what happened some years back, when village hall applications were repeatedly successful in Dorset, and what has happened in the last year or two, when they have not been successful. He will find it difficult to reconcile that with the general picture that he has probably genuinely been presented with. I do not know what the explanation for the difference is, but whatever it is, the upshot is that in Dorset today it is extraordinarily difficult to raise money. The message coming back to us has been, "Let local funds provide."
    In the couple of minutes before I sit down, I wish to point out that that strikes people, at least those in Dorset, as a strange and ironical response. Because of the exigencies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the decisions of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, Dorset is among those shire counties throughout England that have been forced to raise council tax by an enormous proportion simply to tread water—a matter about which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I have both lobbied Ministers.
    There is no local money currently available for village halls, except in tiny quantities, and it cannot be a substitute for the lottery. I believe that the lottery is an appropriate funding source for village halls. If the Minister knows something about the amounts available and if he can do something to change the situation so that that money can be available once again in Dorset, at least, and perhaps other rural counties too, we would be profoundly grateful—it is certainly needed.
    2.45 pm
    The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate, partly because I feel passionately about the issue but not least because the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) always brings a serious and mature note to debates in the Chamber. I always find it a pleasure to respond when he initiates an Adjournment debate. It is not the first time that I have had the pleasure of responding to him.

    559
    I therefore chide the right hon. Gentleman more gently than I would some of his colleagues for not paying tribute to the Government for the increased help that is being given to village halls. I cannot resist pointing out that it is a bit rich for someone who is a member of the shadow Cabinet of a party that wants to cut public spending by up to 20 per cent. to seek an increase in funding for village halls. The leader of the Conservative party endorsed that as "a rational target"—I think that those were his words. If that £80 billion cut were made, there would be little room for increased spending on village halls.
    Mr. Letwin: I certainly shall not prolong things—I do not want to turn this into a cat and dog act—but I should point out that there has never been the slightest suggestion by the Conservative party or, indeed, the Labour party that the total amount available from the lottery should be reduced because, of course, the Government do not control that amount, and the only question is how is it distributed.
    Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman naturally wishes to narrow his remarks to the lottery, but if that massive £80 billion cut in public expenditure were made there would be precious little left for anything else.
    I have recently met Diana Britten, the chairman of the Community Fund, and we discussed how to involve the fund in a series of meetings, led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to quantify the funding needs of village halls and to determine how best to meet those needs. My concern is that, although a lot of money is being spent, there are certainly problems locally with individual village halls.
    That is why, when I attended the annual general meeting of the association representing village halls a few weeks ago, we were speaking through the opposite ends of a telescope—perhaps I that is not the right phrase, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand what I mean. It was almost as though we were communicating in two languages. The issue is how to ensure that real need can be recognised, that applications are of a high quality, that financing can be targeted and that the job is done properly.
    As the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to refer specifically to lottery funds, it is worth pointing out that, in 1996–97, less than £1 million in Community Fund grants went to village halls—£956,397 to be pedantically precise. By 2001–02, the figure had gone up to £17,365,436, and, to be slightly less pedantic, that is roughly a 1,800 per cent. rise. I acknowledge that the amount in 1996–97 was less than the previous year. I have chosen that year simply because it is the pre-election year and it is a reasonable comparison. In 1995–96, the figure was just over £2 million, so even if that year is chosen for the comparison, a massive increase in finances is going in. Despite the fact that smaller sums are available to be distributed from the lottery, the amount going to village halls is about 7 per cent., which remains as it has been since the earliest days of the lottery. The Government support greater expenditure on village halls than has ever been provided from national financial resources in the past. I refer to my experience as a county youth and community officer some years ago on the old South Glamorgan council. The amount of money then available for village halls was minimal, which led to problems of targeting.
    560
    To put the matter in context, the Government are doing more than any previous Government to help rural communities and economies. We have not only published the rural White Paper but created the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with its focus on rural affairs, rural communities and rural economies. For the first time this year, we have a specific public service agreement target that focuses on improving economies and services in rural areas. We are making great progress on rural proofing, which engages Ministers and officials across Whitehall to ensure that the needs of rural areas are targeted. That is an example of co-operation across government.
    Mr. Letwin: The Minister has moved off the subject of village halls—briefly, I hope, but I wish to bring him back to the topic. No one denies that the sums increased in the years up to 2001–02. For all I know, they may even have increased in 2002–03. That will be the result of applications that were made some years ago. The question is not the level that is being disbursed at present, but the extent to which people making applications now find that their applications have no prospect of success.
    Alun Michael: The fact that far greater finance is going into village halls and has done consistently at an increasing rate over the past few years is certainly a salient point in responding to the claim that village halls are somehow being strangled of funds. I will be quite happy to examine any evidence that the right hon. Gentleman can provide from his area. Dorset may face a specific problem. Perhaps it did rather too well in the past—I do not know. However, we should consider the matter objectively so that we agree about the facts and can then debate policy in an informed manner. That was the flavour of my discussions with the association representing village halls.
    Although I want to focus on the position of village halls, I merely wanted to place in context how much the Government are doing to treat seriously the difficult issues of helping the economies and communities in villages across the country. I was at an academic seminar this morning that examined how we identify the social problems of rural areas. That is a big challenge. There are about 8,700 parish councils and about 15,000 parishes, some of which do not have councils. That is an enormous number of small communities, given that, in an urban context, one can target a comparatively small number of highly visible, identifiable and concentrated aspects of social exclusion. The problem of targeting rural areas is different and somehow more challenging even if the concentration of problems in urban areas makes their position appear more problematic.
    We certainly recognise the vital role that village halls play in rural communities as multi-purpose community centres and as hubs for village life. However, I should repeat that the village hall is not the only body to play that role. The right hon. Gentleman referred to church halls, and some places have a local British Legion and a number of community meeting places. Indeed, there may be over-provision in some small communities,

    561
    which may lead to competition for funds. That is why targeting becomes an important issue. Village halls must be considered in the context of wider community provision at the most local level.
    We support the development of active local communities and parish and town councils in a variety of ways. The idea that the village hall is a hub for social activity and social provision fits well with our policy objectives. There is an increasing need for village halls to link their provision with that of commercial and voluntary organisations. There should be joint provision of services across public, voluntary and commercial services.
    The available evidence suggests an increase in the number of village halls and meeting places. The Countryside Agency's rural survey of 2000 reported that 85 per cent. of parishes had one in that year, while 72 per cent. had one in 1997. That is probably mostly due to the impact of lottery-funded grant programmes. The statistics must, of course, be treated with a degree of caution, as there have been definitional changes. I am not convinced that we are entirely certain of the picture across the country.
    It is difficult to generalise about funding needs—although there is a tendency to do it, as the right hon. Gentleman did in his introduction. The Countryside Agency's research identified a need for less expenditure on the buildings themselves and more on the services and activities involved. Through the community services grant, we are focusing our support on what goes on inside village halls. The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn, however, that some of the correspondence I receive expresses the opposite view.
    The Government are helping to support community activity, but buildings matter too. We are aware of widespread concern about the lack of funds for rebuilding or renovating village halls. I do not think, though, that the problem is entirely a national one. While I have no means of knowing the position in Dorset, in some areas local authorities have withdrawn their support, thinking "This can be left to the Community Fund and the lottery." Traditionally, local
    562
    finance from local authorities, parish councils and voluntary subscriptions has constituted the most important element of support for village halls.
    Mrs. Brooke: Dorset county council is strongly committed to village halls and it does provide funds, but in the case of a very small village with perhaps 300 residents it really is not an option to use parish council tax to raise sufficient funds even to make the improvements necessary to meet disability requirements in the near future.
    Alun Michael: That should be scrutinised at local level, but facilities are certainly available to parish councils enabling them to help village halls, even if the parish itself does not run the village hall. For instance, public loans can be used to finance improvements that can then be funded over a period by means of rental income and the use of facilities that could not be used had the improvements not been made.
    We must see this as a business plan that takes account of the availability of direct funds from parish councils when they make some contribution, voluntary funds, funds from local authorities and funds that might be available through loans and then financed from income, as well as the small amounts that may be contributed by the Countryside Agency or the money resulting from lottery applications. It is unrealistic to assume that the only source of finance is the lottery, and to focus entirely on applications to the Community Fund. Even if Community Fund money increased year on year, there would never be enough to finance the whole programme.
    As I have said, traditionally the funding of village halls has been very much a local issue. Only in comparatively recent years have significant funds been contributed at national level. If we start from the premise that such funds, including lottery funds, are used and targeted effectively, and that they can be used best if spread across the country as fairly as possible, that must involve making the best possible use of funds available from local sources as well—local authorities, parish councils or voluntary organisations.
    Let me return to a point that I made earlier—
    The motion having been made at half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour,
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Three o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Car and Despatch Agency
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will estimate the total cost in 2002 to the Government Car and Despatch Agency for which departmental reimbursement would have been sought in congestion charge payments if the present scheme in London had been in operation throughout 2002 and the pattern of car use unchanged. [99914]

  Mr. Alexander
  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive Mr. Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

DEFENCE

  International Military Services
  Mr. Jim Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) legal and (b) other costs incurred by International Military Services Ltd in the course of its arbitration with the Government of Iran were. [98868]

  Mr. Hoon
  International Military Services Ltd. is a private limited company, albeit one owned by the Secretary of State for Defence. The company is under the direct control and management of a board of directors who are responsible for the conduct of its affairs. Questions of costs incurred by the company in the course of its business are routinely for the company to address.

  Continuous Attitude Surveys
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is responsible for deciding which members of the armed forces will be asked to complete the Continuous Attitude Surveys; what methodology is used to select recipients; and if he will make a statement. [99709]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the Royal Navy the sample groups for each survey are selected entirely at random by Service number. In the Army the selection criterion works on a rolling basis using the last two digits of Service numbers.

  The RAF uses a rank stratified, randomly drawn sample. This means that while the number of personnel at each rank to whom the form is issued is determined in advance, taking into account previous response rates, the individuals who actually receive the surveys are chosen at random, using the last three digits of their Service number.
  730W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to publish the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Surveys; and if he will make a statement. [99710]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are currently reviewing the range of survey material to release and appropriate ways of putting it into the public domain.

  Inoculations (Armed Forces)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inoculations were given to members of the British armed forces(a) prior to and (b) during the Gulf War for the purposes of health protection during the conflict. [99676]

  Dr. Moonie
  The immunisation programme for armed forces personnel in the Gulf conflict involved a number of vaccines. These can be can be divided into three categories: those which were part of the anti-biological warfare (BW) immunisation programme; routine Service health immunisations and travel and specific immunisations against the risks associated with individuals' particular employment. These are listed as follows.

  Anti-biological Warfare immunisations

  Anthrax

  Pertussis

  Plague

  Routine Service health immunisations

  Poliomyelitis

  Typhoid and Tetanus (TABT)

  Yellow fever

  Travel and Occupational immunisations

  Cholera

  Hepatitis A

  Hepatitis B

  Meningococcal meningitis

  The majority of personnel deployed during Operation Granby whose routine immunisations would have been in date would not have required occupational immunisation.

  Details of the anti-BW immunisation programme, including datasheets on the vaccines used, were published in the Ministry of Defence paper: "Background to the Use of Medical Countermeasures to Protect British Forces during the Gulf War (Operation Granby)" in October 1997. A further paper entitled "Implementation of the Immunisation Programme against Biological Warfare Agents for UK Forces during the Gulf Conflict 1990/1991" dated January 2000 provides details on how the anti-BW immunisation programme was implemented, including estimates of the numbers immunised and on the other immunisations given. Copies of both papers are available in the Library of the House and on the Ministry of Defence's website at: www.mod.uk/gulfwar/issues.

  JAC Molesworth
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the silos at JAC Molesworth were last
  731W
  inspected under the terms of the INF Treaty 1987; what is stored in the silos; who has control of this; and if he will make a statement. [99261]

  Mr. Hoon
  RAF Molesworth is an RAF base made available to the United States Visiting Forces under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951. The United Kingdom Government retain ownership of the base and control over its facilities.

  The last inspection of RAF Molesworth under the terms of the INF Treaty was undertaken between 19–21 May 1999. The silos no longer contain equipment which falls under the terms of the Treaty, and are currently used for general storage.

  Missile Defence
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding drawn up with the US Government concerning the US Missile Defence System and the US use of RAF Fylingdales. [99208]

  Mr. Hoon
  Once such arrangements have been negotiated, we will consider whether it is possible to make the texts publicly available, subject to their classification and to discussions with the United States Government.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Deep Space Tracking Centre and the Near Space Facility at Feltwell are capable of being used in the US Missile Defense System. [99260]

  Mr. Hoon
  No.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to withdraw British troops from military action where an ally uses nuclear weapons. [99670]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government do not comment on hypothetical scenarios involving the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

  QinetiQ
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to conclude the deal with the Carlyle Group for the partial sale of QinetiQ. [98041]

  Dr. Moonie
  As is normal in a major transaction of this type, there are a number of conditions that must be satisfied between signing and formal completion. These include:Laying before Parliament a Departmental Minute describing the contingent liabilities arising from the transaction.
  Receipt of EU Commission merger clearance.
  Legal formalities relating to property.
  Completion of Carlyle's financing arrangements.

  We anticipate that all these conditions should be satisfied within the next few weeks with formal completion taking place shortly after this.

  Service Providers (MOD)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the 20 largest external providers of services to the Ministry of Defence, together with their turnover with the Ministry of Defence, in the latest available full year. [99527]

  Dr. Moonie
  Due to the nature of Ministry of Defence contracting it is not possible to distinguish between suppliers of services and suppliers of equipment in all cases, however the list of organisations which were paid £5 million or more (banded by value) by the Ministry of Defence in financial year 2001–02 can be found in United Kingdom Defence Statistics 2002, Chapter 1, table 1.17, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  UN Relief Workers Association
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much is being contracted(a) this year and (b) next year to the UN Relief Workers Association as aid for the Palestinians; what measures are in place to ensure this money is not directed from humanitarian assistance to other purposes, with particular reference to the purchase of arms; and if she will make a statement. [100020]

  Clare Short
  My Department's contributions to UNRWA in recent years have been £25.6 million (2001) and £21.7 million (2002). This money is used to provide urgently needed health, education and emergency services for Palestinian refugees. This helps to relieve the growing humanitarian crisis resulting from the on-going conflict and closures. We expect our funding to continue at a similar level in 2003. UNRWA has sophisticated and robust financial, accounting and audit systems. There is no evidence of any kind that their funds are used for anything other than intended purposes.

  Ebola
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken in response to the recent suspected outbreak of ebola virus in(a) the Congo and (b) Gabon. [99296]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been monitoring the situation in the Congo very closely and is ready to provide assistance if this is deemed appropriate. We provided £150,000 through Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) during the last ebola outbreak in the Congo in February 2002. The current death toll from the latest outbreak is 75, but WHO believes the situation is now under control. The Government of Congo has made available $68,000 to deploy medical teams, and the national authorities are being supported by a team of 10 WHO epidemiologists, medical anthropologists and social mobilisation experts. The Congolese Red Cross are working on raising public health awareness and social mobilisation and an appeal was recently launched. WHO has established isolation wards which have helped to contain the disease: most of the people who became infected have now unfortunately died. My
  733W
  Department will continue to monitor the situation in close collaboration with WHO, the Red Cross and MSF.

  My Department has not received any reports that the recent ebola outbreak has spread to neighbouring Gabon. The Gabonese authorities have responded swiftly to this latest outbreak of the virus by closing the Gabon-Congo border in the north-east of the country and has sent a team of experts from the Health Ministry and the Medical Research International Centre in Franceville to the two areas, near the border with Congo, where there was an outbreak last year. Guidelines have been issued to locals asking them not to touch dead animals in the forest, or those with an unusual behaviour (primates are often carriers of the ebola virus), as well as reporting any suspected cases of ebola to the authorities.

  Fair Trade Products
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on the purchase, for departmental use, of fair trade products [99223]

  Clare Short
  Within my Department, Fairtrade products have been available in the staff restaurant since March 1998 and provision of these products is required by the catering contract. All coffee and tea served at official meetings carries the Fairtrade mark.

  Liberia/Cote d'Ivoire
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation on the borders of Liberia and Cote d'Ivoire; and if she will make a statement. [99297]

  Clare Short
  We are in contact with international agencies and NGOs in the field that are closely monitoring the situation in the Cote d'Ivoire and Liberia border area. We have provided £1 million in humanitarian assistance for Cote d'Ivoire, which is partly focused on the worst affected west of the country and on the area bordering Liberia. We continue to work closely with others in the international community to help bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial resources her Department has allocated for aid for Liberians in refugee camps on the Liberian-Cote d'Ivoire border. [99294]

  Clare Short
  We have provided £1 million in humanitarian assistance through international agencies and NGOs working in Cote d'Ivoire. Beneficiaries include Liberian refugees, particularly in the west of the country and near the Liberia-Cote d'Ivoire border.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial resources have been(a) allocated and (b) transferred for the provision of (i) shelter, (ii) food and (iii) water for Liberian refugees in the Cote d'Ivoire. [99298]

  Clare Short
  We have allocated £1 million in humanitarian assistance through international agencies and NGOs working in Cote d'Ivoire. This includes the 734W
  provision of emergency health services, water services and food supplies to civilians, internally displaced people and refugees, including Liberian refugees, in both government and rebel controlled areas. £0.8 million has so far been transferred.

  Sudan
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports she has received regarding the civil war in Sudan, with specific reference to the bombing campaign of the Sudanese Government in Southern Sudan; and if she will place a copy of these reports in the Library. [99306]

  Clare Short
  We have received a copy of the US-led Civilian Protection Monitoring Team's report into the incident at Mundri (Lui), south Sudan. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library.

  World Health Organisation (Vaccinations)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the estimated number of vaccinations required by the World Health Organisation is; and how many vaccines have so far been(a) delivered and (b) administered in each month since January 2001. [99347]

  Clare Short
  National Governments rather than the World Health Organisation (WHO) or other international institutions, have responsibility for immunisation programmes in their countries. The WHO's role is in encouraging effective immunisation practise and monitoring national performance. They estimate that by 2001 some 37 million children worldwide did not receive routine immunisation for the six major vaccine preventable diseases during the first year of life.

  In recognition of this, DFID are closely involved in the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI), a major international initiative to enhance access to vaccines and immunisation in developing countries. GAVI is a cooperative effort between private and public sectors with a partnership of international organisations, including WHO and UNICEF, national Governments, pharmaceutical companies, research institutions and the Gates Foundation.

  Statistics on vaccines delivered and administered are included in data collected by the World Health Organisation on an annual basis from member states but not in the form the hon. Lady has requested. Further information can be found at www.who.int/vaccinesdocuments/GlobalSummary/ and www.unicef-org/noteworthy/sowvi

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Defence of Provocation
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Solicitor-General what studies she has conducted into the use of the defence of provocation. [95764]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and I have been actively looking at the current operation of the law on provocation as a partial defence to murder
  735W
  and have discussed the issues with the DPP. The DPP has sought the views of Chief Crown Prosecutors as to whether recent developments in the law, in particular the decision of the House of Lords in R v Smith (Morgan) has had an effect on the prosecution of cases on the ground.

  We have also had discussions with the DPP on the issue of the acceptance of pleas to manslaughter by reason of provocation and the DPP intends to issue guidance to prosecutors which emphasises that only in exceptional circumstances should the issue whether or not an offender was provoked not be put before the jury.

  As Law Officers we have also considered the defence of provocation in the exercise of our power to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal by virtue of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the grounds that the sentence was unduly lenient. In 2002 the Law Officers referred two cases of the manslaughter of women by their partners by reason of provocation arising out of jealousy and unfaithfulness to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the current sentencing tariff does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and is out of line with levels of sentencing in other cases of homicide and serious violence. The Court of Appeal indicated that it would be inappropriate to lay down guidelines in this difficult area without the Sentencing Advisory Panel having first been involved. It is too soon to say what the outcome in this area of the law will be. In addition, the Government has given a commitment to publish a consultation paper on domestic violence in the spring.

  Departmental Vehicle Fleets
  Mr Donaldson
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the annual rate is of the Department's and its agencies' vehicle fleets broken down, by(a) volume and percentage for each category of vehicle, (b) type of power unit and (c) type of fuel; in each of the last three years and what progress has been made in replacing vehicles on a lower emissions basis. [96557]

  The Solicitor-General [holding answer 11 February 2003]: The Ministerial cars provided to the Attorney-General and to me are provided by the Government Car Service. My own department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, owns no vehicles.

  Of the other departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Serious Fraud Office and the HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate own no vehicles.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has a fleet of fifteen vehicles but information in the format requested is not available.

  Paul Skuse
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the Attorney-General's decision not to refer the case of Paul Skuse to the Court of Appeal. [95934]

  The Solicitor-General
  No convicted parents or carers of children killed while in their care were the subject of unduly lenient sentence applications in 2001 or 2002.
  736W
  In 2001 no cases involving assaults by parents or carers of children in their care were the subject of unduly lenient sentence applications.

  In 2002 the Court of Appeal considered the sentence imposed in one case where the offender, who was the victims' father, faced offences including cruelty to his two children. The Court of Appeal decided to make the sentences imposed in respect of the cruelty offences, run consecutive to the sentences he faced for other offences and increased the total sentence from eight years to 13 years.

  Suicide Act
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to her answer of 7 February 2003,Official Report, column 468W, on the Suicide Act 1961, if she will answer with reference to section 2(4) of the Act. [99342]

  The Solicitor-General
  Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 creates the offence which allows the prosecution of an individual who is found to have assisted another to commit suicide. Section 2(4) provides that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions must be obtained before such a prosecution is commenced.

  The decision whether to grant consent to a prosecution under section 2(1) is made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, following an investigation conducted by the police. The Director does not intend to publish any prosecution policy specific to the Suicide Act.

TRANSPORT

  Bottled Water
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cumulative litre miles undertaken to transport bottled water to point of sale for the last year for which figures are available, broken down by mode of transport. [99255]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such estimate has been made.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many parliamentary questions have been answered by his Department since June 2001. [99777]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since my Department was formed on 29 May 2002, Ministers have answered 2,776 parliamentary questions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Embryo Research
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many IVF embryos have been destroyed in Medical Research Council sponsored research in each of the past 20 years. [97991]

  Ms Hewitt
  I understand that the information requested is not available. The latest available figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  737W
  Authority are that, since its establishment in 1991, of 925,747 embryos created through in vitro fertilisation, 53,497 have been donated for research.

  Benefit Payment Arrangements
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the financial impact on sub-post offices in Buckinghamshire of the change in payment of benefits from over-the-counter to direct bank transfer. [99910]

  Mr. Timms
  No such assessment has been made. The migration of benefit payment to ACT begins this year and the Post Office's strategy is to respond to that challenge with a range of banking and other services. How the migration of benefit payments affects the revenue of post offices will depend on a number of factors, not least how benefit recipients and other post office customers respond to change. The income from the various contracts Post Office Ltd. has with the spending Departments and various financial institutions, and the remuneration of sub-postmasters for banking services, is a commercial matter between the parties.

  Capital Projects
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place the evaluations for the Capital Modernisation Fund projects relating to(a) MIT/Cambridge, (b) venture capital, (c) small business service (SBS) Gateway, (d) getting SMEs online, (e) internet access to the employment tribunals, (f) incubators, (g) novel recycling, (h) UK Oil Portal, (i) NACAB IT System, (j) renewable energy and (k) business.gov in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [97027]

  Ms Hewitt
  All the projects listed are still under way and have therefore not yet been evaluated. The projects will be evaluated on completion in line with CMF rules.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the technical ability of gas plants to practise CO2 capture and storage and her policy thereon. [99793]

  Mr. Wilson
  The energy White Paper identified the need to produce a detailed implementation plan for carbon capture and storage in the UK within six months. All potential sources of carbon dioxide can be considered, including gas turbine exhaust.

  Laptops
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b) officials in her Department in each year since 1995; how many were (i) lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if she will make a statement. [98708]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table provides the information available from records on laptop computer usage and losses within my Department since 1995. Prior to 1998, the records available only provide figures for thefts and losses.
  738W
  Although the Department still retains a number of its own laptop computers (1,338 at 31 December 2002), since 1 April 1999 the provision of a laptop computing service has been the responsibility of my Department's PFI partners. It is expected that most new laptop computer requirements will be met through the PFI service for the life of the PFI contract.

  (a) Laptops1

  (b) Laptops2

  Losses

  Thefts

  Cost £

  2003

  8

  2,738

  0

  4

  6,375

  2002

  8

  2,588

  1

  24

  31,760

  2001

  8

  1,887

  1

  8

  15,080

  2000

  5

  1,733

  1

  5

  5,900

  1999

  3—

  1,325

  0

  5

  5,110

  1998

  3—

  778

  1

  5

  9,100

  1997

  3—

  3—

  1

  7

  12,300

  1996

  3—

  3—

  0

  2

  3,000

  1995

  3—

  3—

  0

  15

  26,300

  1 Used by Ministers and special advisers.

  2 Used by officials.

  3 Not available.

  Recycling
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the recycling of food waste paper will attract the financial credits available under packaging regulations. [99373]

  Mr. Wilson
  All waste paper is eligible for Packaging Recovery Notes once recycled.

  However, if it has come into direct contact with food, then it is not normally recycled back into the same material due to the excessive amounts of energy required to do this, and possible health risks of the contaminated material.

  Food contaminated paper can be 'organically recycled' ie composted, and attract PRNs. Last year less than 1,000 tonnes of packaging were recycled in this way.

  It is also possible to use energy recovery methods (incineration for power), for this type of waste and this method will also be eligible for PRNs.

  Solar Power
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of subsidies for solar power equipment are available. [99233]

  Mr. Wilson
  Under the 20 million First Phase of the Major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme the current maximum levels of grants available are as follows:Small-scale individual applications (500Wp—5kWp)— 50 per cent.
  Medium and Large-scale applications (5kWp—100kWp)
  Public Bodies—65 per cent.
  Private Sector—40 per cent.

  Under the 10 million Clear Skies programme the current level of grants for solar water heating systems are as follows:
  Households—a fixed 500 per installation
  Community—50 per cent or 100,000, whichever is smaller
  739W
  Applicants to both programmes are required to use accredited installers and approved products. More information on www.solarpvgrants.co.uk and www.clear-skies.org

  Warm Front Scheme
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Interministerial Group on Fuel Poverty has to discuss the future of the Warm Front scheme; and what plans she has to discuss the future funding of the Warm Front scheme with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. [99205]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Ministerial Group on Fuel Poverty is expected to meet during the Spring. The date and agenda for that meeting have not yet been agreed. Warm Front is the responsibility of DEFRA, and my Department has no plans for bilateral meetings to discuss its future funding.

  Oil Recovery Rates
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what estimate she makes of(a) the potential CO2 diversion; and (b) the potential increase in oil recovery rates from the injection of CO2 into oil fields. [99790]

  Mr Wilson
  CO2 injection techniques have been successfully used in the United States to enhance oil recovery. If such processes can be found to be commercially viable on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) then the Government, which aims to maximise economic recovery of UK hydrocarbon resources, would be keen to see these adopted where possible. Studies are being carried out by the Department on the feasibility of CO2 capture and storage and its use for enhanced oil recovery on the UKCS and findings are due to be published this Spring.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Child Tax Credit
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women what assessment she has made on the effectiveness of the Child Tax Credit in enabling mothers to return to work; and if she will make a statement. [99046]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  From April, two new tax credits—the Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit— will enhance choice for mothers

  The Child Tax Credit will provide financial support to families with children, irrespective of the parents' work status. By providing a secure stream of income direct to the main carer, usually the mother, it will assist mothers who choose to return to work.

  The Working Tax Credit will support people in low-paid work. In particular it will improve work incentives for second earners compared to WFTC, make it easier for couples to share work in a way that suits them best,
  740W
  and improve the flexibility of child care support. The child care element of the WTC will also be paid to the main carer, usually the mother.

  The child care element of WFTC has been a great success. It is estimated that around 85 per cent. of those families receiving WFTC and incurring eligible child care costs, claiming the child-care element of the tax credit.

  Public Appointments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women what initiatives she has planned during the next year and what budget has been proposed to attract more women into public appointments; and if she will make a statement. [99044]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have a target that between 45 per cent. and 55 per cent. of all appointments made will be women. Advertisements for vacancies arising during the year will be disseminated widely including in the national and regional press, in professional journals, trade press and women's magazines, and on the Department's website, to ensure the widest possible audience. We will also be using the practical guide 'Get a Public Life', recently produced by the Women and Equality Unit, to develop ways of encouraging more women to apply for public appointments.

  The Women's National Commission have committed £15,000 to continuing the e-network. This provided details of national appointments and a mentoring scheme aimed at encouraging more women to apply for national appointments.

  The Women and Equality Unit are due to publish research that will identify the barriers and possible solutions that can be fed into future government policy in the spring of this year. The cost of this research in the next financial year will be £7,000.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Flood Management
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the levels of grant to local authorities to take account of the work on flood management and flood defence that will arise from his plans for new development in(a) Ashford, (b) the Thames Gateway, (c) the M11 corridor and (d) Milton Keynes and the South Midlands. [97636]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister provides significant funding for the management of flood risk through its local authority Revenue Support Grant mechanism to support local authority levies to the Environment Agency and internal drainage boards and local authorities' own spend on flood and coastal defences. However, responsibility for estimating the requirement for central Government support in this area falls to Defra. Additionally, capital investment in new or improved flood defences by the flood and coastal defence operating authorities, including local authorities, would be eligible for Defra capital grant, subject to meeting the Department's criteria.
  741W
  No specific provision has been made over the Spending Review period (to 2005–06) for investment in flood defences to protect new development in the areas mentioned. I would also refer the hon. Member to my answer to his related parliamentary question 97637 with respect to investment in capital defence works, which explains that many of these developments, for example the Thames Gateway, will be defended to a high standard by existing defences which would anyway be subject to a renewal programme.

  Housing Account Surpluses
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local authorities in housing account surplus, stating for each(a) the surplus and (b) the number of tenancies in the last year for which information is available. [98609]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have placed in the Library a table listing the 209 local authorities with an assumed surplus on their Housing Revenue Account (HRA). These assumed surpluses are currently offset against any subsidy due to the authority in respect of rent rebates. The information is taken from the latest HRA subsidy claim forms for 2002–03.

  Cost of inspection (£ million at 2001–02 prices)

  Year1

  Audit Commission

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate

  HM Inspectorate of Constabulary2

  HM Fire Services Inspectorate3

  Ofsted4

  Social Services Inspectorate5

  1997–98

  0.8

  3.9

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  6.7

  1998–99

  3.9

  6.3

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  6.6

  1999–2000

  15.9

  5.7

  0

  1.5

  1.6

  9.0

  2000–01

  41.3

  6.0

  0.5

  1.4

  2.7

  9.5

  2001–02

  50.4

  5.5

  0.6

  1.6

  2.7

  10.2

  1April-March, except for the Audit Commission, whose financial year is currently November-October.

  2Costs for best value inspections of police authorities. There was no duty to inspect police authorities before April 2000.

  3Figures for 1997–99 could be given only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1999–2002 are estimates. HMFSI carry out inspections, and other work, in addition to the inspection of local authorities, and historically the costs have not been recorded separately.

  4The Ofsted costs include the inspection of local education authorities (LEAs), but not schools, and do not include overhead costs. Figures for 1997–99 could be given only at disproportionate cost. The Audit Commission's costs of joint inspections of LEAs (approximately £1 million a year from1999–2000) are included in the Audit Commission's inspection costs.

  5 The Audit Commission's costs of joint Audit Commission / SSI reviews(approximately £2 million a year from 1999–2000) are included in the Audit Commission's inspection costs.

  Both audit and inspection costs include those arising from new responsibilities acquired under the Local Government Act 1999 and other legislation.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each(a) year and (b) quarter from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92422]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. As at 26 February the Office has issued 192 press releases.

  Quarterly in formation is as follows:

  Quarter

  Number of releases

  29 May to 30 June 2002

  23

  1 July to 30 September 2002

  67

  Local Government
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the costs of(a) audit and (b) inspection of local government in each year since 1997. [98406]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Audit Commission is responsible for the audit of local authorities. Inspection of local authority functions is undertaken both by the Commission and by other inspectorates.

  The costs of financial and other forms of audit (including the audit of best value performance plans from April 2000) by Commission financial year (currently 1 November to 31 October) at constant 2001–02 prices, are as follows.

  Year

  Cost (£ million)

  1996–97

  80.4

  1997–98

  90.0

  1998–99

  90.1

  1999–2000

  109.0

  2000–01

  116.2

  2001–02

  133.3

  The costs of inspection incurred by the Inspectorates that make up the Local Services Inspectorate Forum are as follows:

  Quarter

  Number of releases

  1 October to 31 December 2002

  75

  I January to 26 February 2003

  27

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish her Department's guidance to the Planning Inspectorate on the hearing of appeals against the inclusion of land on the maps of open country and registered common land under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [98113]

  Alun Michael
  I expect to receive draft guidance for consideration shortly and wish to publish final text as soon as possible. The Planning Inspectorate Executive
  743W
  Agency will then deal with the appeals against the showing of land as open country or registered common land on the provisional maps issued by the Countryside Agency as quickly as possible. The Inspectorate has already published information to assist for appellants and third parties and these are available on its website.

  Departmental Budget
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the budget from that allocated to her Department under the Department expenditure limit set in the comprehensive spending review of 2002 is for each year from 2001–02 to 2005–06 for(a) environmental protection; (b) water services; (c) support for the agriculture. food and fishing industries; (d) flood defence; (e) support for hill farming; (f) regional/rural development; (g) support for countryside and wildlife; (h) nature and forestry and (i) animal health and disease control, including payments for BSE, FMD, TB and other zoonoses, broken down by (i) resource and (ii) capital. [99288]

  Alun Michael
  The years 2001–02 and 2002–03 do not form part of the spending review 2002, so the requested information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. 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.

  Farmers (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will visit Chorley to meet local farmers and the local NFU. [98228]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: My ministerial colleagues and I are always pleased to receive invitations to meet those affected by the work and policies of this Department. As many of these meetings as parliamentary and departmental commitments allow are accepted.

  Flood Management
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what provision has been made in the expenditure plans of(a) the Environment Agency and (b) her Department to cover the costs of flood management and defence arising out of the Government's plans for new development in (i) Ashford, (ii) the Thames Gateway, (iii) the M11 corridor and (iii) Milton Keynes and the south Midlands. [97637]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Department provides grant aid to the flood and coastal defence authorities—the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and (in areas with special drainage needs) internal drainage boards to assist with their capital works to manage flood risk. However grant aid is not provided for defences to protect proposed new development, although it is possible for such development to benefit incidentally by defence schemes designed to protect existing assets. In such cases, authorities are expected to seek a commensurate contribution from the developer to the 744W
  extent that he benefits from the public investment. No specific provision for new development has been made therefore, either by the EA or Defra. It should be noted that many of these developments, for example the Thames Gateway, will be defended to a high standard by existing defences which would anyway be subject to a renewal programme.

  Hospitality
  Mr. James Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) 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) restaurants, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99591]

  (2) 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; [99590]

  (3) how often Ministers in her Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups in the last 12 months. [99514]

  Margaret Beckett
  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.

  Online Sales/Purchases
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [97457]

  Alun Michael
  Information held centrally shows that Defra has no products, articles or substances that are manufactured, refined or adapted for sale. In 2002, the core Department began acquiring office stationery, IT consumables and paper online. The portfolio of goods and services available for purchase online is being expanded as part of the Department's e-procurement development and implementation programme.

  In 2002, 1,217 e-IACS applications were received out of a total of 69,303 IACS applications. The 2003 e-IACS system goes live on 15 March so there are no figures for 2003 currently.

  The number of new animals registered electronically in January 2003 was 60,710 or 31 per cent. of total new animal registrations. The number of animal movements notified electronically in January 2003 was 433,180 or 46 per cent. of total animal movement notifications. Overall, 42 per cent. of total livestock transactions are handled electronically.

  At 8 January 2003, the Emissions Trading Registry had 769 account holders and 3,250 open accounts. Between April 2002 and mid-February 2003 there were 1,451 trades covering 6,170,474 allowances. The

  745W
  Research Policy and International Division of Defra use the Defra internet website to advertise research and development requirements.

  The core-department makes electronic BAGS payments to its suppliers. These account typically for 78 per cent. by payments volume and 97 per cent. by value.

  The Environment Agency has since the summer of 2002 conducted three electronic auctions for the provision of green electricity; office stationery; and photocopier paper. A further electronic auction for IT consumables is planned for March 2003. The Environment Agency also uses electronic ordering processes for IT hardware.

  Sustainable Development Report
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why copies of the Government's annual report on implementation of its policies on sustainable development were not available to hon. Members in the Vote Office on its publication day. [100118]

  Alun Michael
  "Achieving a better quality of life", the Government's third annual report on progress towards sustainable development in the UK, was launched on 24 February.

  Copies of annual reports are not placed in the Vote Office as a matter of course, but the report was made available in the Libraries on the day of publication. It is also available on the Government's sustainable development website (http://www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk) and through the Defra website, and free of charge from Defra Publications on 08459 556000. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the document.

  Waste Management
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her Answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 559–60W, if she will publish figures available to date for the performance of local authorities against targets for waste recycling in 2002–03. [99361]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 February 2003]: Data concerning the performance of local authorities against targets for waste recycling are collected on an annual basis. Such data are too extensive to be published in Hansard, but is available to the public via sources such as Defra Online.

  Individual local authority recycling rates for 2000–01 are available on line and in Annex B of the Municipal Waste Management Strategy for 2000–01. Corresponding data for 2001–02 are currently being collected, interim national and regional totals will be published in April. Results for all individual local authorities will be published in the summer. Data for 2002–03 will be collected later this year.

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many university students her Department and associated 746W
  agencies has supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what her policy is on work placements; what plans she has to develop such schemes; and what her policy is on paying their university fees. [98544]

  Alun Michael
  Defra and our associated agencies have supported thirty-eight student work placements within the last year.

  The Department's policy is to encourage work placements and to advertise opportunities in the Cabinet Office 'Work Experience in the Civil Service' booklet which is circulated to universities.

  Within this policy students are paid whilst on a work placement within the Department; university fees are not paid.

EDUCATION

  Children Fund (Leeds)
  Mr. John Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been received by Leeds city council from the children fund since its inception; how funds were allocated, broken down by project; what posts have been funded and by how much; and in which organisations these posts arise. [96963]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Community Cohesion
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps are being taken within the education and youth services to ensure community cohesion; and if he will make a statement. [94589]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We understand the vital importance of education in developing community cohesion, and in recognition of this, the Department of Education and Skills worked closely with the Home Office, the Local Government Association and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to produce the recent Guidance on Community Cohesion. The Guidance will assist local authorities, along with other local agencies, in identifying the practical steps they can take to build community cohesion at local level. The Guidance sets out the vital role that education, the youth service and the Connexions service can play in building cohesive communities. Equality of opportunity is a basic principle of youth work and a foundation of community cohesion.

  The Government want local authorities to deliver substantial improvements to their Youth Services. On 18 December I launched a document entitled "Transforming Youth Work: Resourcing Excellent Youth Services". This document set out, for the first time, the Government's specification for an excellent Youth Service and highlighted the resources available for this task. It recognises that when young people become disaffected the consequences are often a drift into anti-social behaviour and crime. It emphasises the Government's determination to achieve social justice and economic success for all citizens.

  Delivery Unit
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when the Permanent Secretary in his Department last met members of the Delivery Unit; [94356]

  (2) when Ministers from his Department last met (a) the Prime Minister and (b) his officials to discuss targets set by the Delivery Unit; and what plans there are for further meetings; [94360]

  (3) which Ministers and officials from his Department have visited areas outside London accompanied by members of the Delivery Unit; [94353]

  (4) what targets have been set for his Department by the Delivery Unit since June 2001; and what progress has been made in meeting such targets; [94361]

  (5) how many officials in his Department have been assigned to do specific work (a) with and (b) for the Delivery Unit since June 2001; [94349]

  (6) if he will list the reports he has made since June 2001 to the Delivery Unit; [94355]

  (7) how many reports his Department has been commissioned to produce by the Delivery Unit in the next (a) 12 and (b) 24 months; [94347]

  (8) when Ministers from his Department last met members of the Delivery Unit; and on how many occasions since its establishment Ministers have met members of the Unit; [94363]

  (9) which announcements made by his Department since June 2001 were cleared in advance with the Delivery Unit. [94351]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I am responsible for meeting the Department's Public Service Agreement targets (PSA) as set out in Cm 5571, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  The Delivery Unit was established to strengthen the capacity of Whitehall to deliver the Government's key objectives. It works with the Department to help us deliver our PSA targets, and we are in regular contact with members of the Unit.

  Information about internal meetings is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".

  Education Authorities (Insurance)
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on personal insurance cover for teachers in schools; [88972]

  (2) how many education authorities in England and Wales have an insurance policy which covers claims for compensation from a teacher who has sustained a personal assault from a pupil or parent; and which authorities they are. [88973]

  Mr. Miliband
  Insurance arrangements in schools are determined locally. Local education authorities may fund insurance for schools centrally, and in that case may determine the extent and type of cover, including 748W
  the extent to which individual teachers will be insured. The Department does not collect details of authorities' insurance arrangements.

  We will shortly be publishing an insurance guide for schools. This will contain practical advice for schools about levels and types of insurance cover.

  Federations of Schools
  Mr. Nick Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether his proposals for federations of schools involve a combined admissions system; and if he will make a statement. [98904]

  Mr. Miliband
  No, federations of schools will not have a combined admissions system. Federation will not affect parents' admission rights or choices. It will help schools work together and support each other and will be based on local demand not national imposition. The Education Act 2002 specifically excludes admissions from the cases in which federated schools may be treated as a single school. Even where federations involve schools having a single governing body, the schools will still be separate and parents will express preferences for the individual schools.

  Printing Costs
  Mr. Mark Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was of printing departmental(a) Green and (b) White Papers in each year since 1997; and how many of each of those papers were printed. [94919]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The costs of printing Green and White Papers are met by the publishers, The Stationery Office (TSO). Information relating to these costs, and the number of copies printed is not disclosed under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. An exception to this was the recent White Paper "The Future of Higher Education". Due to extremely tight production schedules, it was agreed with TSO that the Department would manage the print process and meet printing costs, providing TSO with copies for their commercial outlets.

  The costs of printing 16,000 copies of "The Future of Higher Education" was £48,600.

  Teacher Pensions
  Mr. Phil Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to remove the lump sum payment from teachers' final pension package; and if he will make a statement. [100127]

  Mr. Miliband
  In common with all public service pension schemes, the provisions of the Teachers' Pension Scheme are being reviewed in the light of the Pensions Green Paper, "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and Saving for Retirement". There are, however, no plans to remove the lump sum element of the retirement package available to teachers.

  Vehicle Fleets
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made, by(a) volume and (b) percentage for each (i) category of

  749W
  vehicle, (ii) type of power unit and (iii) type of fuel, on an annual basis, over each of the past three years, in renewal of his Department's vehicle fleet on a lower emission basis. [96445]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 20 February 2003.

SCOTLAND

  Accountancy Profession
  Mr. Michael Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has received from organisations representing the accountancy profession in Scotland as to the use of the term Accountant. [100029]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have received no recent representations as to the use of the term Accountant.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Horse and Greyhound Racing
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action her Department is taking to encourage the greyhound racing industry to make provisions for dogs when they retire. [100380]

  Mr. Caborn
  While the lead responsibility for the welfare of greyhounds rests with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we have made clear to the British Greyhound Racing Board our concern that the industry should take proper responsibility for the welfare of retired greyhounds, and support for the action which it has already taken to increase its financial contribution to the Retired Greyhound Trust.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to review the legislation governing(a) horseracing and (b) greyhound racing. [100381]

  Mr. Caborn
  We plan to bring forward legislative proposals, when parliamentary time permits, which will enable the Tote to be sold to a racing trust, abolish the horserace betting levy and reform the regulation of betting on horse racing, greyhound racing and all other events.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many racehorses have died(a) while flat racing and (b) while jump racing in each of the last five years. [100379]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Jockey Club maintain records of falls and injuries on British racecourses; but the Department does not collect this information.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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,
  750W
  (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. [99436]

  Mr. Caborn
  124 named day questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003. 72 of these questions were answered on the designated day for answer. 52 questions received holding replies and were answered to the following time scales:(a) 25 within two days', (b) 22 within seven days, (c) four within 14 days, and one within 21 days, (d) nil within 28 days and (e) nil over 28 days.

  The Department produces regular statistics to monitor the performance on answering parliamentary questions and ministerial letters. These statistics are produced for review and discussion by the permanent secretary and the management board.

  In addition, 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 24 May 2002, Official Report, column 674W. The report for 2002 will be published in due course.

  1Figures for those answered within three days are not readily available.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to announce the time scale for the introduction of revised arrangements for assessment by the Child Support Agency. [97106]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement made to this House by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 27 January 2003,Official Report, column 567–68.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the Department's claim packs refer claimants to Citizens Advice Bureaux. [96374]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 February 2003]: 79 per cent of the Department's claim packs refer claimants to Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  In addition to the information contained in the written answer to the hon. Member on 6 November 2002, Official Report, column 404W, the following claim forms also include a reference to Citizens Advice Bureaux:

  Incapacity Benefit: IBIY, IB22Y

  Income Support: A2

  Jobseeker's Allowance: JSA1, JSAIS, JSA3, JSA4, JSA4A, JSA5

  Minimum Income Guarantee: MIG1, MIGR

  Disability Living Allowance
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disability living allowance applications were refused at(a) initial application, (b) reconsideration and (c) aural tribunal in each year since 1997. [95626]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 4 February 2003]: The available information is set out in the tables below. We are currently unable to supply statistically reliable information on those rejected at appeal. Number of claims for Disability Living Allowance which were unsuccessful in Great Britain in each year since 1997.

  Number of new claims received

  (a) Number of new claims rejected on first application

  (b) Number of new and existing claims rejected at reconsideration

  1996–97

  517,590

  276,125

  2,450

  1997–98

  461,360

  255,710

  2,465

  1998–99

  398,275

  208,195

  2,605

  1999–2000

  392,600

  190,390

  2,365

  2000–01

  410,270

  206,145

  1,600

  2001–02

  407,810

  192,315

  970

  Table 1. NHS Low Income Scheme: estimated applications received and certificates issued in respect of England

  Thousand

  1. Application for help with health costs

  2. Total HC2 certificates issued

  3. HC2 certificates issued to recipients of incapacity or invalidity benefit

  4. Total HC3 certificates issued

  5. HC3 certificates issued to recipients of incapacity or invalidity benefit

  2001–02

  721

  407

  89

  250

  47

  2000–01

  811

  487

  101

  255

  51

  1999–2000

  879

  532

  98

  295

  63

  1998–99

  881

  528

  85

  309

  55

  1997–98

  931

  569

  98

  323

  63

  1996–97

  982

  552

  —

  383

  —

  1995–96

  1,110

  632

  —

  431

  —

  1994–95

  1,067

  569

  —

  375

  —

  1993–94

  1,038

  544

  —

  421

  —

  1992–93

  987

  502

  —

  421

  —

  Notes:

  Columns 1, 2 and 4—Data taken from actual claims in respect of GB and estimated for England.

  Columns 3 and 5—Data estimated from samples of claims, and refers to claims where either the claimant or their partner (or both) were benefit recipients. Information is not available for years before1997–98.

  Columns 2, 3, 4 and 5—Information is only available about the number of certificates issued. These can be used by the claimant and their partner (if they have one), so more than one person may be named on each certificate.

  Columns 1, 2 and 3 do not sum as claimants may be otherwise entitled, have capital in excess of the limit or not pursue the claim.

  Table 2. Estimated out-turn for HC2 certificates in England

  £ million

  Cash

  Real terms

  2001–02

  55.8

  55.8

  2000–01

  56.2

  57.5

  1999–2000

  55.5

  58.1

  1998–99

  51.6

  55.3

  1997–98

  51.4

  56.6

  1996–97

  48.5

  55.1

  Notes:

  The above figures are estimates of the total:

  1. Prescription charges remitted in respect of items supplied.

  2. Dental charges remitted in respect of courses of treatment.

  3. Sight test fees paid to ophthalmic opticians.

  4. Cost of optical vouchers redeemed.

  No estimates are possible for remission of charges for wigs and fabric supports or on costs of travel to hospital, as information is not collected centrally.
  752W
  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Figures are for each financial year, April to March.

  There is no available breakdown of data for reconsiderations into new and renewal claims.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, data taken from 100 per cent MIS data.

  HC2/HC3 Certificates
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) budget and (b) outturn for HC2 certificates and HC3 certificates were in (i) cash and (ii) real terms over the last 10 years; how many people have received HC2 certificates and HC3 certificates in each year since 1992; how many people in receipt of HC2 and HC3 certificates have also been in receipt of incapacity or invalidity benefit since 1992; and how many applications for help with health costs have been received in each of the last 10 years. [92627]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information available is shown in the tables.

  It is not possible to estimate out-turn in respect of HC3 certificates, since the amounts remitted vary significantly depending on the amount which the holder of the certificate has been assessed as being able to contribute towards the cost.

  There are no separate budgets for income lost and costs incurred as a result of the availability of help under the National Health Service Low Income Scheme.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in receipt of RPI uprated benefits were awarded HC2 and HC3 certificates in each year since 1992; and what percentage of recipients they represent.[97682]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 13 February 2003]: I have been asked to reply.
  753W
  The available information is shown in the table.

  NHS Low Income Scheme: estimated number of certificates issued in respect of England to people receiving RPI uprated benefits

  HC2 certificates issued to recipients of RPI uprated benefits (thousands)

  HC3 certificates issued to recipients of RPI uprated benefits (thousands)

  2001–02

  300

  149

  2000–01

  302

  128

  1999–2000

  288

  148

  1998–99

  263

  158

  1997–98

  312

  160

  Notes:

  1. Data estimated from samples of claims, and refers to claims where either the claimant or their partner (or both) were recipients of one or more RPI uprated benefits.

  2. Information is only available about the number of certificates issued. These can be used by the claimant and their partner (if they have one), so more than one person may be named on each certificate.

  3. Information is not available for years before 1997–98.

  Maternity Pay
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to review the impact of part-year pay on the right to Statutory Maternity Pay; and if he will make a statement. [97656]

  Maria Eagle
  Maternity benefits are being improved as part of the Government's drive to help pregnant women and parents financially and to achieve a better balance between their work and home lives.

  In order to qualify for statutory maternity pay a woman must have average weekly earnings that at least equal the lower earnings limit for National Insurance contributions. The lower earnings limit is currently £75 a week. An average is taken of the gross earnings actually paid to a woman in an eight week period running up to the 15th week before the week baby is due. The period used may vary slightly depending on the woman's own pay period.

  Maternity Allowance is available for those women who do not qualify for SMP. From this April we are changing the earnings calculation, so that women will be able to choose the 13 weeks that reflect her best earnings during the test period (the 66 weeks up to the week before the week her baby is expected). This change will, of course, be beneficial to those with part year earnings. It will mean that women's entitlement to Maternity Allowance is maximised so that more will qualify for the standard rate.

  Pensions and Benefits
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to co-operate with consumer groups to assess the effectiveness of the direct 754W
  payment literature being sent to recipients of pensions and benefits; and if he will make a statement; [99708]

  (2) what plans he has to assess the effectiveness of the direct payments literature being sent to recipients of pensions and benefits; and if he will make a statement; [99707]

  (3) what plans he has to use surveys to assess the effectiveness of the direct payment literature being sent to recipients of pensions and benefits; and if he will make a statement. [99706]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department is supplying customers with information about all of their account options, including those that can be accessed at Post Office branches, to help customers choose the account that best suits their needs and circumstances.

  Customer information material is routinely tested on representative samples of the Department's customers before it is issued and its effectiveness is continually assessed through ongoing monitoring and review. Customers are being regularly surveyed about the Department's information material throughout the duration of the conversion period.

  We have consulted with consumer and special interest groups (including Postwatch and the NFSP) on the development of our customer information material and they have been given several opportunities to comment on our proposals. We will continue to work closely with them throughout the conversion period and as the information campaign progresses.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons were(a) convicted and (b) acquitted of benefit fraud offences in each of the last three years, broken down by type of offence; how many of those convicted of each type of offence in each year were sentenced to (i) immediate custody and (ii) other dispoals broken down by type of disposal; what the (A) mean average and (B) longest individual custodial sentence imposed in each year was for each type of offence; and if he will make a statement. [88466]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on benefit fraud by type of offence and the length of custodial sentences imposed following conviction are not recorded. The available information is in the table.

  Further analysis of investigation data has required revisions to previously published figures. The corrected data is shown in the table.

  Outcome of prosecutions following investigations by Departmental Investigators

  Convictions

  Custodial sentences1

  Community sentences2

  Other sentences3

  Acquittals

  Total prosecutions

  1997–98

  551

  2,553

  8,282

  137

  11,523

  1998–99

  643

  2,292

  7,032

  162

  10,129

  1999–2000

  636

  2,215

  6,274

  143

  9,268

  2000–01

  653

  2,704

  8,313

  181

  11,851

  2001–02

  646

  3,067

  7,470

  172

  11.355

  Notes:

  1Imprisonment, Young Offenders Institute, custodial and fine

  2Community Service
  755W
  3Absolute discharge, conditional discharge, compensation only, admonishment, fine, community rehabilitation, suspended sentence, supervision order, Young Offenders Institute, attendance centre, unknown

  4The fraud database shows completed cases commenced in the relevant period. Due to the elapsed time between commencement of an investigation and completion of a prosecution there are cases that are inserted into previously completed data for earlier periods. All totals are therefore correct at the time when quoted but subject to adjustment at a later date.

  Source:

  Fraud Information By Sector system and data from Counter-Fraud Investigation Division Operations4

  Term-time Workers
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to decide the employment status of term-time workers; whether he intends to ensure that term-time workers are eligible for Job Seekers' Allowance during unpaid holidays; and whether the actual annual salary of a term-time worker will be the basis for calculating his or her hourly rate for minimum wage purposes. [97655]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobseeker's Allowance is paid to support people who are out of work and actively seeking employment. People who are in remunerative work, i.e. averaging 16 hours or more per week, are not entitled to Jobseeker's Allowance.

  For term-time workers the average number of hours they work is calculated over the whole academic year, including the school holidays. If this average is less than 16 hours a week then they may be entitled to Jobseeker's Allowance. This calculation would apply if an application was made during term-time or during the vacation period. We have no plans to change the rules on remunerative work.

  The National Minimum Wage has to be paid for every hour worked, averaged over the pay reference period, to most people who work in the UK. The calculation to determine if a person is receiving the National Minimum Wage depends on whether the worker is a time worker or a salaried-hours worker.

  If the term-time worker is paid a set amount at regular periods (i.e weekly or monthly) throughout the year regardless of whether they have actually worked during that period then they are a salaried worker. For salaried work, the contract between the employer and the worker must set out a basic number of hours for which the worker must be paid at least the minimum wage. If the salaried worker works any hours in excess of their contract, then the National Minimum Wage will also apply to those additional hours.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Directives/Court Orders (Non-compliance)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the incidences under which the UK has received(a) letters of formal notice and (b) reasoned opinions for (i) failing to fulfil obligations under EU directives and (ii) failing to comply with court orders since 1992; and which remain outstanding. [99217]
  756W
  Mr. MacShane
  At any given time, the European Commission will have a number of infractions proceedings against any Member State. They will be at different stages of the proceedings.

  As of 31 December 2001, the last date for which the Commission has comprehensive public figures, the Commission had 220 infractions cases under examination against the United Kingdom.

  Between 1997 and 2001, the Commission issued the UK with 368 letters of formal notice and 151 reasoned opinions. The UK was referred to the European Court of Justice 28 times between 1997 and 2001. In only one of the 220 cases under examination against the UK as of 31 December 2001 was the UK accused of having failed to comply with the judgment of the Court. Figures for the period prior to 1997 are not publicly readily available.

  We are working with the Commission to resolve all outstanding cases.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the value of British Council property in(a) Madrid and (b) Barcelona, in terms of (i) market value and (ii) same use market value; what use is made of these properties; and if he will make a statement. [98388]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Council is currently reviewing a range of options for its estate in Spain and so regards the current market value of its Spanish properties as commercially sensitive. My noble Friend the Baroness Symons, the Minister responsible for the British Council, will therefore write on a personal basis to the hon. Member with the information he has requested.

  The properties in Madrid and Barcelona function as the offices of the British Council in those cities, including school and teaching operations.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the number of full-time staff employed by the(a) FCO and (b) British Council, in each year from 1995–96 to 2005–06 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [98433]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of UK-based staff employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council since 1995 is as follows.

  Staff in post figures correct on 1 April

  FCO

  British Council

  1995

  5,984

  Not available

  1996

  5,787

  Not available

  1997

  5,539

  Not available

  1998

  5,412

  1019

  1999

  5,485

  1025

  2000

  5,480

  1018

  2001

  5,490

  1060

  2002

  56,80

  1049

  757W
  The FCO's provisional estimate of positions for 2003 is 6,033. We are unable to provide planned staffing figures for 2004, 2005 and 2006 until the spending plans have been finalised. The British Council is unable to provide a projected figure at this time.

  Estonia/Latvia
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on how many non-citizens there are in(a) Estonia and (b) Latvia; and what reports he has received on the age profiles of these groups. [100024]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Office of the Minister of Ethnic Affairs in Estonia says that there are 164,730 non-citizens in Estonia (January 2003). The age profile of the non-citizens in 2000 (the latest year for which this breakdown is available) was:

  Percentage

  24 and under

  32.9

  25 to 44

  32.3

  45 to 64

  25.2

  65 and over

  9.6

  According to the Latvian Naturalisation Board, there are 504,277 non-citizens in Latvia (January 2003). Their age profile is:

  Percentage

  25 and under

  20.3

  26 to 45

  28.8

  46 to 65

  32.7

  66 and over

  18.2

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the non-citizens in Estonia and Latvia who hold special passports will be allowed to travel to the UK without visas for(a) recreation and (b) work following Estonia's accession to the EU. [100025]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK requires non-citizens in Estonia and Latvia who hold special passports, in common with other stateless persons, to obtain a visa before travelling to the UK for any purpose. At present there are no plans to change this requirement after Estonia and Latvia join the EU. We are continuing to support the Estonian and Latvian Governments in their moves to encourage social integration and the take-up of citizenship.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether non-citizens in Estonia and Latvia who hold special passports will enjoy parity of treatment with holders of Estonian and Latvian passports when seeking to travel to EU countries other than the UK, following accession; and if he will make a statement. [100026]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following accession, member states in the Schengen zone and non-Schengen member states may choose to exempt special passport holders from the visa requirement. The UK will continue to implement its own policy, subject to constant review, in line with applicable national legislation.

  Gibraltar (Terrorist Attacks)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what precautions have been taken to protect against terrorist attacks against British citizens in Gibraltar. [100126]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Governor and his staff work closely with the Government of Gibraltar, the Ministry of Defence and other relevant bodies in the territory to ensure effective contingency planning for a range of eventualities, including terrorist attack. This includes direct contact with relevant authorities and departments in the UK.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what criteria Ministers in his Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if he will make a statement; [99512]

  (2) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months by each Minister in his Department to outside interest groups, broken down by (a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99513]

  (3) how often Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups in the last 12 months. [99588]

  Mr. Straw
  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.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Minister for Europe next intends to visit(a) Brussels, (b) Strasbourg and (c) Luxembourg; and how many visits the Minister has made to those cities since his appointment. [96581]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer of 10 February]: I went to Brussels on 24–25 February for a meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC); and am due to travel to Luxembourg on 14–15 April for a further GAERC meeting. I also hope to be able to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg during the coming months.

  In my three and a half months in this job, I have already travelled twice to Brussels and once to Strasbourg to attend a session of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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

  759W
  what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) Parliamentary Questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99432]

  Mr. Straw
  Between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003,259 named day written questions were tabled to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, of these 59 received a holding answer. Of those that received a holding answer 43 received a substantive answer within three days, seven received an answer within seven days, five received an answer within 14 days and one received an answer within 28 days. Three questions are still awaiting a substantive answer.

  My Department records statistics on a daily basis to monitor performance in answering parliamentary questions. I attach great importance to replying to questions fully and promptly and regularly emphasise this to Ministers and officials.

  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.

TREASURY

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the consequences for women of the introduction of the child care tax credit. [96143]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is clear that the child care tax credit is removing an important barrier to work by making child care more affordable. According to the Repeat Survey of Parent's Demand for Childcare, around a quarter of respondents said that the impact of the child care tax credit had an effect on the number of hours they worked; and of those, 80 per cent. said that they had increased their hours. Recent data suggests that among families in receipt of WFTC and using eligible child care, around 85 per cent. claim the child care tax credit. Among lone parents receiving WFTC the figure is higher still, with over 90 per cent. of lone parents who receive WFTC and use eligible child care claiming the child care tax credit. The majority of claims for child care tax credit come from lone parents, for whom child care costs can represent one of the biggest barriers to making work pay.

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place the evaluations for the Capital Modernisation Fund projects relating to(a) Inland Revenue E-business gateway, (b) Inland Revenue unified reference validation, (c) Customs and Excise port surveillance, (d) Customs and Excise anti-drug surveillance radar, (e) Customs and Excise scanners and (f) Office of National Statistics "PAT 18: Better Information" in the Library. [97020]

  Mr. Boateng
  (a) The CMF funding for the Inland Revenue e-business gateway has been integrated into a number of projects, some of which are still in
  760W
  development and none of which have reached the stage when they would be considered for an evaluation review under the department's established criteria.

  (b) The Inland Revenue Unified Reference Validation Project is still in its early stages. It is expected that the project will be completed in the 2003–04 Financial Year.

  (c) The Customs and Excise Port Surveillance project is not due to be completed until 31 March 2004. No evaluation report is yet available.

  (d) The Customs and Excise anti-drug surveillance radar project was terminated in February 2002 because of difficulties in meeting the requirements of the user specification. No further expenditure is planned on this project.

  (e) The project to procure x-ray freight scanners for Customs and Excise has not yet been concluded, and a full evaluation report has therefore not been completed.

  (f) As the Office for National Statistics' Neighbourhood Statistics project has not yet been concluded, no evaluation report has been completed.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether payments of child tax credit in April 2003 will be based on earnings data from 2001–02; whether payments of child tax credit will be adjusted during 2003–04 when final earnings data for 2002–03 becomes available; whether amounts of child tax credit payable for 2003–04 will be adjusted after the end of 2003–04 when final earnings data for 2003–04 becomes available; and if he will make a statement. [97843]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 February 2003]: Tax credit awards for 2003–04 are initially based on income for the tax year 2001–02, the last complete tax year for which people will have details of their income already available. Awards will be adjusted to reflect income for the tax year 2003–04 if that is lower or significantly higher than 2001–02 income (only rises of more than £2,500 are taken into account). Once their initial award is made, claimants can ask to have their tax credits payments based on their expected income for 2003–04.

  After the first year, tax credits will initially be based on income for the previous tax year and adjusted to reflect current tax year income if that is lower or significantly higher.

  Iraq (Reconstruction Funding)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial provision he has made to fund the reconstruction of Iraq in the aftermath of war. [97540]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government believe that the role of the United Nations and other multilateral institutions will be vital in addressing the reconstruction of Iraq in the aftermath of any war and are liaising closely with allies on this issue.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that proposed increases in landfill tax do not disproportionately affect manufacturing industry. [100088]

  John Healey
  As we announced in the pre-Budget report (PBR), the Government will consult on a revenue-neutral proposal to increase the rate of landfill from 2005–2006 as a way of encouraging more environmentally friendly methods of dealing with waste. Since the PBR, discussions have been held with a wide range of businesses and other groups, including the Confederation of British Industry, on how the additional revenue raised from the landfill tax increases will be recycled. An announcement will be made in the Budget.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce higher capital allowances to encourage manufacturing investment. [100086]

  John Healey
  The Government keep all taxes under review and any changes will be made as part of the normal budget process. Since 1997 the Government have introduced permanent 40 per cent. first year allowances for investments in plant and machinery by small and medium sized enterprises. In addition to this, all businesses can obtain 100 per cent. first year allowances for investments in designated energy-saving plant and machinery.

  Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2003,Official Report, column 419W, for what reason he is unable to list the attendees for each meeting since January 2000; and if he will make a statement. [96203]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not usual practice to release detailed attendance records for meetings of advisory non-departmental bodies such as the Public Services Productivity Panel. Exemption 8(a) of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" applies.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the increase in national insurance in April on(a) disposable incomes, (b) consumer spending as a percentage of GDP, (c) personal borrowing levels and (d) the saving ratio. [99023]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Government economic forecasts take account of the effects of the increase in national insurance contributions announced in Budget 2002.

  Passenger Travel
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the use of economic instruments to discourage passenger travel(a) by air and (b) by road. [99202]
  762W
  John Healey
  The Chancellor considers all relevant social, economic and environmental factors when deciding taxation policy. Alongside the 2002 pre-budget report the Government published "Tax and the environment: using economic instruments". This document outlined that Government intervention is aimed at tackling market failures.

  The Government does not have policies to discourage passenger travel but have introduced a host of policies to encourage more environmentally friendly behaviour by road users including duty incentives for road fuel gases and ultra low sulphur fuels, graduated vehicle excise duty (VED) for cars based on carbon emissions with incentives for the use of cleaner fuels and technologies, restructuring of vehicle excise duty for lorries so that the cleanest, least polluting lorries now pay some of the lowest VED rates in the EU and reforms to company car taxation to account for the levels of carbon emissions.

  The 2002 pre-Budget report announced that the Government will discuss with stakeholders the most effective economic instruments for ensuring that the industry is encouraged to take account of, and where appropriate reduce, its contribution to global warming, local air and noise pollution.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net saving to the Exchequer if all public sector employees retired at age 65; and if he will make a statement. [99898]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 23 January, column 431W.

  Working Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 25 February, ref 94024, how many of the recipients of working tax credit will be childless. [100125]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of the extension of in-work support, 250,000 low-income working households without children are expected to receive Working Tax Credit in 2003–04.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Protection
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will establish independent child death review teams to deal with child deaths from abuse and neglect; [98485]

  (2) what plans the Government has to set up child safeguarding teams to ensure that professionals involved in the care and protection of children can work together more effectively on the ground. [98484]

  Hilary Benn
  The Victoria Climbié Inquiry report, published on 28 January 2003, contained 108 recommendations, including several recommendations relating to local and national structures for the
  763W
  provision of children's services and arrangements for child death reviews (referred to in Government guidance as serious case reviews).

  We are currently studying the report's 108 recommendations with care, and will make our substantive response to the report as part of the Green Paper on Children at Risk, which will be published later in the spring.

  Conviction Rates
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances an offender is classed as having been brought to justice. [99021]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: For the purposes of the Public Service Agreement target to bring 1.2 million recorded offences to justice by 2005–06, an offence is classed as having been brought to justice where an offender has been cautioned, convicted, or has had the offence taken into consideration by the court. (Penalty Notices for Disorder also count towards the target, in the areas where these are being trialled).

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration intends to reply to the letter dated 11 December 2002 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Mrs. S Mitchell of Farnborough. [98218]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 27 February 2003.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member will receive a reply to his letters of 2 December 2002 and 8 January, ref. 3LBR/A076411. [98692]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 27 February 2003.

  Correspondence Tracking System
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the computer-based correspondence tracking system being piloted in his Department. [98408]

  Mr. Wills
  I am determined to build on the progress we are making on improving our handling of correspondence.

  The Correspondence Tracking System's (CTS) ministerial correspondence module is part way through a five week live pilot. CTS is built on a combination of scanning, workflow and document management technology. It will allow all incoming correspondence addressed to Ministers or to the Home Office to be scanned on arrival and transmitted around the department electronically. Its use will ensure that no piece of correspondence ever gets mislaid or delayed in the internal mail, and will enable progress to be monitored at all stages of the process.

  Subject to final evaluation of the pilot, the module will roll out across the non-Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) parts of the Home Office over four
  764W
  weeks from 17 March. The public correspondence module will roll out approximately six weeks later, and the e-mail module approximately four weeks after that. A scoping study is currently under way in IND to establish timescales for the roll out of CIS there.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on the prison population of the proposed changes to(a) sentencing and (b) the double jeopardy rule contained in the Criminal Justice Bill. [99019]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The sentencing provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill will make it possible to ensure that the most serious violent, sexual and persistent offenders spend longer in prison while allowing other offenders to be dealt with by means of tougher and more effective community sentences. Current projections indicate that the long-term net effect of implementation of these provisions will be a small increase of about 1,000 in the prison population.

  The proposal contained in the Bill in relation to retrial for serious offences would only permit a retrial in cases where new and compelling evidence subsequently came to light. Furthermore, to prevent the possible harassment of acquitted persons or where it is not in the public interest, the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to the re-opening of investigation and an application to the Court of Appeal. Given these safeguards it is estimated that only a very small number of cases are likely to be retried each year and that the impact upon the prison population will be negligible.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prison inmates in Britain have access to drugs rehabilitation programmes. [97594]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 12 February 2003]: The Prison Service does not keep records of the percentage of drug-misusing prisoners in England and Wales that have access to rehabilitation programmes. However, based on research conducted by the Office for National Statistics, the Service estimates that 18,000 prisoners each year would benefit potentially from participation in a rehabilitation programme. The length of treatment courses serves to restrict access to those sentenced to two years or more.

  The Service is committed annually to delivering 5,700 places on rehabilitation programmes or therapeutic communities by March 2004. The Service is, therefore, currently resourced only to meet approximately 30 per cent. of the potential rehabilitation needs of drug-misusing prisoners.

  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained on 4 December 2002 in his response to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), Official Report, column 906, the Government are committed significantly to extending drug treatment programmes both within prison and in the community.

  Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders have been given an extended sentence under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. [99018]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: 43 cases of extended sentences were notified to the Home Office in 2001.

  Figures for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

  What Works Unit
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the work programme is of his Department's What Works Unit, and if he will make a statement. [99020]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: Considerable progress has been made in ensuring that interventions with offenders are soundly based on the What Works evidence and are effective in reducing re-offending. A joint prison/probation assessment system (OASys) is being rolled out. We have introduced a range of accredited offending behaviour programmes covering both general offending and specialised areas such as drug abuse and sexual offences.

  Work is also progressing on the reintegration of offenders into society by addressing factors such as literacy, numeracy, employment and accommodation; and a system of Enhanced Community Punishment is being introduced this year. An intensive scheme collaborating with police surveillance is being developed in the community for young adult offenders between 18 and 20 years of age.

  The Youth Justice Board is also taking forward What Works initiative. It is producing a series of Effective Practice Guidance Notes, and is introducing a quality assurance process within Youth Offending Teams.

  Overall, our aim is to reduce re-offending by 5 per cent. by 2004.

HEALTH

  Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines there are for testing patients for Alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency; [99139]

  (2) how many patients are being treated for Alpha 1antitrypsin deficiency in the UK; [99138]

  (3) what the most common symptoms of Alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency are amongst patients in the UK. [99140]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: Alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency is an inherited disorder with a prevalence of approximately one in 5,000 people. It is associated with liver disease among children and lung disease among adults between approximately 30–50. We do not hold data centrally on the number of patients being treated.
  766W
  While no specific guidelines have been issued by the Department of Health, the British Thoracic Society's 1997 Thorax guidelines advised general practitioners that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) sufferers under 40 should be referred for a specialist opinion to identify an alpha-antitrypsin deficiency and to consider therapy and family screening. Alpha-antitrypsin deficiency is the most common inherited liver disease in babies and children and it is accepted clinical practice to test for this condition.

  Both liver and lung disease may present with a wide variety of symptoms. The main signs are jaundice in respect of liver disease and shortness of breath and cough for lung disease.

  Cancer Funding
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will direct to itemise cancer funding and where it has been spent in their annual reports. [98002]

  Ms Blears
  We have asked strategic health authorities, as part of an exceptional exercise, to identify total additional investment in cancer services in 2001–02 and 2002–03, with a subtotal for cancer drugs and supporting information on new service developments.

  We intend to publish the results in late spring 2003.

  Computer Fraud
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [97553]

  Ms Blears
  There have been no reported incidents of illegal hacking or computer fraud on the information technology systems, either within or outside the Department, in the financial year 2001–02.

  The Department had computer losses, including thefts, to the value of –70,500 in financial year 2001–02. The Department takes the protection of its IT systems and assets very seriously and its security policy and procedures are kept under constant review.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 21 November 2002 on behalf of his constituent Mrs.Loosemore. [100023]

  Mr. Hutton
  A reply was sent to the right hon. Member today.

  Drug Treatment
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drug misusers under treatment have had GP involvement since 1 January 2002. [98152]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not available centrally, in this form. Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, 16 per cent. of drug users presenting to drug treatment agencies in England were reported as having been referred by a general
  767W
  practitioner. Source: statistical press release "Provisional Statistics from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System in England, 2001/02"—http://www.doh.gov.uk/ public/spndruqsQ212.htm. This document is available in the Library.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific health treatment is recommended under a drug treatment and testing order for(a) heroin addiction, (b) crack cocaine addiction, (c) polydrug use and (d) dual diagnosis. [98154]

  Ms Blears
  The specific health treatment under a treatment and testing order will vary according to the different clinical and social care needs of each individual drug user, based on clinical judgment. The 'Models of Care' document and the Department's 'Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management' (Clinical Guidelines) outlines the evidence-based best practice that is recommended for the care of all drug users.

  Electronic Patient Records
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what targets are in place for the introduction of electronic patient records; [88736]

  (2) how many trusts are meeting their targets for the introduction of electronic patient records. [88737]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 488W, when he expects all NHS trusts in the south-east to have introduced electronic patient records. [92598]

  Mr. Lammy
  The following targets are in place for implementing the Integrated Care Record Service (ICRS) in the Government's '21st Century IT' Strategy for the national health service.Health Records Infrastructure initial connections by all trusts by March 2005.
  December 2005: All primary care trusts, and all NHS trusts actively implementing elements of electronic patient records (EPR).
  December 2007: Full national health record service, with core data and reference links to local EPR systems for full record access; EPR (compliant with new National standard, XML-based specification) systems implemented in all PCTs, and all Hospitals (to be confirmed during calendar year 2003).
  Unified Health Record (with all appropriate social care information) by December 2010 (to be confirmed during calendar year 2006).

  Food Labelling
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change food labelling regulations. [98838]

  Ms Blears
  Labelling regulations are agreed at European Union level. The Food Standards Agency is pressing for a number of important changes in EU labelling rules. Its top priorities, which are based on consumer research and consultation, are to achieve more extensive, clearer country of origin labelling, clear nutrition labelling on all foods and tighter controls on use of health claims.
  768W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Food Standards Agency's recommendations for the compulsory labelling of the nutritional content of food; and which foods would be covered if such proposals were enacted. [98839]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) recommends that manufacturers provide full nutrition information on all pre-packaged foods to allow consumers to make fully informed choices about the nutritional value of the foods they buy. The FSA is pressing to make this recommendation a legal requirement through changes to the current European Union rules on nutrition labelling.

  Contrary to reports in the press the FSA has not recommended introducing legislation requiring the nutritional content of food and drink to be given on menus.

  Heart Choice Scheme
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he has made of the Heart Choice Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [97317]

  Ms Blears
  Evaluation of the heart choice scheme is being informed by the independent patient choice trustees at a national level through a survey of patient views and with information from patient care advisers in each cardiac centre.

  The early indications from the first six months of the scheme are that the initiative is popular with patients, with just under half of those eligible choosing to be treated elsewhere. Patients and their carers have particularly welcomed the continuity, advice and support of patient care advisers. These reforms, combined with substantial investment, are making a dramatic impact, improving patient experience and bringing a rapid reduction in waiting times for heart surgery.

  Heart Disease
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been provided to primary care trusts on collaborative commissioning for specialist heart services. [99440]

  Ms Blears
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for assessing the health needs of their local community and preparing plans for health improvement, reflecting the diversity of local needs.

  Arrangements for shared or collaborative commissioning of services, including specialist heart services, are being made locally between PCTs.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set to increase the use of new medical devices used in percutaneous coronary interventions. [99441]

  Ms Blears
  No targets have been set for the use of new medical devices in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The National Institute for Clinical Excellence published guidance in May 2000 on the use of plain stents in PCI and is currently evaluating the appropriate use of drug eluting stents. Guidance on this is expected to be published later this year.

  Hospital Acquired Infection
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many care homes refused to admit NHS patients due to the contraction of(a) MRSA and (b) other hospital acquired infections, in the last year for which figures are available; [98031]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that older people are not discharged from hospital into care homes with hospital acquired infections. [98030]

  Ms Blears
  We are committed to tackling hospital acquired infections and have set standards to ensure that there is a managed environment that minimises the risk of infection to patients, staff and visitors. These standards are now supported by the inclusion of infection control procedures and a methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) improvement score in the national health service performance management system for 2002–03. In addition, a targeted action plan for healthcare associated infection is being developed as part of our strategy against infectious diseases, "Getting Ahead of the Curve".

  Hospital acquired infections range from the serious to the trivial. Although it is good practice1 to assess residents for risk of infection on admission an infection is not necessarily a contraindication for admission. For example, if basic good hygiene precautions are followed, individuals with MRSA are not a risk to other residents, staff or visitors and should not be excluded.

  There are no centrally held statistics on care homes and the admission of patients with MRSA or other hospital acquired infections.
  1"Guidelines on the Control of Infection in Residential and Nursing homes"—Public Health Medicine Environmental Group 1996.

  Hospital Waste Disposal
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are followed when contracting out disposal of human tissue to hospital waste disposal companies; what outside companies are used by the NHS for disposal of human tissue; what the terms of their contracts are; and for how long they have been doing work for the NHS. [99082]

  Ms Blears
  It is for National Health Service trusts to determine their local hospital waste contract requirements and specifications, and fulfil all statutory and legal obligations. However, a significant amount of guidance on clinical waste management and disposal is available to the NHS. The Health and Safety Commission guidance, Safe disposal of clinical waste, states:"Identifiable human tissue is clinical waste unless it has been rendered safe and non-infectious. After treatment, identifiable human tissue remains an offensive waste. It therefore needs to be dealt with by an authorised waste handling facility. The only appropriate treatment for identifiable human tissue is incineration."

  Human tissue has to be disposed of by incineration. Not all waste disposal facilities are licensed or have the appropriate disposal technology to dispose of human tissue. Those companies who only operate alternative
  770W
  non-burn technology plant and facilities are required to sub-contract human tissue clinical waste to other facilities for incineration.

  Human tissue is not dealt with under a separate contract but clearly, where non-burn solutions are used for the bulk of the waste, it does require a separate logistical approach. In England, the main clinical waste disposal companies are:

  Waste Disposal Companies

  White Rose Environmental

  Incineration

  Eurocare Environmental Services Ltd

  Incineration and non-burn

  Polkacrest

  Non-burn (microwaves and autoclaves)

  BFH

  Incineration

  Grundons

  Incineration

  Viridor

  Incineration

  EDW Butler

  Incineration

  Peake

  Incineration

  Torgam

  Non burn (autoclave)

  All contract terms will be individual and specific. NHS trusts are autonomous bodies and as such have local responsibility for all contracts dependent on their needs and specifications. Contracts will differ in terms of requirements and contract period. NHS Purchasing And Supply Agency are currently reviewing their total waste management contract terms and conditions.

  Since the introduction of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the loss of Crown Immunity in 1991, the NHS has moved away from disposing of its own waste to contracting out that service to the private sector. The consequence of legislative changes relating to clinical waste disposal resulted in NHS owned and operated incinerators being shut down and replaced with modern large scale incinerators, provided, in the main, through joint ventures between the NHS and the private sector, or the private sector alone.

  The NHS continues to handle some 8 per cent. of clinical waste disposal for England.

  Morning-After Pill
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to women regarding the potential side-effects of taking the morning-after pill. [97649]

  Ms Blears
  Guidance about the possible side effects associated with taking the morning-after pill or emergency contraceptive, Levonelle, is routinely provided in the patient information leaflet included with this medicine. The possible side effects of Levonelle are also included in the information that is provided to health professionals, the summary of product characteristics, who are encouraged to discuss these side effects with the individual woman before treatment is provided.

  Pharmacists are supplied with a 'Protocol' that contains a checklist of advice that should be given to each woman when she is given Levonelle. This protocol includes the need to inform women of the most common side effects that may occur.
  771W
  Information about potential side effects of Levonelle has most recently been provided in the Chief Medical Officer's (CMO) newsletter, CMO Update, which is available through the Medicines Control Agency (MCA)/CMO websites.

  As with all licensed medicines, the safety of Levonelle is continuously monitored by the MCA, with independent expert advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines. In the event of any important new safety information emerging, the MCA will take action to ensure that this is accurately reflected in the product information and communicated to health professionals and women using the product.

  Paediatric Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric nurses are employed by each hospital trust in England; and what the vacancy rates are in each case. [92538]

  Mr. Hutton
  As a result of organisational changes in April 2002, data reflecting the latest organisation structure are not currently available. The 2003 national health service vacancy survey will be conducted in March and the results will be available later this year. It is intended to publish staff in post data from the September 2002 NHS work force census, which reflects the latest structure, in April this year.

  Patient Care Advisers
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patient care advisers work at each heart surgery centre in England. [97310]

  Ms Blears
  The majority of participating trusts have a single patient care adviser (PCA) in post. A number of the larger bodies, including Brighton Healthcare, University

  PCT

  2003–04 allocation(£)

  2004–05 allocation(£)

  2005–06 allocation(£)

  Total three year increase (percentage)

  Craven, Harrogate and Rural District

  166,668

  181,585

  197,111

  28.08

  Hambleton and Richmondshire

  91,187

  99,349

  107,843

  28.08

  Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale

  138,792

  152,118

  166,123

  30.31

  Set by and York

  216,207

  235,557

  255,791

  28.13

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to maintain the work on health and safety carried out by the Public Health Laboratory Service after 1 April. [95697]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) Board will continue to be responsible for the health and safety of its remaining employees after 1 April.

  Any wider contribution to health and safety by current employees of the PHLS providing expert advice will continue to be provided as appropriate.

  Sexual Health
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1)what recent discussions he has had with the 772W
  Hospitals Birmingham and University Hospitals Leicester, employ two PCAs, while St. Bartholomew's and the London National Health Service Trust employs three.

  The latest available figures, for January 2003, show a total of 38 PCAs in post.

  Patients (Home Care)
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage the NHS to adopt new medical technologies that are clinically proven to help patients be treated outside hospital. [95574]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's Modernisation Agency is in place to support new practices and innovative approaches and will help to make a significant contribution in this area.

  Clinical effectiveness and patient safety are of course paramount concerns, and before any new medical technology is used it must, as a minimum, comply with United Kingdom and European regulations for medical devices and with clinical protocols agreed with the relevant professional bodies.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding arrangements for primary care trusts in North Yorkshire. [98060]

  Jacqui Smith
  Three year allocations to primary care trusts (PCTs) were announced on 11 December. The allocations made to PCTs covered by North and East Yorkshire and North East Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority are shown in the table.

  representatives of general practitioners regarding
  (a) screening for sexually transmitted diseases;(b) counselling for sexually transmitted diseases; and (c) the provision of contraceptive services; [99088]

  (2) what guidance his Department has issued to primary care trusts regarding GPs' role in screening for sexually transmitted diseases; [99085]

  (3) what guidance his Department has issued to primary care trusts regarding GPs' role in screening for chlamydia. [99087]

  Ms Blears
  The sexual health and HIV strategy recommends that there are a number of service elements for sexual health care that current good practice acknowledges should be available in every general practice setting. These elements include sexually
  773W
  transmitted infection (STI) testing for women and assessment and referral of men with STI symptoms. However we do recognise that these service elements are not available everywhere at present and that development will be gradual. The development of non-invasive STI tests will extend the elements that can be provided in primary care.

  Officials have held a number of discussions with representatives of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) to discuss implementation of the sexual health and HIV strategy in primary care. The Department is funding a conference being organised by the RCGP and the Royal College of Nurses to take forward a co-ordinated approach to the teaching and accreditation of sexual health skills for primary care. The
  774W
  RCGP will be publishing guidelines for general practitioners on primary care provision of recommended service elements for sexual health later this year.

  We have recently published a sexual health commissioning toolkit, which is available in the Library, which provides guidance for primary care trusts (PCTs) and a framework for developing sexual health services across a range of primary and specialist providers.

  In addition, the NHS Confederation is taking the lead, on behalf of United Kingdom health Ministers, in developing a new contract for GPs across the UK. The negotiations with the General Practitioners Committee (GPC) of the British Medical Association will have included some discussion of the provision of sexual health services.

  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  £'000

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  †59,568

  1,901,764

  1,521,150

  380,614

  -48,997

  567,527

  472,541

  94,986

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from: (i) a take-up of £500,000 programme resources from DfES for school milk; (ii) a take-up of £6,044,000 administration resources from ODPM for accommodation costs (Ashdown House); (iii) a take-up £500,000 administration resources from ODPM for staff costs; (iv) a take-up £60,000 administration resources from ODPM for local Public Service Agreements; (v) a take-up £179,000 programme resources from DfT for best practice programmes; (vi) a take-up £2,512,000 administration resources from the Invest to Save Budget, representing Defra's successful projects in the fourth round of awards; (vii) a transfer £22,000 resources to the Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA) for engine power surveys; (viii) to take-up £65,000 administration resources from HMC&E for CAP export licensing under the Invest to Save scheme; (ix) a switch of £7,075,000 from capital to administration resource in respect of information technology (IT) costs, as agreed with Treasury; (x) a transfer £90,000 administration resources to ODPM for Planning Inspectorate;
  (xi) a transfer £1,200,000 programme resources to DfID for the Environmental Know-How Fund; (xii) a transfer £20,000 programme resources to DfT for PEP implementation; (xiii) the increase in programme resources and appropriations-in-aid in RfR 1 of £2,571,000 for the Over Twenty Months Scheme (OTMS) and £1,220,000 for international environmental purposes; (xiv) the increase our in Executive Agencies administration resources and appropriations-in-aid of £14,200,000 to meet appropriations-in-aid target in Estimate; (xv) a transfer from RfR 1 to RfR 2 of £4,700,000 programme resources for the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) in respect of the England Rural Development Plan (ERDP); (xvi) to switch £15,000,000 from capital and move £2,700,000 to administration resources and £12,300,000 to programme resources, as agreed with Treasury; (xvii) to switch £45,075,000 administration resources to programme resources in respect of front line services, as agreed with Treasury; (xviii) the reclassification of £27,100,000 flood defence capital grants to the Environment Agency as grant-in-aid and matching non-Voted resource budget cover, to reflect the Agency's accounting treatment of these grants; (ixx) the increase in Resource DEL of £1,865,000 as a result

  Departmental Expenditure
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' DEL will be increased by £10,571,000 from £2,458,720,000 to
  £2,469,291,000, and the administration costs limit will be decreased by £26,217,000 from £486,690,000 to £460,473,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the table:

  of the transfer of English Nature's unfunded pension liabilities into the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

  The change in the resource resource element of the DEL takes account of the take-up of our departmental unallocated provision (DUP) of £15,290,000 programme resources.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from: (i) the drawdown from Treasury of £50,000 capital for the Evidence Based Policy Fund; (ii) the switch of £15,000,000 from capital to administration and programme resources, as agreed with Treasury; (iii) the reclassification of £27,100,000 flood defence capital grants to the Environment Agency as grant-in-aid and matching non-Voted resource budget cover, to reflect the Agency's accounting treatment of these grants; (iv) to take-up £128,000 capital from the Invest to Save Budget, representing Defra's successful capital projects in the fourth round of awards; (v) the switch of £7,075,000 from capital to administration resource in respect of information technology (IT) costs, as agreed with Treasury.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL takes account of the move onto the Estimate as capital grants of £2,397,000 supplementary credit approvals (SCA's).

TREASURY

  Departmental Expenditure (Inland Revenue)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  The Inland Revenue Departmental Expenditure Limit will be decreased by £124,000 from £2,601,986,000 to £2,601,862,000 and the administration costs limit will be decreased by £124,000 from £2,644,712,000 to £2,644,588,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:
  41WS

  £'000

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  124

  2,601,862

  2,252,675

  349,187

  0

  168,086

  168,086

  0

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the transfer of debt management activity to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

  Departmental Expenditure (National Savings and Investments)
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, National Savings & Investments' Resource DEL will be increased by £11,500,000 from £156,898,000 to £168,398,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £11,500,000 from £156,898,000 to £168,398,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  12,000,000

  —

  New DEL

  168,398,000

  300,000

  Of which:

  Voted

  167,398,000

  300,000

  Non voted

  1,000,000

  —

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  26,724,000

  226,449,000

  162,625,000

  63,824,000

  143,500,000

  149,289,000

  148,989,000

  300,000

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
  an increase in Treasury administrative costs of £6,600,000
  funding of £9,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for a project on regional inequalities
  an increase of operating appropriations in aid of £10,000 for conference fees from 1 Horse Guards Road
  an increase in OGC administrative costs of £4,681,000 for restructuring costs and a voluntary retirement scheme
  an increase in OGC other current of £4,900,000 to finance changes in the accounting treatment of transactions related to the OGC residual estate
  a reduction in OGC operating appropriations in aid of £10,544,000 (£7,044,000 administrative A in A, £3,500,000 other current A in A)

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  23,400,000

  1,097,710,000

  1,093,671,000

  4,039,000

  -19,141,000

  62,277,000

  64,277,000

  1,000,000

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the following administration costs adjustments: a claim on the reserve of £1,600,000 in relation to team bonuses as part of the second year of Makinson trials; drawing down £22,000,000 Departmental Unallocated Provision to reflect investment in the e-Government programme; a transfer of £65,000 to the Rural Payment
  42WS
  The increase in Resource DEL comprises of an increase of £12,000,000 in the voted element offset by a reduction of £500,000 in the non-voted element.

  This will be used to cover expenditure relating to NS&I's modernisation programme, specifically the Savings Account Implementation programme and signing up to the Banking Code.

  There is no change in the capital element of the DEL.

  Departmental Expenditure (Treasury)
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, HM Treasury DEL will be increased by £170,224,000 from £205,514,000 to £375,738,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £16,815,000 from £110,204,000 to £127,019,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:
  1 Horse Guards Road being brought on to HM Treasury's balance sheet (£141,000,000)
  refurbishment costs of £2,500,000 for the OGC headquarters building Trevelyan House

  Departmental Expenditure (Customs and Excise)
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the H M Customs and Excise DEL will be increased by £4,259,000 from £1,158,728,000 to £1,162,987,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £23,535,000 from £1,017,967,000 to £1,041,502,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

  Agency in support of CAP Export Licensing; and an increase of £135,000 in the level of appropriation in aid receipts.

  The change in the capital element of DEL arises from: the take up of end year flexibility entitlement of £3,234,000 as set out in Public Expenditure White Paper (Cm 5574); a reduction in capital expenditure of

  43WS
  £510,000 concerning round three of the Capital Modernisation Fund; a transfer of £22,000,000 Departmental Unallocated Provision into resource DEL to reflect investment in the e-Government programme; and an increase in capital expenditure by £135,000 in relation to capital costs in running Money Service Businesses.

  As a result of the specified resource DEL changes mentioned in the above paragraph, not including the appropriations in aid adjustment, the administration costs limit has increased by £23,535,000.

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  -764,000

  127,472,000

  123,112,000

  4,360,000

  NIL

  22,063,000

  22,063,000

  0

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from an increase in Resource DEL due to the draw down of £308,000 from the Invest to Save Budget in respect of the "Citizen Information Project: feasibility study" and due to the draw down of £50,000 from the Evidence-Based Policy Fund towards the costs of the English Longitudinal Study on Ageing. This increase is outweighed by transfers of £1,122,000 in total to other government departments. £537,000 of the transfer is in relation to data development work for the Neighbourhood Statistics programme. The transfers comprise £50,000 to the Department for Transport, £247,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and £240,000 to the Home Office. Furthermore, ONS is repaying to the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit £585,000

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non voted

  455,277

  3,440,889

  2,269,255

  1,171,634

  -377,972

  13,374

  13,374

  —

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  RfR 1: Eliminating Poverty in Poorer Countries
  a transfer of £1,200,000 resource from DEFRA representing a contribution to the environmental know-how fund to Bilateral Development Assistance resource;to give effect to the take up of DEL end year flexibility of £52,458,000 resource (non-discretionary—EC Attribution rollover) on programme expenditure to Bilateral Development Assistance resource;a transfer of £988,000 from Multilateral Capital to Bilateral Development Assistance resource;a transfer of £19,000,000 from non-voted capital to Bilateral Development Assistance resource;a transfer of £18,000,000 from non-voted capital to Multilateral Development Assistance resource;a transfer of £339,984,000 from non-voted capital to non-voted
  Resource for the unwinding of Provisions;to give effect to the transfer of £24,472,000 resource from the Central Reserve as a contribution to HIPC 100% expenditure to Bilateral Development Assistance;a reduction of £3,600,000 resource to the Bilateral Development Assistance net cash figure to account for the value of VAT receipts taken in 2002/03;

  Departmental Expenditure Limits (Office for National Statistics)
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The Office for National Statistics Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be decreased by £764,000 from £128,236,000 to £127,472,000 and the administration costs limit will be decreased by £764,000 from £127,437,000 to £126,673,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

  administration costs which they advanced to ONS in 2001–02 to finance initial work on the Neighbourhood Statistics programme.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Expenditure
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the Department for International Development DEL for 2002/2003 will be increased by £77,305,000 from £3,376,958,000 to £3,454,263,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:
  a transfer of £18,000 resource from DFID to the Home Office for the balance of DFID's contribution to GRECO membership;to give effect to the take up of Administration DEL end year flrxibility of £4,893,000 resource (discretionary) on Administration;a reduction of £955,000 resource to Administration net cash figure to account for the value of VAT receipts taken in 2002/03;
  RfR 2: Conflict Prevention
  a transfer of £3,588,000 resource from sub-Saharan Africa Conflict Prevention non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) to sub-Saharan Africa Conflict Prevention;a transfer of £1,945,000 resource from sub-Saharan Africa Conflict Prevention non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) to the Ministry of Defence;a transfer of £1,450,000 resource from sub-Saharan Africa non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office;a transfer of £17,000 resource from sub-Saharan Africa non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) to Global Conflict Prevention.a transfer of £2,250,000 resource from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to Global Conflict Prevention.45WS
  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from: transfers from the capital to the resource budget as listed above.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Departmental Expenditure
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  This Written Statement explains the changes being proposed to the Department for Education and Skills' Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) (including the Office for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (OFSTED) which has a separate Estimate), which subject to Parliamentary approval of

  Resources

  Capital

  Change £000

  New DEL £000

  Of which: Voted £000

  Non-voted £000

  Change £000

  New DEL £000

  Of which Voted

  Non- voted £000

  RfR 1

  428,439

  20,050,932

  7,395,624

  12,655,308

  252,015

  3,334,477

  1,964,018 1,370,459

  RfR 2

  771

  285,404

  285,404

  0

  0

  164,008

  164,008

  0

  RfR 3

  -176

  149,394

  149,394

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total change

  429,034

  20,485,730

  7,830,422

  12,655,308

  252,015

  3,498,485

  2,128,026

  1,370,459

  The £182,716,000 increase in the voted element of the resource DEL for RfR1 arises from the take up of £196,480,000 of End Year Flexibility (EYF) provision; the net transfer from the Home Office of £2,759,000 for Education in Prisons, for Adult Learning, for the Community Champions and for shared premises; the net transfer from the Department for Work and Pensions of £481,000 for Employment Service contribution to shared premises for facility management in Caxton House, for support of Detached National Experts and for Machinery of Government changes adjustment; the transfer from the Department of Health of £33,000 for Education Advisors; from Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of £240,000 for Local Public Service Agreement and from the National Assembly for Wales of £187,000 for the International Education Programme and for Students on Dance & Drama Schemes; the transfer to the Department of Environment Food & Rural Affairs of £500,000 for the school milk subsidy scheme; the net virement of £17,017,000 to non-voted DEL (£22,720,000) for the establishment of the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA); (£797,000) for the Student Loans Company Grant in Aid and (£6,500,000) to voted expenditure for the modernisation of Student Support and the take up of Evidence Based Policy Funding of £53,000 for Child Outcome and Parental Characteristics research.

  The £3,505,000 increase in the Administration Costs limit for RfR1 arises from the net reclassification virement of £7,826,000 from administration to programme expenditure; transfers of £1,331,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions (£890,000) for the Employment Service contribution for shared premises and for support of Detached National Experts, from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of
  46WS
  the necessary Supplementary Estimate, will be increased by £681,049,000 from £23,500,366,000 to £23,984,215,000.

  There are no Spring Supplementary changes to the OFSTED Estimate and hence they are excluded from the tables below.

  The Administration Costs limits which will be changed as follows:

  Original £000

  Change £000

  Revised £000

  DfES (RfR1)

  207,541

  †3,505

  211,046

  Sure Start (RfR2)

  5,450

  †1,005

  6,455

  Children's Fund (RfR3)

  4,005

  -81

  3,924

  Within the DEL change, the impact on the resources element and the capital element are as set out in the following table:

  (£240,000) and from the Home Office (£201,000) for shared premises, and the take up of £10,000,000 from the End-Year Flexibility provision.

  The £771,000 increase in the voted element of resource DEL for RfR2 arises from the take up of EYF of £714,000 and the transfer of £57,000 from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) towards the administrative costs of the Childcare Policy team.

  The £1,005,000 increase in the Administration Costs limit for RfR2 arises from the take up of EYF of £714,000, virement from current grants of £234,000 and the DWP transfer of £57,000.

  The reduction in the voted element of resource DEL for RfR3 arises from the transfer of £176,000 (£81,000 is from administration costs) to the Home Office for work associated with the Strategy Programme.

  The £200,015,000 increase in the voted element of the Capital DEL for RfR1 arises from the take up of £200,697,000 from EYF for schools and Other Educational Institutions capital projects (of which £88,823,000 is from the Capital Modernisation Fund element of EYF) and the offset of additional former Grant Maintained School loan repayments of £682,000.
  The £245,723,000 increase in the non-voted element of the resource DEL for RfR1 arises from take up of £229,638,000 of End Year Flexibility provision for funding the Learning and Skills Council (£196,732,000), the Higher Education Funding Council for England (£30,000,000), the Student Loans Company (SLC) (£1,132,000) and the General Teaching Council (£1,774,000); from virements of £22,720,000 for the set-up of the SSDA, the virement of £6,500,000 to resource DEL for the modernisation of Student Support and the virement of £797,000 for SLC and transfers to the Department of Transport of £1,100,000 for the

  47WS
  Merchant Navy training Scheme, transfer of £300,000 to the Department of Health for the Clinical Scientist Scheme and the transfer from the DWP of £468,000 to pay for Adult Learning Inspectorate inspection of training providers used by JobcentrePlus.

  The £52,000,000 increase in the non-voted element of the capital DEL for RfR1 arises from the draw down of £51,000,000 from EYF provision for the Learning Skills Council (£40,500,000), for Teachers Training Agency (£6,500,000) and HEFCE (£4,000,000) and the transfer of £1,000,000 from the Department of Health for the Research Capacity Development programme.

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  Change New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  67,483

  3,320,718

  1,888,498

  1,432,220

  1,782

  5,677,020

  3,369,387

  2,307,633

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of £66,784,000 end year flexibility, comprising:

  (a) £17,000,000 for programme expenditure by the Highways Agency;

  (b) £4,636,000 (administration costs) for administration expenditure by the Highways Agency;

  (c) £9,118,000 (administration costs) for administration expenditure by the Department for Transport; and

  (d) £36,030,000 (administration costs) for administration expenditure by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  (ii) a net transfer of £4,162,000 to other government departments, comprising:

  (a) £1,627,000 (administration costs) from the Home Office to support DVLA's Vehicle Crime Reduction initiative

  (b) £1,444,000 (administration costs) from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister following Machinery of Government changes;

  (c) £1,100,000 from the Department for Education and Skills for SMarT seafarer maritime training by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency;

  (d) £179,000 to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for Energy Efficiency Best Practice programmes;

  (e) £75,000 (administration costs) from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for local Public Service Agreement (PSA) costs;

  (e) £8,000 (other current) from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister following Machinery of Government changes;

  (f) £50,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the Hamilton project;

  (g) £50,000 (administration costs) from the Office for National Statistics for work done on the Neighbourhood Statistics programme;

  (h) £43,000 to the Department of Trade and Industry for the Framework 5 GROWTH programme; and

  (i) £20,000 from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and £10,000 from the Department of Health for the World Health Organisation PEP project;

  (iii) a transfer of £85,000 from the capital element of the DEL to the resource element for automatic traffic counter renewal;

  (iv) an increase in receipts of £3,548,000 to offset capital expenditure by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Expenditure
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Transport departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be increased by £69,265,000 from £8,928,473,000 to £8,997,738,000 and the administration costs limits will be decreased by £134,940,000 from £479,446,000 to £344,506,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

  Within the resource element of the DEL there has been a net transfer of £41,941,000 from voted to non-voted programmes,comprising:

  (a) a transfer of £44,833,000 to non-voted DEL in respect of payments against provisions for Government Support liability payments from British Rail and National Freight Company pension funds and from the NFC travel concessions programme;

  (b) a transfer of £4,092,000 (administration costs) from non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision to support voted administration expenditure by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;

  (c) a transfer of £1,200,000 to offset reduced (non-voted) Civil Aviation Authority forecast profit.

  In addition to the changes listed above, there has been a net decrease of £187,920,000 in the administration costs limit, comprising:

  (a) a reclassification of £147,452,000 administration costs related receipts to now score within administration costs limit; and

  (b) a reclassification of £40,468,000 costs of frontline staff from administration costs to costs of the relevant programmes.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of £652,000 of end year flexibility for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;

  (ii) a transfer of £2,333,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to cover revised forecast;

  (iii) a transfer of £85,000 to the resource element of the DEL for automatic traffic counter renewal;

  (iv) an increase of £3,548,000 in respect of capital expenditure by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, offset by resource appropriations in aid.

  Within the capital element of the DEL there has been a net transfer of £5,510,000 from non-voted to voted programmes, comprising:

  (a) a transfer of £11,400,000 from non-voted to voted programmes to meet a Highways Agency pressure;

  (b) a transfer of £5,890,000 from voted to non-voted programmes to reflect a change in the treatment of Electronic Service Delivery and Capital Modernisation Fund allocations to trading funds.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Expenditure
  The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non voted

  61,793,000

  7,575,539

  6,513,501

  1,062,038

  20,341

  258,769

  252,465

  6,304

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of end year flexibility entitlements (£62,510,000 of which (Administration Costs), £6,000,000 of this entitlement was announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Table 6 of the 2001–2002 Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5574) as other discretionary

  (ii) an increase of £2,300,000 (Administration Costs) from the Capital Modernisation Fund for costs associated with the Modernising Appeals Delivery Programme

  (iii) the transfer of £1,116,000 (Administration Costs) to the Scottish Executive for expenditure in connection with Work Based Learning for Adults

  (iv) the net transfer of £1,006,000 (£538,000 Administration Costs and £468,000 Other Current expenditure) to Department for Education and Skills for the costs of several minor items which arise from the continuing effects of the Machinery of Government changes

  (v) the transfer of £450,000 (Other Current) to the Home Office as a contribution towards the cost of the Street Crime Initiative

  (vi) an increase in provision of £732,000 (Administration Costs) for the cost of collecting expenses associated with Road Traffic Accidents in England, Scotland and Wales

  (vii) an increase in provision of £350,000 (Administration Costs) for costs associated with accommodation previously shared with another government department

  (viii) a reduction of £190,000 (Administration Costs) -as a result of a recalculation of the costs associated with the unwinding of the PRIME Barter deal

  (ix) an increase of £124,000 (Administration Costs) as a result of a transfer for costs relating to debt management in relation to Working Family Tax Credit

  (x) an increase of £208,000 (Administration Costs) following the transfer from Lord Chancellors Department for costs associated with the Personal Details Programme

  (xi) an increase of £70,000 (Administration Costs) following the transfer from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of costs relating to local Public Service Agreements

  (xii) Administration Cost Limit changes arise from a reduction (£3,165,000) following a review of expenditure requirements, a reduction of (£2,301,000) resulting from the correction to the classification of certain transfers made in the Winter Supplementary Estimate, an increase (£5,595,000) following the virement from Grants, a reduction (£575,000) from the transfer to the Disability Rights Commission Grant in Aid and a reduction (£1,201,000) in Administration Cost related Appropriations in Aid

  (xiii) there is an increase in Appropriations in Aid of £1,739,000.

  50WS
  Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Work and Pensions Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £82,134,000 from £7,752,174,000 to £7,834,308,000 and the administration cost limit by £65,205,000 from £5,558,199,000 to £5,623,404,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the table:

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  (i) take up of end year flexibility entitlement of £20,211,000 as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Table 6 of the 2001–2002 Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5574).

  (ii) A reduction of £130,000 in non operating Appropriations in Aid.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Expenditure (Department of Health and Food Standards Agency)
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department and the Food Standards Agency departmental expenditure limits (DELs) will be increased by £448,742,000 from £56,476,255,000 to £56,924,997,000 and the administration cost limits (ACL) will decrease by £10,539,000 from £379,782,000 to £369,243,000. The Department's DEL will be increased by £448,742,000 from £56,341,630,000 to £56,790,372,000 and the ACL will increase by £8,829,000 from £324,663,000 to £333,492,000. The Food Standards Agency DEL remains unchanged at £134,625,000 but the ACL will decrease by £19,368,000 from £55,119,000 to £35,751,000. The impact on resource and capital are set out in the table.

  Resource (£'000)

  Capital (£'000)

  Change

  393,200

  55,542

  New Department of Health DEL

  54,385,885

  2,404,487

  Voted

  54,858,261

  1,161,967

  Non Voted

  -472,376

  1,242,520

  Food Standards Agency DEL

  133,988

  637

  Of which

  Voted

  133,988

  637

  Non Voted

  0

  0

  TOTAL DH/FSA Group DEL

  54,519,873

  2,405,124

  The change in the resource element of the department expenditure limit for the Department arises from: a claim for early take of additional end year flexibility from 2001–02 £120 million and the take up of end year flexibility £16.111 million (£6 million revenue allocations and £10.111 million administration cost limit) as set out in Table 6 of the Public Expenditure

  51WS
  2001–02 Provisional Outturn White Paper Cm 5574 published in July 2002; a change in the level of National Health Service trust depreciation £58.216 million; a transfer from the capital element of the Department's DEL of £197.051 million; additions from the evidence based policy fund £0.229 million; net transfers from the Home Office of £3.433 million for training bursaries drug research and drug action teams, training of staff, offset by a grant for match funded social care projects; net transfer to the National Assembly for Wales £-5.960 million (£-0.022 administration cost limit) mainly for out of area treatments, high security psychiatric services, cross border prescribing and prison healthcare offset by contributions to committee costs and post graduate medical education; net transfer to the Scottish Executive £-2.050 million for out of area treatments, offset by a contribution to HIV surveillance funding, contributions to postgraduate medical education, the high security infectious diseases unit and the Beta Interferon risk sharing scheme; a transfer to the Department of Transport £-0.010 for a contribution to the international transport programme, environment and health programme; a transfer to the Department for Work and Pensions £-1.699 million for costs associated with the road traffic accident compensation recovery unit; from the Department for Education and Skills £7.067 million for medical student bursaries offset by a contribution for funding education advisers; to the Cabinet Office £-0.175 million for development of a website; from DHSS Northern Ireland £0.747 million for out of area treatments and the Beta Interferon risk sharing scheme and from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister £0.240 million (administration cost limit) for public service agreements.

  The change in the capital element of the department expenditure limit for the Department arises from: the take up of end year flexibility £58.942 million as set out in Table 6 of the Public Expenditure 2001–02 Provisional Outturn White Paper Cm 5574 published in July 2002; additional resources for private finance initiative balance sheet adjustments £153.571 million; a transfer to the resource element of the Department's DEL of £-197.051 million; additions from the capital modernisation fund £42.670 million; a transfer to the National Assembly for Wales £-0.540 million for accelerated discharge; to the Department for Education and Skills £-1 million for a contribution for Derby Medical School; to the Cabinet Office £-0.575 million for development of a website and to the Ministry of Defence £-0.475 million for capital contribution for Royal Hospital Haslar.

  The Department's administration cost limit has increased by £8.829 million from £324.663 million from £333.492 million as detailed above, offset by a transfer of £-1.5million for capital provision. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) administration cost limit has decreased by £19.368 million from £55.119 million to

  £'000

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  Change New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  30,591

  1,177,900

  1,177,900

  0

  4,510

  69,063

  41,575

  27,488

  52WS
  £35.751 million as a result of re-classifying meat hygiene service (MHS) costs from administration to programme and refining the FSA's and MHS's budget for 2002–03.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Expenditure
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Cabinet Office DEL will be increased by £16,549,000 from £261,159,000 to £277,708,000, the gross administration costs limit will be increased by £4,514,000 from £164,613,000 to £169,127,000 and the net administration costs limit will be decreased by £1,847,000 from £2,922,000 to £ 1,075,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

  Resources £000

  Capital £000

  Change

  2,122

  14,427

  New DEL

  208,566

  69,142

  Of which:

  Voted

  208,566

  69,142

  Non voted

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from Machinery of Government transfers of £2,018,000 to other departments; a virement from capital of £4,000,000; additions from the Invest to Save Budget of £280,000; and net transfers to other government departments of £140,000.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from additions from the DEL reserve of £9,000,000; transfers from other departments of £6,087,000; a transfer to the Security and Intelligence Agencies of £385,000; draw down of capital end year flexibility of £4,125,000; virement to resource of £4,000,000; and the difference of £400,000 between expenditure using proceeds from the sale of assets and the net book value of the assets.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Expenditure
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval the Northern Ireland Office (N10) will be taking a 2002/2003 Spring Supplementary Estimate. The effect this will have is to increase the NIO's DEL by £35,101,000 from £1,211,862,000 to £1,246,963,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £13,269,000 from £154,716,000 to £167,985,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:
  53WS
  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the draw down of £12,000,000 End Year Flexibility, a Reserve Claim for the Bloody Sunday Inquiry of £18,542,000 and net transfers into the Department of £49,000. This amount includes a total of £13,236,000 for administration costs.

  The extra resource costs cover a range of areas within the Department such as policing plus security, central administration, political, criminal justice and prisons. The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from the draw down of £5,000,000 End Year Flexibility, and a capital transfer to the Northern Ireland Departments of £490,000.

  The extra capital costs cover a range of areas within the Department such as policing plus security, central administration, political, criminal justice and prisons.

  The NIO Spring Supplementary Estimates will also be used to increase the Grant payable into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund by £372,000,000, from £8,089,000,000 to £8,461,000,000.

  The increase in Grant payable is a cash increase to fund activities undertaken by Northern Ireland Departments during 2002/03. This cash increase allows

  All figures are £000's.

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which voted

  Non voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which voted

  Non voted

  TOTAL

  411036

  3206627

  2946067

  260560

  8917

  110740

  99348

  11392

  The change in the Lord Chancellor's Department resource DEL is the net effect of:
  A transfer of £27,000 administration costs and £11,760,000 appropriations in aid to the Home Office; a transfer of £110,000 administration costs from the Home Office; a transfer of £208,000 administration costs to the Department for Work and Pensions; a transfer of £48,000 administration costs from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; an increase of £11,760,000 appropriations in aid from a short surrender of CFERS; a transfer of £70,000 resources from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; a reclassification of £444,000 from capital to resource DEL utilising the 2½per cent. capital to resource allowance; a transfer of £78,000 administration costs from the Office of Government Commerce; reclassification of £6,245,000 resources from resource to capital DEL, of which £7,000,000 is administration costs; take up of £412,000,000 resources from the DEL Reserve, of which £167,000,000 is administration costs.
  The change in the Northern Ireland Court Service resource DEL is the net effect of:
  take up of DEL end year flexibility of £1,581,000 administration costs and a virement of £1,581,000 from administration to capital DEL; a reclassification of £26,600,000 from administration costs to programme costs; take up of non-voted DEL end year flexibility of £271,000 Consolidated Fund expenditure; the take up of DEL end year flexibility of £1,955,000 on legal aid fund expenditure.
  The change in the Public Records Office resource DEL arises from:
  the take up of £2,542,000 administration costs from end year flexibility.
  54WS
  the use of End Year Flexibility and net transfers to Northern Ireland Departments which will be utilised in delivering departmental programmes.

  As a result the Northern Ireland Departments' DEL increases by £338,824,000 from £6,130,919,000 to £6,469,743,000. The increase comprises a take up of EYF of £337,440,000, a claim on the Reserve of £1,326,000 in respect of the disposal of fridges under EU regulations and net transfers of £58,000 from other Government Departments.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Departmental Expenditure
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Lord Chancellor's Departments (including Northern Ireland Court Service and Public Records Office) DEL will be increased by £419,953,000 from £2,897,414,000 to £3,317,367,000 and the administration costs limit will be increased by £160,001,000 from £639,888,000 to £799,889,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

  The change in the Lord Chancellor's Department capital DEL is the net effect of:
  a reclassification of £444,000 from capital to resource DEL utilising the 2½per cent. capital to resource allowance; reclassification of £6,245,000 resources from resource to capital DEL.
  The change in the Northern Ireland Court Service capital DEL is the net effect of:
  the take up of capital end year flexibility of £1,475,000; and a virement of £1,581,000 from administration to capital DEL.
  The change in the Public Records Office capital DEL is the net effect of:
  take up of end year flexibility of £60,000 resources.
  The increases will be offset by inter-departmental transfers, increases to Appropriations in Aid, take up of End Year Flexibility entitlements and a charge to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Expenditure
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the Department of Trade and Industry's DEL will be increased by
  55WS
  £92,689,000 from £4,763,244,000 to £4,855,933,000 and the Administration Costs limit will be increased by £18,592,000 from £423,187,000 to £441,779,000.

  £'000

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: voted

  Non voted

  51,189

  3,773,918

  1,175,588

  2,598,330

  41,500

  1,082,015

  -9,146

  1,091,161

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  RfR1

  (i) an increase in the non Voted expenditure of Postwatch of £1,180,000 offset by an equivalent increase in voted licence fee receipts;

  (ii) transfer of £43,000 from the Department for Transport in relation to the EU Fifth Framework Programme;

  (iii) transfer of £221,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Neighbourhood Renewal Unit for the Business Brokers Pilot Project;

  (iv) transfer of £700,000 to the Northern Ireland executive for innovative broadband schemes;

  (v) transfer of £1,000,000 from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to assist in the establishment of Ofcom;

  (vi) a virement of £272,000 from voted business support to non voted expenditure of the Regional Development Agencies;

  (vii) an increase in non voted expenditure of the Regional Development Agencies by £949,000 to reflect additional receipts from British Trade International;

  (viii) to increase the gross provision for grant in aid to Regional Development Agencies by £7,332,000 and increase appropriations in aid by an equivalent amount to reflect additional receipts from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister;

  (ix) utilisation of £21,100,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to provide for advisers and legal costs in relation to British Energy;

  (x) utilisation of £1,100,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for corporate communications and brand strategy;

  (xi) transfer of £26,000 from the Home Office to non voted expenditure of the Design Council for the Design Against Crime project;

  (xii) utilisation of £4,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to provide for increased non voted expenditure of the Regional Development Agencies.

  Within the change to the resource DEL, the changes to the administration costs limit are:

  (xiii) utilisation of £13,602,000 and £2,961,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement in relation to administration;

  (xiv) utilisation of £324,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for the ACAS Work Life Balance Invest to Save project;

  (xv) reclassification from programme to administration of £348,000 received in the Winter Supplementary from the Department for Education and Skills in relation to Work Life Balance to reflect funding via ACAS;

  (xvi) an increase in gross administration expenditure and receipts of £418,000 to reflect increased receipts from other Government Departments;
  (xvii) transfer of £439,000 from the Cabinet Office in relation to Women and Equality as a result of Machinery of Government changes;
  56WS
  Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

  (xviii) a virement of £500,000 from programme to administration in respect of business information start-ups.

  RfR2

  (i) utilisation of £200,000 from the Departmental Unallocated Provision for OST initiatives;

  (ii) utilisation of £2,515,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for Knowledge Transfer;

  2. There is also an increase in non-Voted expenditure on Enemy Property Claims liabilities of £5,000,000.

  The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

  RfRI

  (i) utilisation of £4,500,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement for the Small Business Service National Gateway Capital Modernisation Fund project;

  (ii) take up of £3,000,000 from the business.gov Capital Modernisation Fund project;

  (iii) utilisation of £8,000,000 and £26,000,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement to provide for increased expenditure and reduced receipts in relation to the Rolls Royce Trent 600 and 900 projects;

  (iv) to increase the gross provision for grant in aid to Regional Development Agencies by £35,039,000 and increase appropriations in aid by an equivalent amount to reflect additional receipts from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Sizewell B Nuclear Power Station
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr Brian Wilson)
  In the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) on 14 January 2003,Official Report, col. 547–50, he said that the Greenpeace protestors who entered the Sizewell nuclear power station had not penetrated any of the internal security barriers.

  My hon. Friend's statement was made on the basis of the best information available at the time from the nuclear operating company, British Energy. However, it is now known that although initial reports did not indicate that any sensitive area had been breached at the time of the Greenpeace incursion, a subsequent inspection by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security has established that some of the intruders entered through a door, which amounted to a breach of the Sizewell inner security barrier. Further defences within the inner security barrier contained the intruders and I should stress that at no time were any sensitive areas of the plant breached. The incursion was accurately assessed at the time not to pose a security threat and the response was measured and appropriate.
  57WS
  The Director of Civil Nuclear Security has implemented a full investigation into the incursion, including this breach, with the full co-operation of the operating company. Immediate remedial action has been taken to prevent a recurrence of this breach of the inner security barrier and other lessons learned from the incident are being acted on appropriately.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  Departmental Expenditure

    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
    £'000

    Resources

    Capital

    Change

    New DEL

    Of which: voted

    Non voted

    Change

    New DEL

    Of which: voted

    Non voted

    -965

    1,166,432

    166,837

    999,595

    -

    163,376

    116,495

    46,881

    The £2,908,000 increase in the voted element of the resource DEL for RfRI arises from the recovery from sale proceeds of £223,000 for repairs to Apethorpe Hall; the transfer of £20,000 administration costs expenditure from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (RfR4) toward the administration costs of local public service agreements (PSAs); a transfer of £749,000 to the Home Office for the Queen's Golden Jubilee Award scheme plus an addition of £351,000 fully offset by a transfer of £1,100,000 from non-Voted resource DEL; a transfer of £1,000,000 to the Department of Trade and Industry for the costs of setting up OFCOM fully offset by a transfer of £1,000,000 from non-Voted resource DEL; and additional resources of £2,760,000 for the costs of the funeral for the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, also fully offset by a reduction in non-Voted resource DEL
    The £3,873,000 reduction in the non-voted element of the resource DEL for RfR 1 arises from the transfer of £830,000 from the Departmental Unallocated Provision; the reimbursement of English Heritage of £223,000 for repairs to Apethorpe Hall; a reduction of £4,030,000 in non-Voted resource DEL cover for the Historic Royal Palaces deficit; the provision of additional resources of £14,000 to the Public Lending Right, of £674,000 to English Heritage, and £76,000 to the Broadcasting Standards Commission for the costs of paying accrued superannuation liability contributions in excess of pensions payments following their transfer into the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.
    The £4,731,000 decrease in the Department's Administration Costs Limit arises from the transfer of £4,751,000 from administration costs to resource DEL as a result of the reclassification of the delivery of services of The Royal Parks; and a transfer of £20,000 administration costs expenditure from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (RfR4) toward the administration costs of local public service agreements (PSAs).
    The Voted and non-Voted elements of Capital DEL are unchanged.
    (Tessa Jowell)
    Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport DEL will be reduced by £965,000 from £1,330,773,000 to £1,329,808,000 and the Administration Costs limits will be reduced by £4,731,000 from £42,166,000 to £37,435,000.

    Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

  PRIME MINISTER

    Departmental Expenditure
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
    Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Security and Intelligence Agencies DEL will be increased by £36,655,000 from £973,949,000 to £1,010,604,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £6,865,000 from £477,256,000 to £484,121,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

    Resources £

    Capital £

    Change

    12,905,000

    23,750,000

    New DEL

    846,819,000

    163,403,000

    Of which: Voted

    846,819,000

    163,403,000

    Non-voted

    —

    —

    The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

    1. the take up of End of Year Flexibility (EYF) of £10,500,000;

    2. a PES transfer of £120,000 from the MOD;

    3. a PES transfer of £1,050,000 from the Home Office;

    4. a transfer of £1,235,000 to Resource from Capital

    The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

    1. the take up of End of Year Flexibility (EYF) of £24,600,000;

    2. a PES transfer of £385,000 from the Cabinet Office;

    3. a transfer of £1,235,000 from Capital to Resource.

  SCOTLAND

    Departmental Expenditure
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs Helen Liddell)
    Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Scotland Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be
    59WS
    increased by £310,555,000 from £18,290,311,000 to £18,600,866,000. The Scotland Office administration costs limit is unchanged.

    The DEL increase takes account of the following:
    A reclassification into DEL of £189,603,000 for Edinburgh Royal Infirmary;The take-up of End Year Flexibility (EYF) by the Scottish Executive amounting to £90,000,000;An increase of £1,562,000 to meet the costs of the Lockerbie trial;An increase of £1,156,000 for the Scottish Parliament elections;A reclassification into AME of £5,400,000 for fire service pensions.
    The DEL increase also includes the following transfers between the Scottish Executive and other Government departments, amounting to a net increase of £33,634,000. These are:
    A transfer of £26,086,000 from the Department of Transport;

    £'000

    Resources

    Capital

    Change

    New DEL

    Of which: voted

    Non voted

    Change

    Of which: voted

    Non voted

    947,615

    10,378,398

    8,937,731

    1,440,667

    21,112

    1,099,814

    928,938

    170,876

    The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

    (i) Claims on the DEL reserve:

    Claims on the Treasury DEL reserve of £822,410,000 for RfR01 comprising £185,000,000 to subhead H1 for costs arising from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND); £601,696,000 to subhead H2 to cover asylum support costs significantly in excess of budget allocation (£600,000,000) and funding from the Organised Crime Reserve for Project Reflex (£1,696,000); £25,000,000 to RfRO1: subhead AN3 to increase resources for compensation payments and £7,014,000 for additional grant in aid to provide cover for non-recoverable VAT payments. The remaining £3,700,000 is in respect of the Criminal Records Bureau. The bulk of this claim, as last year, simply aligns the resource budget for IND more closely with the actual spend and reflects a long-planned in-year adjustment to the unrealistic budget level originally set in July 2000.

    (ii) Criminal Records Bureau:

    A reduction of £11,485,000 in RfR01: subhead E1 and a corresponding increase of £37,447,000 in RfR01: subhead E.5 consisting of a reduction in the forecast of receipts, as well as contributions totaling £10,200,000 from Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills. The £25,962,000 increase in the Home Office Admin Resource DEL is offset by additional resources of £3,700,000 from the Treasury Reserve and Admin savings of £22,262,000 from within the Department which will ensure that the Admin cost limit is not exceeded.

    (iii) Transfers from Other Government Departments (OGDs) totaling £15,706,000 including:

    Cabinet Office to RfFM: subhead CI of £250,000 to provide the appropriate provision for the transfer of the CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological & Nuclear) Team. Department of Culture, Media and Sport to RfR1: subhead G2 of £749,000 for the transfer of the Golden Jubilee Awards Team. Department for Education and Skills of £196,000 to RfR01: subhead J2 in respect of Children & Young peoples Boost (£95,000); subhead G3 for a contribution towards the Voluntary Sector Portal Project (£20,000) and subhead JT for a transfer from the Children's Fund relating to On Track Evaluation
    60WS Net transfers of £4,337,000 from the Home Office; Net transfers of £2,050,000 from the Department of Health;Net transfers of £880,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions;A transfer of £358,000 from the Northern Ireland Executive;A transfer of £60,000 from the National Assembly for Wales; and A transfer of £137,000 to the Department for Education and Skills.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Departmental Expenditure
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
    Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Home Office's Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) for 2002–03 will change as follows.

    (£81,000). Department of Health to RfRI: subhead G3 of £62,000 for matched funded Intermediate Care Services Project. Department of Work and Pensions to RfR1: subhead AQ3 of £450,000 for Street Crime Initiative Funding to link street crime offenders into employment opportunities. Lord Chancellor's Department to RfR01: subhead C3 of £11,760,000 to provide the appropriate provision for payments from the Recovered Assets Fund. Northern Ireland Office to RfRI: subhead D3 of £4,000 for a contribution to GRECO. Office of National Statistics to RfR01: subhead B3 of £240,000 to provide the appropriate provision for NeSS project work—funding for CO4—Crime Data Extraction. Scottish Office to RfR1: subhead D3 for £13,000 for a contribution to GRECO. Welsh Office to RfR01: subhead A3 of £13,742,000 to provide the appropriate provision for the costs of centrally managed police projects.

    (iv) Transfers to OGDs totaling £23,829,000 including:

    Crown Prosecution Service of £1,200,000 to provide the appropriate provision to video suspects. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of £1,500,000 to provide the appropriate provision for Locks For Pensioners. £1,539,000 to Department for Education and Skills for Moorfoot MOTO (£201,000) transfer for a Match Funding Project (£1,113,000): Transfer for the Community Cohesion Pathfinder Programme—Community Champions (£225,000). £3,495,000 to the Department of Health from RfR01: subhead J2 for National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (£316,000), Drug Testing Treatment Orders (DTTO) (£60,000) and Crack Treatment Pilots (£150,000); from subhead AQ3 to increase the number of DTTO's in seven street crime areas (£540,000); from subhead D2 for Staff induction costs for DSPD unit at Broadmoor (£218,000); from subhead C3 to provide the appropriate provision for 'DAT Training on Treatment Commissioning1 (£25,000), to provide the appropriate provision for 'Central drug treatment Fund' (£1,161,000), to provide appropriate provision for 'In House training for Drug Treatment Workers' (£100,000) and to provide the appropriate provision for 'Drug Related Deaths' (£925,000). £26,000 to the Department of Trade and Industry from RfR01: subhead B3 to provide the appropriate provision for Design Against Crime. £1,627,000 to the Department of Vehicle Licensing Agency

    61WS
    from subhead B3 to provide the appropriate provision for Vehicle Crime. £110,000 to the Lord Chancellors Department from RfFM: subhead D1 for JT inspections cross cutting civil justice project. £34,000 to the Northern Ireland Office from RfR1: subhead G1 for the Golden Jubilee Awards. £8,693,000 to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from RfR01: subhead G1 (£310,000) for the Golden Jubilee Awards, subhead G1 (£180,000) for the Community Cohesion Pathfinder Programme for staffing, subhead G1 (£380,000) for the Time Limited Development Fund, from subhead B1 (£6,104,000) to provide the appropriate provision for RCU tariff costs for the crime reduction teams, subhead C3 (£1,280,000) to provide the appropriate provision for 'Rough Sleepers Unit1 and subhead A2 (£439,000) to provide appropriate provision for Government Office involvement in Street Crime Initiative. £4,384,000 to the Scotland Office subhead H2 of (£4,350,000) for Local Authority Asylum Support Payments and subhead Clot (£34,000) for the Golden Jubilee Awards. £1,050,000 to the Security Intelligence Service from RfROT: subhead C2 to provide the appropriate provision for overseas drugs related assistance. £61,000 to the Wales Office from RfR01: subhead G1 (£34,000) for the Golden Jubilee Awards and subhead C3(£27,000) to provide the appropriate provision for 'lechyd Morghannwg DAT'. £110,000 to the Cabinet Off ice from RfR01: subhead D1 for exchange demonstrator work funded from CJIT.

    (v) Transfers between RfR01 and RfR02 £265,000 from RfROI to RfR02 comprising:

    £235,000 from RfR01: subhead H1 to RfR02: subhead A1 for costs associated with the Immigration Removal Centres at Haslar, Dover and Lindholme. £30,000 from RfR01: subhead F2 to RfR02: subhead C2 in respect of OASys OPOL project funding. £14,825,000 from RfR02 to RfROI comprising: £115,000 from RfR02: subhead CT to RfROI: subhead D1 representing a transfer of CJS Reserve £40,000 from RtR02: subhead C1 to RfROI: subhead F1 representing a transfer of funding for the OASys IT project £20,000 from RfR02: subhead C1 to RfROI: subhead J1 in respect of long term evaluation contracts £9,600,000 from RfR02: subhead A1 to RfROI: subhead A1 in respect of crime reduction £4,800,000 from RfR02: subhead A1 to RfROI: subhead D1 representing a transfer of CJS reserve, £250,000 from RfR02: subhead C2 to RfROI: subhead AL3 representing a transfer of funding for policing through the National Crime Squad.

    (vi) Funding changes:

    to provide additional resources of £14,326,000 in subhead A1, £200,000 in subhead A2 and additional income of £14,526,000 in subhead A5 in respect of additional funding from the Youth Justice Board; a reduction of £3,278,000 resources from subhead A1 and a matching reduction of £3,278,000 income from subhead A5 in RfR02 in respect of funding from DfES for prison education an increase of £1,240,000 income in subhead A5 in RfR02 in respect of additional funding from DfES for prison education an increase of £1,400,000 in RfR02: subhead A5 in respect of additional rental income from prison service property Lord Chancellor's Department to RfR01: subhead C5 of £11,760,000 receipts and a corresponding increase in subhead C3 to provide the appropriate provision for payments from the Recovered Assets Fund; HM Treasury to RfR01: subhead K5 of £2,341,000 receipts and a corresponding increase in subhead K1 in respect of the transfer of the lease of Allington Towers.

    (vii) Exchange

    Exchange with HM Treasury capital in RfR01: subhead A7 with resource in RfR01: subhead A2 of £49,700,000 to provide the appropriate provision for DMA, science and technology projects and electronic chipping.
    62WS
    (viii) Drawdown of Departmental Unallocated Provision:

    Drawdown of £11,460,000 from the DUP into RfR01: subhead A1 to provide additional resources for policing.

    (ix) EC Receipts:

    Additional receipts of £60,000 in RfR01: subhead G5 and additional resources of £60,000 in RfR01: subhead ATS, representing a payment from the European Union to the Commission for Racial Equality for the Raxen project.

    (x) Correction:

    A reduction of £872,000 A in A in RfR01 subhead G5 corrects calculation of item CXXX in the 'Introduction' to the Winter Supplementary Estimate in which an increase of £436,000 A in A was recorded instead of a decrease.

    (xi) Further changes:

    Additional provision of £16,400,000 in RfR01: subhead APS for the YJB; £1,488,000 in RfR02: subhead A1 for the video links project and £1,216,000 in RfR02: subhead A1 for the Prison Service drug strategy.
    The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

    (i) DEL Reserve:

    Claims on the Treasury DEL reserve of £2,900,000 to RfR01: subhead AN3 to provide additional grant in aid to provide cover for non-recoverable VAT payments.

    (ii) Transfers to OGDs:

    £779,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from RfR01: subhead H7 for the setting up of the Zimbabwe Visas Regime (£515,000) and for the setting up of the Jamaican Visas Regime (£264,000). £5,337,000 to the Cabinet Office from RfR01: subhead D1 for exchange demonstrator work funded from CJIT

    (iii) Transfers between RfR01 and RfR02

    £26,000 from RfR01: subhead H7 to RIR02: subhead A7 for costs associated with the Immigration Removal Centres at Haslar, Dover and Lindholme
    (iv) Funding Changes:

    To provide additional resources of £270,000 in subhead RfR02: subhead A7 and a corresponding increase in income in subhead A8 in respect of additional funding from the Youth Justice Board. An increase of in RfR02: subhead A7 of £2,631,000; and subhead B7 of £170,000; and an increase of non-operating income in subhead A8 of £2,631,000; and in subhead B8 of £170,000 in respect of capital funding from DfES for prison education projects. In RfR02 a reduction of £16,350,000 income from sale of assets in subhead A8 and a corresponding reduction of £16,350,000 in subhead A7 in respect of the prison building programme.

    (v) EYF

    Take up of £12,719,000 End Year Flexibility in RfR01: subhead D7 from the CJS reserve.

    (vi) Exchange:

    Exchange with HM Treasury capital in RfR01: subhead A7 with resource in RfR01: subhead A2 of £49,700,000 to provide the appropriate provision for DMA, science and technology projects and electronic chipping.

    (vii) Switch:

    Switch from capital to resource of £13,850,000 from RfR01: subhead D7 to subhead D2.

    (viii) Further changes:

    EYF of £36,632,000 in RfR01: subhead A7 and £38,000,000 CMF in RfR02: subhead A7.

    Video-recorded Interviews
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr John Denham)
    The Home Office
    63WS
    has today made available an additional £2 million for police authorities to provide facilities for video recording interviews with vulnerable witnesses. This funding will help to improve the service that the police can provide to some of the most vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime.

    Funding will be distributed by competition and grants will be targeted to provide the greatest benefit to witnesses and to complement other justice initiatives. Bidding guidance and a timetable will be issued shortly.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

    Israel (UK Defence Equipment)
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jack Straw)
    In my written reply to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr Campbell) on 15 April 2002,Official Report, col. 723W, I informed Parliament that we had questions about other possible breaches of the Israeli assurances about the use of UK-supplied equipment in the Occupied Territories (OTs) exported under previous Administrations. The Government has looked into the issue further and I am now able to inform Parliament of the outcome of our inquiries.

    The only equipment that has been identified as being used by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) in the OTs, and that can justifiably be regarded as constituting a breach of the assurances, is a combination of Puma and Nachpadon armoured personnel carriers (APCs). These are derivative APCs on a Centurion chassis, which therefore have a significant and recognisable UK

    Resources

    Capital

    Change

    New DEL

    Of which: voted

    Non voted

    Change

    New DEL

    Of which: voted

    Non voted

    82,706,000

    1,401,303,000

    1,250,326,000

    150,977,000

    -77,095,000

    68,146,000

    62,346,000

    5,800,000

    The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from

    i. A Public Expenditure Survey (PES) transfer to the Department of Transport of £50,000 in respect of the setting up of a Register of Shipping by the Maritime and Coastguard agency for certain Caribbean Overseas Territories.

    ii. A PES transfer to the Ministry of Defence of £183,000 in respect of business rates applicable to the 'Old Admiralty Building—Citadel' formally paid by the FCO and now the responsibility of the MoD.

    iii. Reclassification of £62,410,000 from Capital to Resource (Administration costs of £56,810,000, Grants of £5,600,000) to improve budgetary flexibility.

    iv. A decrease of £11,750,000 in respect of an adjustment for Overseas Price Movements.

    v. An increase in Admin costs of £1,630,000 in respect of increases to Consular services overseas.

    vi. A transfer from BBC World Service Capital to BBC World Service Resource of £30,000,000 to facilitate effective management of BBC World Service budgets.
    64WS
    content. Parliament was informed of this in Mr Bradshaw's reply to a parliamentary question from Mr Galloway on 11 March 2002.

    In our view the Israeli assurances do not cover equipment consisting of components exported by the UK to a third country, which components were then incorporated in that country into products for onward export. The Foreign Secretary's announcement of 8 July 2002 set out how the Government will approach licence applications for goods where it is understood that the goods are to be incorporated into products for onward export.

    We intend to inform the Israelis of the results of our inquiries. We shall re-emphasise our current concerns about exporting arms to Israel that might be used against Palestinian targets, and that our policy on assessing Israeli export applications has not changed: we shall continue to assess export licence applications for the proposed export of controlled goods to Israel on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

    Our staff will continue to monitor the deployment and the use of equipment by the IDF in the OTs during their regular tours of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem; and will report to me any sightings of British-supplied equipment.

    Departmental Expenditure
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
    (Mr. Bill Rammell): Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £5,611,000 from £1,463,838,000 to £1,469,449,000 and the administration costs limits will be increased by £60,097,000 from £678,042,000 to £738,139,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

    vii. A PES transfer from the Department of Trade and Industry of £100,000 in respect of Invest UK DTI funded overseas slots at the time of the Winter Supplementary Estimate, details of which were not published at the time.

    viii. A PES transfer to the Department for International Development (DflD) and Ministry of Defence of £2,000,000 and £4,884,000 respectively in respect of the remainder required to fund planned Conflict Prevention (CP) programme activity to the end of the FY.

    ix. A PES transfer from the CP Global Programme pool to DflD and the Ministry of Defence of £250,000 and £572,000 respectively in respect of baseline repatriation to Departments.

    x. A PES transfer from DflD of £1,450,000 to fund payment to a Military Officer in Angola, a project management transfer and the FCO's one-third share of the existing CP Africa Pool Reserve.

    xi. Take up of EYF if £11,531,000 from a combination of underspends on the 2001/02 CP DUP and DflD and FCO CP Programme underspends.
    65WS
    xii. A PES transfer to DflD of £5,000,000 for planned CP programme activities at the time of the Winter Supplementary Estimate, details of which were not published at the time.

    xiii. A PES transfer to the Security and Intelligence Agencies of £225,000 for CP activities at the time of the Winter Supplementary Estimates, details of which were not published at the time.

    xiv. An increase of £499,000 for additional security at Posts in the Middle East.

    The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from

    i. A PES transfer from the Home Office of £515,000 and £264,000 to defray the extra costs to the FCO of setting up Visa regimes for Zimbabwe and Jamaica.

    ii. Reclassification of £62,410,000 from Capital to Resource to improve budgetary flexibility.

    iii. A decrease of £585,000 in respect of an adjustment for Overseas Price Movements.

    Resources

    Capital

    Change

    New DEL

    Of which: voted

    Non voted

    Change

    New DEL

    Of which: voted

    Non voted

    1,034,825

    20,177,493

    19,787,783

    389,710

    517,376

    6,359,521

    6,283,093

    76,428

    The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

    An increase of £500,000,000 as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002 outcome whereby the MOD was provided with a Sustainability Fund to enhance the Department's capability to sustain military operations.

    A net reduction of £102,960,000 due to a transfer of £340,000,000 to capital to reflect compliance with the accounting policy change in FRS15, offset by a transfer from capital of £237,040,000 to reflect in-year Departmental re-allocations.

    An addition of £21,233,000 towards the MOD's liability to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

    An increase of £314,000 towards the purchase of two Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) vessels, offset by the repayment of an advance in 2001–02 of £1,000,000 towards the purchase of two RoRo ferries. This gives a net decrease of £686,000.

    A transfer out of Resource DEL of £120,000 to the Single Intelligence Account relating to electricity charges on a shared site.

    A transfer in of Resource DEL of £183,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the OAB Citadel costs.

    An increase of £617,175,000 in the Request for Resource for Conflict Prevention to cover the net additional costs of military operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, the Gulf, Afghanistan and contingency planning for possible operations.

    The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

    A net increase of £102,960,000 due to a transfer of £340,000,000 to capital from resource to reflect compliance with the accounting policy change in
    66WS
    iv. A transfer from BBC World Service Capital to BBC World Service Resource of £30,000,000 to facilitate effective management of BBC World Service budgets.

    v. An increase of £5,121,000 for additional security at Posts in the Middle East.

    vi. An increase of £10,000,000 to cover a shortfall in non-operating appropriation in aid in respect of asset recycling.

  DEFENCE

    Departmental Expenditure
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
    Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Departmental Expenditure Limits will be increased by £1,552,201,000 from £24,984,813,000 to £26,537,014,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table:

    FRS15, offset by a transfer from capital to resource of £237,040,000 to reflect in-year Departmental re-allocations.

    An increase of £48,909,000 for the purchase of two Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) vessels.

    A reduction of £43,300,000 being the repayment of an advance in 2001–02 for the purchase of two RoRo ferries.

    An increase of £1,600,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for the Drug Stopper Project.

    A transfer in of Capital DEL of £475,000 from the Department of Health for the Diagnostic Treatment Centre at the Royal Haslar Hospital.

    An increase of £406,732,000 in the Request for Resource for Conflict Prevention to cover the net additional costs of military operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, the Gulf, Afghanistan and contingency planning for possible operations.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Departmental Expenditure
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
    Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2002–03 will change as follows.

    (a) The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Main Programmes DEL will be increased by £68,963,000 from £5,432,646,000 to £5,501,609,000 and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister administration costs limit will be increased by £8,593,000 from £342,131,000 to £350,724,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:
    67WS

    (£'000)

    Change

    New DEL

    Change

    New DEL

    Total DEL

    † 33,850

    1,955,445

    † 35,113

    3,546,164

    Of which

    Voted

    † 148,589

    1,635,990

    † 55,852

    1,492,405

    Non voted

    - 114,739

    319,455

    - 20,739

    2,053,759

    The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

    (i) The changes for Request for Resources 1 are as follows:

    Take up of End Year Flexibility of £117,077,000 comprising £7,332,000 for Regional Development Agencies and £109,745,000 for Fire Service costs. A net transfer of £566,000 to non-voted provision consisting of £755,000 transferred from Housing research and publicity partially offset by £185,000 for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency and £4,000 for miscellaneous Fire Service expenditure. Take up from the Capital Modernisation Fund of £55,000 for the business regeneration of deprived areas. A technical increase of £156,000 to reflect a transfer from Department of Trade and Industry. A net increase of £1,543,000 arising from the following inter-departmental transfers: £1,280,000 from the Home Office for homelessness strategies, £221,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry for the Business Brokers project, £90,000 from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency, £126,000 from the National Assembly for Wales for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency offset by receipts of the same value, and £48,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department for costs of amending Section 26 of the Housing Act. A transfer of £51,800,000 from the Scottish Executive (£18,500,000), the Northern Ireland Executive (£10,000,000) and funds from fire authorities in England and Wales (£23,300,000), matched by equivalent expenditure, for costs of providing emergency fire cover. A transfer of £3,600,000 from Request for Resources 4 for the administration costs for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency. A transfer from non-voted capital provision of £25,245,000 to meet: Fire Service costs (£17,959,000), Jubilee fire service medals (£923,000) and Regional Chambers (£6,363,000).

    (ii) The changes for Request for Resources 4 are as follows:

    Take up of End Year Flexibility of £10,000,000 for administration costs. A net increase of £127,000 arising from machinery of government transfers transfer from the Cabinet office (£1,579,000) partially offset by a transfer to Department for Transport (£1,452,000). A decrease of £5,048,000 arising from other interdepartmental transfers to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (£6,604,000), the Department for Education and Skills (£240,000), the Department of Health (£180,000), the Department for Work and Pensions (£70,000), the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (£20,000), the Department for Transport (£75,000), partially
    68WS
    offset by transfers from the Home Office (£1,309,000) and the Office of National Statistics (£832,000). A transfer of £3,600,000 to Request for Resources 1 for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency administration costs.

    (iii) Provision within the non-Voted resource element of the DTLR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be decreased by £114,739,000 to reflect a transfer to the Local Government DEL (£10,062,000), a transfer to the Department for Works and Pensions in respect of Large Scale Voluntary Transfers (£105,243,000), partially offset by a net transfer from voted provision on Request for Resources 1 (£566,000)

    (iv) As a result of the changes to Requests for Resources 1, and 4 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister administration provision has been increased by £18,953,000 from £343,372,000 to £362,325,000.
    The change in the capital element of the DEL arises from:

    (v) The changes for Request for Resources 1 are as follows:

    Take up of End Year Flexibility of £36,540,000 for the Regional Development Agencies. A transfer of £2,110,000 from Request for Resources 4 for the Rent Service Executive Agency (£1,570,000) and the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency (£540,000). A transfer from non voted provision of £16,979,000 for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency (£2,464,000), for miscellaneous Fire Service costs (£11,515,000) and homelessness (£3,000,000).

    (vi) The changes for Request for Resources 4 are as follows:,

    A transfer of £2,333,000 from the Department for Transport for administration capital. A transfer of £2,110,000 to Request for Resources 1 for the Rent Service Executive Agency (£1,570,000) and the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency (£540,000).

    (vii) Provision within the non-Voted capital element of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be decreased by £20,739,000 in respect of a transfer to voted provision on Request for Resources 1 (£42,224,000), a transfer to Local Government DEL (£4,515,000), partially offset by a technical increase of £26,000,000 for the Urban Regeneration Agency.

    (b) The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government DEL will be increased by £25,000,000 from £37,684,963,000 to £37,709,963,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

    '000

    Change

    New DEL

    Change

    New DEL

    Total DEL

    † 25,000

    37,428,935

    —

    281,028

    Of which

    Voted

    †

    25,000

    37,336,082

    273,028

    Non Voted

    —

    92,853

    —

    8,000

    69WS
    The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

    (i) The changes for Request for Resources 3 are as follows:

    Take up of End Year Flexibility of £10,423,000 of which £5,614,000 has been converted from capital provision within the allowed flexibility to provide support for intervention in Hackney. A transfer of £14,577,000 from the non-voted element of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Main Programmes DEL to provide support for intervention in Hackney.

  WALES

    Departmental Estimates
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain)
    The Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £238,626,000 from £9,349,333,000 to £9,587,959,000. The increase is a result of:

    (i) the take up of end year flexibility of £245,000,000 for the National Assembly for Wales

    (ii) the take up of end year flexibility of £323,000 for the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of Administration Costs

    (iii) the take up of £150,000 for the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales for the North Wales Child Abuse Inquiry

    (iv) net transfers from the National Assembly for Wales to Other Government Departments of £6,847,000

    These transfers are as follows:

    (i) £13,742,000 to the Home Office for Police Funding

    (ii) £27,000 from the Home Office for the Confiscated Assets Fund

    70WS

    (iii) £28,000 to the Department of Health for Post Graduate Training

    (iv) £89,000 to the Department of Health for Joint Higher Training Committee

    (v) £22,000 from the Department of Health for Prison Health Care

    (vi) £60,000 to the Scottish Executive for Out of Area Treatments

    (vii) £42,000 from the Northern Ireland Executive for Out of Area Treatments

    (viii) £4,342,000 from the Department of Health for Out of Area Treatments

    (ix) £172,000 from the Department of Health for High Security Psychiatric Services

    (x) £1,819,000 from the Department of Health for Errw Vane Prescribing

    (xi) £12,000 from the Department of Health for Dental SIFT

    (xii) £10,000 to the Department of Health for the Mental Health Act Commission

    (xiii) £280,000 to the Department of Health for the Nursing and Midwifery Council

    (xiv) £540,000 from the Department of Health for Accelerated Discharge Measures

    (xv) £573,000 from the Department for Education and Skills for Medical and Dental Bursaries

    (xvi) £93,000 to the Department for Education and Skills for the International Education Programme

    (xvii) £94,000 to the Department for Education and Skills for Students on Dance and Drama schemes

    The Wales Office Administration Costs Limit will be increased by £473,000 from £2,830,000 to £3,303,000.

    The increase in DEL will be offset by transfers from other Departments, from the Reserve or take up of end-year flexibility and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

High Hedges Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Clause 1 [Complaints to which this Act applies]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out from "being" to "a" in line 7 and insert "adversely affected by the height of
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 20.
I am sorry that I was abroad on 9th January when the Committee stage of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, took place. Although I was not present to hear the debate, I hope that the various amendments that appear in my name on the Marshalled List show that the Government, through my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, were listening to, and have taken heed of, the concerns of the House.
The first group of amendments deals with the grounds on which someone can complain about a neighbouring high hedge. There was much discussion, both at Second Reading and in Committee, about the merits of extending the grounds of complaint beyond unreasonable obstruction of light. Examples were given of where hedges had caused loss of sunlight, loss of view, loss of amenity and property damage. My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton indicated that the Government accepted in principle that some extension of the grounds of complaint would be advisable and that we would consider the extra issues raised.
Our proposal in Amendment No. 1 is to allow people to complain to the local authority if reasonable enjoyment of their property has been adversely affected by the height of a high hedge. A "high hedge" is defined in Clause 2, about which we shall hear more later. The effect of the amendment is that the local authority could be asked to intervene if the excessive height of the hedge had resulted in some loss of amenity.
The wording offers flexibility to deal with a range of problems associated with high hedges. In our view, this would include obstruction of daylight and sunlight, either jointly or as separate issues—a matter raised in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—and would also cover loss of view, which the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, suggested was an important consideration.
In addition, the amendment would allow someone to bring a complaint if their garden was small and was dominated by the neighbouring hedge, making their situation uncomfortable. Such circumstances were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The issue of damage to plants was also raised in Committee. This, too, would be covered by Amendment No. 1, provided that the damage was attributable to the height of the hedge. For example, a tall hedge might prevent light reaching the plants. In addition, the hedge might be too high for the complainant to trim branches overhanging his property and shielding plants from that vital source of moisture, rain.
This example demonstrates that the difficulties people encounter in trying to exercise their common law rights to deal with the overhang from hedges could also fall to be considered by the local authority under Amendment No. 1, provided that the difficulties were directly tied to the height of the hedge.
Amendment No. 1 brings issues together within the scope of the Bill. Amendment No. 2, on the other hand, specifically excludes complaints about the effect of the roots of a high hedge. In particular. this means that complaints about root-related property damage would not be covered. As my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton indicated in Committee, the Government consider that other remedies are available to deal with such matters. In addition, the issues tend to be about who is liable for the damage and the level of compensation rather than about remedial works to the hedge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, queried this, suggesting that there might be a direct relation between what you see of a hedge above ground and the root growth below. This is not, however, necessarily the case. Maintaining a hedge at a particular height does not necessarily mean that root growth will be similarly restricted. Certainly, reducing the height of an overgrown hedge will not cause roots to die back by a comparable amount.
In addition, where trees are implicated in subsidence damage, the problems arise not from the direct effect of the roots on the building but from the indirect effect. On shrinkable soils, particularly some of the clays, extraction of moisture by roots will result in that soil shrinking, thereby reducing the support to foundations.
We are aware that reducing the height of a hedge is often advocated as a means of lowering the risk of property damage through subsidence. The theory is that less foliage means less uptake of water from the soil. However, this theory is not yet proven. It is the subject of research that the Government are sponsoring with the insurance industry and other partners. This shows how complex is the subject of property damage, especially when it is as a result of subsidence, and reinforces the Government's view that it is best dealt with elsewhere rather than through the Bill.
The remaining amendments in the group are all consequential upon Amendment No. 1. In particular, Amendment No. 10 requires the local authority, when determining complaints, to decide whether the height of the hedge in question is adversely affecting the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of his or her property, and if so, what, if any, action should be taken to remedy the problem or prevent its recurrence. In doing so, the local authority is required to consider all relevant factors and to assess each case on its particular merits.
As promised in Committee, the Government intend to publish guidance to local authorities on the legislation. We envisage that such guidance will need to deal with the full range of issues that local authorities could be asked to take into account. It would probably expand upon the advice in our leaflet, Over the Garden Hedge. This contains information on issues such as safe maintenance, privacy, loss of sunlight, obstruction of daylight and blocking of views.
I would also repeat the "cast-iron assurance" given by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton that there will be prior consultation on the guidance with a range of interested organisations, including, of course, Hedgeline. They will have the opportunity, therefore, to comment on and influence its content.
Moving on to Clause 5, Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 provide that a remedial notice must specify what action should be taken in relation to the hedge with a view to remedying its adverse effect. If the local authority is so minded, it can also require action to be taken to prevent the adverse effect recurring in the future. This could include long-term maintenance of the hedge.
I should also make clear that reduction in the height of the hedge is not the only course of action that can be specified in a remedial notice. There is flexibility to tailor the action to the problem. In some cases, therefore, an appropriate remedy might well include reducing the width of the hedge as well as its height.
Finally in this group, Amendment No. 20 allows us to extend the scope of complaints covered by the legislation, if necessary, through regulations rather than further primary legislation. It provides us with the flexibility to respond quickly to changing circumstances and to new and other problems.
I am sorry to speak at such length, but I hope that I have indicated how this group of amendments will address a number of concerns raised in Committee. I beg to move.
11.15 a.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I strongly welcome the amendments. Not only do they meet points made at the previous stage, but they seem to me—I hope my interpretation is right—to indicate that the Government are firmly behind the Bill and intend to see that it becomes law. That would be a very good
500
thing indeed. Credit is due to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for introducing the Bill and to the Government for recognising what is needed.
Will the Minister expand on an area that I raised in Committee; namely, how the choice will be made as to whether a complaint should relate to, and in particular whether an offence is committed by, an "owner or occupier"? Those words occur throughout the Bill. I am concerned about the short-term occupier whose tenancy agreement or licence may not state clearly where liability falls in relation to this kind of maintenance, using the word in its widest sense. It seems to me that it is entirely wrong, for instance, that a licensee who does not expect to have to pay the cost, which could be considerable, or, most particularly, incur the possibility of being penalised for committing a criminal offence should be placed in that position. I know that the Minister has considered this point and I am grateful for the notes from his officials, who suggested—and I took the hint—that I might raise it after welcoming the government amendments.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has done in support of the points I made about loss of view. We shall come to my other points later.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the Government for showing such support for the Bill. I am afraid that I cannot share the optimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who expressed the hope that the Bill will complete its passage in another place. We can but hope.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe:"O ye of little faith". I honestly believe that preparation for eventual legislation has been undertaken by the Minister and his department to a better extent than I can recall on many a Private Member's Bill in the past. Government spokesmen have consistently adopted a neutral attitude to Private Members' Bills and have not involved themselves in reshaping such Bills.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and I have pursued this matter for four or five years—or longer—partly as a result of our direct involvement in certain concerns but, in general, taking up the cudgels on behalf of thousands of people in this country who have been so frightened and terrorised by nasty neighbours that they want someone else to take the matter up.
The Government's approach has been a revelation to me. They were convinced, following a survey about three years ago, that this is the route that the public want; namely, the involvement of local authorities. Since those days, not only have they been a listening Government; they have been an actively listening Government. I can see in my mind's eye, over the past period, a gradual acceptance that the issue will not go away but must be tackled. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has carried that burden the most. Given that at one time there was no legislation on this matter, and that now we have this Bill and a respective comparable Bill in the name of Stephen Pound in the Commons, I

501
am certain that fair-minded people, who are not all on my side of the House, will recognise that something must be done. Amendments need to be made.
The Minister and his advisers have decided to put the Bill in the best shape they can. The beauty of it is that that is not the end of the story. When the Bill goes to another place and is read alongside Stephen Pound's Bill, there will be the opportunity to synthesise the best in both Bills. That is why I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, "O ye of little faith".
The Minister apologises for being on his feet, but almost every word he said was music to my ears, because it was all positive. He was trying to strengthen the Bill and take issues into account.
I was heartened by what he said in confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord I3assam, said at a previous stage. He said that among the bodies to be consulted would he Hedgeline, which is the major, voluntary, consumer-driven body dealing with this matter. It has said all along that the substance for real progress would be seen in the guidelines issued as a guide to local authorities and their officers. I can tell the Hedgeline people that they have got what they wanted; they may not have the legislation that they want, but they will have an opportunity to influence the legislation. The Minister's advisers are reasonable, sensible and responsible people; if the people from Hedgeline sit around a table with them, and present a good case, the Minister's advisers will take it on board. I am grateful to the Minister and his advisers, and wish them well.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I apologise for not contributing to this Bill earlier, which I was prevented from doing. In 26 years as the legal eagle on the "Jimmy Young Show", there was no more persistent cause of complaint than the matter dealt with in this Bill. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on introducing it.
I shall make two points. First, my noble friend Lady Hamwee commented on tenants and occupiers under licences. At the least, a provision should be inserted into tenancy and licence agreements—perhaps only into shorthold agreements—that the landlord could require consent before a tenant or licensee utilised the powers of complaint under the Bill. A shorthold occupation sometimes takes place while the owner is away temporarily. That is quite often the case. There is no more important matter for the owner of a house than good relations with a neighbour. It could be extremely destructive of good relationships if a tenant, out of what a landlord might think was an excess of zeal, was to start a complaint action. That could be extremely deleterious to the relationship between the landlord and the neighbouring occupier.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I place on record my thanks to the Minister and to the very able staff in his department for the time they have given to considering the real problems of so many people
502
suffering from loss of enjoyment of their homes and gardens, which this Bill, when it becomes law, will help to alleviate.
Time has been made available for detailed discussions and full consideration of the exact wording required to make the Bill effective. I have been able to air fully not only my own views but those of the many who have written to me about the Bill. It is for that reason that I welcome these amendments.
It is essential that the guidance for the Bill, when published, makes clear that the grounds for complaint are now greatly widened. Although the BRE guidelines are still left as a factor to be considered, they are just one of many factors to he considered. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, stated in Committee:
"The important thing about the Bill is that it considers the impact of the high hedge".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; col. 11371
I thought that he had summarised the whole aim of the Bill.
We have now reached a moment of hope for many hedge sufferers, but I give a word of warning. There is still a long way to go. Even when a Bill becomes law, regulations and guidance need to be drawn up. I welcome the Minister's comment that consultation will take place at that point. It is important to get the details right, so people will still need to be patient for the time that will take.
It does not matter whether it is my Bill, or the similar one that Stephen Pound is presenting to the Commons—which I hope will incorporate our improvements—that reaches the statute book. Legislation on the subject is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the "eventual" legislation; I hope that one of the two Bills makes the statute book this year, which would prove our doubtful view on these Benches to be wrong.
I shall leave it for the Minister to comment on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I am involved in many tenancy agreements myself, and it should not be difficult for a landlord to put a clause into an agreement. I do not believe that the Bill should put an obligation on the landlord. I leave the legalities of that point to be considered by the Minister.
This group of amendments is about the grounds for complaint, the complaints procedure and remedial notices. Amendment No. 1 is a cheering amendment. It is so much better to be dealing with the adverse effect than the much narrower wording, "obstruction of' light". The new wording has the power to improve people's lives.
Amendment No. 2 clarifies the root issue, and I accept that. Amendment No. 3 is similar to Amendment No. 1, and helps to clarify that it is the impact of the hedge that matters, not where it is. Amendment No. 4 is another point of clarification, and I welcome it.

503
Amendment No. 10 makes it clear that activities such as gardening and sitting in the garden are to be considered. The wording covers the point that I raised in Committee, in making it clear that the Bill deals with "domestic" property.
Amendment No. 11 is much more important than it might seem at first glance. It means that the authority will need to consider that a hedge has two sides and a top and can grow back almost as quickly as one can cut it. The maintenance referred to as "preventing its recurrence" is as valuable as the "remedying" part.
Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are covered by what I have already said.
Amendment No. 20 is a most important part of the Bill and of particular value to those who presently feel that the Bill does not go far enough. The words in the new text are a great improvement on the words in the Bill. Any extension beyond domestic property would need to be carefully assessed. The aim of the Bill is to help people to enjoy their own homes. Getting the precise definition of a hedge right is far from easy, and only time will test the present definition. I shall say more on the subject of deciduous hedges when we deal with the next group of amendments, but paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 20 may prove very helpful, as it gives power to amend the definition of a hedge.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I should like to add to the compliments that have been thrown around the Chamber by congratulating the Bill's originator, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on her wonderful work. Many noble Lords also mentioned the way in which the Bill team has approached the matter—by talking to everyone who had a view on it. Through sensitive consultation, the team has reached an outcome with which I think we are all rather happy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the Government are behind the Bill. The Government are enthusiastically behind it. I do not wish to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who is a good deal more experienced than I, but I think that, with such great support, there is no real reason why the Bill should not go through another place and become law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is concerned about short-term occupiers and whether the burden of complying with remedial notices will fall on short-term occupiers, especially if it requires major renovation of a neglected hedge. Under the Bill, the remedial notice is not served on or addressed to a particular person; it runs with the land in question and is binding on whoever owns or occupies it. Who out of the owner or occupier, assuming they are different people, is responsible for complying with the terms of the notice will depend on the contractual arrangements between them. However, general provisions in the Public Health Act 1936 relating to powers of the courts to
504
require an occupier to permit work to be done by an owner apply also so as to give the owner the right to comply with a remedial notice.
Where the requirements of a remedial notice are breached, any person who is then the owner or occupier of the land where the hedge is situated is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine. Where there is both an owner and an occupier, guidance would advise local authorities to direct enforcement action at the person who has the responsibility for the hedge; otherwise it is likely to fail. I hope that that explanation is helpful to the noble Baroness, although it may not provide all the assurances that she seeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked about the landlord's consent. The guidance I have outlined will advise that that is good practice, especially where there is short-term occupancy.
This has been an interesting debate. I am particularly grateful for the great support from my noble friend Lord Graham and for all his comments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he assure the House that the Law Society will be included among those consulted on the guidance? I think that it may have specific points to make on matters such as enforcement and the burden running with the land.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that the Law Society, and as many other interested parties as we can think of, will be consulted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"(1 A) This Act does not apply to complaints about the effect of the roots of a high hedge."
Page 2, line 2, leave out from "be" to end of line 3 and insert "adversely affected by the height of a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person,"
Page 2, line 6, leave out from "to" to end of line 9 and insert "the effect of the height of a high hedge on the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of any domestic property shall be read as a reference to the effect that it would have on the reasonable enjoyment of the property by a prospective occupier"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2 [High hedges]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2. line 11, leave out from "means" to end of line 13 and insert "so much of a barrier to light or access as—

(a) is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and

(b) rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. The definition of what constitutes a high hedge is central to the Bill, yet, as debate in Committee

505
revealed, many people find the existing wording unclear. The term "barrier" seemed to cause particular difficulties. Amendments Nos. 5, 8 and 9, therefore, offer a number of improvements. It would probably be most helpful if I ran through the amendments individually and then said more about how we envisage that the definition, as a whole, will work.
Amendment No. 5 goes to the heart of the matter. It defines a high hedge as so much of a barrier to light or access as is formed, wholly or predominantly, by a line of two or more evergreens and that rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level. The first point to note is that the use of the term "barrier" has been refined. The Bill now refers to a barrier to light or access. That makes it clear that we are dealing not just with features that restrict physical access, which was of concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The qualification that the hedge must be formed wholly or predominantly of two or more evergreens is also significant. This brings mixed hedges within the scope of the Bill. including the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, of a leylandii hedge containing a single lime tree. The two metre height limit remains unchanged.
Amendment No. 8 makes it clear that references to evergreen trees or shrubs include semi-evergreen species such as privet, which loses some or all of its leaves in winter the further north one goes.
Finally, Amendment No. 9 introduces the concept that it is only gaps above two metres that are important in determining whether a hedge is a barrier to light or access. That should go some way to meeting the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about cases in which the lower branches of an established hedge have simply dropped off or, indeed, been removed.
Taking the definition as a whole, we envisage that local authorities would ask themselves the following series of questions when considering a complaint under this legislation. First, they would look at the hedge that is the subject of the complaint and ask whether it acts, to some degree, as a barrier to light or access, even though it might have gaps in it. Secondly, are there two or more trees or shrubs in it, and are they roughly in line? Thirdly, is the hedge comprised wholly or predominantly of evergreen or semi-evergreen trees or shrubs? Finally, is it over two metres high?
If the answer to those questions was "yes", the local authority would go on to consider the effect of the hedge on the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of his property, in accordance with Clause 1 of the Bill. That is the basic approach that we would expect local authorities and others to adopt in determining whether a particular hedge is one to which the Bill applies. I beg to move.
Lord Methuen Lord Methuen moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 5, Amendment No. 6:
Line 4, leave out "evergreens" and insert "trees or shrubs"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed a similar amendment to Amendment No. 6 and my Amendment No. 7 at Committee stage. Both the noble
506
Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and I have had letters concerning the adverse impact of hedges or barriers composed of deciduous trees. Interestingly, the letters refer not only to adverse effects such as loss of light, but also to the large amount of leaves and other debris such as seeds which may he deposited in the neighbour's garden. It is not my wish to curtail well-kept domestic or agricultural hedges by these amendments.
I am glad to note that the Minister has moved somewhat in my direction in his Amendment No. 8. I looked up the definition of "semi-evergreen" in the Royal Horticultural Encyclopaedia of Garden Plants. "Semi-evergreen" is defined as follows:
"Describes a plant that retains most or some of its foliage throughout the year".
Although that definition will cover plants such as privet, I understand that the Minister's officials consider it to include only live foliage and not dead foliage such as may remain on beech hedges over winter. The definition would exclude beech. I should prefer to define out-right the inclusion of both evergreen and deciduous species within the Bill.
I hope that the Minister is able to accept my amendments, which I do not think significantly alter the tone of the Bill. However, I note that under Clause 16, as amended by his Amendment No. 20, he will he enabled to include deciduous hedges within the scope of the legislation should it prove necessary at a later date. For the record, I seek his confirmation that that is so. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is extremely helpful. I was beginning to think that I was going mad trying to define "barrier" the last time around. Can the Minister confirm that describing a hedge as a barrier to access does not preclude a situation in which access would not be permitted as a matter of law because it is not on the property of the complainant? In other words, one would need the permission of the owner of the harrier to get access to the property. I think that must be the case, but perhaps the Minister can give me that assurance.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Methuen. It is well known that beech hedges can he very dense and retain much of their foliage throughout the year. That can also be the case with oak hedges. Above and beyond that, hawthorn and blackthorn hedges with briar, bramble and ivy growing up through them can provide a completely dense barrier. I have them on a bit of my land, and they are at least as obstructive of light as leylandii.
Vis-à-vis the question of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, does "access" include of air and access of view?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will deal adequately and sympathetically with the points that have been raised. But I was struck by the cogency with which he set out exactly what we are about. No doubt his advisers are listening and I hope

507
that some way or other that particular stanza would be well received throughout the body of people that I speak to regarding how we are able to define the hurt which is suffered by neighbours and the manner in which this problem will be dealt with.
It is helpful to try to get the legislation right at this stage, but we have also to get through the consultation process on the guidance and the Bill's stages in another place. Normally on Report we can virtually see the light at the end of the tunnel, but with this particular issue, given the timing and the opportunities, we are some way away from that. The Minister has given us his definition of what the Bill is about, the basis of complaints and the guidance that local authorities will have. That has been very helpful.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would include in the Bill hedges formed as deciduous trees or shrubs as well as evergreens. The Government continue to have considerable reservations about extending the scope of the Bill in this way. There is no doubt that hedges formed as deciduous trees or shrubs can sometimes cause problems, but for every letter we receive about such matters, we get hundreds of complaints about evergreen hedges right across the country. Complaints about deciduous hedges are, therefore, isolated, although those who are affected by them are active in their protests.
There is no evidence of a widespread problem that would justify intervention through legislation. This tends to be borne out by the experience of Hedgeline members. We understand that the vast majority of their problem cases are with evergreens. Cases involving deciduous hedges are rare. In addition, consultation supported focusing legislation on evergreen hedges, at least initially. We consider, therefore, that the case has not yet been made for extending the legislation to all hedges.
I remind noble Lords that the Government's commitment is to legislation to give local authorities powers to intervene in neighbourhood quarrels about overgrown garden hedges. It was not to provide the answer to all tree-related problems. Nor was the objective to protect domestic properties from being unreasonably deprived of the light and warmth of direct sunlight.
Having said that, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that Clause 16 allows us to amend the definition of a high hedge—for example, to include those formed of deciduous trees or shrubs—through regulations. This means we can reopen the issue without having to wait for further primary legislation if there is evidence that such hedges are a much wider cause for concern than we appreciate at present. With the assurance that we will return to the matter if experience shows it to be necessary, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
On the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I confirm that the barrier to access relates to
508
effect, including access to air and view. It is not a question of whether we have legal access to land. Incidentally, I strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about beech hedges. I planted a beech hedge about four years ago, and it grows at about a quarter or half an inch a year. When the hedge becomes a problem, my great-grandchildren will probably have to deal with it. This is not the case with evergreen leylandii. To mention beech hedges and leylandii in the same breath does not reflect well on that most beautiful shrub, the beech.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have listened to the debate on the amendments with interest. I welcome the change in definition, but I have great sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. I get a lot of letters about deciduous trees. The only reason why I do not support his amendment, which I hope he will withdraw, is because at one of the meetings where we consulted with the department and went into the matter in great detail, it was pointed out to me that the consultative document High Hedges: Possible Solutions was focused on evergreens and the 3,000 responses that were received—a very large number—were on evergreens. I accept the Government's view that there has not been adequate consultation on this yet.
I would like to read out a point made in a letter to me from someone who suffers from an alder hedge. He is a notary public and writes splendid letters. On when the Bill will become law, he says:
"The message to those whose activities are complained about will be loud and clear: 'Go off to your local nurseryman or garden centre and order a sapling of common alder"'
he gives its botanical name—
"'plus one further sapling for every two linear metres of your hedgeline. Plant them two metres apart and by the time your local authority gets round to requiring you to trim your evergreen hedge back to two metres in height, your alders will almost certainly exceed two metres and from then on will grow about a further metre each year and will very effectively block your neighbour's sunlight with complete immunity from the law'''.
This is quite fascinating. Who knows whether that might not become the habit? The Minister gave the odds of complaints about evergreens as against deciduous trees as about 100 to 1. It might be that once we have solved the evergreen problem. deciduous trees become the major problem. I believe that the Government have answered that by bringing forward Amendment No. 20, which will give them the power, if that proves to be the case, to deal with it at that time. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, not to press his amendment today.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. The assurance I sought will be covered in Clause 16 as a result of his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 6, as an amendment to Amendment No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 2, line 15, after "shrub" insert "or semi-evergreen tree or shrub"
Page 2, line 16, leave out from "is" to end of line 18 and insert "not to be regarded as forming a barrier to light or access if the existence of gaps significantly affects its overall effect as such a barrier at heights of more than two metres above ground level."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 [Procedure for dealing with complaints]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 3. line 2, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) whether the height of the high hedge specified in the complaint is adversely affecting the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of the domestic property so specified; and"
Page 3, line 7, leave out "any such obstruction" and insert "the adverse effect"
On Question, amendments agreed to
Clause 5 [Remedial notices]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 14:
Page 4, line 9, leave out from second "that" to end of line 11 and insert "the height of that hedge is adversely affecting the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of the domestic property specified in the notice;"
Page 4, line 13, leave out "any such obstruction" and insert "the adverse effect"
Page 4, line 17, leave out "any such obstruction" and insert "an adverse effect"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have tabled this amendment for consideration today for two reasons.
First, I have had many letters since Committee stage stating that nothing will help the writer but complete removal of the neighbour's hedge. Secondly, others have sought clarification about what they are entitled to do with their own hedge, more especially if they are in a conservation area.
I am unable to judge whether those who have written in support of total removal are correct in what they say, and, indeed, that only the council officers who attend would be able to assess the position. However, I note that the Bill rules out any possibility of the council ordering a hedge to be removed. I ask why we should take away the council's discretion in this matter. Surely we should leave open as many options as possible to resolve these situations.
On the second point, I am now convinced that a number of people are more than willing to undertake controlling their own hedges, but wonder what technical procedures are involved and whether, if they are in a conservation area, they would need to make a full planning application.
It would be most helpful if the Minister could explain the Government's view on these points and, at the same time, reconfirm that none of the amendments before the House today would alter the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on 9th January, when he quoted Section 198(6)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and stated that,
"remedial notices served, or issued, under this Bill would automatically override the requirements of a tree preservation order".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; col. 1159.]
I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, through Amendment No. 15, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, queries why local authorities cannot require removal of a high hedge. On the face of it, that would seem to solve the problem once and for all.
In terms of the action to be taken in relation to the hedge, the remedial notice must specify what is required to remedy the adverse effects of the hedge, or to prevent them recurring—and no more. Bearing in mind that complaints cannot be brought under the Bill against two-metre-high hedges, then it would be inconsistent for the remedy to require a hedge to be cut back or removed beyond this point.
Implicitly the Bill is saying to people that hedges can be grown to two metres without them having any adverse effect on neighbours. Reducing the height of the hedge below this limit or removing it entirely would, therefore, go beyond what was necessary to remedy the adverse effects of the hedge.
In all these circumstances, the Government believe that requiring removal of a high hedge would represent a disproportionate response to the problem. Nevertheless, it, of course, remains open to the owner of the hedge to go further than the remedial notice requires, and to remove the hedge entirely, if they want.
The noble Baroness also used this opportunity to raise concerns about the interaction between her Bill and the Town and Country Planning Act controls on trees in conservation areas. As she suggested, there is a good deal of confusion about what powers local planning authorities can exercise over trees in conservation areas. I hope that explaining how the controls should operate might be helpful both to her and to others outside this House.
Under Section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, anyone proposing to cut down, uproot, top or lop a tree with a diameter of 75 millimetres or more in a conservation area is required to give the local planning authority six weeks' prior notice. The purpose of this requirement is to give the authority an opportunity to consider whether a tree preservation order should be made in respect of the tree.
The local planning authority cannot refuse consent to the works. Nor can it grant consent subject to conditions—such as a specific height at which the hedge should be maintained. Its only response, legally,

511
is to make a tree preservation order and so, in effect, call in the application for more detailed consideration under the terms of the order.
As I said earlier, these controls apply to certain works and to certain trees. In the Government's view, minor trimming of a well-kept hedge as part of normal annual maintenance is unlikely to constitute topping or lopping and so should not require prior notification to the local planning authority. The legislation governing trees in conservation areas should not, therefore, prevent owners from actively managing their hedges and keeping them in trim.
Works to renovate a neglected hedge might, however, be subject to these controls. As my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton said in Committee, we hope that local authorities will look favourably on such notifications.
I also repeat the undertaking he gave that, when we next update the relevant regulations, we shall consider including provision to exempt from the requirement to notify the local planning authority the topping or lopping of evergreen hedges as part of normal management.
Finally, I should make clear that works to trees in conservation areas required under a remedial notice would automatically enjoy such an exemption. The controls do not apply where the cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping of any trees is in compliance with obligations imposed by or under an Act of Parliament.
I hope that the explanations and assurances that I have given are helpful and that they are sufficient to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. I am delighted to hear that the Government will update the regulations and that possibly the exemptions will be clarified. It is important for people to know where they stand. I hope that when the guidance is issued, it—or an explanatory note—will refer to the matter. I am most grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
"POWERS OF ENTRY FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS
(1) Where, under this Act, a complaint has been made or a remedial notice has been issued, a person authorised by the relevant authority may enter the neighbouring land in order to obtain information required by the relevant authority for the purpose of determining—

(a) whether this Act applies to the complaint;

(b) whether to issue or withdraw a remedial notice;

(c) whether to vary a requirement of a remedial notice;

(d) whether a requirement of a remedial notice has been complied with.

(2) Where an appeal has been made under section 7, a person authorized—

(a) by the Secretary of State, or

(b) by a person appointed to determine appeals on his behalf,

may enter the neighbouring land in order to obtain information required by the Secretary of State, or by the person so appointed, for the purpose of determining an appeal under this Act.
(3) A person shall not enter land in the exercise of a power conferred by this section unless at least 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to every occupier of the land.
(4) A person authorised under this section to enter land—

shall, if so required. produce evidence of his authority before entering; and

shall produce such evidence if required to do so at any time while he remains on the land.

(5) A person who enters land in the exercise of a power conferred by this section may—

(a) take with him such other persons as may be necessary;

(b) take with him equipment and materials needed in order to obtain the information required;

take samples of any trees or shrubs that appear to him to form part of a high hedge.

(6) If, in the exercise of a power conferred by this section, a person enters land which is unoccupied or from which all of the persons occupying the land are temporarily absent, he must on his departure leave it as effectively secured against unauthorised entry as he found it.
(7) A person who intentionally obstructs a person acting in the exercise of the powers under this section is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19.
The Bill as currently drafted gives local authority officers powers to enter the land where the hedge is situated only to carry out the works specified in a remedial notice, as part of enforcement action. Otherwise, it relies on the occupier of the land in question permitting local authority officers —or inspectors considering appeals—to enter his land in order to carry out their functions under the Bill.
Such permission might not be forthcoming in all cases and it will not always be feasible for officers to work solely from the complainant's side of the hedge. We propose, therefore, that powers to enter the land where the hedge is situated should be available for officers to use where necessary.
Amendment No. 16 would allow local authority officers to enter the land where the hedge is situated in order to obtain information that will help them decide, first, whether the complaint is one that can be considered under the legislation; secondly, whether to issue or withdraw a remedial notice, or to vary its requirements; or, finally, to determine whether a notice has been breached. At least 24 hours' notice of the intended entry must be given to all occupiers of the land. The local authority might, in particular, need to gain quick access in order to establish whether the requirements of a remedial notice had been met. Those might relate not only to the works that must be carried out to the hedge, but to the timescale within which the action must be taken. Timing of a site visit could, therefore, be critical.
Local authority officers entering land under the powers would be able to take with them other people, equipment or materials as necessary. They might, for example, need someone to help them to measure a hedge. In extreme cases, they might need to be accompanied by the police. The officers would also be able to take samples of a hedge to assist, for instance, in species identification.
Besides giving prior notice of their intentions, officers would have to meet other conditions when exercising the powers. In particular, they would, if asked, have to produce evidence of their authority to enter the land in question. Unoccupied land must be left as effectively secured as they found it. Those powers of entry would also he available to inspectors considering appeals under the legislation. Intentionally obstructing any person exercising the powers would be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. That is currently up to £1,000.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 give local authority officers similar powers when entering land in order to carry out the works specified in a remedial notice, in default of the hedge owner. The key difference is the longer notice period—at least seven days. That gives the person responsible for the hedge a last chance to cut it without the local authority having to intervene.
Entry to land is always a sensitive issue, especially when it involves access to someone's home or, as in this case, garden. We would therefore expect the powers to be used sparingly, and for local authorities and appeals inspectors to proceed by agreement wherever possible. Where the voluntary approach does not work, we believe that the powers provide a vital fallback, helping to ensure that the legislation works fairly and effectively. I beg to move.
Noon
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said. We are probably dealing with the trickiest part of the aftermath of the legislation, which is how to ensure that the oppressed person with the council and the law on his side gets justice.
Does the department recognise that there will need to be deep consultation with local authorities on the additional costs that may fall? It would not be good enough simply to say, "Here is an additional liability, responsibility or power. Get on with it". Many local authorities are likely to say that they are already stretched, have already cut and re-adapted, and need specialist enforcement officers. I can well imagine that in the early days there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of requests to the authority for consultation. There will be a considerable burden on the existing arboriculturists, environmentalists and tree people in an authority.
We take such matters one step at a time. We are not talking about sufficient people being in place from the due date. However, when I was involved in Enfield council, we had very good enforcement officers whose job was to investigate complaints about rubbish, burnt-out cars and people and shops that were doing
514
things they should not do. We employed ex-police officers who were beefy and, if not overpowering, could at least stand their ground. I hope that such matters will be given consideration as they are with budgets and grants. In order to get things off the ground, we do not want local authorities at first to cry that they have not got the money or the men.
I welcome what the Minister said. The provision is a marvellous step in the right direction, but we do not want it to fall because the resources that may be needed have not been thought about. I am not talking about every penny being available from the first day, but about understanding and consideration. Besides the person suffering the hurt and the neighbours, other people to consider are the council and councillors.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I would not like it to be thought simply because I did not speak that [ was not supporting the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I made a similar point on Second Reading, although I do not think that I argued for ex-police officers, beefy or otherwise. The issue of resources for local authorities is very real; it has been mentioned to me by the Local Government Association.
Many local planning authorities have been shedding staff over quite a long period. One can understand why. The needs of social services and education are so important that planning may have taken a back seat. I know how few enforcement officers local planning authorities now have. Tree officers are almost a disappearing species. The London Borough of Hillingdon, the boundaries of which contain Heathrow airport, has only two enforcement officers. When one thinks how much planning enforcement there must be around issues relating to Heathrow, that shows the scale of the problem. I support the point that the noble Lord made.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I welcome the new clause proposed in the amendment for two reasons. The first is that it shows that the Government are very serious about putting the tools to do the job into the Bill. The other is that it is absolutely essential that the rights of entry are clarified.
I want to mention to the Minister—it has come to mind only since listening to the debate—a case brought to my attention in which people wanted to cut their own hedge. It did not require an enforcement officer. The next door neighbour did not want the hedge cut, and said, "If you in any way enter my land—even your axe or your saw—that is trespass".
I do not expect an answer on the subject today as it is rather complicated, Perhaps it can be covered in regulations. Some years ago, we passed a Bill that involved rights of access to neighbouring lands to carry out repairs to buildings, so treatment of one's own tree might come under existing laws. It may be rare for someone wanting to to work on their own hedge to be prevented from doing so by the neighbour. In that case, could they still call in the local council

515
under the complaints procedure? Perhaps at a later stage I can have an answer. Meanwhile, I welcome the amendment.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords' comments on the amendment. As everyone says, right of entry is a difficult subject, one on which a great deal of sensitivity has to be shown. My noble friend Lord Graham underlined that point.
Most comments on the amendment have related to costs. The intensive consultation in 1999 included local authorities and raised the very points on cost that have been made today. Following consultation, procedures have been set to ensure that local authorities are compensated for the new burdens that will follow as a result of the Bill. I hope that that statement of fact reassures noble Lords.
I listened to the point about planning raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I should point out—it may or may not be helpful—that grants to local authorities have increased dramatically over the past few years. We hope that that problem will not stand in the way of the successful implementation of the Bill, when enacted.
I am not sure what the answer is to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. My guess is that, if a person tends his side of a hedge and his neighbour allows the other side to grow in a rampant way, he will have the right to make the same complaint to the local authority as he would if the hedge were overgrown. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong on that point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Remedial action by relevant authority etc]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 9, line 17, leave out from second "taken" to end of line 21 and insert—

"(a) a person authorised by the relevant authority may enter the neighbouring land and take the required action; and

(b) the relevant authority may recover any expenses reasonably incurred by that person in doing so from any person who is the owner or an occupier of the land."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this and the following amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
Page 9, line 25, at end insert—
"(3A) A person shall not enter land in the exercise of a power conferred by this section unless at least 7 days' notice of the intended entry has been given to every occupier of the land.
(3B) A person authorised under this section to enter land—

(a) shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before entering; and

(b) shall produce such evidence if required to do so at any time while he remains on the land.

516
(3C) A person who enters land in the exercise of a power conferred by this section may—

(a) use a vehicle to enter the land;

(b) take with him such other persons as may be necessary;

(c) take with him equipment and materials needed for the purpose of taking the required action.

(3D) If, in the exercise of a power conferred by this section, a person enters land which is unoccupied or from which all of the persons occupying the land are temporarily absent, he must on his departure leave it as effectively secured against unauthorised entry as he found it."
Page 9, line 32, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "this section"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power to amend sections 1 and 2]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 12, line 5, leave out from "regulations" to "the" in line 11 and insert "do one or both of the following—

(a) amend section 1 for the purpose of extending the scope of complaints relating to high hedges to which this Act applies; and

(b) amend"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
12.12 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This short Bill has the purpose of regulating in the modern era the driving or use of vehicles drawn on roads or in other public places by horses or other animals. As such, it is based on proposals which were the subject of a limited consultation by the then Department of Transport in 1995.
The department had become concerned about the state of the law concerning such vehicles as the result of an incident in Derby in which a mother was seriously injured and her teenage daughter killed by a horse which broke away from its carriage and ran them down on the pavement. The only statutory offence, involving negligently or wilfully misusing a carriage, was Section 78 of the Highway Act 1835, which had an inappropriate maximum penalty of £100—level 1 on the standard scale. For that reason, the prosecuting authority brought a charge of manslaughter, but the judge ruled that the circumstances did not warrant such a grave charge and the trial was halted.
Ministers in the transport department were naturally concerned, given the increasing use of horse-drawn vehicles for weddings and other functions, and they obtained the agreement of colleagues in the Home Office to a range of penalties from the minor to the more serious to fill the gap. Consultation on that basis took place with horse societies and bodies, which advised that they were not opposed to the proposals.
It may be averred that one incident, no matter how serious, would not in itself serve as a precedent for legislation. But, like Ministers of that day, I take the view that there should be requirements that the driving

517
and use of such vehicles take place in a safe and responsible way, as indeed has long been the case with other large road vehicles. A statutory framework is the best way to achieve that.
I now turn to the Bill. The principle underlying it, as proposed by the transport department in 1995, is that there should be no distinction between offences relating to mechanically propelled vehicles and those relating to horse-drawn ones. Therefore, the Bill closely parallels existing offences relating to mechanically propelled vehicles, as set out in the Road Traffic Acts 1988 and 1991, subject to the uprating of penalties for more serious offences in accordance with later criminal justice legislation.
As to the extension of the Bill to vehicles drawn by animals others than horses, there are precedents in provisions which presently apply only in Northern Ireland. Because of the use of affected vehicles in public places other than roads, I have thought it expedient that the Bill should seek to extend there in addition to applying to roads.
I now, briefly and sequentially, describe the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 seeks to introduce a new Part IIA into the Road Traffic Act 1988. It contains new offences concerning vehicles drawn by horses or other animals—offences which, as I said earlier, parallel ones relating to mechanically propelled vehicles. They are: causing death by dangerous driving; driving dangerously; driving carelessly or inconsiderately; dangerous or unreasonable interference with a vehicle; and using a vehicle in a dangerous condition.
The rest of the Bill seeks simply to make ancillary provision with respect to the offences created by Part IIA. For the purposes of enforcement, Clause 2 empowers the police to stop an affected vehicle and to require the name and address of the driver and owner. It goes on to place a duty on a driver to stop after an accident and either to give his name and address and those of the owner or to report the accident to the police. Failure to comply in each case would be an offence. The clause also contains a supplementary provision with respect to powers of arrest in Scotland.
Clause 3 seeks to make provision for alternative verdicts in relation to offences created by Part HA. Clause 4 and Schedule 1 seek to make provision for the prosecution and punishment of those offences in like manner as applies to mechanically propelled vehicles. There remain Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedules 2 and 3, which are concerned with making minor or consequential amendments and repeals. Being concerned with reserved matters, the Bill seeks to extend to Scotland.
Based as the provisions are on proposals mooted by the transport department, when it was such, I very much hope that the Minister will view the Bill favourably and seek to improve it during its passage rather than oppose it. I have been in correspondence with the Minister, who said that at present the Government do not believe that the matter warrants primary legislation. I should be interested to know what has caused that change of opinion. However, the
518
Government go on to say that they would be prepared to produce legislation if it was seen to be needed. I should have thought that the best thing to do would be to go ahead with it as it is at present. It has already been introduced in the House of Keys in the Isle of Man.
As I said, I hope that the Government will view the Bill favourably. Being an uncontroversial affair, I trust that the Bill will receive support from the present Administration, as indeed it did from the previous one. I submit that it serves the useful function of addressing relatively minor matters in the scheme of things which would otherwise stand little chance of being addressed in the Government's legislative programme. Indeed, I suspect that that may well be the reason that a government Bill has yet to appear over seven years since it was first canvassed.
I believe that noble Lords will be as surprised as I was to learn of the gap in the law which the Bill seeks to fill. I cannot cite chapter and verse, but I suspect that the gap arose from the sweeping away of horse-vehicle legislation with the speedy advent of motor vehicles some 80 years or more ago. Now that the use of horse-drawn vehicles is increasing, I believe that we need to fill the gap. I pay tribute to the work of Mr Ian Saberton, who has worked tirelessly on this matter. As such, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
12.20 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on bringing forward this Bill. A short affair, it addresses issues rightly deserving attention. For the reasons adduced by the noble Lord when moving the Second Reading, I support the underlying theme of the Bill. It clearly cannot be right that drivers of horse-drawn vehicles, and the like, should be materially less accountable for their actions on roads or in other public places than drivers of all other large road vehicles. Therefore, I agree with the parallel that the Bill seeks to draw between the two; for whether a large road vehicle is mechanically propelled or not, I am of the opinion that driving it in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner is of equal concern and of equal gravity.
It is true that the existing state of the law is unsatisfactory. Section 78 of the Highway Act 1835, to which the noble Lord referred, is couched in the language of a bygone era and patently fails to provide adequate sanction in more serious cases of misuse—and, dare I say, in lesser cases too. It is right that the Bill should seek to sweep it away.
It may, of course, be possible to prosecute for causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving under Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, although I am not aware of the provision being so used in the case of horse-drawn vehicles in modern times. The offence is an indictable one which is punishable on conviction with a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
There are, however, substantive problems here. First, the provision fails to address misdriving short of causing bodily harm, no matter how dangerous,

519
careless or inconsiderate it may be. And secondly, in more serious cases of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred, it does not provide sanctions commensurate with those available under the Road Traffic Acts with respect to the misdriving of mechanically propelled vehicles.
By contrast, the Bill offers a range of penalties from the minor to the more serious, depending on the nature of the offences that the Bill seeks to create. It is, I believe, an approach that is flexible, responsive, and fine-tuned to the circumstances that would be involved.
Perhaps I may now move on to aspects of the Bill about which I am uncertain or which I believe are capable of improvement. First, given that the Bill deals with reserved matters and seeks to apply to Scotland, I would welcome the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, clarifying why the offence of interference or the provisions concerning alternative verdicts would not extend there. Conversely, I have some difficulty understanding why a supplementary power of arrest in Clause 2(3) does so extend, but not to England and Wales.
Secondly, I note that the Bill seeks to apply to public places besides roads and to animals other than horses. I am inclined to believe that such application is right, but look forward to the noble Lord clarifying why the Bill should apply in that way. Thirdly, I am not entirely convinced of the basis for the consequential amendments in Schedule 2. I look forward to the noble Lord's response.
Finally, if the Bill receives a Second Reading and progresses—the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is not too hopeful of that—he may wish to consider bringing forward an amendment to make an "arrestable offence" the offence proposed to be created by draft Section 170A(4), as inserted by Clause 2. The offence as proposed by that draft section relates to the failure to give one's name and address after an accident involving a horse-drawn vehicle. It is modelled on an existing offence relating to mechanically propelled vehicles under Section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—an existing offence that is now an "arrestable offence" by virtue of the Police Reform Act 2002.
As the Bill seeks generally to draw a parallel between offences relating to mechanically propelled vehicles and horse-drawn ones, it seems right that the proposed offence, like the existing one, should be an "arrestable offence" too. As noble Lords will be aware, an "arrestable offence" is one where a constable may arrest, on suspicion, without a warrant. It includes any offence carrying imprisonment for a term of five years or more, but it also includes a few others, of which the offence under existing Section 170(4) is one.
To conclude, I believe that the Bill's provisions are wholly in line with the desirable aim for consistency in treatment between drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles and horse-drawn ones. In seeking to close a gap in the law I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has done a service to the House in bringing forward the Bill, which has my support.
12.26 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I support the Bill wholeheartedly as it will fill a gap in our road traffic law. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on introducing it.
The general principle of road use should be that each and every one of us has a duty to behave in a reasonable, responsible and safe manner when using the road, so that we do not endanger other people or indeed ourselves. Carriages drawn by horses, or by other animals, such as ponies, donkeys and mules may not have the essential transport function that they had a century ago, but they are popular for tourism, leisure and social purposes. It is, for example, quite common to see a bride arrive at her wedding in a horse-drawn vehicle.
This morning on my way to your Lordships' House, I passed a hearse drawn by two beautiful black horses making its way to a funeral somewhere in south London. It is most unlikely that such a vehicle would be driven in a dangerous manner, but we must remember that horses are powerful animals that are easily frightened and that can panic, especially near fast-moving traffic or at sudden loud noises. If not trained and controlled properly, they can very easily cause injury to themselves, to vehicle occupants and to other road users.
The British Horse Society estimates that there are around 3,000 road accidents involving horses each year. Half of them take place on minor roads. I am not aware of how many of those accidents involve horse-drawn vehicles. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, or my noble friend the Minister may have some statistics on that.
The Bill will make it an offence for drivers of vehicles drawn by horses or other animals to drive their vehicles in a careless or dangerous manner, or to operate them in an unsafe condition. Thus it brings such drivers into line with drivers of motor vehicles, and for that reason is welcome. There is a strong case for extending the principle to all users of the road, no matter what the vehicle, such as, for example, motorised scooters and, indeed, non-motorised ones.
I have one further question for the promoter. Does new Section 86F on page 3 of the Bill—
"Using horse-drawn vehicle etc. in dangerous condition"
cover the need to use lights and reflectors on the vehicle in the dark? If not, would the noble Lord accept an amendment at a later stage to make that mandatory?
This is a useful Bill which I am happy to support and it has the wholehearted support of RoSPA. If I may advertise for a second, I commend to your Lordships a new policy statement from the society on horse riders, the contents of which are wholly consistent with what the noble Lord's Bill seeks to achieve in respect of horse-drawn vehicles. I wish the Bill every success.
12.29 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, from these Benches I want to add a few words to the comprehensive introduction given to the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Some noble Lords will be aware that I am a county councillor in Suffolk. But they may not know—I accept that this topic is not on the lips of everyone throughout the land—that in that capacity I chair the rights of way and traffic management sub-committee. I have spent a number of years pondering various issues of road safety, particularly in a rural context, and indeed regarding rights of way. That includes the needs of what I have heard described as the "horsey culture".
Certainly in Suffolk, as far as I am aware, there has not been an accident involving injury with a horse-drawn vehicle since I have held this august position. Until the Bill appeared I, too, was unaware of the general exclusion of horse-drawn vehicles from road safety provision.
I am slightly concerned whether one accident, however tragic, should give rise to a change in primary legislation. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to have the debate and to air the issues. As we have heard, these issues are to be dealt with under general laws which relate to negligence, as well as to rather more ancient and obscure legislation.
At this point I have some news for the noble Viscount. Some years ago it was proposed that carriage racing should be held on the ancient Peddars Way in Suffolk. I asked the solicitors whether anything could be done to stop it. They said that they could not find anything. I sent them off to have another look. A young solicitor emerged from a dusty room with the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which prohibits,
"wanton and furious driving or racing".
On that basis, we were able to stop the race.
This part of East Anglia was once inhabited by the Iceni tribe. I was rather nervous about the spirit of Boadicea haunting me ever after. Nevertheless, it is interesting to reflect that we had to resort to legislation that was 150 years old. It is also interesting that rights-of-way law make no distinction between horse-drawn and motorised vehicles. So we have two different sets of law which treat these vehicles very differently.
It might seem sensible to include these provisions in order to bring horse-drawn vehicles in line with others, but I remain to be convinced that primary legislation is entirely needed. However, I look forward to hearing the comments of the Minister and other noble Lords.
12.32 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the Bill seeks to impose severe penalties on those who drive horse-drawn vehicles dangerously. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, referred to races. There is a problem in certain areas with trotting races that are usually run on a Sunday by the gypsy community on public roads.
522
Nevertheless, the Bill as proposed is severe and prescriptive. While, like any Private Members' Bill, we are largely neutral on the subject, we would want to be convinced that: first, the Bill is necessary; is it a real problem? And, secondly, are the clauses justified or is the current law sufficient for the purpose? The question is one for the Minister to answer.
Looking at the Bill, how, for example, would new Section 86F work? The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, made a reasonable point about reflectors and lights, but there are more subjective matters. Is it right for a policeman to be required to judge whether a horse-drawn cart is dangerous? Carts do not need to have MoTs. Does it mean it should have a brake? If so, what brake? Who is to know how many persons should be carried? Indeed, the Bill covers carts drawn by "other animals". What animals is the noble Lord considering?
Clause 2(3) gives the power to the police to ask for,
"insurance or security and test certificates".
Can the noble Lord tell the House what test certificate is needed to drive a horse and cart?
I suspect that the problem of trotting races can be covered by local authority bylaws. I doubt that the Bill is suitable for the statute book or indeed for a Committee stage, but I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.
12.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have a certain number of personal, although clearly not financial, interests in the subject matter of the Bill. When I took my driving test in 1950—took and passed, I hasten to say—the Highway Code contained a number of graphic illustrations of horse-drawn carriages. It had a gentleman wearing a flat version of a hat. If he wanted to turn right he held his whip out to the right of the carriage and when he wanted to turn left he held it above his head and rotated it gently in a clockwise direction. I cannot remember the other but there were comparable actions in those days before
there were electric indicators in cars. In a sense, I regret that.
I also have an interest in that my great-grandfather, who was a brewer's drayman for Whitbread, was kicked very severely by one of his own horses, which I believe happened on the public highway. He had to have his leg amputated by a butcher because no one could afford a surgeon and he never moved from the front room for the rest of his life. My wife's great-grandmother, who was a leading Methodist layperson and therefore a teetotaller, was knocked over and killed by a brewer's dray in Highgate Hill. So, I feel strongly about these issues.
Perhaps I may turn to the issues raised by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has referred to the Code of Practice for Horse Drawn Vehicles, which was drawn up in the wake of the tragedy in Derby. That provides simple but authoritative guidance on the use and maintenance of horse-drawn vehicles, prepared in conjunction with the British Driving Society and the British Horse Society.

523
The code lays down the requirements for what is known as the road driving assessment, which is the minimum standard of competence for driving horses and vehicles for carrying passengers on the public highway. The test is not mandatory, but I understand that it is required by some local authorities as a condition for issuing a licence to operate a passenger-carrying horse-drawn vehicle. Whether that includes carrying a dead body, I am not sure.
The code also includes comprehensive lists of safety checks that should be carried out to ensure that the carriage and its fittings are safe and in good working order. The carriage check lists can also be used by local authorities as part of any licensing scheme as a basis for ensuring that vehicles are properly maintained. It is clear that the code and the assessment have a particular standing and role to play in ensuring safe driving standards. When the then Department of Transport indicated that it was sympathetic to action after the Derby tragedy, this is the action that resulted.
Copies of the code are free. There have been more than 10,000 copies distributed since it was published in November 1996. I recognise that the code does not have the same force as legislation. That is true, but the real test is surely whether the measure, whether statutory or not, is an effective way to deal with the issue that it was meant to address. The evidence from road casualty statistics, to which I shall return, suggests that the voluntary approach has worked well. It is supplemented by statutory controls.
As well as the code of practice we have the provisions of Section 78 of the Highway Act 1835, which makes it an offence for the driver of a carriage on the highway,
"by negligence or wilful behaviour",
to injure or damage any person, horse, cattle or goods conveyed in a carriage on the highway. However, the maximum penalty is a fine at level 1 on the standard scale, which is currently £200. That is for minor offences.
Far sterner penalties apply under Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred rather disparagingly. What is wrong with legislation that is 150 years old if it works? That makes it an offence for any person in charge of a vehicle to cause, or cause to be done, bodily harm to any person,
"by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect".
Apart from the fact that that applies to Suffolk drivers such as Boadicea, it is in fact an indictable offence and carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. It has been used to prosecute motorists, but it would of course have been originally created to deal with carriage drivers and it is available for that purpose.
In addition, very detailed road traffic legislation has been in place for many years which regulates the operation of mechanically propelled vehicles. That reflects the fact that the overwhelming majority of casualties on our roads are caused by motor vehicles.
524
I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, obtained his figure of 3,000 accidents. My figures show that in 2001 there were seven fatalities and 65 serious injuries in accidents involving non-motorised vehicles. That includes all forms of non-motorised vehicles, not just animal-drawn ones. It includes casualties in any vehicle in an accident in which a non-motorised vehicle was concerned. The number of accidents caused by animal-drawn vehicles would surely be even lower.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The figure that I quoted was supplied by the British Horse Society. It relates to accidents involving horses, not solely horse-drawn vehicles.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords; presumably the figure includes hunting accidents, for example. I do not think that the legislation is intended to cover such cases. But those figures must be set against casualty figures for 2001 of 3,450 fatalities and 37,000 serious injuries. Every accident is one too many. We feel strongly about road safety. We have adopted a road safety strategy, with challenging targets for casualty reduction: a 40 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries by 2010, and a 50 per cent reduction in child victims.
The latest statistics show that, in 2001, we were on track to meet those targets. In support of the measures required to achieve them, we intend to introduce a range of primary legislation dealing with driver training and testing. drink and drug driving, and road traffic penalties. We will introduce it as parliamentary time permits. But, in the light of the figures that I gave, I hope that it will be understood why that is where our legislative priorities for road safety must lie.
Although we appreciate the noble motives behind the code of practice and, in accordance with convention, we would do nothing to obstruct the passage of the Bill through the House, we do not feel that we can give it active government support. I can, however, say one thing, which I hope will be helpful. The Highway Code has statutory recognition in Section 38(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which provides that any failure to observe a provision of the code may in any proceedings for an offence be relied on to establish or to negative liability.
Although we are unable to support the Bill, we would be willing to consider any suggestion to include reference to the code of practice for horse-drawn vehicles in the Highway Code at the time of its next substantive amendment. We would have to be cautious, as we always are, in amending the Highway Code. But if such an amendment were accepted, it could provide the code of practice with the kind of additional authority that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, seeks.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. I have received considerable support from the Back Benches and less-than-considerable support from the Front Benches. I sympathise very much with the Minister on

525
his family history, which appears to include a chapter of accidents. I expect him to be sympathetic to what I am trying to do.
I was asked what "other public places" meant and why the Bill sought to apply there. A public place is not defined in the Road Traffic Act 1988 but is generally taken to be a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or subject to permission. By contrast, a road is defined in the Act as being subject to such access. As the public and horse-drawn vehicles and so on may come together in public places other than roads—for example, off-road parking areas—the Bill seeks to apply there. It would not apply to places where, for example, equestrian events took place, circus arenas, and so on, if access to the affected areas was not permitted to the public.
I was also asked why the Bill sought to apply to animals other than horses. It already does so in Northern Ireland. I imagine that the reason for that is the greater use of donkeys on the island of Ireland. These days, it had better include llamas, too. On the whole, donkeys are unlikely to take off and kill people in accidents, but llamas are very nervous. If the Bill progressed any further, such a provision would need to be included as we have done.
I shall try to respond in writing to noble Lords' other questions. If the Bill progresses further, I shall deal with their points in Committee.
It would not be a waste of your Lordships' time to take the Bill a little further. There would be three advantages. First, it would result in a measure on the parliamentary record dealing with all the amendments necessary as a result of the Second Reading debate. Secondly, there is always a chance that the department, having rethought the matter once, may rethink it twice. Thirdly, future legislation is not ruled out. When the Bill has improved, it might be useful, even if dealing with amendments to the various non-legislative measures about which the Minister spoke.
I commend the department for its intention to deal with the matter in some way. But there is a case for committing the Bill to Committee and putting it in a position where it would represent the considered wisdom of this House on what should be done. Therefore, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Equality Bill [H.L.]
12.47 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. New Labour's 1997 election manifesto promised that, if elected to government, they would,
"eliminate unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
The Liberal Democrat manifesto contained a commitment to enact a single Equality Act. This Bill seeks to give effect to those commitments.
526
It is almost two years since the House debated my Unstarred Question asking what steps the Government were taking towards the comprehensive reform of anti-discrimination legislation. I explained that I shared the belief of the equality agencies, senior judges, independent experts and employers and trade unions that the time was over-ripe for the comprehensive, rather than the merely superficial, reform of that body of legislation. The approach of successive governments to the increasingly complex, opaque and anomalous state of the legislation has been piecemeal and minimalist. It has involved adding new layers of legislation in bits and pieces, be they to implement European Community law, to introduce half measures on disability discrimination, or, now, to give effect to the new but restricted EU equality directives.
There was widespread recognition during that debate, on 25th April 2001, of the pressing need for a single equality Act. In her reply, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was kind enough to say that I had,
"made a powerful case for grasping the opportunity for comprehensive reform".
Encouragingly, the Minister continued:
"We recognise the arguments for a single equality framework incorporating a single equality commission, but we have to think about how such a framework would be constructed in practice".—[Official Report, 25/4/01; col. 1448.]
Since that debate, the Government have failed to grasp the opportunity for comprehensive reform, but they have not been idle. They have published draft regulations to implement the EU race and framework employment directives, with a period for public consultation that was completed at the end of January. They have consulted about proposals to create a single equality commission. Soon, they will lay before Parliament the actual regulations on sex, sexual orientation, race, religion and belief, and disability. A consultation on draft age discrimination regulations will be delayed for another year. That legislation will not come into force until December 2006. The Government intend to introduce primary legislation to strengthen the law on disability discrimination by October 2004. Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, where there is already a single Equality Commission, the Government are working actively to introduce a single Equality Bill. Most regrettably, there is no sign that the Government are working in the same way to introduce a single Equality Bill for Great Britain. So much for joined-up government and joined-up legislation.
One problem with such hectic activity is that, by introducing yet more piecemeal legislation, the Government will add even greater incoherence to an already incoherent body of anti-discrimination law. Another problem is that, by rejecting the use of primary legislation to implement the equality directives, the Government will hobble the legislative powers of Parliament to create a coherent, accessible and user-friendly legislative framework that, in the words of the new Labour manifesto,
"tackles unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".

527
The regulations will forbid religious discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, disability discrimination and age discrimination, but only in employment. That is not because it is right in principle to fail to tackle unjustifiable discrimination on those grounds in education, housing and the provision of services and facilities; it is simply because the framework equality directive is confined to the employment field. Without primary legislation, Parliament cannot cover these wider areas, as they are covered in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. What the Government describe as their full agenda of action on equality matters, including what they call "targeted legislation" misses the important target. Without primary legislation, women will continue to face a heavier burden of proof in discrimination cases outside the employment field; a homosexual or a Muslim denied a service because of sexuality or religion will still be unable to obtain legal redress; and an elderly person, denied essential services by a health authority or local council on the ground of age, will be denied legal redress. Except in the field of race relations, there will be no positive duty on public authorities or large employers to make progress towards equality of opportunity, even though, as long ago as November 1999, the Government promised legislation to create one. To adapt the words of George Orwell, all animals will be equal, but some animals will be more equal than others. As Melissa Benn, writing on the subject of equal pay in the Guardian last Tuesday, said:
"A radical overhaul of our anachronistic and clumsy equal pay law is long overdue".
Yet another problem with the Government's shortsighted vision is that, by seeking to create a single equality commission without a single Equality Act, the Government will put the cart before the horse. How much better it would surely be to have, as they have in the Republic of Ireland, unified equality legislation administered by a new-style and professional Equality Authority. That concept of a different kind of equality commission is included in the Bill. A single Equality Act, overseen by a single equality commission, provides a more effective way of dealing with multiple or cumulative discrimination.
Whenever I attempt to persuade Ministers to grasp the opportunity for, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, "comprehensive reform", I am told that the Government lack the resources to grasp the nettle at this stage. I find that excuse unconvincing. When I worked with Roy Jenkins at the Home Office in 1974 on what became the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act, we were in a minority government, facing a well organised opposition. Yet, we managed to develop a radical and imaginative legislative policy in only a few months and to introduce two major Bills within two years. We were able to do so because Roy Jenkins and his colleagues willed the end and gave sufficient priority to finding
528
the means. What is now lacking is not the resources in the Civil Service but the political will to devote those resources to this urgent and challenging task.

The Bill has been introduced to fill the vacuum and to meet a pressing need. It is the product of four years of careful work, with generous support from the Nuffield Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. Professor Bob Hepple QC, together with Mary Coussey and Tufyal Choudhury, carried out an independent expert review under the auspices of the Centre for Public Law and Judge Institute of Management Studies in the University of Cambridge. The review evaluated UK anti-discrimination legislation and made proposals to develop an accessible legislative framework to promote equal opportunity policies and to spur compliance with those policies. The review team conducted targeted case studies and interviews and published consultation papers. The report was published in July 2000 and was the subject of a consultative conference.
Next, a Bill was drafted by a former parliamentary counsel, Stephanie Grundy, on the basis of the findings of the Hepple report. It was published for further consultation in July 2002. The draft Bill was substantially revised in the light of comments from a wide range of individuals and bodies, including each of the three existing commissions. We hope that it will commend itself to the House and will be supported, at least in principle, by the Government. I wish to express my admiration and gratitude to all those who contributed to the project and to my indefatigable support staff at the Odysseus Trust, who are here today.
The Bill may seem long and complex, but it is more concise and less complex than the existing anti-discrimination legislation and the proposed new equality regulations. When the Hepple report was published, there were no fewer than 30 Acts, 38 statutory instruments, 11 codes of practice and 12 EC directives and recommendations concerned with discrimination. Since then, there have been even more.
The Explanatory Notes that we published describe in detail the structure and content of the Bill. I shall attempt to put the Bill in a nutshell, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do so as briefly as I can. Part 1 outlines the Bill's purpose and general principles. Three principles run like a golden thread through the Bill. The first is that the Bill is not to be construed as permitting or requiring any step that involves levelling down. Steps towards equality should involve improvement for the whole workforce or customer base. They should not worsen conditions for anyone.
The second principle is that promoting equality may require more than treating different individuals in the same way as each other and may require the accommodation of difference. That applies first and foremost to disability discrimination. There are other areas where true equality may require different treatment, such as special provision made during pregnancy, or a relaxation of uniform requirements to allow a Muslim schoolgirl to wear a headscarf.

529
The third principle is that the need to correct disadvantages that arise from discrimination may require the taking of special measures. That does not mean crude measures involving reverse discrimination. Such measures would undermine the principle of equality itself. The Bill recognises that measures are sometimes necessary to overcome past discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity. Provided that such measures are proportionate to their legitimate aim, they enhance rather than diminish the principle of equal opportunities based on individual merit.
Part 2 outlines measures to target particular behaviour or arrangements. It describes the conduct that is unlawful because it involves discrimination, harassment or victimisation. Direct discrimination is unlawful if it is done for a reason relating to one or more of the prohibited grounds. In addition to the existing grounds of sex, race and disability, the Bill also covers discrimination on the grounds of age, gender reassignment, religion or belief and sexual orientation. Family status, marital status and pregnancy are specified as grounds in their own right, in addition to sex.
Part 2 also defines the fields in which the provisions apply. The Bill goes much further than the government regulations in that it applies to a variety of contexts, including not only employment but also education, the provision of goods and services, public authority provision and the disposal of premises. The definition of indirect discrimination has been clarified and made consistent, and has been applied to disability discrimination.
Part 2 also explains how individuals and the equality commission may take action to enforce the law. The existing legislation focuses mainly on eliminating discrimination by means of investigative and legal processes. The Bill seeks to tackle discrimination more proactively and in a less adversarial way, without imposing unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. Its focus is on encouraging voluntary compliance wherever possible.
Part 3 contains general measures to facilitate general progress towards equality. It requires bodies exercising functions of a public nature to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity. It also requires large employers to carry out periodic reviews of the composition of their workforce and their employment policies and practices. If a review indicates that there may be failings in terms of equal opportunities or equal pay, they are required to draw up proposals with a view to bringing about change.
Part 3 also imposes positive duties on employers, service providers and providers of education to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities. This recognises the central importance of this free-standing duty in the Disability Discrimination Act in enabling equality of opportunity for people with disabilities.
Part 4 establishes the equality commission for Great Britain to combat discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity. Clause 40 contains provisions
530
designed to ensure that the commission combines expertise in the different areas and does not create a hierarchy of rights in allocating its resources strategically. The commission would replace the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality.
The Bill recognises the distinct position of the relatively newly established Disability Rights Commission and allows it at least three years from the coming into force of the Act to join the new equality commission.
Part 5 deals with enforcement. Legal proceedings would be brought by way of an individual complaint or a complaint by the equality commission. Part 5 also provides for strategic enforcement action to he taken by the equality commission itself. Where enforcement is necessary it needs to be fair, effective and flexible. To that end, the Bill encourages complaints to be resolved, wherever possible, through conciliation rather than through formal tribunal hearings; and adopts, where the commission is taking enforcement action, a measured approach. Thus, after investigation, the commission may request an undertaking from an employer that it desist from acting in a discriminatory way, and, if that is not given, issue a compliance notice. It may also, in its own name. make tribunal applications alleging unlawful conduct.
There is a parallel with this approach in the provisions for workforce reviews and employment equity plans. We intend that employers would undertake these voluntarily, that failure to do so would not be actionable as such, but might he taken into account by the commission when discharging its functions, or by a tribunal in relevant proceedings, and that any dispute about such reviews or plans may be referred to the Central Arbitration Committee. In taking this flexible approach, we have sought to meet the concerns of employers and others who fear that providing additional individual enforceable rights would inevitably create a flood of litigation. The clear intention is that it should not do so.
Part 6 deals with miscellaneous and supplementary matters. The powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations require amendment to meet the recommendation by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform that the affirmative procedure should apply. Part 6 incorporates eight important schedules. The definition of disability in Schedule 1 is significantly broader than the Disability Discrimination Act, and implements the task force recommendations. For example, a registered blind or a partially sighted person will be deemed to be disabled; a person with HIV will be deemed to be disabled from the point of diagnosis.
Schedule 2 contains the various exclusions which must be interpreted in accordance with the general principles in Part 1. The most important general exclusion is the genuine occupational requirement exception which would, for example, allow a theatre company to advertise for a child actor to play a child's part. The remaining schedules contain miscellaneous provision which I do not need to deal with at this stage.

531
The Bill has already received widespread support outside the House. We hope that it will be widely welcomed in this debate. I am most grateful to so many noble Lords for indicating that they want to participate today. Inevitably, there will be disagreement about some of its provisions, and of course the Bill is capable of improvement. But we hope that there will be a wide consensus as to the need for a single Equality Bill that tackles the main types of unjustifiable discrimination, creates a coherent, user-friendly and non-bureaucratic framework, and encourages voluntary compliance with the principle of equal opportunity without discrimination.
We seek to provide an effective means of redress for a large number of our fellow citizens—women as well as men; the disabled as well as those without disability; the older as well as the younger generation; ethnic minorities; those who have a religious faith and those who do not; and everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. Those parts of British society will find powerful voices during this well-attended debate.
The eminent Victorian parliamentary counsel, Lord Thring, once said that razors are made to cut and Bills are made to pass. This Bill has been made to pass. Last and most important of all, we continue to hope that the Minister will tell the House that the Government intend to support the principles of the Bill and to give a high priority to preparing a single Equality Bill of their own for Great Britain, to match what they are already doing for Northern Ireland.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
1.10 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for giving the House this opportunity to discuss discrimination which, unfortunately, is still rampant in our society to a far greater extent than many people are prepared to admit. I congratulate the noble Lord on an excellent presentation of a fine Bill. It deserves warm support. I support the Bill strongly, although he is right to say that there will be disagreement because I do not endorse it all by any means.
The general thrust of the Bill's proposals should be uncontroversial because there is a clear and obvious need for ensuring a consistent standard of protection from discrimination whether it be on grounds of disability, race, sexuality, age, gender or religion and belief.
Although the Government say that they have not yet decided on the question of a single, unified commission, I believe that that is their intention. If so, it is essential that they look first at the mass of legislation which will drive the commission's work. I am sure that no one will argue with the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that legislation is not uniform. It is widely "un-uniform". To establish a unifying discrimination commission without first unifying the discrimination legislation is like building a house on disparate foundations. If the foundations
532
are not secure, the whole structure is vulnerable. A unified legal framework is essential before any unified commission starts work and this Bill will provide it. It will tidy up the administrative mess which has, quite understandably, grown over the years.
Clarifying and simplifying our equality laws is a valuable step forward. No one gains from confusion, but clarifying these laws will benefit individuals, organisations and companies. It seems to me to be a matter of common sense that one should pursue that course of action. Yet a Minister, Barbara Roche, told the All-Party Disability Group that she is not persuaded of the relative merits of a single equality Act. She said that her concern was that the Government would spend a lot of time working on a single Act, only to see another European directive introduced which would make it necessary to amend it again.
But the possibility of a European intervention applies to many fields and on that reasoning we should take no legislative action over a very wide area for fear of some new directive. Clearly, that is an impossibly restrictive mode of conducting our affairs. I urge the Government to think again and I hope that they will. I am delighted that my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is replying to the debate and I am sure that he will do so in his usual constructive manner, although not necessarily accepting all our points.
Although the anti-discrimination legislation across all fields is not perfect, I am most familiar with that related to disability. This Government have a good record on disability and by no stretch of the imagination can the noble Lord, Lord Lester, be justified in calling them half measures. That was a gross over-statement. The legislation introduced by this Labour Government has been most progressive and constructive and it is warmly appreciated by disabled people.
I and many others were pleased with the early achievement of imposing obligations not to discriminate against disabled people—which was fine so far as it went. But now we emphasise the respect for human rights and a positive obligation to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity. That elimination and the emphasis on human rights is a key to progress. I know that the Government are conscious of current shortcomings, and their proposed new disability Bill is very welcome. It will add to their fine record. But as yet we have neither the timetable nor the detail of its content.
This Bill joins in the task of upgrading disability legislation, although I am aware of concern about some major omissions. The establishment of a joint standing committee to consider detail in conjunction with the views of those familiar with disability will be most welcome. I hope that my noble friend Lord McIntosh will consider that course.
Such a committee could also usefully consider the single commission proposal. The Government are consulting on its possible structures. One structure, leaving the Disability Rights Commission as a separate commission, is proposed in the Bill and was

533
admirably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I appreciate the efforts that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his colleagues to acknowledge the special position of disability, but I believe that this is not the right response. I hope that the noble Lord will think again. Rather than pursue his Bill in that way, disabled people require inclusion and not exclusion. The disability interest must be there from the start or it risks being a poor relation. I cannot speak for the Disability Rights Commission, but I believe it too supports that view.
However, I personally favour the federal structure for the unified commission proposed by the disability rights commission. The disability perspective demands a "strand specific" structure. Disabled people are understandably concerned that their much valued Disability Rights Commission may be swallowed by a single commission.
Disability leads to discrimination problems that can be fundamentally different from those arising from race and sex. It cannot be tackled by attacking only prejudice, important though that is. Adjustments of one kind or another are also required and the concept of "reasonableness" is fundamental.
Disability is much less understood than, for example, race and sex, and unfortunately it is less easily tolerated. All too readily it fuels latent prejudice if legislation, monitoring and remedies are weak. Major input by disabled people is essential to tackle that prejudice effectively. That is one of the great strengths of the Disability Rights Commission. Weakening it would be very damaging to the interests of disabled people.
The Disability Rights Commission is doing splendid work but it is still a relative babe compared with other discrimination bodies. It needs time to grow and consolidate to fulfil its great potential. Submerged within a single commission, it could well be neglected—as indeed disability has been neglected for centuries. It is for those reasons that any new unifying body needs to have a federal structure. There are too many distinct disability issues to be accommodated by a single functional amalgamation.
I have a thousand more comments to make, but I shall not do so now because I believe in relatively short speeches. I am conscious that so many of my colleagues on all sides of the House are anxious to speak. I hope that the factors I have put forward will be taken into account by my noble friend. I am sure that he will consider them. I wish Godspeed to this fine Bill.
1.18 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing the Bill and enabling this debate on the important issue of equality. The noble Lord should be congratulated on introducing a Bill which, as we have heard, represents four years of hard and thoughtful work and which sets out to provide a single framework for eliminating discrimination and promoting equality between different people, regardless of racial or ethnic origin,
534
religion or belief, sex, marital or family status, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, age or disability. It is a tough and noble assignment!
I cannot confess to being as knowledgeable on this subject as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but I will do my best to outline our position succinctly and with clarity. We can agree with many of the points the noble Lord has been making in his criticism of the current legislation. The Government have indeed failed to grasp the opportunity for comprehensive reform. Yes, there is much activity in this field. However, it is piecemeal, lacks clarity and, as such, can act as a powerful deterrent to many who are confused as to their rights and responsibilities under this very delicate area of the law.
The Bill is comprehensive and, with the principles outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. with regard to the need for change, I cannot believe that anyone would argue for the status quo. That said, we must proceed with caution and take care to ensure that the new provisions are the best that they can be for everyone, including those who have to implement the changes and provisions as well those who will benefit from them.
Turning to the Bill itself, I shall touch upon only some of the many issues covered. We support the principles set out in Part 1, Clause 1, together with the notion that legislation should be in place before we establish a single equality commission. The commission would bring together the bodies that currently oversee the law of discrimination, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, with, I understand, the chance of the Disability Rights Commission joining within three years.
The benefits of such a commission are obvious. One united body could be a much stronger force for equality and the changes needed to achieve it. For a person facing multiple discrimination issues, a single body would provide more effective support, and promoting equality as a whole would be easier.
However, we must be careful about how these bodies are combined. The aforementioned bodies themselves have expressed reservations about how this will be done. The noble Lord mentioned the example of Northern Ireland, where a single equality commission was established in 1999. But many have commented that this has not been a huge success. I t appears to concentrate too much of its time on internal reorganisation matters and there has been much criticism that it has lacked sufficient focus and has ended up fighting over money.
Although in favour of a single commission, the Disability Rights Commission argues strongly for an Act before a commission. In its briefing note of last year it stated that this order of development was needed—and here I am repeating very much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke—to,
"ensure high and consistent standards of protection across all the forms of discrimination covered by a new body. Otherwise any new body will be lumbered with a legislative mess and 'hierarchies of equality', seriously weakening its internal cohesion arid external credibility".

535
The Equal Opportunities Commission also touched on this point in its briefing for the Bill. The principle that equality should not be achieved by levelling down but by levelling up also finds favour on these Benches. It is a well-documented fact that women are still not earning the equivalent salaries of men. It is thought that the figure lost over a lifetime is, on average, between £50,000 to £250,000. It is clear that something needs to be done about these depressing statistics.
However, it is hard to see how levelling up will be achieved in practice. My greatest fear is that employers faced with this option may refuse to employ women at all—pleading disproportionate burden—no matter how much legislation we pass on this point, especially at the top of organisations and in the City, which is already a tough environment for women. We must ensure that employers still feel that they have a choice over what to pay and that they reward staff according to ability and commitment.
This fettering leads me on to another point in the Bill which seems to leave employers' hands somewhat tied. Clause 29 concerns workforce reviews. These extensive reviews are to be followed up by "employment equity plans" which seek to ensure that businesses have the correct number, or rather quotas—because it seems to amount to that—of groups.
I can see many problems with this well-meaning device. First, I am concerned about to whom it will apply. The Bill defines "designated employers"—those who will have to carry out these reviews—as those designated by the Secretary of State by order. The criteria for selection are that the business must have 10 or more workers. But we are concerned about the other criteria for becoming a designated employer. Surely this cannot mean all businesses with 10 or more workers. That would place an extraordinary burden on small business in this country. The Department of Trade and Industry statistics inform us that at the start of 2000 there were an estimated 3.7 million businesses in the UK. Of these, 99 per cent had less than 50 employees.
Secondly, I am concerned that once the reviews have been carried out and the employers find, as almost certainly many will, that they do not have the correct number of representatives for all groups, they will find themselves in a rather invidious position. Their "employment equity plan" would have to extend to.
"each employment equity group in respect of which there is under—representation",
and decide what objectives needed to be achieved in the next one to five years. While Clause 30(6) makes it clear that employers do not have to place a disproportionate burden on themselves or disregard merit, it is all too easy to see the clause creating problems in the work place.
It is clear that it will be much easier for those in urban cities to comply with these requirements. However, I fail to see how those in small rural areas of,
536
for example, Yorkshire and Cornwall, could possibly hope to have a workforce complete with a full shopping list of all the representative groups required.
I am also concerned that this kind of clause will create problems in the workforce, with colleagues believing that a worker from a minority group has been hired or promoted merely because he or she belongs to such a group, even if this is not the case.
I well recall when working as a lawyer for a major British clearing bank in the early 1980s in New York, the problems that we faced because we were trying, with every will in the world, to enforce quotas. Our task was to employ and promote more women, ethnic minorities and Vietnam veterans. It seems that the latter were being discriminated against on the ground that they had failed to win the Vietnam war on behalf of their fellow citizens and so were in disgrace. That proved a real shock to me at the time. It also showed that new classes of individuals can emerge which necessitate a degree of flexibility in our approach to anti-discrimination law. Our quest to employ more of certain groups within the bank created an enormous amount of resentment—unfortunately, lasting resentment—often through negative under currents, among the workforce as a whole.
There are further points in this area, particularly in relation to employment. While we fully recognise the importance of protecting the vulnerable and accommodating the needs of those who need special arrangements in order to work, we are concerned about the word "arrangements". It is extremely broad.
In essence, there has to be a balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of the group with whom that individual interacts. While I accept, for example, the need for pregnant women to have special arrangements with regard to their, albeit temporary, condition—and here I speak from personal experience again—those arrangements should not place an undue burden upon fellow employees. In many cases it simply is not viable merely to go out and hire additional support. In other words, we must take care to ensure that we are not promoting the needs of the individual at the expense of the remainder of the workforce.
I note that in relation to "protected areas of activity" there is reference to the management by any persons of a members' club. I draw your Lordships' attention to this point in particular, noting that we had a debate on this issue in your Lordships' House yesterday when we were considering the Licensing Bill. Once again we made it clear that we want to support the breaking down of all forms of discrimination to protect the rights and dignity of the individual. We are indeed against any form of discrimination, victimisation or harassment and welcome the opportunity—particularly given that we in the Conservative Party are often misunderstood on the subject—to say so.
The proposal to introduce a comprehensive Equality Act deserves serious consideration. I look forward to hearing the Government's response to the Bill today.
1.29 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his team. They have made an enormous effort to produce a workable and admirably drafted Bill to deal with this most important issue.
Discrimination against groups of people because of characteristics or traits that they cannot usually help, disown or remove is iniquitous and harmful to society at large. I shall restrict my remarks mainly to age discrimination. This form of discrimination is particularly virulent and widespread, mainly because it is largely unrecognised by the people who perpetuate it. That includes older people themselves, who often feel that they have to stand down in favour of younger people. In many cases, that is mistaken, because chronological age is an extremely unreliable factor by which to judge people. If we judge them on their ability in terms of the labour market, on their competence to do a job or, in other fields, on their rights to receive goods and services to the same level as other groups in society, we see that this is an issue of fairness and justice, not merely one of equality.
I feel that legislation is necessary—certainly in the field of employment, because older people need to participate. They provide a resource to our society which is largely under used. If we take into account the new longevity and healthy life expectancy, we have a fast-growing group of people who are an under-used and very capable resource—which we need. Many older people want to continue to work. As we know, pensions are not as secure as they used to be. People's expectations are unlikely to be met without such legislation. In addition, the dependency ratio has changed: there are fewer children. There are small jumps in the birth rate, but overall it is fast declining.
In the past few years companies have used their pension scheme surpluses to downsize, always getting rid of older employees first, because this did not show on the P&L account. It was an easy and cost-effective method. But now, things are changing. I hope that with the help of this Bill they will change for the better.
Furthermore, organisations such as the Employers Forum on Age, which I was privileged to help establish, have demonstrated the value of age diversity in the workforce. They have shown conclusively that older workers tend to stay in a job longer. This must be set against the high cost of recruitment and retention of staff. Therefore, equal opportunities for vocational training for older workers are essential. Although people think that it is not worth getting into, if you employ someone of 60, that person will stay for five years, whereas someone aged 20 is likely to leave in 18 months to two years. So there is a built-in advantage in employing older people. Many older people are reliable and loyal to the company for which they work. They have a great deal of experience and expertise which can be balanced, together with their knowledge of the history of the company, against some of the innovative—and essential—characteristics of young employees.
538
A further fact to he considered is that 40 per cent of the population is now over 50; over half will be over 50 by 2020; but only about two-thirds of people aged 50 to 65 are in full employment now.
The Government have taken some steps to tackle age discrimination and have helped to raise awareness. But the current code of practice—the result of government activity in response to the Bill supported by Age Concern which was promoted by Linda Perham in another place in 1998—is not legally binding. It has, I am afraid, been rather ineffective.
Now, we have the EU directive, which means that age discrimination in employment and vocational training will he unlawful by 2006. But this is still very narrow. It does not include other areas where age discrimination is still rife: in education; in financial services; in consumer affairs; and, above all, in NHS services, where I am afraid it still exists. I am sure that other noble Lords will talk on that subject with enormous expertise. That is why the Bill is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been extremely even handed. For my purposes, he could even go further in some areas of the Bill, but he has made a great effort to accommodate the difficulties that the Government will face. Combating or abolishing age discrimination, even in employment, is complex and difficult. I acknowledge that. But we have to take the bull by the horns. Enormously positive things could come out of this Equality Bill—for example, a single equality commission.
The Bill makes discrimination due to age unlawful in all protected areas of activity. To deny someone a service or employment simply because of their age is wrong. If we introduce a single equality commission—which I favour—we have to take into account the worries, particularly of people in the field of disability, that their cause, or indeed some of the others, may be diluted. If the Bill becomes law and does dilute any of those areas, and discrimination is still apparent, then it will not be working properly. We must make sure that that does not happen.
A single equality commission will have a great job to do. At present, if I felt that I was being discriminated against, it could be on a huge number of grounds—it could he on grounds of age or gender, I could be a lesbian, and so on. There are many areas where no one would be able to advise me of the best path to take to combat the discrimination. I should have to go to each area of a commission to find out which was the best place for me to go. A single equality commission which could point people to the right department or sector would be very helpful.
We have to take these issues on board now. My long-term wish would be for age neutrality or age irrelevance to replace age as a criterion which is largely used against people. We can usually substitute other factors for age. If we cannot see well enough to drive, the problem is our sight, because many older people can see well enough to drive; so it is better to concentrate on that aspect rather than on someone's age. There is a whole list which I have no time to mention now but which would take all these areas of life into consideration.

539
I feel that it is long overdue that we take on board age discrimination in its wider sense, across our lives. I very much hope that the Bill will succeed.
1.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I, too. appreciate the work of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his colleagues in bringing so large a range, both of existing legislation and of legislation that may be desirable, within the compass of a single Bill and under the oversight of, and served by, a single commission.
First, I must confess that I have an engagement later that I have to keep. Before deciding whether to add my name to the list of speakers, I took what two or three days ago was the best advice from the Whips' Office. I fear that my judgment on the basis of that advice may prove to be wrong. Only a further hour and a half or so will prove whether that is the case. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and to the House if it proves necessary for me to leave before the end of the debate.
The matters within the Bill's purview—the safeguarding of basic human rights, the promotion in society of the dignity, equality, safety and respect of all its members—are indeed of fundamental importance. They are of such importance that it will be necessary for the Government, and for all of us, whether in another place or in this House, to ensure that the bringing of all these disparate strands within the purview of a single commission does not bring some loss of focus on the individual strands, and does not enforce a misleading or distracting homogenising approach.
While there are certainly common principles, the 10 grounds first set out in paragraphs (a) and (j) of Clause 1(1) raise their own distinct issues in relation to the Bill's purpose. As expressed in the first words of that Clause, the purpose is,
"to facilitate both the promotion of equality and the elimination of unfair discrimination".
That raises specific issues, especially if full value is given to the presence in that expression of the Bill's purpose of the crucial qualifying word, "unfair".
It is not axiomatic that identical investigation and enforcement powers are needed for, and will be appropriate for, each of the 10 "grounds". More important—but also, I recognise, more arguable and controversial—is the suggestion that some of the 10 "grounds" may be more fundamental than others. At some points, there may continue to be legitimate argument from decent, law-abiding people, whose respect for the law the Government should not lightly put at risk, that some discrimination is not only not "unfair", but actually proper and necessary according to the tenets of their faith.
Considering the list in Clause 1 from that standpoint, grounds (a), (b), (c) and (g) are unequivocally to be welcomed. Ground (d), "family status", may need some explication. None is offered in Clause 4, but I would guess that it falls into the same category. Grounds (f), (h) and (i) are also
540
straightforward and to be welcomed, although the Churches and faiths will want to consider carefully whatever legislation is eventually proposed on the pattern of a substantial number of clauses of the Bill, to ensure that the law of the land is not about to prevent them from conscientiously applying their own doctrines and beliefs, which in many cases have been held and practised for many centuries.
The inclusion in the list of grounds in Clause 1 of gender reassignment and sexual orientation—the latter with further interpretation offered in Clause 4—in the context of the provisions of the rest of the Bill. is likely to raise a range of questions for Churches and faiths, if for different reasons. Gender reassignment raises significant questions for sports management bodies, too, but they must speak for themselves, when and as they wish to do so.
With regard to the ground of gender reassignment, I am well aware of the Government's commitment, expressed in the Lord Chancellor's Department's December Statement made in the light of the judgment of the ECHR in Goodwin and in anticipation of that of the House of Lords in Bellinger, to publish a draft Bill to give effect to the requirements of the former. Notwithstanding Goodwin'sremarkable and regrettable inadequacies, I appreciate that it has the authority that it has and that the Government must take the appropriate note of it. Doubtless, that has also been the case for the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his team.
I appreciate the grave effects of gender dysphoria upon those who suffer from it, and the deep distress and confusion that it causes them. I recognise that, for many such people, gender reassignment treatment. including surgery, has brought substantial relief and liberation. I understand how important it is for those living in a new identity that they should not continue to be subject to embarrassing and distressing questions that hark back to the identity in which they previously lived. I support them and their friends in wanting them to be relieved of those difficulties and constraints to the greatest possible extent.
That said and meant, however, it is also important that the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his colleagues, recognise that fundamental differences of judgment remain in the medical profession about gender dysphoria and the treatments appropriate to it. There is a significant range of Christian opinion, and of opinion in other faith communities and more widely in society, which does not agree that the gender of any of us can be changed, whatever the Government's Chief Medical Officer or the Government themselves say, and whatever their Lordships say in their judgment in Bellinger.
With regard to ground (j), sexual orientation, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the extent to which, for many people now, their sexual orientation is explicitly a matter of their choice rather than one that they themselves understand to be intrinsic to their identity. He may also be aware that the Church of England, along with other Churches and faith groups,

541
is accustomed to draw a clear distinction between "orientation"—understood in terms of the interpretation in Clause 4 of this Bill—and "behaviour". We are now being advised that courts and tribunals are unlikely to recognise any clear-cut distinction along those lines in considering claims of discrimination brought under legislation that is pending. The effect will be that actions taken by the Churches to enforce their doctrines and beliefs in relation to sexual conduct will be rendered unlawful.
In making these points, I am not challenging the principle that people who understand themselves as homosexual, or transgendered, should have full equality and protection before the law and the fullest freedom from prejudice, homophobic violence and unfair discrimination. However, it is crucial that legislation that properly seeks to ensure that equality should not—in my judgment improperly—encroach on the freedom and the right that religious organisations must have to set and enforce their own conduct rules in relation to those who work for them and represent them.
As the Minister and his colleagues know, the Churches and faiths certainly do not see those problems as insurmountable. Indeed, we have a commitment to the basic purposes of legislation of the sort that the noble Lord's Bill so remarkably seeks to codify within a single compass, and to contributing to the development of best practice in this most important area of the life of society. Our representatives are available to work with the Government's, and the noble Lord's, draftspeople, to help ensure that Churches and other faith-based organisations do not find themselves in the position where the law of the land intends to prevent them from conscientiously applying their doctrines and beliefs on moral issues.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I would not normally have interrupted, were the right reverend Prelate not likely to have to leave the debate. Is he aware that, on page 75 of the Bill, we have gone to great lengths to include an exception not only for genuine occupational qualifications but for charitable bodies and schools with a religious character? Does he accept that those exclusions are an attempt to secure a fair balance between his point of view and that of others?
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I am grateful for that question. Yes, I had noted that page carefully. In paragraph 13 of Schedule 2, the provisions are more closely drawn than in existing legislation. Paragraph 14(2) makes a close point, stating that the exclusion does not,
"exclude anything done for a reason or reasons relating to any prohibited ground other than religion or belief".
For those reasons, I believe that the points I made are still appropriate.
1.50 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Like many other
542
speakers, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and his team for bringing forward this Bill. He deserves congratulations for taking on the task of producing such a comprehensive Bill on such an important subject.
I cannot really move forward without saying a few words to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I still find it amazing that Houses of God should find anti-discrimination legislation a difficult concept and continue to perpetuate a form of righteous discrimination. The principle of creating a level playing field of legislation for different areas of equality is an important one. I believe that no institution or organisation should be exempt from it.
Like all policy areas, the equality arena has its fair share of jargon. Noble Lords could be forgiven for not knowing the jargon for referring to different areas of equality—but they are called "strands". Issues relating to age discrimination are commonly referred to as "age strands", issues relating to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation are called "sexuality strands", and so on. Issues addressed by the current equality commissions—race, gender and disability—are often called the "old strands", and issues such as sexual orientation, religion and belief and age are called the "new strands". I hope that colleagues do not mind my providing a small glossary of terms, but I find it useful to be clear about the jargon used by experts in this area.
The principle behind the Bill is to equalise legislation across all strands, old and new—an overall principle which I support wholeheartedly. I do not intend to provide a detailed clause by clause commentary on the Bill, but shall focus on the question of equality policy that lies behind the Bill. I also propose to focus my input on areas where I have some expertise, including why business should welcome diversity and the importance of understanding equality issues that affect more than one strand.
To understand why the issue is important, we need look no further than a case currently under consideration by the Law Lords. School teacher Shirley Pearce faced horrific discrimination, including attacks on her person and at her home. She was targeted by pupils and colleagues when they discovered that she was a lesbian. The case has had significant publicity, not least because Ms Pearce was represented by no less than Cherie Booth QC. While we await the decision of the Law Lords, we can look back at the response that Ms Pearce received in Europe; namely, that the current mish-mash of equality legislation in the UK meant that if she had been harassed and the words, taunts and violence targeted at her had specified her race or gender, then she certainly would have had the protection of the law. As it is, because the taunts were about her sexuality, she is at best in a very grey area and may well, I suspect, have no rights at all. Can we really afford to waste the talents of so many in our society and leave them with so little protection when they are subject to such blatant attacks?

543
Clauses 22 to 30 of the Bill tackle the issue of stopping discrimination in the workplace on grounds relating to any of the strands. There is a common myth that business dislikes equality and campaigns against policies designed to see greater equality and diversity in the workplace. I believe that that is a vastly oversimplified view. What I think they resent are complex, unworkable and political arrangements that are commercially unfeasible.
Let us take as an example one of the "new strands", sexual orientation, which is the area that I probably know best. At the moment, there is absolutely no legislation enforcing equality of treatment or anti-discrimination against gay and lesbian people in the workplace. Such laws are coming into force and should be in place at the end of the year. At the moment, however, nothing is in place.
One might think that business would be dreading the introduction of such laws, but the reality is that many of them are taking sensible steps forward. In fact, businesses as diverse and successful as Barclays, BT, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, IBM, Shell, Sainsbury's and Ford proactively sought to work with Stonewall in a scheme called Diversity Champions. They work with the sole aim of ensuring that their companies follow best practice in diversity policy. They believe that that is not only the right thing to do, but that it gives them a competitive edge and better knowledge of their marketplace. In fact, the other day, I noticed that the Treasury, the DTI and the Department for Work and Pensions have recently joined the scheme.
Perhaps I should be encouraged by the fact that the private sector is leading the public sector in recognising the carrot as well as the stick in equality policies. However, the Government are a huge employer. I remind my noble friends on the Front Bench that the Government need to continue their good work in pushing forward their own employees in this area.
I turn to Part 5 of the Bill, which sets out a framework for the establishment of an equality body dealing with the range of different strand issues. I am sure that many noble Lords know that the Government have said that they are minded to introduce such a body and have in fact just closed a consultation period on its possible form. I know that representative groups of the new strands are especially keen to see such a body established, as work in those areas currently relies on voluntary organisations and groups. I know that many of us are keen to hear the results of the consultation and the Government's plan for moving forward in this area. I believe that the creation of a single equality body is to be encouraged as it will provide the institutional support for both the new and old strands—as well as for individuals, such as the noble Baroness and me, who fall into more than one strand.
I am glad that the Government are addressing some of those issues and I urge them to keep them high on the agenda. It may interest the House to know that many of the major equality bodies, in both the old and
544
new strands, support the equalisation of legislation dealing with their respective areas of interest. However, what I think they would all concede is that we have not yet had a debate that has unpicked the detail of any new arrangement or engaged the public on the value of such a body. Nor do the public understand why it can be of benefit to all of us in society regardless of our background, age, race, colour, sexuality or belief. I urge all of those bodies to start that debate. Indeed, the single equality body that the Government are proposing may well be the grain of sand in the oyster that brings that forward.
The last time that I spoke to a Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was in January 2002. It was a Bill to pave the way for civil partnerships, for which I suspect that I shall be eternally grateful. I spoke of the plight of many gay and lesbian couples who wanted a more stable future. I asked the Government to look at the provisions and try to right a wrong that saw the loved ones of friends and colleagues having to sell their homes when their partner died. I ended by asking the Government to he compassionate and sensitive to those issues. I believe that they listened, and I am optimistic now. We will see movement on civil partnerships.
The Government whom I support have a great record on equality, and I ask my colleagues to listen once again. There are some valuable principles in the Bill. I hope that they will see it as a constructive move forward. In any case, I hope that they will rest assured that I shall continue to support them in this particular area.
I must end by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the Bill. His perseverance should be a lesson for us all.
1.58 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I add my thanks to those already given to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill for introducing the Bill. He has a distinguished record on human rights. He is a pioneer in the matter of anti-discrimination legislation in Britain. I have known him now for more than 35 years. He has been tireless in ensuring that race legislation is an unequivocal statement of public policy in this country. He is internationally respected on matters of rights, liberties and equality. He acted as an adviser on this issue to the former Home Secretary, the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I have no doubt that the Minister will take serious note of his comments.
It is not in dispute that the United Kingdom has substantial anti-discrimination legislation on the statute hook. In this respect, we are far more advanced than some of our European neighbours. Equality of opportunity is one of the core values of a civilised society. It has helped to build a strong. competitive and successful Britain. But this does not mean that our framework of anti-discrimination legislation could not be better. There is clear evidence that we still have a long way to go. Could we really say that we have achieved equality for all our citizens? Do women earn the same as men? Why are black men more likely to be

545
unemployed than white men? Why is society still uneasy when it concerns gay people who are constantly harassed during work and leisure? Have we really tackled the disadvantage suffered by disabled people?
The race relations legislation was first introduced in 1965. It was followed in the 1970s with legislative measures to tackle sex discrimination. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is also on the statute book. Of course there has been progress, but it has been slow and cumbersome. Much of the early legislation on race introduced over 25 years ago needs drastic revision. We need a fundamental review to ensure that what we promote helps to make a difference to people's lives.
Barbara Roche MP has this to say in The House Magazine:
"There is no point in just tinkering around the edges. What we need is a complete culture change in the way our workplaces and our institutions function".
I welcome the Government's initiative in undertaking a major review of our equality bodies. I also welcome the consultation document Equality and Diversity: Making if Happen. The questions posed by the Government are the right ones. What should our institutions' top priority be? How can they best contribute to a more just and equal society? What are the structural options, such as a single equality body?
I hope that this exercise of public consultation does not delay the need to replace the outdated, fragmented and unsatisfactory legislative framework that has been in existence all this time. This is not to underestimate the impact of existing legislation, but to accept that successive Governments have been reluctant to respond to many of the recommendations made by the Commission for Racial Equality in its frequent reviews of the race relations legislation. The commission's terms of reference entitle it to undertake this exercise. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, but that was driven more by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry than any other factor.
It is not good enough to say that the Government have started to implement the employment and race directives or that there is draft legislation to outlaw discrimination at work on the grounds of sexual orientation and religion. This piecemeal approach does not assist in tackling discrimination and promoting equality in a strategic way. There is now almost a consensus that a single equality Act must be the starting point for the establishment of a single equality body.
Who in the 1960s could have believed that we would have legislative measures to tackle racial discrimination? History tells us why it was necessary to introduce the measures in the way that we did. The Race Relations Act 1965 was the gentle persuasion to prepare the public to tackle discrimination in public places. The Race Relations Act 1968 established the principle of conciliation as a means of tackling grievances based on race, colour, national and ethnic origin. The Race Relations Act 1976 was the start of a strategic approach to tackle institutional discrimination.
546
Over the years, the position of the black and ethnic minority communities has also changed substantially. We have the benefit of the latest census figures published by the Office for National Statistics. They show that in April 2001, 9·9 per cent of the population in England and Wales identified themselves as being from an ethnic minority. In London, 31·2 per cent of people identified themselves as being from an ethnic minority. We also have evidence published by the Cabinet Office in its report, Minority Ethnic Issues in Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal that 70 per cent of all people from ethnic minorities live in the 88 most deprived local authority districts compared with 40 per cent of the general population.
Further evidence tells us that in 1999, only 30 per cent of Pakistani pupils, 37 per cent of black pupils and 30 per cent of Bangladeshi pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A-C compared with 50 per cent of white pupils and 62 per cent of Indian pupils. An African-Caribbean graduate is more than twice as likely to be unemployed as a white person with A-levels. African men with degrees are seven times more likely to be unemployed than white male graduates.
There has been a massive shift in Britain's demographic makeup. The pattern is constantly changing. We no longer talk about the first generation of immigrants. Primary immigration has virtually stopped. We are reaching a stage when most black and ethnic minority persons are born in this country. Despite this, it is safe to assume that discrimination occurs in all fields. Almost all research agencies and the Commission for Racial Equality have confirmed that. It is no good being squeamish about it. The minorities are entitled to the same standard of consideration, fairness and respect as anyone else. Can we be absolutely certain that they receive it?
Equality should never be undermined. In the final analysis, the emphasis in any policy determination should be the manner in which and the extent to which minorities' deepest feelings about their race, colour, national or ethnic origin are fully accepted within the community and by the policymakers.
Trends in race relations show that discrimination still persists at a very high level. Minorities are still to be found disproportionately among the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, those who have never worked, those who are stopped and searched, those in penal institutions, among the under-achievers in schools and as victims of racial harassment and violence. The fact remains that racism and racial discrimination is an everyday reality in the lives of many minorities. Geographically and economically they are still in the precarious position of being in the same place as was allotted to them when they first came here. But the most frightening aspect is the failure of many of our institutions to take into account the cultural diversity of' our different communities.
I stress that, apart from minor tinkering, the Race Relations Act 1976 has been amended only once in 26 years. What is now required is the political wisdom appropriate to a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. We have waited almost 30 years, but now is the time to write a new chapter.

547
The race relations lobby need not worry about what is proposed in my noble friend's Bill. In Committee we shall have ample opportunity to deal with various aspects of the forms of discrimination that we need to confront and with the promotion of equality.
The Bill contains almost all the provisions that equality bodies want. Much work has already been done on such issues for which we thank not only my noble friend but also Professor Hepple, Mary Coussey and Tufyal Choudhury who did much of the ground work in producing the Bill. As I say, we have waited for 27 years for a major review. Now is the time to write a new chapter based on an equality commission encompassing all equality bodies.
2.9 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for this dry run of comprehensive equal treatment legislation. The noble Lord and his advisers deserve our warmest congratulations.
I should begin by making my usual declaration of interest as father and grandfather of disabled persons, and as President of the Royal Mencap Society. Like many others in your Lordships' House, I suppose I ought also to declare the interest of being an older person. I shall stop short of claiming ethnic minority identity as a Yorkshireman. Yorkshiremen have not tended to see themselves as a victimised minority.
In general, I welcome a good deal of this Bill, not least because it addresses the concerns about possible loss of the Disability Rights Commission by retaining that commission for the first three years of the new arrangements. In effect, the Bill preserves the existing disability rights legislation more or less intact, and extends to disabled people the benefits of a wider equality strategy. There are incidental advantages for those who, as well as being disabled, have one or more other characteristics that might attract prejudicial discrimination. This seems to me in principle the right approach in the shorter term, if we are to have early equality legislation. However, I am not absolutely persuaded that death by absorption for the Disability Rights Commission is necessarily right in the longer term.
I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the DRC for seeking to include people with learning disabilities fully in its disability rights agenda. I couple that tribute with a tribute to people with learning disabilities such as Eva Rank Petroziello as a commissioner and Simon Cramp, a Mencap trustee and a member of the commission's learning disability group, for the role which they have played. It is all too easy to perceive disability in terms of physical and sensory impairment—with the very visible symbols of wheelchairs and white sticks—and to ignore intellectual disability. It is also all too easy to forget that, particularly among children and older people, disability is commonly multiple disability.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has shown himself to be sensitive to concerns that a new unified equalities approach might be premature, given that
548
implementation of disability rights is still being phased in; and to concerns that disability might be overshadowed by sex, ethnicity, and age—to say nothing of the more esoteric conditions giving rise to possible prejudice such as gender re-assignment. I remain concerned about the longer term. In other countries which have followed the path of integrated equalities working, there have been ongoing arrangements for a distinctive identity for the disability dimension. In other words, disability has featured as a distinctive area of business, with its own senior leadership, its own dedicated staff, its own agenda for action and its own statistics.
The Bill as it stands seems to envisage retention of the DRC followed by abolition, with no ongoing separate identity for the disability dimension. This is despite the fact that, as close scrutiny of the Bill reveals, disability is different both in being, on the odd occasion, a legitimate ground for discrimination and in requiring positive measures to be taken to overcome the disabling effects of impairment—effects which the rest of us impose.
I encourage the Government, either today or if and when it is the Government's turn to legislate, to lift the curtain of the dark a little, and to give some encouragement to the hope that in the longer term, as well as in the shorter term, there can and will be specific recognition for disability discrimination and the means of addressing it. Those who laboured for 20 years to secure what we have would be sad to see that disappear for the sake of an alleged greater but certainly more amorphous good.
I suspect that my other concerns are more easily addressed, as this government-Bill lookalike, if I read it aright, seems to address them in part already. Significant improvements in disabled people's lives have been possible because organisations and institutions have adopted policies and practices that promote the interests of particular groups of disabled people. As I understand the Bill, it encourages broad disability strategies on the part of public services and employers and, within that, allows for policies and practices that favour particular groups of disabled people.
Thus Mencap can continue, as its constitution requires, to favour people with learning disabilities, including those who have additional disabilities. As stated by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, an advertisement seeking a child actor for a child's part would be lawful. If my interpretation is correct, employers and public authorities concerned to get the less than 10 per cent level of employment for people with learning disabilities up to the more than 30 per cent employment rate for disabled people generally could also exercise some selectivity among disabled people if they so wished.
I shall venture on to more sensitive ground. The debate is a good opportunity to air some rather delicate issues. Someone with a learning disability, such as my daughter, who needs personal intimate care might have a preference that such care should be provided, whether in their own home or in a residential

549
home, by someone whose gender and sexual orientation they personally find reassuring rather than threatening. They might have preferences based on ethnicity or religious identity. There is always the potential for a clash between the law on discrimination, as it affects the employers of care staff, and the personal choices of individuals with disabilities as to who provides their personal care.
I am inclined to the view that people whose disabilities tend to limit their choices quite severely, and who are heavily dependent on others for very basic things, probably ought to have the right to choose their carers. After all, there is no law that overrides our personal rights to decide who we let into our house.
I note in passing that one of the criteria for a housing and support arrangement being accepted as supported living rather than residential care is the right to decide who enters one's own house and room. That of itself seems to imply that the individual can override equality legislation by exercising personal choice. I would be sorry to see that same right denied to people with severe disabilities living on the residential care side of that rather unclear dividing line between residential care and supported living.
Finally, like a traveller in an antique land unearthing surprising things in the sands, I came across paragraph 36 of Schedule 2, which is in Part 5 of the schedule. It is probably not the section of the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, most frequently turns in the wee small hours. I think that the provision, apart from clearly reinforcing the demand for incapacity benefit legislation south of the Border, provides a rather sweeping denial of consumer rights to any disabled person whose intellectual capacity has been called into question.
That is not wholly new, but I would welcome early rethinking of it by the Government. to ensure that fair treatment in buying essentials such as food, equipment or a roof over someone's head cannot be put at risk by the discriminatory doctrine that they lose their consumer rights if it is suspected that they might not shine in an IQ test. It is already apparently more difficult for people with learning disabilities to hold bank accounts, so it seems likely to be more difficult for them to handle their own benefit money when bank accounts become a sine qua non of direct receipt of social security benefits and tax credits.
Like one of those impressive sailing ships that I recall seeing gathered in the Thames for the round-the-world race, this impressively large and in some aspects elegant new Bill is embarking on its legislative journey. I wish it well. However, I fear that it is carrying so much sail that it is likely to sink without trace before it reaches Gravesend. Even if it joins Davy Jones in his locker, I see every possibility that those who construct the official version will have a great deal to learn from the Bill and our debates on it. On that basis, I welcome it, if only transitionally. At worst, how can you tell that you do not like Blackpool until you have seen it?
2.19 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord has a unique experience and expertise in the field of equality and race relations. Indeed, he has been at the vanguard of this field in the United Kingdom. marking the introduction of much-needed legislation at a time of great multicultural change in the society of the UK.
I am delighted to be able to support the noble Lord in his current endeavour to redress the balance of the long-standing discrepancies in equality legislation for all sections of our society. When we look for equality, it is important to ensure that all members of society feel included and that all feel that the laws are for the benefit of everyone. Everyone should come within the remit of equality. Gender, race, disability and ethnicity should no longer be a hindrance to the aspirations of members of these sections of the community.
Two years ago, I introduced a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House on religious discrimination because I felt that our laws were inadequate to deal with Islamophobia and anti-Muslim feeling. Since September 11th, there have been increased attacks on Muslim communities and places of worship, extending even to attacks on the Sikh and Hindu communities. Although I am delighted that the Race Relations Act 1976 covers Sikh and Jewish communities—and for good reason—unfortunately it does not cover Muslim, Hindu or even Christian communities from religious attacks from the fascists in our society.
There are also anomalies in the law. In Northern Ireland we have religious discrimination laws but they do not extend to mainland Britain. Although the employment directive from the European Union will try to spread values of equality to all religious groups, including Muslims and, specifically, women who wear the hijab headscarf and men who have beards or dress differently, employers would not he able lawfully to discriminate against that.
Nevertheless, the real problem that we face in our multicultural societies all over Europe is the pervasive, unspoken mindset of institutional prejudice against different groups. We also have to face the narrowness of reporting of religions from the media and ignorant comments from our own politicians.
Perhaps I may clarify that. There is little doubt that the mass media are greatly influential in shaping the parameters within which minority groups are viewed by, and discussed in, the indigenous community. That was confirmed in the report of December 1999 of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Differences between communities and the images perpetuated in the media continue to cause friction in the community at large. That is comparable to the Muslim community in the UK these days, which is experiencing the demonisation of its religious, cultural and traditional practices by a media culture which is reactive and narrow.
I accept that there are a few groups that call themselves Muslims and fight under the banner of Islam, but other groups in Judaism, Christianity and

551
Hinduism also use religion as an excuse to gain their political ends. For example, the Vishva Hindu Prashad, or VHP—a Hindu nationalist right-wing party—is responsible for the massacre of Muslims in Indian Gujrat, as well as for the destruction of churches and the murder of Christian leaders in Gujrat. Similarly, the SPLA in south Sudan is a broadly Christian organisation fighting an Islamic regime in the north. Yet they are not labelled or ostracised as Hindu or Christian terrorists. I have said in your Lordships' House that ETA, the Basque separatist movement in Spain, or the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are not defined by religion but by their political aims.
But it is with regret that every organisation which fights for the right of self-determination for the Muslim community or which fights an army of coercive occupation in Palestine, Kashmir or Chechnya is then referred to as Islamic terrorists. Those sentiments are then spread to our communities here in the UK with fear, suspicion and loathing, and that strengthens the propaganda of the right-wing fascists who attack Muslims, Jews, Hindus or whoever. However, unfortunately, since September 11th, the concern has been on the Muslim community.
The troubles in the North in 2001 were the result of under-achievement, deprivation, social exclusion and high unemployment. but sadly this situation was exploited by the BNP who viewed and related it as Muslim criminals on the loose, who are responsible for the social problems in our society—an easy scapegoat to account for the fallacies of the structure of the institutionalism of discrimination in the UK.
I would like to thank the Government for providing an independent report produced by Derby University regarding religious discrimination. I want to express my concern that not enough progress has been made in this area to accommodate discriminated groups in our society today. I also want to thank the Nuffield Foundation and the Rowntree Foundation for their Cambridge University Hepple report, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
I welcome the Bill in that it widens the prevailing framework of anti-discrimination legislation that deals only with exclusions based on the grounds of sex, race and disability. The Equality Bill seeks to encompass religious and ageist bias as well which ensures that individuals will not be discriminated against on the basis of their personal differences. The Bill also intends to co-ordinate, to modernise and to extend established arrangements under a number of different enactments, as well as integrating the principles of the new Article 13 in the Treaty of Amsterdam. I welcome Part 3 of the Bill which will require bodies exercising functions of a public nature to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity.
Furthermore, the proposed unified equality commission which will amalgamate the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, will provide a more focused, coherent
552
body examining discrimination charges. Could the noble Lord, Lord Lester, clarify to what extent the body would have a statutory enforcing power to direct tribunals to implement their compliance notices once issued?
Also I welcome the positive duties that employers are encouraged to take in order to effect policies to achieve fair participation in the working environment. Where there is under-representation of certain groups, it is necessary to encourage the participation of the excluded members by creating an environment that is open and conducive to the needs of those people. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lester, a question with reference to Part 4 of the Bill, which relates to the obligations in employment—that members of groups are defined with reference to colour, race, ethnic or national origins, sex and disability. However, that excludes religious groups as a group seeking to achieve equality. As religion transgresses racial and social groupings, it is vital that that is also accounted for, as the potential is there to affect another stratum of society. Could the noble Lord clarify the position of such a group regarding employment representation?
In conclusion I wish to reiterate the importance of reassuring the victimised sections of our society who are facing the brunt of ignorant racism in its broadest sense. It is essential that the Government acknowledge that they are concerned about the welfare of all their citizens here in the UK and that in order to protect their rights, they have a recourse available to them. In many ways the Government have commendably tried to address these pressing issues, but have achieved only a piecemeal solution to the underlying problems facing these sections of society.
Sometimes criticism is the cost of conviction for leaders. but the badge of honour upholding the universal, transcendent values of equality and even-handedness should be seen to shine and guide this Great Britain to a more peaceful path.
2.29 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am sure that no one will be surprised if, in speaking to the debate today, I speak partly to the agenda of sex discrimination. The great value of the Bill is that it covers all forms of discrimination. My responsibility on these Benches is women's issues, although the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has reminded me that as I age my eyes do not work as well as they used to and I am becoming arthritic.
I was for some time the chair of the Associate Parliamentary Group on Sex Equality. Even before the publication of the Hepple report, the group had begun to discuss the creation of a single equality body because we knew it might be in the offing. Most of us were doubtful about, or even positively opposed to, the idea. We had some of the same fears of diminished service from a commission serving interests other than those of women, that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, expressed with respect to people with disabilities.

553
Gradually, over several months of presentations and discussion, most of' the members had the same experience as I did. Almost without argument, we more or less independently arrived at the conclusion that the idea had merit.
Recently, the Government consulted on the subject of a single quality body. The group, under its new chair Julie Morgan, sought and obtained advice and opinions from quite a wide range of people, including practitioners in the legal minefield of the existing rafts of equality legislation.
Again it became clear that members of the group were in broad agreement that a single equality body should be set up in the context of a new equality Act. Furthermore, many felt that an important element of that Act should be the duty on employers not just to avoid discrimination but positively to promote equality among their workforce. I would be amazed if a similar approach had not been taken by many other organisations consulted by the Government.
Now we have a Bill before us which does both things: it modernises and broadens the coverage of equality legislation within a single Act, and it provides for the establishment of an equality commission to encourage its implementation and to enforce it. Perhaps I may pause to make a point in answer to the one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. One of the reasons why the Irish equality commission is having some difficulties is that it is not backed up by a single equality Act.
I, for one, very much welcome my noble friend's initiative in bringing forward the Bill. I appreciate that it is the fruit of many people's work, not least that of my noble friend himself. It is clear from the material that has reached me that not all the organisations consulted on the draft Bill are entirely satisfied with the Bill before us today. However, I trust that their concerns can be alleviated in Committee.
Our existing legislation, in advance of its time when first passed, is showing its age and needs not merely amendment but a thorough overhaul. The various existing Acts have different impacts. I think I am right lo say that only the Race Relations (Amendment) Act provides for a duty upon public employers to promote equality. That new duty resulted from the determination to drive out institutional racism which followed the Lawrence case.
The question arises as to whether other types of discrimination, against women, for example, do not also derive from cultural assumptions and stereotypes which may he endemic within places of work. Is that riot also a form of institutionalised discrimination? The Bill responds to that problem by putting all forms of discrimination on an equal footing and by including larger private employers within the legislation.
In addition, it includes prohibition of discrimination on some grounds that have never before been included in legislation. Several noble Lords have spoken vividly and interestingly on that subject. Under the Bill, discrimination on the grounds
554
of pregnancy, marital status, family status and gender reassignment are treated equally with, and not merely as a part of, sex discrimination.
Therefore, a major result of the new Bill, if it were enacted, would be greatly to simplify the present situation that obtains whereby a lawyer trying to assist a client must first determine the ground on which to make a claim that discrimination has been suffered. That is rendered more difficult because the area of activity in which the discrimination has been suffered must also be considered. At present the choice of ground or area affects the ease or difficulty of proceeding. In future, all strands—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, for enlightening us about the use of that word in this context—will be treated equally.
Another strength of the Bill is its definition of direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other unlawful acts contained in Clauses 9 to 17. Many people have commented to me on the length of the Bill, but much of that length. including these clauses, renders the intention and force of the Bill wonderfully clear. Surely that is an admirable quaity, in legislation, rather than the reverse. The Bill helps us to define an important aspect of our civil rights: the right to equal treatment in several crucial aspects of our daily lives, such as employment and the sale and purchase of goods and services.
The other day, the phrase "political correctness" was used in your Lordships' House following a question that I raised on the number of women non-executive directors. The phrase both annoyed and saddened me. I lived for a total of almost six years in communist countries and know exactly what political correctness is—the opposite of an interest in, and determination to ensure, equal civil rights for all. It is sad that a concern for equal treatment is sometimes regarded askance by the British, who tend to claim that a sense of fair play is peculiarly British.
Enlightened self-interest is also involved. Equal access to education is important to society, because ill-educated and alienated youngsters are a breeding ground for criminal behaviour. Companies. local authorities or government departments that do not give women an equal possibility of rising to posts that match their ability lose the full contribution of that ability. Can it be sensible to behave as though all the skills that this country needs are located in the bodies and brains of white, able-bodied, straight men of so-called working age? No, my Lords. The Bill is not desirable for its "political correctness". It is not even desirable solely in the pursuit of justice and equal treatment for all, although my noble friend has spent much of his life in the pursuit of those objectives. It is also desirable because it carries forward a process that, among many other benefits, will contribute to the general well-being of society and the progress of this country.
I hope that the Government will now renew their earlier interest in a new approach to equality legislation. It would be far more fruitful than the mere creation of a new equality commission, trying to

555

administer existing legislation, could ever be. I do not wish to threaten Ministers, but I remind them that my noble friend has had considerable success in the past in bringing forward-looking and difficult legislation to this House in the form of a Private Members' Bill and seeing it eventually adopted by the Government.
2.39 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing the Bill. His commitment to equality and perseverance to ensure that we have comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation on the statute book is admirable and an example to us all Characteristically of the noble Lord, his Bill is, as we heard, the product of four years' careful and thorough work that he and his team initiated by setting up a review and ensuring that there was wide consultation on both the review and the draft Bill.
As someone who has been involved for nearly three decades in promoting equality, I welcome the Bill and applaud the principles and the approach that underpin it. I hope that the Government will grasp the opportunity that the Bill presents. It offers an effective way of tackling discrimination on all accounts and promoting equality in the 21st century. The Bill will help to end the history of poor performance to date. It will enable prevention, rather than cure, to be the basis for dealing with discrimination and inequality. It will rectify the system, which is old and out-of-date and does not reflect higher contemporary expectations. The Bill will deal with dissatisfaction with outmoded legislation, fragmentation and inconsistencies between separate anti-discrimination regimes and separate commissions.
The current legal complexity makes it harder for employers, particularly small employers, to comply with legal obligations. It hinders victims of discrimination in their attempts to get redress, and it renders compliance with legal obligations too dependent on the willingness of individuals to take action. At present, the main initiatives for tackling discrimination and promoting equality tend to be piecemeal, reactive and separate from each other. There is a need to create a new culture of inclusiveness that, while taking account of differences, will encourage integrated approaches, as envisaged in the Bill.
Sharing common ground will encourage links between groups facing discrimination and, at the same time, help to focus the attention of employers and service providers on the need for an integrated and comprehensive approach. It will encourage cross-fertilisation. Furthermore, the Bill will make it easier to deal with cases of multiple discrimination: all will enjoy the same rights. At present, to whom should a gay, black woman born in 1940 in Africa turn, when she fails to gain employment, even though she is the most qualified and most suitable applicant, or, after gaining a post, must leave it because she experiences a hostile environment? Just determining the basis of such discrimination could be a puzzle within a puzzle.
556
Was she discriminated against because of her sex or sexual orientation? Perhaps it was the colour of her skin or her religious affiliation. Perhaps her employer or other employees harassed her because of her age or her country of origin. At present, such an individual will not receive the kind of assistance and justice that she deserves. If we adopt the Equality Bill, all individuals in this country—regardless of sex, race, colour, ethnic or national origin, belief, disability, age, sexual orientation or other status—will be protected from unlawful discrimination.
Time has moved on. Discrimination and exclusion are more complex and covert than they were three decades ago. To eliminate discrimination and promote equality, we must place greater emphasis on changes in the culture and ethos of organisations and significant changes in institutional practices and policies. My experience of working with and within organisations has convinced me that we need a new legal framework that will help to make equality central to the whole range of public policy debates and organisational practices and reduce the risk that equality issues will be sidelined. The Bill would provide such a framework.
In that context, I welcome the provision for participation by interest groups, employers and service providers in the development of equity plans to promote equality. That would mean getting employers and service providers to take on greater responsibility and get involved directly in decision making. It would represent a shift away from the adversarial approach to one that is participatory and involves everyone. That is precisely the culture change needed in order to make progress. The change will not happen without the legal framework proposed in the Bill.
Finally, I regret that the Government have entered into consultation about the desirability of a single equality commission without reviewing the case for a single equality Act—the logic of which I do not follow. We need to learn from our experience of the past 35 years and develop a modern approach. Different regimes and inconsistent legislation sometimes contributed to unnecessary special pleading by different groups and fragmentation. That runs counter to the Government's desire to create an inclusive society. A single equality commission, without a single equality Act, will not improve matters. In my view, a single equality Act is an important aspect of the aspiration of the Government to build a cohesive society. Indeed, it will be a missed opportunity if the Bill does not receive the support that it so richly deserves.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has a long and distinguished record in the field of human rights and has long been an ardent advocate of the ethical and practical value of antidiscrimination legislation. I recall first meeting the noble Lord in the mid-1970s when he was an adviser to Roy Jenkins, the Home Secretary. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and I were founder members of the Equal Opportunities Commission, set up under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. In 1976, the

557
Race Relations Act followed. Whatever difficulties we see in that legislation now, they were certainly marvellous examples of anti-discrimination legislation in their day. Much of the credit goes to the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
I, too, believe that it is right to create one commission to replace the separate bodies, subject only to the telling and important remarks made today by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke. It is right to reform the tangled web of legislation and to seek a broader scope so that it covers other forms of discrimination, including age, religion and gender assignment, along with the older strands—as my noble friend Lord Alli described them. I wish the Bill well at Second Reading today.
I especially welcome the Bill's proposal to extend present anti-discrimination laws to age, particularly, but not exclusively, in the realm of employment. As an aside, I hope that there is no significance in paragraph (3) of the Explanatory Notes which states that the Bill provides:
"a single framework for eliminating discrimination and promoting equality".
Age sometimes brings a number of discriminatory advantages. I do not want my concessions at the cinema, theatre and London Underground to disappear in an advanced requirement for equality in every sense of the word.
More seriously, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, reminded us, in 1999 the Government produced their code of practice on age diversity in employment. The Government's recent Green Paper on Working and Saving for Retirement sets the standards for non-ageist approaches to recruitment, training and development, promotion, redundancy and retirement.
Apparently, there has been considerable improvement in practice although, as possibly expected, not so much with the small and medium-sized enterprises who are said to be less aware of the code and less aware of the benefits to employers of carrying out the practices that the code suggests. The evidence is that employers with age-diverse workforces enjoy lower staff turnover, lower absenteeism and have workers with higher levels of motivation, commitment and efficiency.
Praise can he given to firms such as B&Q, which have no retirement age, and to Tesco, where one in six of the workforce is 50-plus. Quoted in the Green Paper is a 72 year-old, who said:
"I'd been turned away by one supermarket who said their upper age limit for drivers was 70. I responded to a flyer advertising for delivery drivers for Domino's who said age did not matter and they have given me a chance".
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, touched on the fact that if employers do not want to be ageist, they are none the less often stuck with pay and pension structures which make it financially more attractive to replace older people with younger workers. That may create a disincentive to older people to reduce their hours before retiring fully.
558
Flexible retirement, allowing the opportunity more gradually to move from full-time work to full-time retirement, should be more readily available and would be widely favoured. I believe the Government are developing proposals to outlaw age discrimination in employment and vocational training by December 2006, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, reminded us. To some of us, that seems a long way away. Although that is required by EU directives, would it not be a good idea to jump that gun?
I want to express anxiety about the intervention of law in the matter of discrimination, and in particular discrimination between men and women, in the employment field. In a current case before the Employment Tribunal, a man is claiming to be discriminated against because his employers expect him to wear a collar and tie and his female colleagues are subject to less exacting requirements. I understand that elsewhere women workers complain because they are expected to wear a dress or skirt while the men are allowed to wear trousers.
Perhaps I am letting my imagination run away with me, but there could be a case of a man complaining that he is required to wear trousers while a woman is not. But my question, which is serious, is: are such claims apt for solemn dispute with all the paraphernalia of lawyers, judges or tribunal members? Surely, there should be a balance between the demands of an employer as regards hours of work, conditions of work and suitable clothes that employees should wear—no doubt properly negotiated with the relevant trade unions—and also the equal treatment of men and women.
These are times of changing sartorial habits, whether between sexes, different ethnic groups or just between individuals. I query whether we want the law to be even more involved with increasingly extreme, if not absurd, claims of discrimination being brought before our courts and tribunals.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, will not be surprised to know that I am extremely doubtful about his desire to push anti-discrimination law even further into the realm of private members' clubs through Clause 6(1)(f) and Part 7 of Schedule 2, tucked away but none the less of significance, in his Bill. The subtle distinctions to be made in his Bill between single-sex clubs and other clubs in the Bill are more appropriate for discussion in Committee, but I want to make a general point. The law should not trespass into the home—or the extension of one's home, which is how I would regard most members' clubs—and the law should not be used to intervene in people's social behaviour. If it does, statutory provisions may have to be excessively subtle, complex and difficult to interpret and I suggest that some of the provisions to which I have referred fall into those categories.
Finally, I refer to the lecture of the noble Lord. Lord Lester, in 2000, which became known as the St Thomas More lecture. In it he claimed that, 30 years on from the Race Relations Act 1968, the moral legitimacy and practical value of equality legislation was widely accepted and understood. I certainly agree. But when

559
in the same lecture the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to the views of Lord Radcliffe in 1968, which were highly critical of the introduction of the law into the field of race relations, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, seemed to accept Lord Radcliffe's view that at that time anti-discrimination was novel, controversial and lacked political consensus.
Today, in my view, some of the more extreme applications of anti-discrimination law, including its extension to private clubs and its involvement with social life, lacks political consensus and is a case of' one area of legislation too far.
2.56 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when you find yourself 13th on the speakers' list, the only thing you can say is "Where does the bad luck fall? On those who have to listen or on those who have to speak?".
To cut to the chase, the Bill and the aims behind it are good. Discrimination of any kind—whether it is against the disabled or on sexual or racial grounds—is a violation of people's human rights, their dignity and the way they operate. It is absurd to create huge barriers, other than on practical grounds.
What are those practical grounds? First, there is the ground of tradition and the context in which we look at these issues. Traditions are generally invented or re-invented every 50 years. It has been 20 or 25 years since we started the process, and I suggest that we can now start a new tradition by bringing together all the anti-discrimination bodies.
Secondly, there is the ground of practicality, which was raised by the disability lobby, with which I am strongly connected. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out, disabilities are complicated by their diversity. The needs of someone in a wheelchair are different from the needs of someone with, for example, my own disability, dyslexia. Different disabilities affect people's lives in different ways. In certain situations, a disability will not impinge on a person's life style. In other situations the disability can become a total barrier—for example, when a dyslexic has to write down something quickly or when someone in a wheelchair is confronted by a flight of steps. The knock-on effects of these situations are complicated. It is difficult for people to understand these problems and to follow the logic from one point to another.

As the legislation covering discrimination on the grounds of disability was the last to arrive—and if ever there was a painful birth it was that of the DDA; I shall never forget the affair of the two Scots—it needs to be taken forward further. It is still a small and leaky ship. The Disability Rights Commission is a useful body which is growing in strength. Indeed, my noble friend has acknowledged that it has not yet reached its full growth. He believes that it will take at least three years before the commission is able to diversify and operate at its full potential. But it is a practical way forward.
Much of the Bill builds on good practice and on other pieces of legislation—my noble friend nods in agreement. Therefore, my noble friend faces the great
560
problem that the disability field at present is not as it should be. I cannot help but feel that if we follow this approach through and attempt to achieve an overall commission that pays proper attention to disability matters, becomes experienced in this area and begins to know how to think, we shall take matters further. We shall have the support of other groups in going forward. That is what we want.
I have one question about the equality commission. What proposals does my noble friend believe should be added to the Bill to make sure that it has the required amount of knowledge and expertise across all these fields—disability is the one with which I am mostly concerned—so that we have the means of making sure that matters are pushed in the right direction? At present, the Disability Rights Commission has a large number of disabled people working for it who know what they are talking about. If they do not know about a particular field, at least they know that there are areas about which they need more knowledge—areas where they are not experienced and where it will not have occurred to them that discrimination takes place. An answer from my noble friend on that point would remove one of the question marks.
I have pushed long and hard to try to make sure that all these types of activity are gathered together. I have harassed various Ministers on this issue for several years. We are trying to create a process that will stop discrimination generally across society, which will bring all these areas together—provision that works effectively, so that we can look to one body, or reform one Act, and get on with the idea of fully enforceable civil rights. At present, we waste a great deal of parliamentary time, and our own time, on these matters. I hope that this Bill or a similar provision will soon mean that we are able to take on more positive issues, not be eternally defending positions in an attempt to make sure that certain groups are not restricted in their ability to take part in society in their fullest capacity.
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the first deputy chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Indeed, it seems only yesterday that, with the chairman of the EOC, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, we were interviewing potential staff for the commission, which was due to begin its work on 29th December 1975. I remember finding it mildly amusing that the civil servant allocated to be our chief executive and to help us with that task came from the Ministry of Defence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said—the noble Lord was a much-valued first-time colleague on the EOC—the 1975 Act was largely crafted, or, as I would say, inspired, by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who was at that time working in the Home Office as political adviser to the much missed Lord Jenkins. So the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the sponsor of this Bill, is not only a hugely respected international human rights lawyer,

561
but also, in the opinion of many people, including myself, the supremo of equality legislation as it has developed in this country.
It is not surprising to find in the draft Bill much that I recognise important duty to be given to the equality commission to promote equal opportunities as well as to enforce the law. There is, as well, what was in 1975 the novel and highly influential concept—now to be strengthened—of indirect discrimination. But equally, there is much that is new—for example. the subsequent incremental changes in UK law and the relevant EU directive, some of which, such as religion and age discrimination, are due respectively by 2004 and 2006. They are not with us yet, and one hopes that they will be hurried up. The Bill seeks to include almost every single form of unjustified discrimination which it is currently believed that legislation can help us to eradicate.
In the early days, the Equal Opportunities Commission, with its fairly limited remit by today's standards. faced a hostile reception. Most of those affected, such as employers, education authorities, or the providers of goods. facilities and services, had yet to accept that they could possibly be discriminating against women. The media, too—women journalists as much as men—were almost uniformly hostile.
Early on in that era, there were calls to amalgamate the EOC and the Commission for Racial Equality, but keeping the two commissions separate was certainly the most sensible route in those days. As between race and sex, there were distinct differences, both as to what needed doing and over priorities. At that time, with the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the recently passed Sex Discrimination Act 1975, equal opportunities for women seemed to have a higher profile than racial discrimination—although it could go one way or the other. Against that background, I remember arguing, as proved to he the case, that there was a positive merit in pressing for changes in attitude and practices that disadvantaged the female 50 per cent of the population because, when those changes were in place, it would be impossible to argue that they should not equally apply to discrimination against different ethnic groups. In other words, one might blaze the trail for the other.
We have proceeded incrementally, with considerable success for all parties despite the distance left to go. My prediction was that it would take 25 years or so before we saw any appreciable difference. It is easy to get impatient with the pace of change, and it is important to do so. However, we should not forget how much has been achieved, although some high-profile bastions, such as women on boards and women Members of Parliament, have yet to be stormed.
Even at a relatively early stage, people took the view that the time would come when only one commission would be necessary to oversee all anti-discrimination laws. With the plethora of EU directives in the pipeline and other areas of discrimination being recognised, now seems a sensible time to consider legislating for one Act of Parliament and one commission, both covering all aspects of unjustifiable discrimination.
562
I warmly offer the noble Lord, Lord Lester. my unqualified congratulations on the principles and objectives behind the Bill and on the Herculean efforts that went into its drafting. Even so, I confess that, like other noble Lords, I am uneasy about some aspects. I will air one or two of them, and hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure me.
The Bill covers issues that are complex and vitally important to us all. I hope that the Government will agree to set up an appropriate committee to give us all further opportunities to ensure that we arrive at the right balance and answers.
First, I am concerned about the current trend of "giantism". People seem to believe that placing all aspects relating to promoting and regulating an industry under one giant umbrella—the one-stop shop approach—will result in a more efficient and less costly service for all. But will it? There are clearly some advantages to that approach, but is it not likely that some aspects will be regarded as more important, to the detriment of others? I am thinking of the huge Ofcom Bill, for example. Even while the Bill is under consideration, there have been debates about which of the two different aspects should be in the lead—the technological and economic responsibilities, or the content and quality of public service broadcasting and what is being communicated.
Where is the line to be drawn, now and in the future, between what is seen as justified and as unjustified discrimination? Considerable thought has been given to what does not qualify as unjustified discrimination, such as inequality of birth and individual circumstances, or, in sex discrimination, the existence of genuinely—and I underline genuinely—single-sex clubs and schools. As we heard, there are also individual arrangements for disability rights. It is clear from the evidence given and from the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Rix, that those organisations are the least enthusiastic about having one commission. They are more in favour of something like a federation under one law, and a draft Bill would give them time to catch up.
What about issues that border on positive discrimination which, until recently, have been avoided in UK legislation? I am thinking, for example, of the concessions made in the recently passed Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act. How does the Bill draw the line on that point? Could all-women shortlists be seen as unjustifiable discrimination, not least within human rights terms, against male would-be candidates? I am also thinking of the very early US case of Bakle.
As for age discrimination, like everyone else, I declare an interest. Surely one would think that a person's ability to do the job, rather than their age should be the deciding factor. However—I think that this is dealt with on page 75—the exclusions for justifiable age-based discrimination seem to depend largely on what is meant by,
"objectively justified by a legitimate objective".
Who is to decide the objectivity of the objective, and on what basis?

563
Another concern is the provision for updating the Bill if what is currently seen as justifiable discrimination becomes generally accepted as unjustifiable. I return to the example of the hard-fought, but only half-won, battle within the Church of England for women priests. I should add that—as was obvious from yesterday's Answer to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Perry—the position on women bishops is even less clear. However, it is clear that single-sex employment will still be allowed for other religions that have not yet—but, who knows, may still—move that far.
Although it may be right to await a more general approach to some forms of discrimination before including them within the legislation, are there not other forms that could and should be tackled in the Bill? One example is the different retirement ages for men and women. Although that issue was initially outside the Sex Discrimination Act, now that the ages have been equalised, should the actuarial profession still be allowed, as part of a retirement policy, to pay a lower lump sum to a woman whose salary and length of service are the same as those of a man, based purely on the women's generally higher life expectancy? Should not that exemption now be seen as unjustifiable discriminatory practice and included in the Bill as no longer lawful?
My next point concerns the commission's proposed powers, many of which reflect the duties of the three existing commissions, including the vitally important duty to promote non-discriminatory practice. The ability to conduct formal investigations—which are in my experience more useful as a threat than in practice—is also retained. However, I should be grateful for further clarification on whether the commission's proposed powers are, in every field, to be greater than those currently available; and, if so, in what respect.
I turn to a not dissimilar point. The Bill proposes one Equality Bill and one commission. However, if that is accepted, will there be any overlap with the Human Rights Act and/or conflicts between the rights imposed by that Act and the intended anti-discrimination rights to be conferred in this Bill? If so, does that matter?
Finally, I revert to an issue I mentioned earlier. Surely this is appropriate and urgent business for the Government to undertake as a means of fulfilling their 1997 election pledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out, to eliminate unjustified discrimination wherever it exists. Indeed, only yesterday, during the Report stage of the Licensing Bill, such an issue arose. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, implied that these matters should be dealt with in a comprehensive anti-discrimination Bill, such as the one we are debating today.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will forgive me for having concentrated on some of my concerns about the Bill rather than on its many excellent points. Again, I most sincerely congratulate the noble Lord on what he and his very expert team have achieved, and hope that the Government will think again about their responsibility for this area and act quickly.
3.15 p.m
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, am very pleased to add my support to the Equality Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I congratulate him and his team on their drafting. I also congratulate the noble Lord on the stylish way in which he introduced the Second Reading debate.
I do not think that anyone has mentioned one of the successes that the noble Lord has had in the last few days in your Lordships' House. Buried in Written Answers on 13th February is the news that he has managed to secure a change in the wording of the Writ of Summons issued to Lords Spiritual and Temporal by the Crown Office (Forms and Proclamation Rules) (Amendment) Order 2002. Instead of referring to prelates, great men and Peers, the Writ of Summons henceforth refers to prelates, great men, great women and Peers. I congratulate the noble Lord on that. It is also a privilege to follow one of those great women, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who has done so much for the cause of equality and gave me so much support on the Private Members' Bill I introduced in the last Session.
The need for this Bill cannot be disputed. As other speakers have said, the law on equality is complicated, confused and, in many respects, out of date. It is widely accepted that aspects of the race relations legislation need to be improved, and there can be few who believe that the situation on sex discrimination is satisfactory. Similarly, issues relating to disablement need urgently to be addressed. To bring all these matters together, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has done with this Bill is therefore sensible and timely.
Noble Lords will recall that I have tried on a number of occasions to draw attention to the problem of sex discrimination in private members' clubs. I was able, with the support of the great majority of your Lordships, to take a Private Member's Bill through this House in the last Session. My Bill would have removed the exemption for private members' clubs with more than 25 members from the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by amending it in a way which would have brought that Act into line with the Race Relations Acts 1968 and 1976 which prohibit race discrimination in private clubs with 25 or more members.
I remember saying on Second Reading, almost exactly a year ago:
"The Bill has nothing to do with political correctness. It is about decent, civilised behaviour. The aim is to say clearly and unambiguously to private member clubs that if they have membership categories for men and for women, those categories must be open equally to both sexes".—[Official Report, 13/3/02; col. 915.]
Three interesting things happened as my Bill made its way through your Lordships' House. First, I continued to receive a substantial amount of mail from clubs and their members around the country. Some letters and phone calls were from officials who wanted factual information about what the Bill would mean for them. But the great majority were from individuals, men as well as women, who wanted to share their own, often horrific, experiences of discrimination in golf

565
clubs and working men's clubs. Those letters convinced me that I was right to press on with the cause, because there was evidence of real injustice and grievance which only a change in the law could put right.
The second interesting development was that the official Conservative Opposition decided to support the Bill. I have paid tribute on a number of occasions in the past, and I do again today, to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for navigating her way through what I suspect was a party minefield to give the Bill her support. She made particularly telling speeches on her experiences with the Carlton Club, from which she and other noble Baronesses had resigned, because of that club's refusal to admit women on the same terms as men.
Thirdly, the Government, in the shape of my noble friend Lady Scotland, supported my Bill in principle. The Government were unable to find time for it in another place, but they have encouraged the introduction of a new Private Member's Bill, which deals with sex discrimination in private members' clubs. That Bill was introduced by the Member for Gloucester, Mr Parmjit Dhanda, under the ten-minute rule on 4th February. My noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham confirmed in our debate on the Licensing Bill last night that the Government support the Bill introduced by Mr Dhanda.
What we have in front of us today is a Bill which embraces not just the main ingredients of my Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill, but also brings together all the relevant anti-discrimination legislation and proposes the establishment of a new equality commission, which would be charged with monitoring and implementing the new Act. That is the body to which people who suffer discrimination would go to obtain redress; for example, the women members of golf clubs who are restricted to associate membership and told by the men when they should play, the bars and the facilities they should use, the competitions they may enter and so on.
Some men may want to pay a lower subscription to a club such as the Carlton but are denied admission as associate members. I hope that the new equality commission will look after them as well. There is nothing wrong with two categories of membership provided that each category is open equally to men and women.
This is a valuable and important Bill. Not only do I wish it well, like other speakers, I hope that the Government will give it their support and make it the foundation of a government piece of legislation which deals with the subject of discrimination and equality. There are precedents for Private Members' Bills which go through this House and become government legislation in another place, as happened with the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill in the previous Session. It would be wonderful if my noble friend the Minister could say that that is the fate which the Government have in store for this Bill. But, at the very least, we must press on with it. I hope very much that the Second Reading Motion is agreed. I look forward to the Committee stage.
3.22 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we often hear of the principle of unripe time. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, on introducing the concept of ripe time. It is just as real, but it is far less often heard of. It is my judgment also that this is the ripe time. I am very much reassured to find that it is also hers.
I also share the objections which have been made on all sides of the House, and in two excellent briefs from the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, to the piecemeal approach to anti-discrimination legislation. One of the weaknesses of the piecemeal approach is that it distracts attention from the basic point of why discrimination is wrong. Attempts to tackle discrimination against one particular group are usually seen as attempts to promote the interests of that one particular group at the expense of other groups. Those in all three of our parties who have sought to enter another place as Members of Parliament have, I think, found that that creates a backlash which makes life for a while more difficult for them than it need be. That is quite unnecessary.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, once intervened in a speech that I was ma king on discrimination. It happened to be on sexual orientation but it might have been on anything else. He asked me whether I could say under what circumstances it was proper to discriminate. I said that it was proper to discriminate only in a case where the quality was relevant to the fitness and ability to do the job concerned—something very close to the wording of my noble friend's "occupational requirement". Once you accept that what you are dealing with is the occupational requirement, you get a much clearer answer to the question why discrimination is wrong. It is wrong because it ignores the dignity and the individuality of the individual—something to which everyone is entitled to recognition simply because they are a human being. It is wrong because it attracts attention to one of a person's qualities at the expense of all the others.
One does not usually turn to Ed McBain for political philosophy, but I remember reading in one of his books about detective Arthur Brown looking in the mirror, observing his different qualities that people might notice. He was middle-sized, middle-height, middle-aged. He was an American, he was a New Yorker, and he was black. Why, he wondered, was it only one among all those qualities that people chose to notice about him? It is a good question, and it is at the heart of why discrimination is wrong.
The third reason why discrimination is wrong is that, if we believe in any sort of fair competition—in the economy, most of us do—that competition must take place on a level playing field. People must be able to advance within it according to their merits.
My noble friend Lord Addington had some important things to say about the applications of the principle to disability. He pointed out that passing a note to a dyslexic and presenting a flight of steps to a

567
paraplegic, although very different activities, were equally total barriers.
Both of them come within what I hope that I may be forgiven for fathering on the noble and reverend Lord as "the Habgood principle". There is consistency. If we can take account of that in Committee, I hope that we shall make some progress on points that concerned the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and a good many others.
I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of pregnancy and sexual orientation. I make a very serious point by welcoming both in the same breath. I welcome the inclusion of immigration. That is not meant to prohibit discrimination between people who were born in this country and people who are not immigrants. That cannot be done in immigration legislation. However, there is evidence that certain categories of immigrants, by nationality, are worse treated than almost any other. In the words of 1066 and All That, it was provided that,
"anyone found in Armenia should be slowly divided into twelve parts".
When one looks at the fate of Kurdish refugees, one wonders whether that principle is quite dead.
There is a long way still to go on the problem of discrimination. Listening to my noble friend Lord Dholakia and others giving statistics on equal pay, I wondered whether there was now much more inequality arising from discrimination than from any ordinary question of class.
In the past two or three days, I happened to have conversations with two distinguished women members of the Lobby about how difficult it was to be a Lobby correspondent and a mother of children. Why should it be more difficult to be a woman member of the Lobby with children than to he a man member of the Lobby with children? I am convinced that one of the ways forward for equality is increasing attention to the rights of men as carers of children.
The rights of men as the ones who deal with domestic emergencies should also be considered. I remember an agonised article once written in the Guardian by a woman who tossed a coin with her husband to decide which of them should stay in to let the workman in to repair the boiler. Her husband lost and got the sack, and the mixture of feelings running through her mind can safely be left to the imagination. A great deal is still to be done in that area.
I noticed in the publicity about Rachel Lomax, whom I congratulate on her promotion to deputy governor of the Bank, that, when she first applied to work part-time while her children were young, that was the first such request that had been met. It is time that there were a great many more, and time that they were regarded as regularly available for both sexes. That is the only way that we shall make progress.
After all, if we are to have a society based on promotion by merit, as, in recent days, the Prime Minister has often said he wants, it must be one equally open to both genders, all races, all orientations and to anyone who can pass the Habgood principle of "fitness
568
to do the job". As Lord Palmerston said when he was talking about Catholic emancipation, it is inexpedient to exclude so many able persons from the public service.
In that context, as the person who spoke from these Benches against the inclusion of religion in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, I praise and welcome its inclusion in this Bill. My objection in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill and that of these Benches was twofold: first, we thought that the drafting was not right—the direct read-across from racial hatred to religious hatred did not work; and, secondly, we thought that something of this complexity should not be dealt with as rushed emergency legislation. We meant that. Now it is in a place where we can consider it slowly and seriously. After the final guidance offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, right at the end of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, I suggested that the gap could easily be closed. We are very happy to see it here.
The categories of discrimination continue to change. For example, there used to be discrimination against women with moles because they were more easily suspected of being witches. It was the witches' familiar mark. We do not have to worry about that at the moment, but we shall have to recognise that categories of discrimination will change again. However, I believe that my noble friend was right to limit himself to particular categories, named and set out in the Bill, even though he wants to combat a phenomenon which is general. We need legal certainty, and we need precision in setting out what is and what is not permitted. To say that legislation will be needed at some time in the future as those categories change is only to say that all human affairs are mutable, and no legislation in this place will ever change that.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on introducing this Equality Bill. It is a very thorough piece of work, and perhaps few could have produced such a well-researched and detailed piece of draft legislation. The noble Lord has for many years worked in the field of equality and human rights. He is a leading authority in this area. I, for one, am very supportive of the Bill and hope that many other Members of this House will also support this initiative.
Human beings, from time immemorial. have found it difficult to interact with others who are different. In some ways, we are all very tribal. We have a tendency to stick together with those who are similar to us in a variety of ways. Consequently, and often quite inadvertently, we may offend and perhaps even injure others by the usage of inappropriate attitude, language or behaviour. We often forget, for example, that people with disabilities may need special attention or assistance. Quite often, however, all they require is simply to be treated like everyone else. On the other hand, it is also true that every society has its bigots—uninformed and prejudiced people—who seek deliberately to hurt those who are different from themselves.

569
It is because discrimination exists on the grounds of age, gender, race, religion, belief or no belief, sexual orientation and disability, for whatever reasons, that people need protection by way of equality legislation. Such legislation ensures that clear lines are drawn so that we may all know what is and is not acceptable and behave accordingly.
Such legislation can, then, also deal with those who deliberately, and sometimes repeatedly, undertake acts of discrimination and unfair behaviour on one ground or another. It is only through such clearly defined legislation that we can deal with those people and thereby create a more just and fair society to live in—a society where every citizen is able to go about his or her business and achieve his or her full potential.
Over many years this country has developed an extensive range of laws that protect those who are different, weak and/or vulnerable and today it has some of the best equality provisions anywhere in the world. Our vast array of legal provisions that deal with different forms of discrimination, are, furthermore, supported by a range of specialist equality institutions and agencies. However, because of the way that those laws and bodies have developed, there arc also many gaps that need to be filled. I believe that quite rightly the noble Lord. Lord Lester, wishes to bring together all such laws and institutions and fill the remaining gaps. I fully support this effort.
Many Members of the House who have already spoken, and who will speak after me, bring their experience and wisdom to support, to add to and to argue the substance of the Bill. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to make a very specific contribution on just one of the grounds of discrimination covered by the Bill, that of religion. It is unfortunate that in Britain individuals and institutions are still permitted to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion or belief. I believe that that is, in itself, most unacceptable in a multi-faith, multicultural society such as ours. But it is a wholly different matter altogether that the state and its laws should discriminate between religions as to the protection and provisions that it avails to them.
Through my involvement in the Religious Offences Select Committee, I have come to learn how, in the area of criminal law, our blasphemy laws protect only one faith—perhaps even just one denomination in that faith—to the exclusion of others. Our provisions on incitement to hatred also protect only some religions and not others.
Having said that, let me make it clear that I am not advocating that those protections and provisions that are in place for some religions should be removed in order to provide a levelling down and equality between different religions. Rather, we should expend our best efforts to see how we may level up the situation to protect all faiths. Surely, where equality is concerned, we need to ensure that all faiths receive the required protection in law so that all our citizens can go about their business without fear.
In the area of civil law, some faith communities are protected but not others. That may change to some extent under the Government's proposed
570
implementation of the EU framework employment directive. Even after those changes, however, some faith communities will not be protected from discrimination in education; in the provision of goods, facilities and services; in law enforcement, regulatory and control functions; in the disposal or management of premises; and in the management of private members' clubs. However, others will he protected. Some religious communities will still not benefit from the positive duty on public sector agencies to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity, while others will. Furthermore, some faith communities will still not have the same level of access to equality institutions as other faith communities.
That situation is clearly iniquitous and in breach of Article 14, vis-à-vis Article 9, of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires that there be no discrimination in provisions availed for different faith communities. Once again I am not suggesting that there be a levelling down of the provisions that are currently rightfully made for some religions, but simply that the state should be just and fair to all religions by levelling up.
I conclude by saying that I support the Bill, knowing that some of the inconsistencies in the civil law arena that I have pointed out, and which no doubt others will point out, can be eliminated by the Bill's adoption into law. Then the state will be a little less discriminatory on the basis of religion and belief.
3.39 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in paying warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his immense contribution to the cause of equality over the years. The wisdom, skill and diligence that he and his team have demonstrated in presenting the Bill for Second Reading shows once again how much we, as a society, are in their debt.
I very much welcome the introduction of the Bill. It gives us an opportunity to stand hack and examine the breadth and complexity of issues which are involved if we are to create a society that eliminates discrimination and provides equal opportunities for all.
The introduction of the Bill is especially welcome in the light of the Government's current consultations on a single equality commission and concern at their lack of commitment that this should be preceded by a single equality Act. As the RNIB points out, unless there is a single equality Act and upward harmonisation, all discussions about a single equality commission will be blighted by concerns about the formation ofhierarchies within it, with lower profile or lesser protected groups being at the bottom of the pile.
Disability groups have, for the most part, welcomed the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the strenuous efforts he has made to meet their concerns. The features that have been particularly welcomed are; the application of anti-discrimination duties to all public authorities and functions; the extension of positive public sector duties to promote equality across

571
the board; and the use of tribunals for enforcing the legislation with cases being referred to the courts only in exceptional circumstances.
However, as other noble Lords have mentioned, there is still considerable concern that the anti-discrimination legislation and structures protecting disabled people are still too vulnerable to be subsumed into a single equality Act. Disability rights' legislation is relatively new on the statute book; the Disability Discrimination Act only began to come into force in 1996 and has yet to be implemented in full. The next stage relating to reasonable adjustments for physical features will not come into effect until October 2004. The Disability Rights Commission has been in existence for only three years and there are still major loopholes in the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has tried to meet these concerns by proposing that the Disability Rights Commission has a three-year exemption from an equality commission. However, I would agree with the DRC that that does not go far enough in recognising the specific needs and requirements of disabled people and that the very existence of an equality commission might compromise the progression and enforcement of any disability-specific legislation.
There are a number of other issues which are of concern to disability organisations. The Disability Rights Commission makes the case for two major omissions. First, there is no provision for reasonable adjustments in post-16 education; and, secondly, the Bill makes no provision for reasonable adjustments with respect to premises.
The Bill also fails to take on board some of the recommendations in 1999 of the Disability Rights Task Force which set out the next steps in achieving full civil rights for disabled people. In particular, MIND, the RNID and the RNIB are concerned about the issue of definition. While they welcome the Bill's provision that anyone who has a disability is covered—and some blind and partially-sighted people currently have to undergo extensive medical examinations in order to prove that they are disabled—they remain concerned at the complicated nature of the definition which, in a more inclusive legislative framework, lies at odds with the way that the other strands are treated. The RNIB, for instance, has proposed that the burden of proof in relation to the status of complainants as disabled persons be shifted to the respondent. Far too much tribunal time is currently taken up with definition issues before the real issue of discrimination can be addressed.
Among other things, there is also concern about the lack of transport accessibility standards and the absence of specific provisions to ensure that guide-dog owners, for example, are granted carriage and not charged extra by taxis and minicabs.
I shall now turn briefly to Part 4 of the Bill, which sets out the constitution, general function and powers of the equality commission. Many disability organisations have concerns with the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and would argue for a federal
572
body rather than the fully integrated commission based primarily on functional units as set out in the Bill. They are concerned that the experiences of such commissions elsewhere have resulted in disabled people losing out when disability rights are subsumed into a generalist structure. For instance, the chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission found clear evidence on her visit to the Australian equality commissions that disability had fallen off the agenda at state level, where there is no disability-specific commissioner.
The equality commission proposed in the Bill would not guarantee a proper focus on civil rights for disabled people. It would result in reduced representation in that there would be only seven to nine commissioners, none of whom must be disabled. The DRC currently has 10 to 15 commissioners, over half of whom must be disabled people, or people who have had a disability.
The RNIB makes the case for the Bill to be amended so that the equality commission reflects the DRC model. That would be a federal arrangement consisting of an umbrella body, focusing on cross-cutting issues of shared concern, and specialist units linked to appointed committees that would have responsibility for the individual strands. The federal body would be responsible for promoting equality in general and the new arrangements. It would also tackle multiple discrimination, mainstreaming equality through the use of cross-cutting positive duties on public bodies and equality audits, using strong strategic enforcement powers and advising the Government. The federal body would include the chairs of the proposed strand committees, including one for disability rights.
The strand committees would allow the current level of representation of disabled people to continue, with a majority on the disability rights committee being disabled people. There would also be minimal disruption to existing structures, processes and work programmes under that model. Most importantly, disabled people would continue to identify with the commission as "our commission", and would feel that it protects and enforces disabled people's rights. They would not feel that no sooner had the DRC been created than it was taken away.
I have dwelt mainly on the concerns that disability organisations have raised about the Bill in the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will be given the opportunity to take it through all its stages and on to the statute book. But I hope that that does not obscure my warm welcome of the Bill and my hope that the Government will support it.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to private clubs reminded me of an article that I read in The Times last Saturday, 22nd February, at page 13. Two articles on the same page were relevant to today's Bill. The headline of the first was:
"Woman golf pro takes on Royal and Ancient Men".

573
It refers to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, a 249 year-old, male-only club, which is the governing body of golf worldwide. The second headline was: "Equality watchdog blocked". It said: "Plans for a single equality body to champion women, gay people, ethnic minorities, the elderly and disabled people have been blocked by one of the interest groups concerned".
I disagree with both of those approaches. That is why we need this Bill and why we are holding this debate.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and his team on introducing the Bill, and on the easily understandable, clear Explanatory Notes, which are necessary for the likes of me. I wholeheartedly support the Bill. To move from anti-discriminatory legislation to legislation that recognises and promotes equality in all walks of life for all citizens of our country—young and old, black and white, male and female, able and not so able-is what a truly multicultural, multi-ethnic, civilised society should do. The Bill is mainly about recognising equality. It goes a long way to doing that.
I am pleased that the Bill tackles both discrimination and positive duties. In the debate on the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill in December 1999, as reported at col. 146, I expressed concern that the legislation did not remove the exemption that allowed discrimination in partnership arrangements comprising fewer than six partners. I believe that the Bill will remove the partnership exemption from race discrimination legislation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will agree that I am right to think so. It is important in the medical field, particularly in general practice, as many practices have fewer than six partners.

The second issue that I raised in the debate on 14th December, 1999 was indirect discrimination. I am encouraged to see that the Bill significantly extends the duty on public bodies, such as the NHS. Such bodies will be under a duty to have regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds. They will also be required to promote equal opportunities and good relations between members of different racial groups. That will help to eliminate practices and procedures that amount to indirect discrimination.
I speak mostly about health services and healthcare, for that is what I know most—little though it may be—about. However, people in all walks of life are familiar with discrimination by institutions and individuals. The legislation on racial discrimination does not promote equality; it is, as the noble Lord said, reactive and negative. Those who work in the health service and those who need healthcare are likely to benefit from laws that promote equality. I have spoken in your Lordships' House about the tens of thousands of doctors and nurses from ethnic minorities who feel that they are not treated as equals, despite doing the same job. Although legislation against racial discrimination has helped raise awareness of the issue and helped to educate people, it has not removed indirect discrimination of the type that holds people
574
back from promotion and greater rewards and fails to recognise their true worth—in short, unequal treatment.
That is not to say that anti-discrimination legislation, particularly that relating to race, has not been effective. Gone are the days, which I remember as a student in London in the late 1950s, when most advertisements for room rentals openly stated "No blacks". There was no legislation to prevent that then. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will, no doubt, be able to reassure me that the Bill will not blur the focus on discrimination of a particular type—for example, racial discrimination.
It is to be hoped that the Bill will remove inequalities in healthcare. I am speaking about the healthcare needs of the ethnic minorities, the elderly and the disabled. The Parekh report on the future of multi-ethnic Britain and other publications have highlighted not only the disease burden from which the ethnic minorities suffer but the lack of services to meet their health needs. Legislation that recognises those needs as of right may help.
We have an increasingly ageing population. The elderly suffer from all kinds of discrimination, including discrimination in health and social care. Denying care on the basis of age is immoral and unethical, but it exists. Healthcare that does not recognise the special needs of the elderly is not equitable. Similarly, despite the many laws, people with mental health problems and disabilities suffer because their needs are not regarded as being equal to those of the more able. The third commonest cause of disability in the world is mental illness. Despite the high priority given to mental health in our health service and the services for those disabled through mental illness, such people—young and old of all races—do not get equal care. Those from ethnic minorities and the elderly suffer even more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to the clause on pregnancy. I must disagree with her. In my work as an obstetrician for three and a half decades, I was always concerned about the inability of pregnant women to attend ante-natal clinics. I was even more concerned for women whose pregnancies were complicated by existing diseases and who were not given permission to take time off work for the benefit of their own health and that of their baby.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I hope he accepts that I am concerned that care should be taken as to how the word "arrangements" is interpreted. Certainly, I attended ante-natal clinics, and so forth. Women need time to do that. However, there must be a balance in terms of how the burden of an employee's workload is dealt with by colleagues in her absence.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I stand corrected and I am grateful for the explanation given by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
We are a prosperous nation. Our prosperity depends on the education, ability and wealth created by our citizens. There is a shortage of a significant number of

575
skilled workers—not just doctors and nurses—and there is an ageing population. For the foreseeable future, we shall need skilled workers to come to our country. We must ensure that there are laws that will treat them as equals.
For all these reasons, I welcome and support the Bill. Of course we shall have a debate. I need to feel reassured that the proposed commission has adequate powers of enforcement of legislation. Above all, I hope that the Government give their support to the Bill. Government support will give a strong message to citizens from all walks of life that equal treatment of all people is important. In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing the Bill and I support it.
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on introducing the Bill. Those of us who support it hope that it will lead to a much-needed Act.
When placed at No. 20 on the speakers' list, one fears that there may be nothing left to say. However, a good deal is left to say and I venture to speak on it. Orwell's aphorism, most usually translated as "some people are more equal than others", is probably the most famous sentence ever written on equality. The aphorism, and the great novel in which it is written, should be read and re-read by all who have the interests of fairness, justice and happiness at heart.
Members of an ideal society would not tolerate homosexuals or smile upon them with kindliness but take their orientation for granted and regard it—as they should regard any kind of sexuality—with indifference. The assumption of superiority that even liberal-minded people make would have disappeared. For instance, no one any longer would patronisingly imply his or her superiority by remarking, as I still hear said, that "many of my best friends are gay".
We are a long way from that Utopia. We are a long way from relying on people to grow up with that indifference ingrained in them and with that taking for granted part of their attitude to life. People of a heterosexual orientation are still, alas, more equal than those who are gay. Children of "straight" orientation are more equal than the gay. That discrimination begins with children and their taunting and bullying of a child who is already, inevitably, showing homosexual tendencies. Children are not born with a congenital prejudice against homosexuals. They absorb it. They learn it from their parents 'and elders'—though not their betters—conversation and innuendo. Not until we have a generation growing up without discrimination will we begin to achieve equality between straight and gay people. Even the word "straight" implies that the reverse must be impaired or crooked.
Meanwhile—we hope that it will not be a long meanwhile— what goodwill and open-mindedness is not yet ready to do must be done by the law. Existing law protects only the discriminated against on the grounds of race, disability and sex, but, among other
576
omissions, not on the grounds of sexual orientation. A positive legal obligation should be placed on public bodies not to discriminate on this basis.
For example, in Sweden, the law ensures that no one shall be denied employment or promotion on sexuality grounds—which means, of course, because they are homosexual. In that famously open-minded country, the provisions of the law seem to have permeated the nation's thinking. The state of affairs which I earlier described as Utopian is not so far from being achieved there. Of course, it may be, on the other hand, that the nation's enlightenment has permeated the law. But even there equality is not perfect. Gay couples may not adopt children or gay women receive artificial insemination.
Civil partnership registration is recognised in whole or in part in 11 European countries and the same number allow legal rights to same-sex partners in varying degrees as to succession and/or tenancy. As my noble friend Lord Alli pointed out, the Government are heading in the right direction in this regard.
Using the powers established by the Amsterdam Treaty, the European Commission has introduced a proposed directive to outlaw discrimination in employment on a number of grounds, and is the first explicit EC legislation to recognise sexual orientation as an issue for European Community action. Her Majesty's Government have acknowledged that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is present in United Kingdom workplaces and have asked the Equal Opportunities Commission to draw up a code of practice on this subject. However, since the code is to be voluntarily adopted, it will very likely be observed only by those employers who already have an equal opportunities policy and an aim to eliminate prejudice. Legal protection for homosexuals is safer and surer.
At present, it is obviously difficult for anyone in almost any job to state with assurance, let alone prove, that he or she has been passed over for promotion because of sexuality. It is all too easy for an employer to defend his or her failure to promote a member of staff on the grounds that a particular person lacks qualities of leadership, is too "soft", or lacks self-confidence. For these are the very failings that so many people, albeit only half consciously, still associate with homosexuals. Lesbians, for instance, may be denied promotion because they are too "butch", aggressive and assertive—whether they are or not. A change of attitude in employers is needed, and one which must be brought about by re-education and careful attention to the law.
I want to raise another point in connection with misapprehensions regarding homosexuality and children. A large percentage of the community confuses homosexuality with paedophilia. Potentially, that has disastrous results and can lead to witch-hunting. Curiously enough, no one, without good cause, supposes that heterosexual men have designs on female children, while continuing to believe in the likely guilt of gay men in their relations with young boys. Not so many years ago when a boy of eight was

577
staying with me, his mother refused to allow him to be driven home by a friend of mine whom she knew to be homosexual. If she and others holding the same mistaken belief had been in a position to employ people, we can only imagine how violent they would be against homosexuals, particularly if they were expected to work with children, while promotion prospects would be nil.
As things stand, only a very few gay people have confidence in starting a job that they will be seen by fellow workers as equal. They also have a terrible hurdle to face, barely imagined by non-gay women and men, of coming out of the closet or staying in it. One woman, for instance, who has written to me of her plight—we will call her Jane—is sure she has been promoted in her high-powered job only because she has never disclosed that she is lesbian, nor that she has lived in a close and loving relationship with another woman for 14 years. In order to maintain this deception, Jane confessed to me that lying has become habitual to her and as a result she fights constant threatened depression. She tells colleagues of a series of boyfriends, her preference for the single, though not the celibate, state, and that she lives alone. Since her partner may answer the phone, or be seen if someone calls on her, Jane talks of a friend who lives in the country but sporadically works in London and often needs a pied-à-terre.Neurotic, my Lords? Yes, indeed, but it is society and the absence of adequate law which has made her so. This woman also says that her situation is at least somewhat easier than a man's would be. She knows gay men who have been denied promotion because in their forties they remained unmarried.
Another correspondent of mine, James, has told me of how, as a homosexual man, he protested at work when an anti-gay remark was made. On an impulse, though for a long time he had been psyching himself up to come out of the closet, he stated that he himself was gay but not to spread it around. Spread around it was and he found himself ostracised while the almost promised advancement in his job was withdrawn. He stayed in the job for a year but at last could stand the atmosphere no longer and left.
A gay acquaintance of his called Tom, who he mentions to me, has a company car and if he were married he would be able, under his company rules, to have his wife insured as well. Although it is well-known and apparently well—or, at least, tolerantly—received by his employer that Tom lives in a long-term partnership with another man, no provision is made for his same-sex partner to be included on his policy. A friend of this couple, also with a long-term same-sex partner, was granted no special leave on this man's serious illness and no bereavement leave when he died, though women in the company whose husbands were ill and died were given both kinds of time off.
These are truly cases of all people being equal but some far less equal than others. Only a change of thinking on the part of the community will fully change things, but a single equality Act would go a long way to redress such obvious wrongs, underpinning a single, dedicated equality commission.
578
Age is probably the most neglected area covered by the Equality Bill. It may come in Clause 1(1)(a) of the Bill's provisions but it is still, I believe, the most likely to be hurriedly passed over. Yet it is an area of discrimination which Members of your Lordships' House are particularly fitted to discuss. We are not a young but on the whole an elderly assembly, with an average age, I believe, of 70. Perhaps most noble Lords speaking in the debate should declare an interest. Because of our nature, our presence here, our experience of life and in many cases the "day job" that we do, we know how capable we and our fellows, some long past that average age, are to be gainfully employed. Geriatricians will often tell us how being forced to abandon a career at a certain age may well hasten an elderly person's death. We should, belonging as most of us do in this category, be peculiarly sensitive to the issues involved.
Obviously, as the Bill states, there must be exclusion for justifiable age-based discrimination, but i find it difficult to identify jobs from which every older man and woman would be disqualified on age grounds. A personal trainer or a steeplejack, perhaps, or those jobs which require almost acrobatic skills and physical power. Looking at the situation which presently exists, we have to admit that this is a field in which employers not pursuing an equal opportunities policy refuse jobs to older people solely on the grounds of age, no matter how fit, youthful and intellectually alert they may be. For doing so, no excuse can be made except the feeble one that this particular applicant is too old.
Finally, I should like to mention a shop in Denmark which, in advertising for staff, stated that they must be over 60. Older people, the advertisers felt, were more courteous, less hasty, more patient and more thorough than younger ones. Of course we may consider this, and rightly, as a requirement discriminatory in itself and not to be recommended, although—as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated in his opening speech when calling it reverse discrimination—I am confident that young people are as yet in no danger of suffering victimisation in this regard.
As to disability, I wondered about those people in wheelchairs denied the opportunity to get to work during the fire fighters strike, when 22 Underground stations were closed due to their lifts being dangerous to use. Not only that but, although Westminster station was open, its lift was out of use during all those strike periods. As to unfairness, only the disabled were thus inconvenienced.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Ouseley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and his team for presenting us with this excellent Bill. The noble Lord has an excellent record in promoting legislation on equality and human rights and in advocating its enforcement. My own knowledge of the noble Lord goes back some 30 years, to when I was first undertaking community

579
relations in south London and learnt of his support for community relations initiatives at a local level, and very impressive his support was then.
For around half a century the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been actively engaged in challenging inequalities. He has demonstrated his prowess and expertise in these matters with great distinction, both nationally, internationally and, as I have said, even locally. I should like to take this opportunity to place on record that my experience during that period has been that in this country there are millions of open-minded people who are committed to seeing a just and fair society for all their fellow citizens.
The Bill reflects the commitment and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to enable us to put in place a coherent legislative framework for individuals, corporations, institutions and organisations to administer and receive equality and fair treatment.
The Bill provides the Government with the opportunity to avoid putting the cart before the horse, as they presently intend to do with their proposal for a single equality commission. While the Government may be correct to avoid the creation of new commissions to tackle the introduction of anti-discrimination protection in the areas of age, sexuality and religious belief, this would be creating a super-commission to work with a plethora of various legislative provisions. That is not a satisfactory situation. The Bill provides the opportunity to take stock of what we have to do to eliminate discrimination and to provide equal opportunities; and only thereafter can we be clearer about the design of the most appropriate enforcement body.
With a single legal framework for eliminating discrimination and promoting equality between different people, regardless of their racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, sex, marital or family status, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, age or disability, there would be the desired and necessary coherence to enable the Government to establish with greater effectiveness their proposed equality commission.
Such a commission would, in its promotional work, have the crucial task of representing all interests in society—crucial because, in my experience, equality activity in this country has created resentments. People feel that all equality protection, as they see it, excludes them. A primary role would be that of representing the widest possible set of interests.
The Bill, while bringing about clarity and coherence, is still, in my view, in need of strengthening in several respects. Although our anti-discrimination legislation is on a par with, or better than, anything in Europe, it still remains inadequate, especially in terms of enforceability. Most individuals, organisations and institutions in this country know that many direct or indirect discriminatory actions, or inaction, are unlikely to be discovered and eliminated and therefore there is no real pressure to change and little likelihood of punishment for discriminatory activity. That is a reality. It affects most institutions and organisations and the people within them.
580
Legislation is only as good as its enforcement. Alongside that, we rely on the power of persuasion to change attitudes and behaviours, as well as leadership, to bring about positive changes and benefits for all in our society.
I draw on my experience of 30 years in local government, including five years as chief executive officer of two local authorities, of a further seven years as executive chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and, most recently, of managing a privately run business, in stressing the relative important roles of corporate, political and individual leadership alongside effectively enforced legislation.
My main concern, as I have said, relates to the enforcement of legislation. Whether we have this Bill—and that is preferable—or have to work with the existing provisions, enforcement against discrimination is woeful. That is not a criticism of the existing commissions, merely a statement of reality in terms of the limitations that exist. The new equality commission should be conferred with powers equivalent to those of the Health and Safety Executive in order to be able to intervene with employers and service providers whenever it believes that discrimination as defined in the Bill is occurring. The proposals in Clauses 28 and 30 to introduce employers' obligations for employment equity plans are very welcome in this respect.
At present, the investigatory processes are cumbersome, process-laden, time-consuming and resources-guzzling, with minimal impact and strategic effect. It is no longer good enough to be trudging along with this inadequate process. It has not worked efficiently; therefore it must be reformed. Even the recently introduced and much welcomed Race Relations (Amendment) Act has set the CRE and the regulatory bodies on a massive paper chase to evaluate and monitor the race equality schemes and policies of public bodies.
The enforcement body must also be able to support blocks of cases on behalf of whole sectors or classes of employees or consumers to make a real impact in tackling and eliminating discrimination in more meaningful ways, rather than through ad hoc individual cases, at a snail's pace. The scope for the new commission to initiate proceedings in its own name is welcome and, if strengthened, has the potential for positive results.
The Bill is inadequate in addressing the requirements to enable the effective use of equality compliance in contracting and procurement policies and practices. It should be a requirement of public bodies not to enter into contracts with providers of services, goods and facilities unless there is evidence of active equality policies and practices. We should not continue with the existing standard, complacent, tick-the-box, "we have a policy and do not discriminate" response, which gets bodies on to approved lists of contractors and suppliers without too much effort or commitment to genuine equality results. That was supported by the Government's own Better Regulation Task Force, which the Government then rejected.

581
The proposal in the Bill for an equality commission makes provision for the retention of the Disability Rights Commission for at least another three years after the establishment of the proposed equality commission. Although it is understood that the newest commission needs to establish itself more significantly before being absorbed into any equality commission, it is illogical to exclude the DRC from the equality commission. Its exclusion could be perceived as a presupposition that the equality commission might be ineffective and incapable of incorporating the priorities, emphases and commitments of existing commissions, including those of the DRC. There are fears of it therefore becoming an irrelevant monolith—a criticism echoed by, among others, the Employers Forum on Age, Bert Massey, the chairman of the DRC, and the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development. I fully support the view expressed by the noble Lord. Lord Ashley, who wanted to see an effective and inclusive equality commission from day one.
My final main concern is about the absence of any legal provision to curb some sections of the printed media, which are obsessed with the demonisation of some minority ethnic groups in our society. That does not only apply to minority ethnic groups; this week. we have seen a competition between tabloid newspapers, which claimed they were the first to out an MP who is gay. The media operate by hiding behind the cherished tenets of free speech, giving no meaningful consideration to how such incessant and unrestrained coverage impacts on our attitudes and behaviours. That contributes to discrimination, prejudice, hatred, harassment and violence.
Public bodies with the responsibility, inter alia, to promote good race relations between people of all backgrounds in all their activities, know that they have an uphill task to do so successfully in the context of the daily negative stereotyping. They need all the help that they can get to achieve their goals. Your Lordships' House has a responsibility to consider how we may help to achieve those goals in the passage of the Equality Bill.
In conclusion, Great Britain is a progressive, competitive, dynamic and relatively wealthy country, but it remains deeply unequal in all aspects of social, economic, cultural, family styles and daily life experiences. We would all benefit from the introduction of modern legislation, which is simple to comprehend and provides protection to everyone against unfair discrimination, placing responsibility on all public, private and not-for-profit bodies to provide access to opportunities, in line with the provisions in the Bill.
Let me go even further. I am not aware of any compelling reason why we should exempt private companies from having the same general duty as exists for public bodies to promote equality and good relations. Why do we not do something about that?
The Bill is about bringing consistency, simplicity and coherence to existing and proposed anti-discrimination laws and regulations. I welcome it, as it
582
provides the opportunity to make progress in eliminating the many forms of discrimination that persist in our society. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of supporting it to make equality and fair treatment a reality for everyone.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I start by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I have known him for probably longer than anyone else in this Chamber because he has been a friend of mine for 40 years. He has a long—indeed, unique—record in fighting for laws against discrimination. He was an adviser to the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in 1974–76, when Lord Jenkins was serving his second period of office as Home Secretary. The highlights of that period were the two landmark statutes, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which was the first Act to give broad equality rights to women, and the Race Relations Act 1976, which expanded and replaced earlier legislation on race equality. Both Acts owe a very great deal to my noble friend. It is a curious and regrettable fact that the recent obituaries of Lord Jenkins of Hillhead have almost all passed over the achievements of his second period of office as Home Secretary, especially the two Acts I mentioned. In many ways, I think that those achievements match the remarkable achievements of his first period of office.
Last year, my noble friend introduced an important Civil Partnerships Bill which met with a wide—perhaps surprisingly wide—degree of acceptance. We on these Benches certainly hope that the Government will take up that Bill and introduce their own legislation on the subject.
My noble friend has now introduced what I would describe as a massive Equality Bill, the product of several years of work by himself, Professor Hepple and the other members of an expert and dedicated team. We strongly support this Bill. I do not propose to go through it in any detail. However, it is, of course. true that many types of discrimination are brought together under a single umbrella in this Bill. I should say that I see some distinctions between disability and other forms of discrimination. Most forms of discrimination involve taking into account a factor that should be ignored, whether it is race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or age. Disability discrimination arises in many cases from the exact reverse of that, as a disability is ignored when it needs to be taken into account—for example, by ensuring that buildings are properly accessible to people with disabilities. There is also an immense variety of disabilities with quite different consequences.
Nevertheless, there is a very great deal of common ground between all different types of discrimination—disability as well as the others. There is, for example, the concept of indirect discrimination and the question of harassment and victimisation on grounds of discrimination. It is also desirable to have a single statute governing matters such as the complaints procedure, hearings, the burden of proof and enforcement. We therefore believe that a single

583
commission with power to combat all forms of discrimination has very many advantages. We certainly welcome the proposal to merge the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality.
I was struck by the fact that three speakers, all with particular knowledge of discrimination, were, like the RNIB, anxious to retain the Disability Rights Commission either as an independent body or as part of a federal structure. I think that we will have to look at that issue in due course.
We very much welcome the extension of anti-discrimination law to what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, helpfully described as the "new strands"— age, religion and sexual orientation, in particular—and to do so in ways that are wider than those which are necessary merely in order to meet the requirements of European employment legislation. We welcome the obligation to take positive steps to promote equality and not just to react to discrimination. We therefore welcome the broad support that has been given to the Bill by the Equal Opportunities Commission briefing, by the briefing from Help the Aged, and in many respects by the RNIB as well.
A number of criticisms have been made of the Bill. I have already referred to the proposals that the Disability Rights Commission should be left in existence in some form or another. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who must be feeling somewhat lonely, given the emptiness of the Benches behind her and the absence of speakers from those Benches, spoke about the burden of workforce reviews and employment equity plans on small businesses. Whether or not we need to consider whether 10 employees is too low a starting point, which it may be, I believe that in principle the measures for workforce reviews and employment equity plans are absolutely right. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, pointed out, these measures can benefit businesses and are already being taken by many well-known names in industry and commerce.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said that legislation should not encroach on the freedom of a religious body to enforce its own rules of conduct. I am not entirely sure what he meant by that. Obviously, we would not support a law which was meant to enforce the right of a woman to become a Roman Catholic priest. But I think that the right reverend Prelate meant rather more than that, and I suspect that he was going into areas where we would disagree with him.
There has been criticism of the extension of the Bill to clubs. We would support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, as we did yesterday, rather than those of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.
The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, made a speech with which we in general strongly agree. But I think that some of his remarks on imposing some kind of control over what the media say are potentially dangerous and possibly counter-productive.
584
This is a bold and daring measure. I do not know of any other Private Member's Bill which has been so detailed, so carefully drafted and covers such a broad spectrum. I regret that the Liaison Committee of your Lordships' House refused to set up a Select Committee, as my noble friend Lord Lester wished, to examine the Bill and take evidence on it. It would have been a valuable process, and much better than a conventional Committee stage.
I recognise that some issues need to be debated, and of course we do not assume that the Bill is incapable of improvement. The bodies which have produced briefings have all pointed to aspects which they feel need further debate. But, as I said at the beginning, we strongly support the Bill. We believe that it represents an enormous step in the right direction. If the Bill does not reach the statute book, we hope it is the precursor of one that will.
4.28 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me start by agreeing with some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has just said. This is not one of your run-of-the-mill Private Members' Bills. It is quite different and quite outstanding. The Bill has been the subject of detailed thought and consultation by some of the people most expert in the field over a number of years. The Bill has been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, whose reputation in this field is outstanding and whose work with Lord Jenkins in the 1970s is still seen as a step change in our views about legislation on equality. This is something we take enormously seriously. Although I shall not support the Bill and I shall not give an indication that it will be followed by a government Bill along the same lines, I do not believe that the Bill will die the death. I believe that it will make a continuing, valued and worthwhile contribution to debate on the issues covered by it.
I congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Lester, on the way in which he produced and introduced the Bill. I also congratulate him on the virtually universal approval of large parts of it that he has achieved in debate this afternoon.
The issue on which we part company is illustrated by the difference between the Labour and the Liberal Democrat manifestos of 1997, both of which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, quoted. The Liberal Democrat manifesto went for a "big bang" on this matter, as it did on the matter of constitutional reform. The Labour manifesto contained a commitment to implement visions of equality through legislation wherever and whenever possible. The views of the Liberal Democrats and those of Labour differ on the matters of constitutional reform and equality.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his opening remarks was good enough to say that the Government had not been idle. We certainly have not been idle. I intend to demonstrate that in arguing the case for the incremental approach, as it were, to tackling discrimination rather than the "big bang" approach. Our priority is to concentrate on the most urgent areas for change. We focus on the key practical

585
disadvantages that people face. We believe that that is a more productive approach and one that is preferable to a complete overhaul of the legislation, as is proposed in the Bill.
I intend to discuss the major strands, both new and old—I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Alli for that helpful distinction—to indicate the work that we have done, our targets and the plans that we have for the future. I believe that that will stand up to the most detailed scrutiny and the most detailed criticism. I reject the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that there has been a lack of resources provided by the Government to tackle discrimination. Anyone who has seen, for example, the work of the Women and Equality Unit or the work that is carried out by various groups within the Cabinet Office and in other departments will know that that is not the case.
I also was sorry to hear—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I hope that I may correct what he has just said. I did not say that there was a lack of resources; I said that when I asked Ministers whether they would undertake this task, they said that it was a lack of resources that prevented them from doing so. However, I fully accept that many resources are being devoted to this area in a number of ways.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suspect that Ministers in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may have intended to refer to lack of parliamentary time. There is certainly a lack of parliamentary time. There is always a lack of parliamentary time.
I was sorry to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, say that we had a history of poor performance to date. I was particularly sorry to hear that from someone who has been as closely involved with these matters as she has. I hope that I shall be able to convince her and others that we have—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester—not been idle. One of the arguments against—
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I did not say that the Government had a history of poor performance; I said that the impact of the legislation to date has been poor.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a matter on which I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. I apologise for criticising her. It is absolutely fundamental not merely to pass laws but actually to eliminate inequalities. I want to discuss that matter before I end my speech. I am relieved to find that we do not disagree at all on the matter.
I wish to say a few more words about the "big bang" theory. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, claims that there is something terribly wrong with the current law due to its inconsistencies. Of course we aim to remove unwarranted inconsistencies, but the law is different in some cases. For example, disability law is different, as has become clear this afternoon, because it is designed
586
to tackle specific issues relevant to a particular group. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made that very clear. He said that disability legislation was different because it sought to remove obstacles that exist, whereas other forms of discrimination are the other way round, so to speak.
To implement the race and employment directives, we are working hard to make the legislation coherent and easy to use. We are using the same wording for key discrimination concepts where appropriate. We will always seek to simplify the law by reducing exceptions.
The other problem with the big bang theory is that it is, in a sense, a moving target. Not only is the law in this country evolving, but so are European directives. Almost always, they evolve in a helpful direction. There have been three directives since 2000. One was on race, and another on employment deals with sex orientation, religion, disability and age. We talked yesterday about the amendment to the equal treatment directive, which deals with sex discrimination
There have been enormously important rulings by the European Court of Justice. My noble friend Lord Ashley referred to some of those, particularly that relating to equal pay. We have to take an active role, as we have done, in shaping the European directives that bear on equality, and ensure that they reflect UK interests and our concerns for tackling inequality. We did that with the race and employment directives, which represent a major step forward. They provide a common framework of protection against discrimination at work. We are carrying that on now in the negotiations on a new European Union sex discrimination directive.
As all those directives become law, they have to be incorporated into UK law. That means a constant succession of legislation, both primary and secondary. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, thought that the Bill would provide some sort of final solution for discrimination and that we would not be troubled with it in Parliament if the Bill were passed. I am afraid that that is not the case. The process is, will be and ought to be a continuing one. That is why we take the view that we do about the big bang theory.
Let me say something about what we have been doing and what is in the pipeline. We negotiated the European Union race and employment directives so that they took account of circumstances in the UK. For that reason, we are very happy to be implementing them. That process involves amending existing legislation on race and disability, and introducing entirely new legislation to outlaw discrimination in employment and training on the grounds of age, sexual orientation, religion and belief. That is a major commitment, and we must get it right before we consider whether to expand the framework further in the area.
Perhaps the most difficult matter is age discrimination. I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others on the subject. It is enormously important, in terms of not only justice but economics. She referred to the dependency ratio, and whether we are going to be able

587
to afford decent pensions for ourselves and future generations. She and my noble friend Lord Borrie were right to say that that is covered in the pensions Green Paper.
There are by no means firm conclusions on all the points, particularly that about any change in the retirement age. But we are preparing detailed proposals for implementation of the age provision, and we shall publish them for wide consultation by the summer. Regulations will be in place by December 2004 so that employers can prepare for changes that will come into force by 2006. I heard my noble friend Lord Borrie argue that we should jump the gun on that but, of course, it is a matter for negotiation with employers and they must have time to prepare for it.
Another very difficult area is disability. But I was pleased to hear, above all, my noble friend Lord Ashley pay tribute in his opening remarks to what has been done. It is clear that we have a positive agenda on civil rights for disabled people. Last September, we implemented the first phase of anti-discrimination rights in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act so that disabled students are taken into account by schools and further and higher education institutions.
Later this year, the Government will publish a draft disability Bill, with measures affecting the public sector, transport and premises and with some widening of the definition of "disability" and more. The scope of the Bill is yet to be finalised. However, we are considering extending the Disability Discrimination Act definition of "disability"—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins—to cover more people with HIV and cancer, to introduce a duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people, and to extend duties under Part 3 of the Act in areas such as the function of public bodies, transport operators and premises.
We are committed to implementing the disability provisions of the Article 13 employment directive in 2004. Those provisions end various exemptions in the Disability Discrimination Act and bring into the scope of the Act a million small employers and a range of occupations, such as the police, prison officers and barristers in chambers. I say to my noble friend Lord Ahmed that they will cover issues of religion and employment. We have laid regulations to bring into force in October 2004 changes to the Disability Discrimination Act which will require service providers to consider making physical changes to their premises in order to remove barriers to disabled people's access.
Work on sex discrimination continues. Amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act will include explicitly treating both harassment and sexual harassment as forms of discrimination. We are taking steps to tackle the specific issue of equal pay and to address the broader causes of the gender pay gap. We undertake that every central government department will complete a pay review in April 2003. I understand the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about burdens on employers, but I believe that the fundamental point is that made by the noble
588
Lord, Lord Patel. Our best economic interest lies in using all our people in the best way that we can and in having a diverse workforce where no part of our population is discriminated against and is therefore unable to contribute.
I do not believe that in the time available I can go into the issue of clubs, except to say to my noble friend Lord Faulkner that of course we are sympathetic, but not in licensing legislation.
We move from that to the important issue of sexual orientation discrimination. My noble friends Lord Alli and Lady Rendell, in particular, made very moving speeches on that subject. It is true that at present there is a lack of protection. However, it is also true that many employers, including in particular public sector employers, would welcome an increase in protection. Rather than the non-statutory code of practice, to which my noble friend Lady Rendell referred, new regulations, which will be enforced in December this year, will outlaw sexual orientation discrimination and harassment, which is defined as being an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. We are committed to bringing new legislation into force on sexual orientation, religion and belief, race, sex and ability. Noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate that legislation as a package in May of this year.
I am sorry to say that there was little reference to the issues of families, couples and partnerships. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for the Civil Partnerships Bill that he promoted last year. I was glad to have the support of my noble friend Lord Alli for the review that we are now undertaking of the policy and cost implications of a civil partnership registration scheme in England and Wales. We see strong arguments—Barbara Roche has made it clear—in favour of a civil partnership registration scheme for same sex couples with a package of rights and responsibilities for those who register. We look forward to producing a consultation paper in the summer.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is not present so I shall not express my disappointment about race legislation which he mentioned. We had a major amendment in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 that came into force in April last year. It met 11 of the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report it outlawed direct and indirect discrimination and victimisation in all public authority functions not covered by the original Act; it placed a general duty on specific public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups in carrying out their functions.
To the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I say that our race equality strategy is concerned with tackling the serious problems of health inequalities in our society. As I have said, we are implementing the race directive that will strengthen our race legislation and enhance the rights of individuals through the introduction of a

589
revised definition of indirect discrimination and of harassment. All of those matters are not just projects for the distant future, but work in progress.
Related to that is the issue of religion, referred to by my noble friend Lord Ahmed and the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, who is a member of the your Lordships' Select Committee that is considering the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We look forward to the committee's report. Already the Government are extending protection for excluded religious groups at work in the employment regulations that will come into force in December this year. If I have missed out any of the forms of discrimination or dealt with them inadequately, I apologise, but I am conscious of the time.
This afternoon there has been much controversy about the single equality commission. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, started by saying—I know the principle is widely held—that one cannot have one without the other; one cannot have a single commission without a single Act. There has been much disagreement about that, notably from my noble friend Lord Ashley, the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Ouseley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, who feel that disability discrimination is a different matter that needs specific and perhaps different treatment.
We have not taken a decision on the matter. We are still consulting and we shall announce the decision later this year. Our view is that a single commission can operate to promote guidance on the law, whatever its scope and whatever its origin. There is no reason why a single commission needs a single Act under which to work. That has been the position with a number of existing commissions. My noble friend Lord Alli said that the single commission would have to be strand specific, but it has to cover those who find themselves in more than one strand. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, gave a graphic illustration of that.
The point is that any complainant to a commission will have to identify the grounds for complaint. I have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said against "giantism" in commissions. That point could take up a considerable amount of time if the Bill goes into Committee.
Finally, I want to say something about the limits of law, which is the relationship between law and cultural changes. From what I have said, I hope that it is clear that the Government have been extremely active in dealing with equality legislation. It is also clear that we live in an unequal society. In order to make changes in society, we need more than legislation. We cannot make people behave well by legislation. There are many other ways in which we could work towards cultural change. We need to encourage those to the full. We need to work for ownership of equality and diversity by employers, by the public services, by business and by community organisations in every way.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a significant contribution on this point. I do not know whether he meant to. He talked about the rights of men as carers for children. I do not think he was entirely talking
590
about what should be required by law, although perhaps he was in part. But it is partly a question of attitude in families as well as in places of work.
Everyone's objective, whether or not we want a single equality Bill, is that our young people and our future generations should have a shared and mutual respect and understanding, regardless of any of the matters which appear to divide us. I believe that society can learn from the Bill. We shall certainly not oppose its passage through your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has done a great service to the House by the way in which he has prepared and introduced it.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I begin by thanking all Members of the House who have contributed to this very long, detailed and important debate. Perhaps I may also thank noble Lords for the compliments—undeserved—that have been showered upon me. They remind me of what is said to have happened when Dr Henry Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize. An American lady came up to him and said "Dr Kissinger, I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart for saving the whole of humankind", to which he replied, "You're welcome".
This House is more representative of the groups and individuals affected by the Bill than another place. Those who have spoken have done so from a diversity of backgrounds and experience unequalled in another place. If the Bill and the debate do nothing else, I hope that they will send an extremely powerful message to the Minister's colleagues who are responsible primarily across five different government departments—a Balkanised administration in that Sense—with the Cabinet Office having to try to produce joined-up legislation in this area.
I shall offend if I seek to go through the more than 20 speeches in detail as well as boring the House, but I should like to make one or two general points. First, I am more than glad that reference was made to amending the Writ of Summons. It happened in this way my noble friend Lord Russell, who remembers more than I shall ever learn, pointed out that the Latin word in the ancient Writ of Summons, which I think is proceres, had been mistranslated as meaning "great men", instead of "great ones". After protracted correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, the Sovereign was eventually graciously pleased to give a better translation, not as great ones but as great men and great women.
We heard many great women as well as great men speak in this debate. If she will permit me to say so, one of the most important speeches was that by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. If her speech from the Opposition Front Bench represents her party's policy, it is of enormous significance. Although my party has some leverage, if the two opposition parties could combine to help the Government forward in this area, it would concentrate their mind rather well.
The Labour manifesto was clear. It said:
"We will eliminate unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".

591
It did not say that it would do so wherever a European directive said so, nor that it would do so only in employment fields. It says, "wherever it exists". The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with whose plight I sympathise, was unable to explain why one should not seek to eliminate unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists in the fields covered by the Bill and not by EU directives.
The Minister referred to a "big-bang" theory—something that comes out of the universe, disappears, and, in a way, is ridiculous. But there is nothing ridiculous about seeking to establish a coherent legislative framework into which one can pour future legislation from the European Union as and when it arises.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer took office, he inherited a mass of SROs—self-regulating organizations—across the financial services sector. He had a big bang called the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. He set up a single agency—the Financial Services Agency—working with City institutions within a completely coherent, marvellous framework. That big bang was translated into a proper framework. The Bill seeks to initiate a little bang—nothing as ambitious as what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury did. It would produce a user-friendly, coherent framework.
Many noble Lords who expressed particular concern about disability have made me reflect on whether I was wise to include disability discrimination in the Bill. We thought anxiously about it and realised that the disability lobby would be anxious about the institutional architecture of equality. We heard a great deal about the matter today. But I would like the disability lobby to think carefully about exactly what it is asking those of us concerned with public policy to do. Does it want disability discrimination to remain in entirely separate legislation, with an entirely separate enforcement agency in perpetuity? Or is it willing to see eventually a single unified equality commission, provided that there is no unjust preference for one strand over another? I think that Bert Massie, the chairman of the Disability Rights Commission, indicated that he was willing to see such a system in five years' time from 2000.
I could easily have removed disability discrimination from the Bill. Had I done so, none of the complaints about the institutional architecture would have been made. If the disability lobby wishes, I shall be happy to remove disability discrimination from the Bill in Committee. What have we done instead? We have heeded every recommendation of the disability task force.
The RNIB has made yet further suggestions, which we will think about carefully. Some are misconceived; others are quite radical, and some need much further thought. I beg the disability rights movement to consider exactly what it wants. I sympathise with the Government's objective of creating a single equality commission, but like Bert Massie, I believe that we cannot have it without a coherent framework.
592
In dealing with the question of the architecture and the objections about the "big bang", I must say that the Irish Government and Parliament managed, with fewer resources than we have, to produce, in two Bills, a coherent framework for dealing with equality. It covers nine different kinds of discrimination, and a single Equality Authority deals with all of them, side-by-side with the Human Rights Commission. I see no reason why, with our greater resources, we cannot do what they have done.
Your Lordships asked many questions. I shall not deal with all of them, but I shall touch on one or two points. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, approved the principles of the Bill most helpfully. Clearly, she understood exactly what we were concerned with. She raised the problem of getting equal pay without deterring employers from employing women. It is a difficult problem, but the answer is that that is why we need comprehensive legislation on employment discrimination, as well as pay discrimination.
Later in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, asked whether we should not get away from trivial cases about what people wear. That problem has been there in the Sex Discrimination Act since 1975. There have not been any crazy decisions, although there have been some crazy cases, and I am not aware that the tribunals have created a ridiculous situation. If that has happened, such cases have been dealt with on appeal. I understand the point; it is important to bring cases that matter. However, matters of dress can be extremely important—maybe not to those of us who dress conventionally, wearing baronial robes or putting horsehair on our head in court. To somebody who is made to conform to a dress code at work, when someone of the other sex is not required to do so, it can he as important as it would be, for example, to a young Muslim girl who is not allowed to wear a headscarf. When considering the law, we should not trivialise such symbols and badges.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, spoke about not imposing excessive burdens on small employers and asked whether the employment equity reviews were not a little heavy-handed. I hope that we will be able to persuade those who are concerned about that—I am sure that the CBI itself is concerned—that, on the contrary, the employment equity reviews are not intended to be an onerous, heavy-handed paper chase. As regards the designation of employers, it was the fear of going too far that made us want to leave some discretion for the Secretary to State as to the level of employment that would be covered.
Questions were asked about how we would ensure that there was a level playing field within an equality commission. If noble Lords examine the Bill, they will find that we have taken special steps to ensure the efficient allocation of resources and to ensure that the allocation is fair all round. We have taken account of the need for strategic allocation to be fair all round and for the commission to be adequately resourced and independent.

593
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester raised several points. In his absence, I need not reply, but I will say that we had the same kind of arguments during the passage of the Human Rights Bill. It is not appropriate for faith organisations to seek immunity from principles of equality. The Bill would balance religious freedom with equality in other areas.
Noble Lords have clearly explained what "discrimination" means. The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, illustrated how a novelist is better able to convey the underlying values than any barrister or politician. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, was worried about death by absorption of the Disability Rights Commission. I believe that if the disability rights movement wishes to he semi or wholly detached, federally-linked or entirely integrated, that is a matter for it. However, that should not dominate consideration of the Bill.
I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in answer to his questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was worried about giantism. There is no question of giantism—I am more worried about many small equality agencies not able to deal with multi-discrimination. The noble Baroness was worried about who would decide what is proportionate in deciding what is justifiable. Ultimately, it is the judges and tribunals and they have had to do that since 1975. There is no real change, therefore. Furthermore, the limits of positive discrimination are matters of interpretation of the general principles.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, also asked whether the Bill goes far enough, for example, in allowing an actuarial defence in relation to retirement and sex discrimination. I hope that it goes far enough, but we can examine that. She also asked whether the commission's powers were stronger than the existing powers. They represent the highest common factor of powers that we could achieve. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked whether there was any conflict with the Human Rights Act, to which the answer is "No".
594
As regards the definition of "disability", we have met all the recommendations made by the Disability Task Force. If there are further definitions which require consideration, we should pursue them.
I ask myself what is the best way forward. I had hoped that we would have a Select Committee on the Bill, because taking evidence on the points raised, for example, by the noble Baroness, Lady Buseombe, about employment equity plans and burdens on businesses could have been well addressed. However, the Liaison Committee decided otherwise and there is no right of appeal against its final and, I am sure, wise decision about how the resources of the House should be used.
What do we then do? I believe that we should let the Bill proceed hoping that we will not be presented with hundreds of amendments which will indefinitely tie down Ministers, civil servants and noble Lords I hope that we can focus upon key issues to try to make the Bill as good as possible.
Why are we doing this? Ultimately, we are doing it to help government and civil servants to produce sooner rather than later a Bill which covers unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists in a coherent framework. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will give the Bill a Second Reading and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Voting Age (Reduction to 16) Bill [H.L.]
5.8 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes past five o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Property Valuation Procedures Involving Public Servants
  Northern Ireland: Property Valuation Procedures Involving Public Servants
  Provisional IRA
  Provisional IRA
  Northern Ireland Act 2000: Legal Opinions
  Northern Ireland Act 2000: Legal Opinions
  Security and Intelligence Agencies: Supplementary Estimates
  Security and Intelligence Agencies: Supplementary Estimates
  Civil Contingencies Legislation
  Civil Contingencies Legislation
  Light Dues
  Light Dues
  Department of Health and Food Standards Agency: Supplementary Estimates
  Department of Health and Food Standards Agency: Supplementary Estimates
  Capita Group: Department for Transport Contracts
  Capita Group: Department for Transport Contracts
  Tobacco Industry: Representations
  Tobacco Industry: Representations
  Ministry of Defence: Supplementary Estimates
  Ministry of Defence: Supplementary Estimates
  Elected Regional Assemblies: Soundings Exercise on Referendum
  Elected Regional Assemblies: Soundings Exercise on Referendum
  Zootechnical Feed Additives: Ionophores
  Zootechnical Feed Additives: Ionophores
  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Public Service Agreement Targets