Sitting of 9 January 2003

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

  Grammar Schools
  Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many grammar schools exist in England and Wales; and what the number was a year ago. [89206]
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for reviewing standards in LEA areas with selective secondary education systems. [89215]
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): There are 164 maintained grammar schools in England—the same number as one year ago. Wales has none. We continue to look at ways to support an increase in standards in schools in all local education authorities. That is an important matter for local education authorities to consider in their own local circumstances, and reach conclusions on how standards can best be improved. The House may be interested to know that a couple of months ago I asked Ofsted to send me a paper on the educational standards in the local education authority of Kent. I am considering that paper now.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that whereas the grammar schools felt more secure than for many years as a result of the policy initiatives of his predecessor, they are just a little worried that he might not be quite so positive about the matter? Before he contemplates changes, would he at least accept that grammar schools provide a unique opportunity for able children from working-class homes? Will he pay a visit to Southend on Sea, where our four grammar schools were in the top 100 achievers in the whole of England and Wales in the A-level results, and where, despite this, we find that the other schools performed extremely well?
  Mr. Clarke: I know that this has been a matter of concern to the hon. Gentleman for some time. The assurance that I can give him is that my fundamental focus, and that of the Government, is on pursuing the best possible educational standards in every part of the
  298
  country for every pupil in every way that they operate. That is the approach that we will follow. Grammar schools can be confident that there will be no ideological attack from me or my party on these matters. They can also be confident that we will look carefully at the educational standards for the whole population in each of the areas that they serve.
  Dr. Ladyman: I was extremely encouraged, both by my right hon. Friend's answer today and by his comments to the Select Committee. Does he agree that we must judge the matter on the facts? The facts as gathered by people such as Professor Jesson are that children in comprehensive schools do significantly better than their cohorts in grammar schools, and that in areas such as Kent, which is exclusively selective, we have a far higher proportion of failing schools than we should have. Is it not right that if we are to drive up standards, we must drive out selection?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue is standards and an assessment of standards based on the facts. As my hon. Friend suggests, I have had an opportunity to examine the research commissioned by him from Professor Jesson. I was interested that it stated that grammar schools in Kent and Medway do less well and are performing at lower levels than other grammar schools in the country, which is in itself an interesting point. I was interested, too, that the last comparison made by my Department between the results of grammar and comprehensive schools in 1999 showed that 100 per cent. of pupils in the top 25 per cent. of comprehensive schools ability range achieved five or more A* to C grades at GCSE, compared with 96.4 per cent. achieving that at grammar schools. The fundamental point that I want to make, and which I sought to make before the Select Committee, is that the judgment must be based on educational standards for everybody, and it must be based on the facts and the factual assessment of those standards.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Who was it who coined the phrase "sink schools" and in what context?
  Mr. Clarke: I have no idea. I remember the phrase from the period in office of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a respected supporter. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shouts "Alastair Campbell" across the Chamber. I am open to correction by the hon. Gentleman at all times, but I am pretty sure that Mr. Campbell never used the phrase "sink schools", and that the phrase was generated during the period of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of one of the problems of the selective system that has been highlighted by the heads of the 21 secondary modern schools in Buckinghamshire—notably, the differential funding, which means that they are in deficit, while the grammar schools have a £2 million surplus? Is he concerned about the effect that that is having on the standard of

  299
  education provided for disadvantaged children, who are over-represented in those schools, particularly ethnic minority pupils?
  Mr. Clarke: I am aware that there are issues of funding between schools. That is principally a matter for the local education authority concerned, but I return to the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman): in Buckinghamshire, as in Kent, the judgment must be made on the basis of educational standards for all pupils in the county, and on the basis of factual assessments of that, during which comparisons of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) makes are worthy of consideration.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Secretary of State accept that Labour Members frequently seem to be stuck in a time warp when they start to speak about academic selection? Whatever the failings of secondary moderns in the 1950s and 1960s, today's secondary modern high schools are achieving results only slightly below those of all-ability comprehensives. In English and maths, they are better than a third of comprehensive schools. At GCSE, they are better than a quarter of comprehensive schools. His own Department has designated 11 secondary moderns as beacon schools and 36 as specialist schools. Is it not time that Ministers joined us in celebrating the achievements of secondary moderns and grammar schools instead of knocking them?
  Mr. Clarke: I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the genuine educational achievement of schools of all types. There are outstanding secondary modern schools, grammar schools, comprehensive schools and private schools. In each of those categories, however, there are also schools that are less than outstanding and which need serious work. That is why I focus, as will my Government throughout, on the issue of standards for everybody—[Interruption.] Lese majeste is a failing of which I am, I hope, not often guilty, Mr. Speaker, but I am on this occasion and I apologise to you for it. The Government whom I am proud to serve—[Laughter.] I believe that it is important to restore the concept of service following the approach taken by the previous Government on these matters. The Government whom I serve will focus on educational standards in all schools, celebrate high-quality schools of all types and seek to raise the standards of lower-performing schools of all types. That will be our approach throughout. We will not take the sort of ideological, backward-looking approach that characterises the Conservative party.

  Tuition Fees
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect of up-front tuition fees on access to higher education. [89207]
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): Since means-tested contributions to tuition fees were introduced in 1998, numbers in higher education have increased and there has been no
  300
  fall in the proportion of those entering it from the bottom three social classes. We will shortly publish our review of higher education, which I can assure my hon. Friend will reflect our continued commitment to widening access. I can confirm that, as the Prime Minister has already told the House, there will be no massive increase in up-front tuition fees.
  Mrs. Campbell: I am very pleased with that reply, but will my right hon. Friend also assess in the review process the effect of differential tuition fees on access, even if they are paid back as deferred loans or a graduate tax, as that is a source of worry to me?
  Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. We are considering the matter extremely carefully. I repeat what I said a moment ago: our commitment to access will be a central aspect of the review, which I hope to announce shortly.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Is it not now high time for the Secretary of State to acknowledge the clear implications of a written answer given to me only on Tuesday this week by the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education? It showed a doubling in the percentage of participation by students from unskilled families in the six Conservative years from 1991 to 1997, but that that process came completely to a stop after the imposition of tuition fees by the Labour Government. Does he not understand that his arbitrary 50 per cent. target for total participation by young people in higher education is logically and practically a totally different matter from widening opportunity for all those who are qualified and suitable to attend our universities? He needs rigorously to keep those issues apart.
  Mr. Clarke: It disappoints me, but I have to agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. Throughout the important discussion on these matters, I have distinguished between the very important issue of the proportion of the age group that goes into higher education, which is a very significant consideration and is now about 43 per cent. of the population, and the balance in that intake of people from different social classes. Those are different questions and both are very important. On the first, which he raised first, I believe that the 50 per cent. target is very important indeed. Looking at our competitor countries, we see that it is exceptionally important that people are educated to such a level. It is also important, however, carefully to consider the appropriate qualifications and degrees to be offered to the 50 per cent. who are coming through. That is what my review will do.
  On the second question, the difference between the chances of access to higher education of the higher and lower social classes is a public disgrace. The previous Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was a Minister, must bear responsibility for that. However, I shall be frank and

  301
  admit that our Government must bear responsibility for our period in office. When I make my statement on those matters, I shall present measures to tackle them.
  Paul Farrelly: What disadvantages does my right hon. Friend personally perceive in allowing different universities to charge students different top-up or tuition fees?
  Mr. Clarke: There are advantages and disadvantages to that policy, as with other policies. If my hon. Friend wants me to list the disadvantages, the first is the overall amount of money and the impact on access about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked. The second is the courses that would attract higher fees in the case of differential fees, and the implications for more expensive and cheaper courses.
  However, there are also important advantages. They include universities' ability to raise more resources, of which they are desperately short, and to develop a better contractual relationship with people who are coming to them. Major questions about the quality of teaching for many university students need to be raised.
  There are therefore great advantages and disadvantages. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) has been an active participant in the debate, and I hope that he, like me, will examine both the pros and cons.
  Adam Price: Given that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the National Assembly have condemned top-up fees as socially divisive, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will not introduce any changes to the system of financing higher education in Wales without the consent of the National Assembly?
  Mr. Clarke: I will not confirm that because a discussion is taking place between all my colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Wales and colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales. I shall not say to any participant in the debate, whether a political party such as the hon. Gentleman's or an organisation, that there is a veto on change. I shall try to achieve consent and agreement about positive changes to the university and higher education system in both Wales and England.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have made substantial progress in moving towards the 50 per cent. target for participation of those under 30? There have been tremendous changes, and that is a great success. We must now switch to ensuring a much more socially diverse entry.
  Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we should not lose sight of the fact that we want high quality higher education that delivers for all those who have the potential to benefit? We must not forget that that must be financed from somewhere.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. First, we must tackle standards. Secondly, the
  302
  quality and nature of the degree qualifications are important to the student, employers and the future. Different issues arise if we envisage 50 per cent. as opposed to 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the population entering higher education. They must be properly tackled. Thirdly, those who claim that we should simply forget about expanding higher education are wrong. I believe that we must do that. Those who claim that we should expand higher education but ensure that it properly serves our society and economy are right. I hope that we will follow that approach.

  Teacher Shortages (Essex)
  Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he will take to help reduce teacher shortages in Essex. [89208]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Essex has benefited from the full range of Government measures that were introduced since 1997 to improve teacher recruitment. They include training bursaries, golden hellos and extra pay flexibilities. That has helped full-time equivalent teacher numbers to increase throughout Essex from 12,580 in 1997 to 13,650 in 2002. From 2003, Essex schools' budgets will rise through the local government settlement, and there will be further increases in the following two years.
  Bob Spink: Does not the Under-Secretary understand that the Government have increased bureaucracy and damaged discipline, thus demoralising teachers not only in Essex but throughout the country? Does he realise that several schools in my constituency have massive teacher vacancies? Will he consider extending London weighting to my constituency so that teachers there can be paid at least the same as those in adjacent constituencies?
  Mr. Twigg: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making a plea for more money from the Government for education at a time when the local government settlement has given a 5.7 per cent. increase to the local authority in Essex, within which we are recommending a 6.9 per cent. increase, which is an excellent and healthy increase for schools in Essex. I do not underestimate the difficulties of recruitment and retention in Essex or elsewhere, but the matter is being addressed in a systematic way not only by the Government but by the local education authority. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to give his support to these positive measures to recruit additional teachers in Essex and elsewhere.
  Bob Russell (Colchester): May I invite the Minister to have a friendly word with his colleagues in the Home Office about the Criminal Records Bureau, because that is one area in which the Government could help to reduce teacher shortages in Essex. As recently as last Friday, the Colchester Evening Gazette reported that
  "More than 1,500 teachers, lunch-time assistants, classroom helpers and … caretakers"

  303
  could not start work because the Criminal Records Bureau had not yet checked their assessments. Of those, nearly 400 were teachers. The Government could resolve much of the teacher shortage in Essex in one fell swoop by getting the Criminal Records Bureau to work.
  Mr. Twigg: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. I will certainly use what opportunities I have to talk to the Criminal Records Bureau and to Home Office colleagues about the situation. As regards the recruitment of teachers, all that is required is that the List 99 requirements are fulfilled, so I will check that that is happening in Essex. I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's argument, because we want to ensure that schools are able to recruit all staff, not only teachers, and I will look into the matter for him.
  Mr. Damian Green: The Minister has heard the reasons for staff shortages in Essex. Those teachers will have contributed to the survey of 70,000 teachers earlier this week which found that one third of our teachers planned to resign or retire within the next five years. How much responsibility does he think that Government policy bears for this crisis in our schools?
  Mr. Twigg: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has actually read the survey concerned. Yes, it does show that one in three said that they expected that they would, or probably would, leave teaching, but half of them will be retiring. They are not going to leave teaching because they are disaffected because of Government policy; they are retiring because of their age. It is absurd to create this scaremongering about recruitment and retention in our schools. What is more interesting about the survey is that it demonstrates that teachers are concerned about issues of bureaucracy and work load, and that is why we are addressing those issues. That is also why we are making positive proposals for the remodelling of the school work force, and I hope that the Conservatives will give us their support when we publish them.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) rises again, I must tell him that he must restrict his question to the county of Essex.
  Mr. Green: Sorry. The Minister's response was unbelievably complacent. Teachers in Essex cite three main reasons for being fed up with their job: unnecessary paperwork, initiative overload and a target-driven culture. Those are the three defining failures of Labour education policy. Will he acknowledge that, unless he admits to teachers in Essex that the gentleman in Whitehall does not always know best, he will continue to drive teachers out of our schools and, in doing so, betray pupils and parents.
  Mr. Twigg: I have not seen the survey broken down by county; obviously the hon. Gentleman has. My understanding, however, is that it shows that less than 6 per cent. of the teachers surveyed intend to leave teaching altogether. That is simply the reality, and it is a low figure. My colleagues and I are not complacent; we recognise that there are issues around teacher work load and questions of bureaucracy. That is why we are
  304
  addressing them, and I would encourage Members on both sides of the House to support our proposals for remodelling the work force, whether it be in Essex, Kent or any other part of the country.

  Pupil Behaviour
  Mr Vernon Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to tackle poor pupil behaviour. [89209]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): We are investing nearly £470 million over the next three years in a national behaviour and attendance strategy to support schools. We are also introducing radical measures to reinforce parental responsibility.
  Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I recognise the work that the Government are doing to tackle behaviour and discipline problems in schools. Will he look at the proposal to reintroduce special allowances for teachers who work in the toughest schools—what used to be called educational priority area special allowances? Would that not be a good way of overcoming some of the problems of recruitment and retention of teachers in our toughest schools, and a way of tackling some of the most difficult behavioural problems that those schools experience?
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend makes an important point about rewarding the unsung heroes of the teaching profession who make a real difference, often in the most challenging circumstances. Of course, he speaks from personal experience. Indeed, I have often thought that his previous career—achieving positive results with difficult children—makes him a credible future candidate for Speaker of the House, although we do not expect a vacancy for many years to come.
  More seriously, our package of investment and reform to reinforce respect and discipline in our schools is ground breaking. It will provide support for heads and teachers, and achieve an appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities among our young people and their parents. We are the first Government to tackle behaviour head on, because we believe that it is crucial to raising standards in our schools.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Minister say what he feels has contributed more to the disillusionment of our young people—indiscipline in our schools, the rise of the drug and gun culture, rap music as suggested by the Home Secretary or the Government's obsession with targets, testing and league tables?
  Can the Minister point to a single Government target that has improved the lot of our black ethnic minority students, who are more likely to be excluded from school; our special educational needs students, who are seven times more likely to be excluded from school; and those youngsters in our inner cities, who are failing in greater numbers under this Government than under the deplorable Government who preceded them?
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman does an injustice to an extremely complex issue by pointing to a particular element that causes ill-discipline, poor behaviour and difficulties that young people experience. We know that a combination of the need for better support for teachers, opportunities for teachers to withdraw difficult pupils from classes, ensuring that we have tough exclusion policies and ensuring that we have a curriculum that turns young people on rather than off is involved, but it is also true, as Members have said, that the influences that impact on young people outside the school environment, such as rap music, make a difference to their perception of their community and the society in which they live. We need a combination of measures to support teachers, enforce parental responsibility and ensure that we offer a curriculum that inspires and energises our young people.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Minister look into the deplorable situation in which Pencoed comprehensive school successfully defended an appeal on a temporary exclusion but was lumbered with a £20,000 bill? If it had gone for a permanent exclusion, the local education authority would have picked up the tab. Surely it is not acceptable that £20,000 will go into legal fees rather than books and teachers.
  Mr. Lewis: Of course, we are willing to have a look at that specific issue. We recently introduced new guidance on reforming exclusion processes in our schools, but we must support head teachers, ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the interests of individual pupils and the school community as a whole and ensure that the exclusion process makes sense for teachers, pupils and parents.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am sure the Minister agrees that had pupil behaviour in schools is not the fault of the Government or of any political party, but it is a growing and serious problem. Having talked to many teachers in recent times, both in this country and in Austria, where I have been for a short time, I may say that part of the problem is that there are few sanctions available to teachers in order to deal with indiscipline. Without structure and discipline in our schools, the teacher cannot provide the best education for the majority of pupils. Will the Government attend to providing sanctions so that those who behave badly do not impede the education of the majority of pupils?
  Mr. Lewis: A range of initiatives that the Government have introduced is beginning to tackle behaviour directly. Let me list those initiatives briefly: learning support units, learning mentors, behaviour in education support teams, curriculum reform for 14-year-olds, parenting contracts and orders, police in schools, the reform of exclusion panels, pupil referral units, full-time education for permanently excluded pupils, truancy sweeps and the fast-track prosecution of parents who do not co-operate. Not one of those interventions was available under the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman.

  Education Funding
  Linda Gilroy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals he has to increase funding available for the further and higher education sectors. [89210]
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): We have announced the largest ever investment in further education over the next three years. Funding will rise by £1.2 billion, an increase of 19 per cent. in real terms, as part of a radical and ambitious reform and investment strategy which links funding to college performance. The higher education strategy document to be published later this month will set out our vision for the rest of the decade, including funding.
  Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend will know of the importance attached by Plymouth college of further education and Plymouth university to increasing access for young people from families whose members have not traditionally attended universities and colleges of further education. Will she ensure that funding increases, and the vision in the Green Paper, focus on increasing the amount spent on achieving higher rates of access and recognising the relationship between further and higher education?
  Margaret Hodge: I applaud the colleges in my hon. Friend's constituency for the work they are doing to ensure that more young people from low-income and non-traditional backgrounds have access to higher education. I confirm what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: we will put access, and the ability of people with talent to attend university, at the top of the agenda in our strategy paper.
  Dr. John Pugh: Given that many colleges throughout the country are uncertain about their finances because of glitches in the Learning and Skills Council's software, and given that even the helplines do not know how to help, who does the Minister think is responsible for this software silliness?
  Margaret Hodge: I am aware of the problems experienced by further education colleges because of glitches in the information technology system, and I think the situation is unacceptable. I am having discussions with the Learning and Skills Council to ensure that it sorts out the problems as quickly as possible. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern.
  Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: It is crucial for many of our constituents that the balance between further and higher education, in terms of funding, remains an issue in the forthcoming review. The much-needed expansion in access for the non-traditional entrants by whom many of our communities are over-represented must be based on access, via further education, to higher education. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the mistakes resulting from the last Government's falsely competitive funding system,

  307
  which forced higher education institutions to compete for a top-up 10 per cent., will not be repeated in the review?
  Margaret Hodge: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, welcome her back to the Chamber, and wish her well as a mother. I assure her that by the time her child enters further and higher education—indeed, by the time her child is at secondary school—we shall have ensured that that child benefits from the highest standards and the best opportunities.
  Let me deal with my hon. Friend's serious point about the links between further and higher education, and the way in which those links can support progress. I entirely agree with her views, which will be reflected in the strategy document.
  Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the financing of universities. [89211]
  Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the funding of higher education institutions. [89217]
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged in the issue papers published in November that current public funding for higher education institutions in England was not enough to enable them to compete with the rest of the world. The higher education strategy document to be published later this month will set out our vision for the rest of the decade, including funding.
  Norman Lamb: Does the Minister agree with the view expressed by the Secretary of State and reported in The Guardian on 19 December that
  "the up-front fee…is the most serious disincentive to people from poor backgrounds coming into universities"
  —although four studies commissioned by the Department, and published on its website, make clear that fear of debt seriously deters students in general, and students from disadvantaged backgrounds in particular, from thinking of going to university? Will the Government's proposals take account of the clear findings of those studies?
  Margaret Hodge: We accept that both large up-front payments and fear of debt are factors that inhibit some young people from lower-income backgrounds from attending university. We also know that there are other important factors that we need to tackle, the first of which is to get young people to stay on at school to
  308
  achieve more, and to get them to aim higher, raise their aspirations and see university as an option for them, rather than as an option simply for the middle classes.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Reverting to the answer that the Minister gave to the substantive question, what is the size of the institutional funding gap that she is seeking to plug?
  Margaret Hodge: There have been various assessments of the funding gap, but it would not be helpful to give a specific figure at this time.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Is it £9 billion?
  Margaret Hodge: Well, the figure given by Universities UK is about £9.9 billion. That is one figure, but the answer depends on the options chosen. We think that there is a substantial funding gap and we are looking at ways of filling it over time. However, as I said, giving a specific figure at this time is not helpful.
  Mr. David Chaytor: In the context of student finance, is it not true that, in addition to the graduate premium that distinguishes between the earnings of graduates and of non-graduates, there is a differential graduate premium that distinguishes between the earnings of graduates of Britain's leading research universities and of graduates of the smaller universities? If it is logical to make graduates contribute to the cost of their tuition, is it not equally logical to make graduates of the leading research universities contribute an additional amount to their tuition costs?
  Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that graduate premiums do differ, both according to the institution attended and to the subject studied. That is one of the factors that we are bearing in mind as we think about future funding of higher education and support for students.
  Mr. Andy Reed: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that one of the many difficulties faced by universities is the payment and retention of university staff. In making sure that universities offer a future for students, it is necessary to ensure that teaching, as well as research, is of the highest quality. In making certain that that happens, is she taking into consideration the pay gap experienced by those working in higher education institutions such as Loughborough university?
  Margaret Hodge: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend: if we are to maintain and enhance the quality of teaching in our institutions, we must attract good quality teachers, and if we are to enhance our research capacity, we must attract into the sector, and keep, the best academics. Out of interest, since 1993 the real earnings of male academics in higher education have fallen by 0.4 per cent. That compares with a growth of about 5.8 per cent. in male professional earnings in general. That is one of the issues that we are looking at in our higher education reform.
  Mr. James Paice: The hon. Lady is on record as repeatedly saying that this

  309
  graduate premium—the average earnings of a graduate, compared with a non-graduate—is justification for expecting a graduate to contribute to the unspecified funding gap that she referred to earlier. However, if 50 per cent. of that age group are to become graduates, it is surely logical to expect that, in time, 50 per cent. of the work force will be graduates. Will not the graduate premium be substantially diminished, therefore, thereby completely countering the point that she repeatedly tries to make?
  Margaret Hodge: Interestingly enough, evidence emerging from the massive expansion in higher education that took place when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government demonstrates that the graduate premium not only sustained itself during that period, but, if anything, gradually went up. Our analysis tends to suggest that, given the demands that will be required of the labour market, there is no evidence that the graduate premium will be diminished as we expand the number of people who attend higher education institutions to fulfil the needs of the labour market.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the impact of pay rates on the scale of migration of teachers between further education and schools. [89213]
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The Department does not collect data on the number of further education teachers leaving to work in schools. However, one local government survey suggests that 1 per cent. of full-time recruits to secondary schools—about 210 staff from an FE complement of 46,000—are from the FE or higher education sectors. The additional £1.2 billion of investment in FE by 2005–06 will allow colleges to address recruitment, retention and reward issues.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I would have expected many more teachers to leave further education and move into schools, as the starting salary for a schoolteacher is £3,000 higher than for a teacher in FE. The Association of Colleges says that teacher vacancies in FE are running at twice the level as in schools. When will we move towards parity between teachers in schools and in FE colleges?
  Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will know that the top of the FE scale is about £27,000 a year, whereas the top of the schoolteachers' main scale is £25,000 and the top of the schoolteachers' upper scale is £32,000. The pay systems for schools and FE are negotiated differently. In the end, pay comparability will depend, for schools, on the review body for schools and, for FE, on the negotiations between employers and teacher representatives. Those negotiations will restart on 13 January. The pay gap can be bridged by means of the money being put into FE as a result of decisions by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. John Horam (Orpington): On the subject of the pay and conditions of FE lecturers, will the Minister
  310
  clear up the confusion caused by remarks made by the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education in a debate on FE in Westminster Hall in respect of the starter home initiative for key workers? The Minister gave the impression that Government policy had changed and that FE lecturers were now on a par with schoolteachers with regard to that scheme, whereas, hitherto they had to wait in the queue behind nurses, schoolteachers and policemen to benefit from it.
  Mr. Miliband: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education would not have wanted to cause any confusion. I promise to write to the hon. Gentleman at the earliest possible juncture to set out the position very clearly.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Migration from sixth-form colleges to schools is encouraged by the fact that pupils in such colleges are about £1,000 worse off than their counterparts in sixth forms attached to schools. My 16 to 19-year-olds cannot choose to go to sixth-form colleges attached to schools, as their only option is a sixth-form college. Is it fair that my already deprived young people should be further deprived in that way? When will the Government level up the funding?
  Mr. Miliband: The different arrangements that apply in different parts of the country reflect institutional history. However, every pupil in the country will benefit from the increased investment that is being put into the whole sector catering for 14 to 19-year-olds. The increased funding and higher quality will benefit all pupils, whether they are studying in school or college or following a work-based study course.

  Literacy Strategy
  Mr. Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the role of phonics in the teaching of reading in the Government's English key stage 2 literacy strategy. [89214]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The literacy strategy has put phonics at the heart of literacy teaching and has brought about what Ofsted described in its recent report as a "marked shift" in teachers' attitudes to, and understanding of, phonics.
  Mr. Gibb: That answer is very welcome, but Ofsted also reports that 41 per cent. of seven-year-olds fail to reach the expected standard in writing, and that 31 per cent. fail in reading. Does the Minister agree with Ryan Conor, the special adviser to the previous Secretary of State, that synthetic phonics is a more effective method for teaching reading than the approach adopted by the national literacy strategy? Although it is to be welcomed that 25,000 year 3 teachers are to be taught phonics, what further measures is he taking to ensure that the synthetic phonics method is more widely used throughout years 1 to 4 of primary education, as also recommended by Ofsted?
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: I think that the hon. Gentleman means Conor Ryan, not Ryan Conor. The issue of

  311
  phonics is central to the national literacy strategy and we take very seriously the remarks made by Ofsted. We believe that the model that we are using—the combination of synthetic and analytic phonics—is the correct one. Known as the Searchlights model, it is based on experience in this country and in other parts of the world, including the US. This week, I have written to all primary school head teachers and chairs of governors to reaffirm the importance of the national literacy strategy and the central importance of phonics in that strategy's success.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend share my anxiety that the early huge achievements delivered by the national literacy strategy in improving literacy standards in the number of children leaving primary schools in Slough—the figure has risen from 50 per cent. to nearly three quarters—has slowed down, and that there is a lack of refreshment and re-energising in improvements in literacy in our primary schools? What does he intend to do to re-energise the national literacy strategy in primary education?
  Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we must praise the progress that has been made. In 1997, only 63 per cent. of our 11-year-olds were achieving what we would expect in terms of literacy, and now the figure is 75 per cent. That is a major advance. However, for one in four of our 11-year-olds not to achieve what we would expect in their literacy standards is not acceptable. That is why I announced this week that there will be extra training and additional booster classes for young people. This year, for the first time, 1,000 Easter schools across the country will be aimed at giving year 6 pupils that final additional support in preparation for their year 6 tests.
  I do not rest on my laurels and neither does the team. We believe that the advances that have been made are very important. We have an ambitious target of reaching 85 per cent. next year. We will work to achieve that and this strategy is central to our ability to do so.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the procedures for satisfying criteria for the grant of university titles to higher education institutions. [89218]
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): The criteria for degree-awarding powers and university title were last reviewed in 1998. Our plans on this matter will be set out in our strategy document to be published later this month; I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the document will address the issue. Indeed, I discussed it with a delegation from the Standing Conference of Principals yesterday, which included the chief executive of the Southampton institute.
  Dr. Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that interesting and encouraging reply. Does he accept that the present system appears to hold out the prospect of an exponential number of new universities and that while any institute of higher education can claim that it
  312
  is on the road to university status, the reality is that very few, if any, new universities will be created in the foreseeable future? Is he prepared to say that a new system may well reflect reality more closely?
  Mr. Clarke: I am certainly prepared to say that I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. One of the sadnesses of the current degree-awarding status and status discussion is that the quality of teaching undergraduates is not sufficiently recognised. There are many higher education institutions, including ones in his constituency and serving Southampton, which, although first-class teaching institutions, find it difficult to compete in the marketplace for undergraduates because they cannot call themselves universities. This has been a serious issue for a long time. That is why I confirmed that we are looking at this extremely carefully and we expect to say something about it in the document that will be published later this month.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding university top-up fees. [89219]
  Mr. Simon Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on university top-up fees. [89220]
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): We will shortly publish a strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the student finance review. After that there will be further opportunity for interested parties to comment.
  Mr. Carmichael: The Minister is aware that her Labour colleagues in Scotland have been persuaded to take a rather more enlightened approach to tuition fees and student finance. Obviously, her consultation could have a spin-off impact on the position north of the border. What assurances can she give me that her consultation will involve the closest possible conduct with Scottish Ministers?
  Margaret Hodge: A different approach is being taken by our colleagues in Scotland. That is a strength of devolution which I hope the hon. Gentleman applauds. Of course, we have regular conversations with our colleagues in Scotland and we will consult with them. If there are different systems in place, that is a good thing, not a bad thing.
  Mr. Burns: Does the Minister accept that many parents in my constituency are extremely concerned about the mixed messages put out by the Government on top-up fees and the apparent breach of Labour's election manifesto? Will she seek to remedy some of the confusion? Media reports suggest that the Secretary of State has said that he will rule out all top-up fees, yet the

  313
  spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills has said that the Secretary of State will rule out only large top-up fees?
  Margaret Hodge: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be pleased to share with us the findings of our strategy review, which we shall publish in a couple of weeks. I ask him and his constituents to wait until that time. I should like to say to his constituents and to their children that the purpose of the review is to ensure not only that we put university funding on a proper, secure footing, which is very important after the 36 per cent. cut in funding experienced under the hon. Gentleman's Government, but that student funding is put on a sustainable long-term footing.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—

  Official Secrets Acts
  Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on her policy relating to prosecution of offences under the Official Secrets Acts. [89226]
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Attorney-General's consent is required to bring a prosecution for most offences contrary to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 or 1989. The Attorney-General considers first whether there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is sufficient evidence, the Attorney-General considers whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. The more serious the offence the more likely it is that a prosecution will be needed.
  Andrew Mackinlay: Ah, so the Attorney-General is to blame then. Next time, I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Lady will counsel her clients in the security and intelligence services that the Official Secrets Act is a deficient and blunt instrument, as well as one that does not meet European norms. Cases such as Shayler, Ponting or Sarah Tisdall, where the judge says, "You wicked, wicked man—six weeks in the slammer", really do not advance national security. We need new, modern legislation that will protect our critical interest as well as allowing justice to prevail and allowing people to give the truth when there has been bad mismanagement or irregularity in the security and intelligence services.
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes three points. The first was on whether we are compliant with our European obligations. The House of Lords has considered the Official Secrets Act and has decided that it is in compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998.
  I think that my hon. Friend's second point related to the sentence in the Shayler case. In fact, the judge said that his starting point would have been 18 months in the circumstances of that offence, but he reduced it because the offender had spent time in prison in France.
  314
  On new legislation, obviously the Home Office will keep that issue under review and I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will have been heard.
  Finally, on the accountability and lawfulness of the security services, it is obviously right that the security services are not above the law and that they should be accountable. We take that point very seriously.
  Mr. Richard Bacon: On the point that the Solicitor-General has just raised, does she accept that the 1989 Act currently assumes that the internal procedures of the Security Service are incapable of failure? However, given that any procedure is capable of failure, should someone have to be put in the position of committing a crime in order to reveal a crime, without the possibility in law of entering a defence?
  The Solicitor-General: I think that it used to be the case that it was assumed that the procedure was incapable of failure and that has, rightly, been looked at. The absolute prohibition on a member or former member of the security services giving out intelligence information is mitigated in relation to the public interest in a number of ways. First, as the hon. Gentleman understands, the person can tell their superiors. If that is not acceptable and the person does not want to do that, he can, if he is alleging unlawfulness, go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. If someone applies to give out information and is refused by his management, he can judicially review that decision as unreasonable. Of course, we also have the Select Committee which scrutinises the security services. I agree with where the hon. Gentleman is coming from: we must have the right opportunities for unlawful actions to be disclosed if they are taking place, but I hope that the procedures that I have described are actually working in that way.

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Solicitor-General what steps she is taking to publicise the right of (a) victims of crime and (b) members of the public to seek the review of unduly lenient sentences. [89229]
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: To ask the Solicitor-General what measures her Department plans to take to ensure that victims of crime and their relatives are informed of their right to ask the Attorney-General to consider the referral of a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency. [89232]
  The Solicitor-General: Where a victim complains that a sentence is too lenient, either they or the Crown Prosecution Service can ask the Law Officers to review the sentence. We can then, if we consider it unduly lenient, refer it to the Court of Appeal. We keep the issue of unduly lenient sentences, including publicity of them to victims and the wider public, under review.
  Mr. Turner: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for that answer, but I would draw her attention to the words,
  "what steps she is taking to publicise the right".

  315
  On 4 July 2002, she told me:
  "We need to ensure that Members and victims know that the right is there, but that it has to be exercised within 28 days."—[Official Report, 4 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 392.]
  On 24 October, I asked her an identical question to the one I am asking today, and she did not give me an answer at all. So what steps is she taking to publicise to victims the right that they have to draw the matter to the Attorney-General's attention within 28 days if they believe that an unduly lenient sentence has been given?
  The Solicitor-General: The actual steps that the hon. Gentleman asks about are that, where there has been a conviction and sentence, the case will have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and it is the responsibility of the CPS to liase with the victim. If the victim complains about the sentence being too lenient, there is an obligation on the CPS to consider it. The CPS can then refer it to us or, if it is not prepared to do so, the procedure is that it should tell the victim, "We, the CPS, are not going to refer it to the Law Officers, but you can."
  I anticipate the hon. Gentleman's thoughts, as he will not be able to make the next point, which is that the problem is the time limit: the complaint has to be made within 28 days of sentence. There is an absolute cut-off point, so that the sentence increase should not hang over a defendant when he has been convicted. I know that that causes difficulties, but we want to be sure that the CPS tells victims if it is not going to refer a sentence to us.
  Mr. Marsden: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the concerns that I have raised about this issue involving cases in Blackpool, where manslaughter verdicts relating to domestic violence were followed by sentences that the relatives and I consider to be excessively lenient. I am very well aware of her concerns about the issue, but given the problems that arise from time to time not least with the CPS and the information process in this respect, if we are not to be proactive in taking further publicity steps about this right, will she at least undertake to consider whether there should be a wider review, in which the whole question of the 28-day period is properly reviewed, because it is clear from a number of examples that the right is not always automatically adequate to assist victims or their relatives in the present circumstances?
  The Solicitor-General: The first point that I would make in response to my hon. Friend's question is that, when the House discussed the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it was specifically decided that this would not be a general prosecution right of appeal against sentence, nor would it be a victim's right of appeal against sentence; it
  316
  was a kind of special, exceptional jurisdiction. I know that that feels very uncomfortable for some victims who would like to appeal.
  As for the process, there are difficult ies with the tight time limit. Again, it was decided by the House—it is in statute, in primary legislation—that the application has to be referred within 28 days or it falls. That is designed to protect the defendant from the sense that he has an increase in sentence hanging over him.
  As for domestic violence sentencing, my hon. Friend knows that sentencing is obviously a matter for the judges, but the Attorney-General and I have referred a number of domestic violence sentences, involving both homicide and assault, during the past 12 months, and we will refer domestic sentences where they appear to us to be unduly lenient.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Solicitor-General should be aware that the public's main concern about unduly lenient sentences relates to unduly lenient sentences for burglary. Will she take this opportunity comprehensively to reject the ludicrous statements by the Lord Chancellor, supporting Lord Woolf's guidelines, and say today that she agrees instead with Prime Minister's spokesman that those who commit burglary should face lengthy custodial sentences? There has been enormous Government confusion on that. The Lord Chancellor is entirely wrong, and ordinary people want burglars to be sent to prison.
  The Solicitor-General: I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor, and I stand strongly behind what he said. As far as unduly lenient sentences for burglary are concerned, they are not referable by the Law Officers to the Court of Appeal because they are triable each way. Only cases that are only triable on indictment are referable to the Court of Appeal.
  Mr. John Burnett: Will the Solicitor-General confirm that in cases of unduly lenient sentences, and in all prosecutions, a claim for public interest immunity will only be made by the prosecution on the grounds that public disclosure of the material would constitute a serious threat to national security or to protect police informants?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right. The provision is wide-ranging in relation to public interest immunity, which allows material to be kept from the defendant. He is absolutely right that national security and the protection of informants are grounds for claiming public interest immunity, but they are not the only grounds. The courts have said that other categories of public interest might qualify, but, clearly, it is an exceptionally serious matter.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 13 JANUARY—Opposition Day [2nd allotted day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Failure of the Home Secretary to Provide a Credible Criminal Justice System", followed by a debate entitled "Failure of the Government's Drugs Policy". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 14 JANUARY—Until about 4 o'clock there will be an Opposition half day [unallotted] on a motion in the name of the Ulster Unionist party entitled "The Future of Education in Northern Ireland", followed by a debate on the London bid for the 2012 Olympic games on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 15 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill.
THURSDAY 16 JANUARY—Motions on General Synod Measures, followed by a motion to take note of various European documents relating to fisheries policy.
FRIDAY 17 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting. The provisional business for the week after will be:
MONDAY 20 JANUARY—Opposition Day [3rd allotted day], there will be a debate on an Opposition motion subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 21 JANUARY—Debate on House of Lords reform on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will wish to know that there will be a further debate during the week commencing 3 February in which Members will have an opportunity to vote on the seven options recommended by the Joint Committee.
WEDNESDAY 22 JANUARY—Debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 23 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.
FRIDAY 24 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 30 January will be:
THURSDAY 30 JANUARY—A debate on the report from the European Scrutiny Committee on democracy and accountability in the EU and the role of national parliaments.
Mr. Knight: I thank the Leader of the House for his reply. We are rather surprised that he has announced a debate on defence in the world for 22 January. Does not he recall that we had a debate on that very subject on 17 October last year, less than three months ago? The next defence debate that the House was expecting was one on defence procurement. With so many decisions awaited on new defence equipment, should not Members on both sides of the House be given an opportunity to raise those issues in debate? Why is he allowing Defence Ministers to dodge scrutiny on such issues, when many Members, including a large number
318
of Labour Members, wish to express their views, particularly on the aircraft carrier project in which BAE Systems is a key contender? As he has said that this business is still only provisional, will he consider changing it to allow the House to debate defence procurement on that date?
Flooding remains a serious issue that has returned to devastate parts of the UK over the past few days, with many people suffering severe losses and the trauma of being forced to flee their homes. In view of changing weather patterns, it is clear that much more needs to be done. May we have an early debate on the Government's strategy on this now near annual emergency? It is important that the House is able to examine what is being done following the warning given by the Institution of Civil Engineers as long ago as 2001. It said that the Government's plans were "piecemeal and inadequate" and it concluded that spending on flood defences ought to he doubled. If the recommendations in the report have not been fully implemented, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must take most of the blame for the scale of the latest devastation?
On the subject of modernisation, has the Leader of the House any plans to improve and update the way in which members of the Cabinet communicate—not with the public, but with each other? May we have an early debate on that? Is he aware of the widespread concern that there has been a complete breakdown in Government collective responsibility this week? That is not just our view—the newspapers have been full of it. The Independent of 8 January said:
"Reform of the House of Lords was in disarray yesterday after the Lord Chancellor warned that many MPs and Peers had rejected the 'nonsense' of a partly-elected second Chamber."
It went on to say:
"But he was immediately contradicted by Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, who insisted he favoured a 'mixed' House of Lords."
Meanwhile, on the same day, the Daily Mail reported on the Government's foreign policy under the headline
"Cabinet is rocked as Hoon rebukes Straw on strategy".
The article by its political editor stated:
"Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon delivered a stinging rebuke to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw for playing down prospects of an Iraqi conflict."
The paper added:
"The row also left Government policy on the approaching conflict looking confused and unfocused."
That was not all. On the very same day, there was more evidence that the Cabinet is coming apart at the seams. Other reports said:
"Downing Street slapped down Lord Irvine yesterday after he insisted it was right to keep burglars out of jail."
One article by Paul Eastham rightly concluded:
"By intervening so heavily, the Government has effectively humiliated its most senior law officer."
In the midst of all this, where was the Prime Minister? He was telling a conference of ambassadors in London—and apparently he was serious —that under his leadership
"Britain's role was to unite the world and act as a unifier."

319
He should start talking to members of his own party. In view of the widespread appeal of this ongoing free-for-all among Ministers, is there not a case for modernising the Government's procedures and perhaps allowing the next meeting of the Cabinet to be televised?
Mr. Cook: Happy new year to the right hon. Gentleman, too.
I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be surprised that we are holding a debate on defence in the world. Quite a lot has happened to defence in the world since 17 October, and I remind him of a technical but important point. The previous debate took place in another parliamentary Session; we are committed to holding a debate on defence in the world in each parliamentary Session. That is why we have again tabled the subject for debate. I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on whether he wishes to hold that debate or the other debate on defence procurement on that day. However, I have often observed the House of Commons in action and noted the ingenuity of Members, and I do not think that it is beyond their skill to find a way to bring within order comments on an aircraft carrier in a debate on defence in the world, to which they are plainly relevant.
I am pleased to report that there have been substantial increases in spending on flood prevention since the last floods and since the observation was made in 2001. That may partly explain why fewer houses were inundated during these floods than there were two years ago.
The right hon. Gentleman asked us to double spending on flood prevention, but that would be very difficult to achieve in the context of a 20 per cent. reduction in spending, which is the formal policy of the Opposition. I remain to be convinced about whether they can flesh it out, but we have an hour of questions before us, so I shall welcome, and take careful note of, observations from any Conservative Member who wishes to propose a 20 per cent. cut in public spending in his or her constituency. I will make sure that the Government act on that request.
The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps guilty of wish fulfilment by claiming that the Cabinet is falling apart at the seams. The Lord Chancellor and I have repeatedly said, including in statements to the House last summer, that there will be a free vote on House of Lords reform. It is a bit inconsistent for the right hon. Gentleman's party to welcome our commitment to a free vote in Parliament so that it can settle the matter but then complain that there is not a collective decision in the Government on what Parliament should vote for.
I am glad to take this opportunity to say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has played an excellent role in ensuring that the Iraqi crisis is dealt with in the United Nations and that it is kept firmly anchored there. Through those efforts, we achieved a resolution that was unanimously agreed by the Security Council and got the inspectors back into Iraq, which I thought would be welcomed by all hon. Members. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend on that.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We have just heard the Leader of the House speak warmly of the Foreign
320
Secretary. Can he explain why the Foreign Secretary decided to make an extremely important statement on Iraq by way of a written statement on Tuesday given that there are two most extraordinary reasons why it should have been an oral statement on which we could have cross-questioned him? For the first time yesterday, time was allocated for statements to the House to allow Secretaries of State to explain what they are up to and to allow us to question them. Why was that opportunity not taken? To add insult to injury, my copy of Hansard yesterday did not contain the statement from the Foreign Secretary. I understand that that was subsequently corrected, but Hansard did not have that statement as a written submission. I hope the Leader of the House accepts that that is outrageous.
What plans does the Leader of the House have for further discussions with Opposition parties about pre-legislative scrutiny? What progress has been made on that, and what are the candidates this Session? In particular, will he consider the case made by both main Opposition parties for a civil service draft Bill? He will be aware that the report of the Wicks committee is imminent. Surely that must be a strong candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny.
What discussions does the Leader of the House intend to have with Opposition parties about appropriate Bills for carry-over in this Session? I notice that this morning's papers report that yesterday he canvassed the views of the parliamentary Labour party on candidates for carry-over. Perhaps he will also talk to other Members of the House, since he is Leader of the House, not leader of the PLP.
Finally, will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for a statement on appropriate penalties for excessive speeding on the roads? Unfortunately, there was no chance earlier for the Solicitor-General to make a statement, but no doubt she would like to do so.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to deal with the last point first. My right hon. and learned Friend has just completed answering oral questions. I was with her throughout that period and she handled herself with great competence and authority. She is doing an excellent job and will continue to do so. On the matter to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, she has said that she is sorry for what happened and will of course plead guilty at the first opportunity. I hope that the House will now let the matter close.
We heard an oral statement on Iraq on Tuesday from the Defence Secretary. The Foreign Secretary has addressed the House many times on Iraq and will continue to do so. I do not think that anyone can fairly accuse the Government of not keeping the House fully informed of developments in Iraq or of not giving it opportunities to cross-examine Ministers and to express its views. We will continue to maintain that record.
On Hansard, I cannot explain why the written statement did not appear; we will make inquiries about that. Since we introduced the new system, it has, on the whole, been to the benefit of Members and the public because it provides a clearly identifiable and transparent system for Ministers to make statements, as opposed to the surreptitious device of planted questions. I am glad we have put that behind us.
It is early in the Session to decide which Bills might be appropriate for carry-over. As I repeatedly said when we discussed that in the autumn, the issue of carry-over

321
will arise only for Bills introduced after Easter. I fully accept, however, that when we reach that point we will want to carry the House with us and that we will have to consult other parties on appropriate Bills.
Similarly, with pre-legislative scrutiny I am very keen that the House should have the chance to scrutinise Bills in draft, because I believe that the earlier it can get in on the act, the better its opportunity to influence the shape of Bills will be. That is why I have committed the Government to trying to produce more Bills in draft during this Session and the next.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from previous Sessions, draft Bills tend to appear towards the latter half of the Session because our efforts are necessarily focused in the first half on the official Bills for consideration. I fully understand the interest of Select Committees and others, particularly the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, in knowing in advance what Bills may come before the House for pre-legislative scrutiny, and I will endeavour to make sure that everybody is kept informed.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in its special session on children in May, entitled "A World Fit for Children"? It includes the statement:
"Children must be protected from the horrors of armed conflict."
As 42 per cent. of Iraq's population are children of 14 and under, it would he appropriate to have that debate before Britain enters into any armed conflict with Iraq, so that we can see how we will live up to the provisions in the declaration.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. He will be pleased to know that, in UN discussions, the United Kingdom has consistently supported the rights of children and wanted to make sure that we provide strong international norms for the respect of children's rights and the treatment of children. I only share with the House my deep regret that it is doubtful whether any of those norms, standards or rights will be observed by Saddam Hussein.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Leader of the House may be aware that the Vale of York suffered substantial flooding over the Christmas holiday, although on this occasion no homes near Thirsk were flooded. Will he give the House the opportunity of an early debate to consider two matters?
First, the Minister with responsibility for flooding should come to the House to consider the archaic procedure whereby the Environment Agency is responsible only for the main watercourses, and not for minor watercourses such as Cod beck, which in this case burst its banks dramatically. Such incidents are the responsibility of internal drainage boards. Will the Leader of the House review the matter by providing a debate in which the Minister responsible can respond to our concerns?
Secondly, it seems perverse that insurance policies will no longer cover the flooding of homes built on functional flood plains. Developers of such homes will probably have made a substantial profit by building
322
them, but it will be the homeowner's responsibility for making sure that they are flood-proof. Will the Leader of the House invite the responsible Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry to respond to our concerns at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady's point about the lack of consistency in responsibility is a matter that should he addressed, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Insurance policies are primarily a matter for the insurance industry, but I have a lot of sympathy with the point that lies behind the hon. Lady's question. It is now clear that many housing developers have put up developments, sold the houses and invited willing purchasers to move in without adequate forethought to the risk to which they were exposing those new homeowners. I hope that the lesson of the past two years means that developers will be much more careful about where they site homes and much more frank with those purchasing them about the risk.
Mr. Tom Cox: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent presidential and parliamentary elections in Kenya. As former President Moi's corrupt and incompetent Government have finally been defeated, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, as Kenya is a Commonwealth country, we will do all that we can to work with the new Administration as they develop their economic and social policies and that, at the appropriate time, a debate on those developments will take place in the House?
Mr. Cook: Like my hon. Friend, I very much welcome the fact that the population of Kenya have had an opportunity to carry through a democratic process and to choose the Government for whom they voted. As a friend of Kenya, Britain will make it a high priority of its foreign policy to make sure that we support that democratic process, so that it can deepen and develop and be entrenched in future constitutional activities in Kenya. Obviously, we stand ready to work with the new Government on developing ways to deal with the poverty that many Kenyan people face. We are proud of the fact that our overseas aid to Africa has increased by 50 per cent. over the Government's lifetime.
Mr. John Bercow: In light of the welcome revelation and admission in The Times today by the General Secretary of the Labour party that the Labour party is guilty of no fewer than 120 breaches of funding law, amounting to a sum of approximately £300,000, would the Leader of the House consider the merits of an early debate on honesty in government so that the House can properly compare and contrast the welcome and refreshing candour of the Labour General Secretary on the one hand and the Government's continuing failure to admit to failures in health, education, transport and the fight against crime on the other?
Mr. Cook: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the honesty of the Labour party, and we shall seek to build on the support that he has offered us. I shall find every possible opportunity for the Government to be honest and frank with the House

323
about the fact that in the health service we have more nurses and doctors than ever before, and that for the first time in 30 years we have more beds in the NHS rather than less beds—
Mr. Bercow: Fewer.
Mr. Cook: I am sorry, I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The fact is that the number of acute and general beds in the NHS has increased in the past year after 30 years during which the numbers declined, including a dramatic decline in the period when the Conservative Government were in office. They will decline dramatically again under any Conservative Government committed to a 20 per cent. cut in public spending.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the deteriorating situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo? As a former distinguished Foreign Secretary, does he agree that the international community does indeed have a role to play in seeking to prevent further genocide in the great lakes region? Is there perhaps a possibility of a debate in the House?
Mr. Cook: The situation in Congo is tragic, and has been both violent and unstable for a long period. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the international community does have a responsibility. Britain has sought to work with our European partners, particularly France and Belgium, to find ways in which the support of the international community can be used to try to bring an end to the suffering of the people of Congo and to start to develop the country's substantial assets. One of the great tragedies is that the country is perpetually assailed on all sides by violence because it contains riches that are used to enrich not local people but local warlords. I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government will continue to do all that we can to work with the international community to help the people of Congo.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on proportional representation, of which he and I are long-standing supporters? Does he agree that one of the benefits of PR is that it allows Parliaments to control Executives, and that we should therefore welcome the defeat in the Scottish Parliament last night of the Labour-Liberal Executive's shabby and underhand attempt to close fire stations? Will the Leader of the House arrange for that early debate so that we supporters of PR can further celebrate that example of democracy in action?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do not expect to win.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for his expression of support, but I rather suspect, taking the advice of my
324
hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that I may be unwise to call for a snap vote on that proposition.
Mr. Skinner: The man has brains.
Mr. Cook: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. We devolved power to Edinburgh precisely so that the Scottish Parliament can make decisions affecting Scotland. Sometimes those decisions may be ones with which we may not exactly agree, but it is right that the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament should make them.
Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend may be aware that the Department of Trade and Industry recently completed a public consultation on the World Trade Organisation negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services. Given the importance of those negotiations to the supply of services, particularly in the public sector in fields such as education, health and transport, will he agree to hold a debate in the Chamber at the earliest possible opportunity so that Members can express their views?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a point of immense importance about the next trade round and developing a freer trade in services to make sure that developing countries can protect their own economic interests and public services. A balance has to be struck—I can assure her that the Government are well aware of that—and I am sure that over the protracted period of the next trade round there will be opportunities for the House to debate the issue.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Leader of the House turn his attention to the forthcoming cricket world cup fixtures in Zimbabwe? Why have the Government been so slow to focus on the issue and the inevitability of President Mugabe hijacking the tournament for political purposes? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was only when the Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), spoke out on the issue that the Government belatedly started to focus on it? Surely the time has come to stop passing the buck and make some decisions?
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to put the record straight, and am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to disabuse him of the idea that the Government have shown an interest in this matter only recently. As far back as early July, the England and Wales Cricket Board was advised that the Government would not wish the team to go to Zimbabwe. I also think that it is rather unreasonable of the ECB to pretend that it has noticed only in the past few weeks that there is a problem in Zimbabwe. We could not have been clearer about the Government's position—the cricket team should not go, and it would be wrong for it to do so. I agree that, if it does so, there is a risk that President Mugabe will seek to exploit that for a propaganda victory. However, the decision is for the ECB. I understand the difficulty of the decision, but I hope that it will recognise that there are compelling reasons why it should decide not to go.
Andrew Mackinlay: I have a question for my right hon. Friend as a moderniser about next week's

325
business. Half of a core day in the Chamber will be spent on Church of England Measures, but I invite him to consider whether those matters should not be debated in Westminster Hall. Looking around the Chamber, I see Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics, lapsed Catholics, people brought up as Catholics, agnostics, followers of Islam and members of Jewish congregations: hands up all those who are communicants of the Church of England—there you are.
Mr. Cook: I have to confess that I cannot raise my hand in response to my hon. Friend's challenge. The matter to be discussed next week relates to the consolidation of the Church of England's pension rules, which is undoubtedly important to people who have such a pension. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend, and accept that there is a wider issue to be addressed. However, there are procedures to deal with that, and it is entirely right to retain those procedures at present. As for what may obtain on a future occasion, that is as much a matter for the Church of England as it is for the House of Commons.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The reference by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) to Free Presbyterians reminds me that I am truly a Free Presbyterian of the Auld Kirk.
The Leader of the House will no doubt join me in welcoming the advertising campaign this week dealing with the menace of child abuse and the internet. May we have a statement shortly on the state of conversations between the authorities in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom on transferring information on known paedophiles travelling to England, Wales and Northern Ireland without giving proper notification to the requisite authorities so that action can be taken?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises an important dimension of our fight against the abuse of children, which has become highly internationalised, so it is therefore very important that international authorities co-operate closely. National authorities should be part of that exercise to make sure that we prevent paedophiles from taking advantage of any national authority's ignorance of activity elsewhere. We are therefore seeking the closest possible co-operation with all our European partners, and I shall invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to write to the hon. Gentleman setting out what we are doing in that respect with Ireland.
David Winnick: On religious matters, non-believers should not be excluded.
If there is to be a ministerial statement on the proposed cricket tour of Zimbabwe, as there should be, would not that be a good opportunity, first, to remind the House that although many of us opposed English cricketers playing in apartheid South Africa, the Tories were in favour of that, and secondly, to argue strongly that there is no justification for English cricketers to play in Mugabe's lawless tyranny, and that to do so would be a disgrace?
Mr. Cook: If I may say so, we have had several ministerial statements on the issue and they have all
326
been consistent that the cricket team should not go to Zimbabwe. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the parallels with the boycott of South Africa, but as I understand the present situation—and I would not wish to disturb it—there is unity from all political perspectives that it would be a mistake for the cricket team to go to Zimbabwe, that that could hand a propaganda victory to Mugabe, that we should not do so at a time when he is oppressing his people, and that those who go to play or to watch the cricket will be entering a country and eating food in a country where 7 million people are near starvation.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider his last answer? In my recollection, there have been no statements from the Dispatch Box from Ministers responsible for Zimbabwe. That is why so many of us believe that the message from the Government has been blurred. It is not good enough for Ministers to make personal statements, as we had from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) in the Westminster Hall debate. We require an urgent statement as soon as possible from a senior Minister, making it abundantly clear how wrong it would be for the cricket team to go to Zimbabwe. Then, I believe, there would be action.
Mr. Cook: The Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box only yesterday that it would be wrong for the cricket team to go. There is no more senior Minister than the Prime Minister. That is an authoritative statement. All statements from Ministers have been consistent. As I understand it—although I am beginning to doubt it—the position of Opposition Members is that the cricket team should not go to Zimbabwe. They do not help to get that message across by suggesting that there has been any weakness, doubt or confusion about where the Government stand on the matter.
John Cryer: The Commission for Integrated Transport recently suggested that the transport subsidies to pensioners should be cut in various ways. One effect of that would be that the freedom pass in London, which covers my constituency, would disappear, and there would be a more uniform subsidy along the lines of the 50 per cent. subsidy in the rest of the country. May we have a statement from the Dispatch Box from a Transport Minister to make it clear that the Government will have nothing to do with such a barmy suggestion, which would curtail my constituents' ability to travel?
Mr. Cook: As I understand it, the suggestion to which my hon. Friend refers is not from any Minister, but from an advisory body. It is in the nature of appointing advisory bodies that we receive but do not initiate the advice that they offer to Government. The Government have a good record of making sure that pensioners have an appropriate concessionary fare and are encouraged to travel. It is important that the transport system is fully used, and it is important for pensioners that they are able to get about. I can assure my hon. Friend that

327
the Government will wish to continue to defend the ability of pensioners to travel and to have full opportunities for concessionary fares.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: May I reiterate the comments of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) regarding concessionary travel for pensioners? Will the Leader of the House consider not only a statement, but a debate on concessionary travel throughout the United Kingdom? He will be aware that there are many inconsistencies, whereby old age pensioners can travel within certain regions but not across boundaries. Will he consider a nationwide scheme, so that all pensioners can have access to free travel throughout our country?
Mr. Cook: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We welcome support for the Government's position from whatever quarter. I remind him that it was the Government who introduced the concessionary fare scheme. There was a full debate in the House and his party opposed it at the time. Presumably, in the search for the 20 per cent. savings, to which we have heard little reference in the past 40 minutes, it would be extremely difficult for any future Conservative Government to retain that scheme.
Llew Smith: A number of my hon. Friends are concerned that the Ministry of Defence is continuing to usurp the power of Parliament by continuing with the sale of part of the defence evaluation quango to QinetiQ. Details of the deal were quietly placed in the Library during the recess, so Parliament has effectively been asked to agree on the nod liabilities of about £100 million. May we have a debate on the matter, and on the lack of and the need for public accountability for the use or misuse of massive sums of public money?
Mr. Cook: I listened to what my hon. Friend said. I should not have thought that there was any member of the Government left who could imagine that putting a document in the Library was tantamount to doing so in private or without notice. The Ministry of Defence has been open about the matter. My hon. Friend will be aware that a number of items of Government business are done by statutory instrument. That is why statutory instruments are available to us. We have a prodigious programme of primary legislation in the present Session. If we successfully carry it through, we will have passed more pages of primary legislation this Session than in any previous Session. Not everything can be dealt with on the Floor of the House. I regret to have to say that as Leader of the House, but it is a matter of record that we must decide what are the priorities for the Floor of the House, and what other matters can be dealt with by statutory instrument.
Mr. Roger Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will know that in just over two months, a European regulation on animal by-products that prevents the burial of fallen stock on farms will come into effect. Britain is one of the few EU countries that has not published a statement or a policy on how
328
farmers should deal with the matter. It will not be possible to stack up animal carcases as fridges have been stacked up in the past, owing to the incompetence of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in these matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to publish as soon as possible a statement on how farmers should proceed to dispose of their fallen stock?
Mr. Cook: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are well aware of the great importance of the matter in rural communities and the severity of the difficulties that may arise. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will wish to clarify our proposals as soon as possible, and I will draw her attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Harry Cohen: May we have a statement on the London underground, as the contract with the private consortium TubeLines took effect on 1 January without any parliamentary announcement? It is important that we know what arrangements there are for public sector management of those contracts. My understanding is that there is no expertise in place to provide such public sector management. Without that, private consortiums have a blank cheque. Moreover, that represents a step on the road towards privatisation of the underground.
Mr. Cook: I was not aware that that was an issue that we had failed to ventilate in the House over the past year. I remember many exchanges on the public-private partnership for the London underground. I can assure my hon. Friend that expertise will be made available to make sure that we maintain competent management. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the objective of the whole exercise is to make sure that we modernise the underground, provide the investment that it plainly needs, and offer a modern, effective service to the underground consumer. That must surely be the right way forward. I hope that we can start to make progress in providing the improvement that passengers and London Underground want.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Surely the point about Zimbabwe is that no Minister has made a formal statement to the House and thereby subjected himself to questioning.
May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on a subject first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Defence Secretary, with the Secretary of State for Defence on Tuesday, namely, the attitude of the Government to the UN inspectors and their role in Iraq? It is clear that Saddam Hussein had four years in which to produce chemical and biological weapons stocks, then to destroy the plant that produced them and conceal the stocks in any hole in the ground anywhere in Iraq. The House needs to know what the Government's attitude will be if, as expected, the inspectors fail to find any of those stocks and the Americans decide nevertheless that the danger is so great that they must proceed with military action. This is an important matter. It was raised by the

329
Conservative Opposition and has been taken up by Labour Back Benchers and the Liberal Democrat leader. The House deserves to have its say on the matter.
Mr. Cook: It would be impertinent for the House or any member of the Government to try to anticipate what the UN inspectors might say to the United Nations. It will, after all, be only another three weeks before we hear about progress from the head of the inspection team. I expect that he will necessarily say that he will require further time to carry out the task. Surely, the appropriate and responsible attitude for any Government—especially when they are a permanent member of the Security Council—is to say that we want to ensure that the inspectors can carry out that task, that they have adequate time and resources to do so and that the authority that they have been given by the Security Council is fully respected by the Government of Iraq. This should not be a business of the inspectors trying to discover that Iraq is concealing anything. The resolution is explicit in saying that the duty is also on the Government of Iraq to declare what they have.
Jim Sheridan: May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider initiating an inquiry into the abuse of the democratic process of this House by political parties submitting spurious and repetitive questions only to try to portray themselves falsely as working harder than other political parties? Does he further agree that, if other parties were to follow that sharp practice, the administrative processes of this House would grind to a halt and that that would be extremely expensive for the taxpayer?
Mr. Cook: I have a lot of sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I can only commend to him and other Members of the House the excellent report from the Procedure Committee, which rightly pointed out that information requested by means of a written question can often readily be found in the Library or other published sources.
Andrew Mackinlay: I do not accept that.
Mr. Cook: I am very sorry to hear that my hon. Friend takes that view, as I was quoting my submission to the Procedure Committee, which it reprinted in full. In making that commitment, I said that, as a Back Bencher, I found it useful to get information in the Library, where it is often readily available. I commend the excellent, competent and authoritative services of the Library to the House.
Bob Spink: Can we find time for a debate on the position of pensioners, who are perplexed by the Government's inability and weakness in grasping the nettle on the Zimbabwean cricket issue and making a specific decision about it? During that debate, we could focus on the £5 billion-a-year pension tax that the Government are imposing on pensioners, which is causing so much hardship to many of them.
Mr. Cook: For a moment during that question, time stood still for me. I shall try to disentangle the two separate issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. First, as I said, there is no ground for any confusion whatever
330
about the Government's position in relation to the cricket tour—it is wrong and the team should not go. As I understand it, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber agree about that. I lament the fact that it is proving so difficult to establish the consensus that I understand exists on both sides of the Chamber.
On pensioners, I would be delighted to arrange a debate so that we can demonstrate the extent to which the Government have increased the state pension at a much faster rate than that of earnings or inflation, the way in which we have raised 2 million pensioners out of poverty and the fact that, as a result of the introduction of the pension tax credit, there will be a further increase in real income for the less well-off pensioner, who will be about £20 to £30 better off than in 1997. That very substantial achievement would be put entirely at risk by a 20 per cent. cut in public spending—a proposal that I understand the hon. Gentleman supports.
Mr. David Chaytor: In view of the well-publicised views of the head of the Church of England, does my right hon. Friend find it unusual that our procedures allow for a debate on the pension fund of the Church of England, but not on its views about war in Iraq? Notwithstanding his reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), does he not feel that at the very least, there is a need for a statement about the processes that are to be followed after the publication of the UN weapons inspectors' report, especially given the imminence of the completion of the interim report and its presentation to the Security Council?
Mr. Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Church of England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) identified earlier, I have no personal authority to speak for or on behalf of the Church of England. I am happy, if I may, to leave that for it to absorb.
On the question of the United Nations inspectors and the statement to the Security Council, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary have been punctilious in making statements to the House on these matters. I am sure that they will want to ensure that the House is kept fully informed about whatever develops in the Security Council on 27 January. I am confident that they will want to ensure that the House is kept fully up to speed, but at the same time, I counsel us against imagining that 27 January will necessarily be some sort of dramatic watershed. It is a staging post towards a programme of work that will probably have to continue.
Mr. David Cameron: Is the Leader of the House aware that, because of the delays in securing parliamentary approval of the financial settlement for local government, many councils, including Oxfordshire, are having difficulties in setting their precepts on time and some councils will not have time to debate the full budgets before they have to do so? Can we have a debate in the House to chivy the Government on that issue? Does the Leader of the House not think it is important that we should look at the size of that stealth tax, which is going to be paid by our constituents,

331
especially as council tax has increased since the Government came to power not by 20 per cent., but by 40 per cent.?
Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have only just had a debate on the Local Government Bill and that I responded to the demands of the House that we debate the local government settlement in advance. As I am sure he is aware—he is a fair-minded Member of the House—every local authority throughout the length and breadth of England has received a settlement that exceeds the rate of inflation. Over the past few years, we have provided a very substantial additional real-terms increase in local government funding. I am glad that he asked the question in the way that he did, as it gives me the opportunity to say that, if there had been a 20 per cent. cut in public spending, we would have seen cuts in his local authority budget and not an increase.
Mr. John Lyons: On the 27th of this month, we will mark Holocaust Memorial day. This year, the event is being held in Edinburgh. May I ask the Leader of House to do two things? First, will he ensure that the House is represented at the event, and, secondly, will he find a way of reflecting such an important day in the business of the House?
Mr. Cook: Of course, it was this Government who introduced the Holocaust Memorial day. We did so precisely because that appalling act of genocide should not be forgotten, as part of committing ourselves to ensuring that there is no discrimination in our modern world and because we should never again see such appalling discrimination visited on anybody for any racial, religious or ethnic reason. The Government will therefore want to ensure that we appropriately mark 27 January. I cannot immediately tell my hon. Friend who will be representing the Government at the event,
332
but I shall ensure that he is fully informed. I can assure the House that we will treat the day with appropriate dignity.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Might I be probably the first hon. Member to wish you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House and all hon. Members a very happy old new year for when it comes this weekend? I invite the right hon. Gentleman to join me in sending greetings to my constituents in Foula, which still celebrates the old new year, or Yule, with some vigour.
I welcome the addition of a fishing debate to next week's business, but what we really need is a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suspect that, as it will be an exercise in reporting back, the fisheries Minister will simply tell us what we already know. What we do not yet know is whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is in supporting the industry, and that question can be answered only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to wish the hon. Gentleman's constituents a happy weekend, in whichever year it falls. I hope that we can achieve unanimity on that proposition.
On the fishing industry, the fisheries Minister will rightly be speaking in the House next week because he has been heavily engaged in the process. I hope that all hon. Members, from whatever perspective, will recognise that he has been fully committed on the issue, on which he has given very dedicated service. It is therefore right that he should speak for the Government in that debate. Of course, we understand that there will be difficult consequences for communities as a result of the changes and we will seek as best we can to assist those communities, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no future for the fishing communities if there is no future for the fish. That is why we must put conservation at the top of the agenda.

Point of Order
1.21 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention and that of the Leader of the House to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), our Chief Whip, briefed me a few minutes ago that he has been advised by the Clerks that motion 4 on today's Order Paper is defective? Will you use your good offices to make appropriate representations to ensure that the motion is not moved until the mystery is resolved?
Mr. Speaker: The Clerk of the House informs me that he is not aware of that. I therefore have it on good authority that everything is in good order.

BILL PRESENTED

  ELECTRICITY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  Ms Secretary Hewitt presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the provision of financial assistance to, or the acquisition of any securities of or any part of the undertaking or assets of, British Energy plc or any of its subsidiaries; to provide for the repeal of Part 2 of the Electricity Act 1989; to amend Schedule 12 to that Act and to make provision for undertakings to make grants under that Schedule to be disregarded for tax purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 13 January, and to be printed [Bill 39].
  Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to my concern and that of several of my hon. Friends about the possible abuse of the new written ministerial statements procedure. A few moments ago, the Leader of the House invoked as a rationale for it a desire to get rid of the planted written question. Are you conscious that we are worried that, when we have tabled genuine questions—rather than questions planted by Government Back Benchers—instead of receiving substantive replies, Ministers have fobbed us off and patted us on the head with references to the ministerial written statements that they have issued? We arc worried that that happens on the same day that our questions should be answered substantively. I ask you, as the guarantor of our rights, to guard against that possible abuse.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that, as I have stated previously, I am not responsible for the quality of replies, except mine.

Orders of the Day
  Health (Wales) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 1

  RECIPROCITY FOR PATIENTS' FORUMS
  ". The National Assembly for Wales shall make regulations providing that Patients' Forums in England shall have the power to investigate health issues in Wales that affect patients resident in England who are treated by the National Health Service in Wales."— [Mr. Evans.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  1.22 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment No. 4, Title, line 1, after "Wales;" insert
  "to make provision for reciprocity for Patients' Forums in England;".
  Mr. Evans: The new clause is straightforward, and I am sure that the Minister appreciates that there is a problem that needs to be tackled. If it is not done through the new clause, I hope that it will be properly addressed in another place so that patients forums can cover anyone living in England who wants to receive treatment in Wales. The new clause stems from the purpose of community health councils, the patients' champion. If CHCs in Wales cannot investigate any complaints on behalf of patients who come from England or elsewhere, a problem will arise. Perhaps the issue also relates to people from England or Wales who receive treatment in France or Spain because of the spare capacity there and the extended waiting lists in Wales and England. There is therefore a wider problem. However, I assume that CHCs in Wales could champion Welsh patients in, for example, French hospitals, and deal with any problems that arose.
  Patients are increasingly aware of their rights and know that any complaints should be heard. For example, complaints against doctors have increased by 1,450 per cent. in the past 11 years. That is staggering, and reflects the fact that people know that a procedure exists if problems arise and they are unhappy with their treatment.
  We are not simply considering people who live in border areas and decide to be treated in the NHS in Wales. International and domestic tourism has expanded greatly. Wales, especially north, west and mid-Wales, receives many tourists from England who make regular weekend, mid-week and lengthier summer visits to some of its most beautiful parts. Sadly, some of them will become ill or suffer accidents, especially on beaches. For example, people who visit the Gower peninsula could cut their feet on glass that has been left on the beaches. I know of cases of people being taken to Singleton hospital or Morriston hospital. The increase in tourism means that people from England will be treated in Welsh hospitals.
  The growth of business travel means that people on business who become ill or have accidents will use the NHS in Wales, as will people who drive through Wales

  335
  and have car accidents. It is therefore right to establish a structure to ensure that people are properly looked after and complaints investigated. That has not been thought through in the Bill. I believe that it is an oversight and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me about that.
  People whose families live in Wales may wish to be near them if they need an operation or treatment. People are increasingly mobile and we want reciprocity whereby patients forums in England or CHCs in Wales can champion the rights of patients from England or elsewhere who are treated by the NHS in Wales. That matter needs consideration.
  It is depressing that waiting lists in Wales have increased. Community health councils will be interested in that and may want to investigate instances of patients from elsewhere who are treated in Welsh hospitals. We know that there are huge cost implications.
  Let us consider the position of someone who has diabetes and travels to Wales. Today, the Government produced a new strategy for diabetes in England, but it will take a further 12 months to introduce it in Wales. I am unhappy about that, and I hope that the Welsh Assembly can introduce a strategy for Wales more quickly. I do not understand why people in Wales are treated as second-class citizens and I hope that the Minister can reassure me.
  In the context of increasing waiting lists, I hope that the Minister can comment on the story in The Western Mail about calling up reservists for Iraq. Some of the 1,500 will be Welsh doctors and nurses. If that leads to increasing waiting lists, the CHCs will want to investigate the matter. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that there are contingency plans to ensure that patients in Wales are properly treated.
  The new clause is straightforward and covers a matter that the Bill does not tackle. The mobility of people throughout the United Kingdom and the world means that we need to ensure that the rights of those who receive medical treatment in the NHS in Wales are properly championed, whether by CHCs or the patients forums in England.
  1.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his wish that patients forums in England should have the same rights that the Bill will allow the Assembly to confer on community health councils in Wales. I am also happy to be able to tell him that it is unnecessary to amend the Bill to achieve that. The functions of a patients forum are set out in section 15 of the National Health Service and Health Care Professions Act 2002. The main functions are monitoring and reporting, and include the duty to
  "monitor and review the range and operation of services provided by…the trust for which it is established;…obtain the views of patients and carers…and report to the trust;…provide advice, and make reports and recommendations"
  on service-related matters and make information available to patients and carers.
  Patients forums have no powers to investigate health issues in England. Those powers are exercised in England and Wales by the Commission for Health
  336
  Improvement, which was set up in April 2000. New clause 1 and amendment No. 4 would duplicate the commission's powers in Wales by conferring them additionally on patients forums, which operate only in England. The Assembly would not be in a position to make regulations affecting the operation of the patients forums in England because it has no responsibility for them.
  The inspection of premises providing NHS-funded services, including the inspection of premises across borders, is a different matter. Section 17 of the 2002 Act, and paragraph 3 of schedule 7A of this Bill give the Secretary of State and the National Assembly respectively identical powers to make regulations conferring on patients forums and community health councils the right of entry and inspection to back up their functions. That is not intended to make them investigatory bodies because that is a role for the Commission for Health Improvement. CHCs will have the same right of entry as patients forums in England.
  Mr. Evans: If someone from Bristol were holidaying in Swansea and became ill there, who would they complain to in the first instance, and how would that complaint be followed through?
  Mr. Touhig: In the first instance, if the person lived in England and had a problem with the way in which they had been treated by the health service in Wales, they would complain to their patients forum, which would then have the opportunity under the provisions of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act to investigate the complaint, even though the treatment had taken place in Wales. That is what we are putting right in this Bill: we are providing a reciprocal arrangement for community health councils in Wales to have the opportunity to do the same thing for England.
  Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman refers to the power to make regulations contained in paragraph 3 of schedule 7A. I shall pose to him the question that is invariably of interest to me in such contexts. Are the regulations that are to be made under that schedule to be subject to the negative procedure of the House or to its affirmative counterpart?
  Mr. Touhig: Where there are regulations relating to aspects of this Bill, they will be made by the Assembly under its proper procedures as a result of the Government of Wales Act 1998. They will not be made by this House. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
  As I was saying, it is not intended that patients forums or CHCs should be investigatory bodies. CHCs will have the same right of entry as patients forums in England, and if a situation arises in which a Welsh CHC wished to inspect facilities in England used by Welsh patients, it will be able to do so—and vice versa. Patients forums will have identical powers to do the same in respect of premises in Wales used by residents of England.
  In practice, we would expect that a CHC or a patients forum that wished to conduct an inspection across the border would liaise with its English or Welsh counterpart for it to conduct the inspection on its behalf.

  337
  That seems practical. The situation is not, however, prescribed in any more detail, as it will be for local CHCs and patients forums to work up the arrangement that is best suited to them. I hope that that explanation will help the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to understand why we would resist the new clause.
  The hon. Gentleman made a number of other important points in his speech. He asked about someone from this country being treated abroad and perhaps being dissatisfied with that treatment. The first line of defence for that patient's interests would be his or her CHC in Wales, or patients forum in England. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the diabetes strategy, and asked about related proposals for Wales. My colleagues in the Assembly are considering such proposals in Wales, and I am sure that they will take note of his point about the need to do it as speedily as possible.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to waiting times. The Assembly has made substantial progress in reducing waiting times in the priority areas of cardiac surgery and orthopaedics over the last year. There has also been an indisputable increase in the number of people being treated. A lot of work is under way to address the continuing problem of long waiting lists, which we are all concerned about, and the piloting of a new booking system for out-patients has shown reductions in cancellations and non-attendance from more than 15 per cent. to less than 5 per cent. The improved system will be rolled out right across Wales from March this year. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman so far as the action on waiting lists is concerned and that he will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Evans: I am reassured by the explanation given by the Minister. I also welcome his comments about diabetes. I hope that—perhaps with some pushing from him—the Assembly will concentrate on introducing a strategy for those who suffer from diabetes in Wales. He made no reference to the issue of reservists, or to whether contingency plans would be put in place to ensure that patients in Wales would be properly looked after should there be a war with Iraq. Even with the reservists being called up, there could well be a problem.
  Mr. Touhig: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am sure that his view is shared on both sides of the House, and I shall make sure that it is brought to the attention of my colleague, the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt.
  Mr. Evans: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  WALES CENTRE FOR HEALTH
  Chris Grayling: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 13 at end insert—
  '( ) The Special Health Authority for England and Wales responsible for the functions of the Health Protection Agency shall have a place on the Board of the Wales Centre for Health.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 24 [Clause 3], at end insert—
  '( ) That the Wales Centre for Health shall have a duty to coordinate its activities with the recommendations of the Special Health Authority for England and Wales responsible for the functions of the Health Protection Agency in matters related to communicable disease control in England as well as with similar functions controlled by the NHS in Wales.'.
  Chris Grayling: We have tabled the amendments to highlight an issue that should be a matter of concern for everyone in the House at what is undoubtedly a difficult time in security terms, and also because security matters are not the sole issues involved in the relationship between the health protection agency and the Wales centre for health. There is also the issue of how matters relating to communicable disease are addressed and communicated, and how public information on these matters is provided.
  These are probing amendments designed to establish the relationship envisaged by the Minister between the Wales centre for health and the health protection agency. The latter organisation covers England and Wales but does not have the full remit in Wales that it does in England. The former will, if we understand its role correctly, have prime responsibility for the communication of public health information to the people of Wales. The Minister may be able to clarify the degree to which he envisages the Wales centre for health having responsibility for communication in those areas. The Bill states that the centre will be responsible for developing and maintaining
  "arrangements for making information about matters related to the protection and improvement of health in Wales available to the public in Wales".
  It will also have responsibility for research and training, both of which could be equally important in the current climate.
  This is happening at a time of change for the infrastructure for the establishment of information—and, in part, for the provision of information—about communicable diseases and also, in these difficult times, about biological and chemical threats to this country. These functions were previously carried out by the Public Health Laboratory Service for England and Wales, and are in the process of being radically changed. Over the next few months, we shall see the creation of an entirely new organisation, the health protection agency, which will take over the responsibilities of the PHLS and a number of other bodies. It will be created as a special health authority and, from April, take on responsibility for providing or commissioning most of the NHS functions set out in the Government's consultation paper last year.
  The organisation will be responsible in England for PHLS roles, but not, in general, clinical diagnostic microbiology services. However, it will be responsible for microbiological research and take over the national focus for chemical incidents, regional services and the National Poisons Information Service. It will also take over the health protection functions provided by consultants in communicable disease control and other health protection staff. Furthermore, it will have a role in providing advice on emergency functions.

  339
  In Wales, the organisation will also have many of those responsibilities, but not all of them. It will not be responsible for certain consultancy work, but it will, none the less, be the body that generates first-base information on major communicable disease risks and major biological and chemical risks.
  This week, we have seen the first example of a chemical threat being discovered in this country. The PHLS has been predominantly responsible for providing information to the public indirectly and to the NHS directly on the nature of that threat, on what treatments are available, if any, and on how medical practitioners should try to identify the possible appearance of symptoms that ultimately might represent a chemical or biological attack on or threat to this country.
  After 1 April, the HPA will be responsible for such tasks. It will be at the heart of our security apparatus in defending this country and providing information to practitioners and the public on the risks that we might face. Therefore, as we consider the Bill and set in place new structures in Wales for public health information, it is fundamentally important that we understand the relationship between the HPA and the new bodies, especially the Wales centre for health.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I support the argument that my hon. Friend is making. Will he accept from me the assurance that terrorist groups always try to think one jump ahead? Given that so much has been said in anticipation of a terrorist attack on London as the capital of the United Kingdom, terrorists thinking one jump ahead may be considering the capitals of Scotland and of the Principality precisely to take us by surprise. Is not that a particular reason for bodies in Scotland and in Wales having the extra representation for which he is arguing?
  Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, because he is driving at the nub of the reason for our laying the amendments on the Table for, I hope, the Minister's acceptance. I certainly hope that he addresses the issue and responds with his own thoughts on the different ways in which those organisations will interact. Ultimately, in the eyes of the terrorists who are threatening us, we are one United Kingdom and one nation. Terrorists will not respect administrative or national boundaries within the UK, so we must work effectively together.
  We have a concern: in creating those structures through the Bill and in creating the Wales centre for health, we want to ensure that the centre has proper links with the organisations that will provide the rest of the NHS in England with the information, training, support and guidance that it requires to do its job properly.
  That is the purpose of the amendments that we have introduced. We want to formalise the relationship between the Wales centre for health and the new body to ensure that there is absolute co-ordination between all those people who are responsible for establishing and communicating information on those important issues.
  340
  In our view, it is particularly important that those arrangements be dealt with because of the uncertainties surrounding the restructuring of the PHLS, the creation of the HPA and the changes in this area as to the organisations being transferred from the PHLS to the NHS.
  1.45 pm
  The debate takes place as those organisations are going through a huge process of change that is enormously disruptive to them. We must be mindful of the warning given by the PHLS internal risk assessment team on the implications of the changes:
  "It seems inevitable that if the timetable of 1st April 2003 for the HPA is to be delivered, some level of risk will have to be tolerated. Were there to be a severe external challenge over the next few months, such as deliberate release, the situation and expected forward timetable would need rapid reappraisal."
  I hope that the Minister's colleagues in the Department of Health are taking on board that warning, which has implications for Wales and for those who are taking over responsibility for some areas that the PH LS covers in the Welsh NHS. Those responsible for the Wales centre for health also need to be mindful of it, given the responsibility that they will undoubtedly have for making information available to the public on health issues that we all could face in the months and years ahead.
  That information, which will originate from the HPA and our central scientific teams, must be disseminated effectively and quickly right across the NHS in England and in Wales. Our first amendment is one suggestion as to how we could strengthen and formalise those ties, ensuring that they are clearly in place during the period of transition for all those organisations and that they solidify as they go forward.
  The PHLS drives the dissemination of information on communicable diseases and chemical weapons, and the HPA will take that over. Do we not need to ensure that those organisations are interlocked? What better way to achieve that than to offer the HPA a non-executive role on the board of the Wales centre for health, so that there is a genuine voice for our scientists and technical experts in the arena where communication and training will be formulated and delivered?
  That is the objective of our first amendment. I hope that the Minister gives it due consideration, but, if he feels unable to adopt such an approach, will he none the less consider the direction in which we are attempting to steer him? Will he also consider how to ensure strong linkage between the two, and ensure that the scientists have a strong voice in the work of the Wales centre for health in shaping communication and training?
  Our second amendment is designed to formalise a duty of partnership, especially as organisations will be going through difficult changes. It is all too easy for them to miss out working together and to focus on internal issues rather than ensuring that they work in the partnerships that we all need for the future. Our proposal is designed to ensure that there would be a duty on them to do so. It would provide direction for them and act as a reminder from Parliament that the nation needs them to operate in tandem.
  The issue does not simply involve security, although at this time security must be a paramount consideration. If there is a chemical or a biological risk, we must ensure

  341
  that information and training flows right the way through our health services, quickly and effectively, and on to the public as and when they need it. However, the PHLS has played an active and important role in other areas, which, in future, will be played by the HPA. Examples are disseminating information on the spread of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in our hospitals—hospital-related infections and how they can be tackled—and providing information on winter vomiting disease, which is at the forefront of consideration in the health world, as well as other diseases that may be isolated, such as Legionnaire's disease. They may, like a flu epidemic, spread much more widely.
  The information that the HPA produces will be of paramount importance to medical practitioners and patients alike. We are asking the Minister to create a duty of care on the Wales centre for health that says, "You're not simply there to serve the people of Wales. You're also there to be part of a partnership within the United Kingdom to ensure that we provide proper and effective information across our borders, throughout our nation and to all our people." We are one United Kingdom. The Bill is creating institutions that will serve the people of Wales. They must do that not in isolation, but in partnership with their counterparts elsewhere in the UK and organisations with a remit for the whole UK. The amendments are designed to suggest simple structures and duties that would enable them to do that—indeed, would ensure that they did it. They are designed to convey a sense of direction to the organisations. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to our ambitions, and that, if he is not willing to accept the amendments in their present form, he will ensure that the partnership we need—in the context of communicable diseases, but particularly in the context of security issues—between our scientists and our information providers is strong, effective and structured.
  Julie Morgan: I know that amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment, and it raises important issues, but I think both amendments should be resisted, because I feel that requiring a place on the board to be given to the Wales centre for health is too prescriptive at this stage. I feel that the Assembly should have maximum flexibility to decide which organisations should have places.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, with typical courtesy. Surely she recognises, however, that a terrorist chemical or biological weapons threat would require a national lead from central Government? Does she not agree that if any subject under the sun requires such a lead, it is that subject?
  Julie Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is making important points sincerely, but I do not think that the Welsh body we are creating should be compelled to liaise with another body. Moreover, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the arrangements in Wales differ from those in England. The Assembly will retain some responsibility for emergency planning.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady does not think that the special health authority for England and Wales should
  342
  have a representative on the board of the Wales centre for health. Does she think that the board of the Wales centre for health should have a specific and designated representative on the special health authority for England and Wales?
  Julie Morgan: I do not think that that should be decided here. I think it should be decided by the Wales centre for health.
  Mr. Roger Williams: I welcome the tone of these Conservative amendments more than that of those tabled in Committee, because they show enthusiasm for working together rather than pulling apart. In my view and that of my party, devolution is not about separation and isolation but about maximising the contribution that each nation—such as Wales or Scotland—and each English region can make to the whole. But the arguments of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in Committee often depended on a worst-case scenario, and I feel that the case he has advanced today for an English appointee does the same.
  Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman knows, surely, that the health protection agency will cover England and Wales. There is no reason to assume that the HPA representative on the board must be English, as Welsh people will of course be involved in the organisation. This is much more about solidifying the links between the organisations than about trying to involve England in Wales.
  Mr. Williams: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think any of us thought, on first seeing the Bill, that the primary purpose of the Wales centre for health would be to deal with terrorist threats—although of course I accept that terrorism is now a key issue, which we should all address. I feel that using a worst-case scenario as a basis for legislation will so constrain the nature of that legislation that it will be unsympathetic to devolution, and the right of the Welsh people and the Welsh Assembly to look after their own affairs.
  Although I welcome the tone of the amendments and accept the points made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, I do not think the hon. Gentleman's aims will necessarily be achieved by changes in the legislation. They could, I think, be achieved by good practice and the building up of partnerships that would work in actuality rather than on the pages of a Bill.
  Mr. Touhig: The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said that these were probing amendments. Amendment No. 2 would insert the words
  "The Special Health Authority for England and Wales responsible for the functions of the Health Protection Agency shall have a place on the Board of the Wales Centre for Health".
  The special health authority, of course, does not yet exist. We intend to set it up in April 2003, using secondary legislation under section 11 of the National Health Service Act 1977, as an interim step pending the establishment of the health protection agency. We intend it to be a non-departmental public body, although that will depend on the availability of legislative time.

  343
  It would be inappropriate to give a body that does not exist, and will in any case cease to exist as soon as the HPA is established, a place on the board of the Wales centre for health, or to require the centre to co-ordinate its activities with those of such a body. Surely giving the centre a duty to co-ordinate its activities with the recommendations of the interim body, or those of the HPA when it is established, would be incompatible with a requirement to ensure its independence.
  The outcome of the pre-legislative scrutiny supported our intention that the centre should act independently, as Conservative Members pointed out in Committee. It could not act independently if required to co-ordinate its activities with the recommendations of the HPA. There would be no equivalent requirement for the HPA to co-ordinate its activities with those of the centre. It would also be inconsistent to require the centre to co-ordinate its activities with those of a body outside Wales, in the absence of a similar duty for it to co-ordinate its activities with those of relevant public sector bodies in Wales. And why should the HPA have a right to representation on the board of the Wales centre when bodies in Wales will have no such right?
  The Assembly intends members of the centre to be appointed on the basis of their expertise and experience, and to be drawn from the statutory, voluntary and academic sectors in Wales. Amendment No. 2 runs counter to that intention. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) that it would introduce a prescriptive and inflexible approach to a detailed issue. We intend the Assembly to determine the matter, under schedule 2(10)(a). I can reassure Members, however, that the Wales centre for health will not duplicate the expertise that the HPA will provide in Wales.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I do not think that people are worried about the Welsh body duplicating the work of the national body. What worries them, I think, is the possibility that the Welsh body will not consider the role of the national body sufficiently. It is, surely, a crucial defence role, albeit a civil and domestic defence role. It makes no more sense for the Welsh Assembly to consider the work of a body with a national defence role of that sort than for it to consider other important aspects of defence policy and say, "These should be a matter for us". Surely the Minister can see that we are discussing an overall national danger, and that national defence measures are therefore required.
  2 pm
  Mr. Touhig: I hope that the remarks that I am about to make will reassure the hon. Gentleman so far as that point is concerned. We need to distinguish between the roles of the Wales centre for health and of the health protection agency. The HPA will bring together specialist expertise at a UK level against microbiologicial, chemical and radiological hazards, and terrorist threats. The WCH is in support of public health in Wales, so the two bodies have two distinct roles.
  The time to discuss the relationship of the HPA with other bodies, including those in Wales, will come when the proposals for establishing it appear before this
  344
  House. The functions of the HPA in Wales will be fully explained at that time, but if it helps hon. Members I can say now that we do not intend the functions of the HPA in Wales to include all those that it will have in England. As I said, it is intended that, once established, the HPA will provide services and expertise in areas of microbiological, radiological and chemical hazards. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in respect of the point that he made in his opening remarks.
  Chris Grayling: If there were evidence of a biological attack in this country and of the possible spread of a communicable disease, would the WCH have any role in providing the public with information about that disease?
  Mr. Touhig: I do not think that we want the legislation to prevent the WCH from providing any information to any national body such as the HPA, if that were thought appropriate. I see no reason why the WCH should not do that if it has something to contribute, but we need to understand the two separate roles of the HPA and the WCH.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: We are getting to the heart of the matter. The Minister is saying that the WCH would not be prohibited from contributing, but the amendment would ensure that the WCH could contribute, make useful statements and enable important measures to be taken in the event of a terrible attack of this sort. He is not really reassuring us that, without the representation for which the amendment argues, the new body in Wales will be able to take effective action in the event of a terrorist attack.
  Mr. Touhig: Perhaps I should again make it clear that the bodies have two separate roles. The HPA will bring together specialist expertise at a UK level against microbiological, chemical and radiological hazards and terrorist threats. The WCH is in support of public health in Wales. I cannot see for the life of me how putting a representative on the board of the WCH would in any way guarantee that any information that WCH wanted to contribute would automatically be contributed. I have no doubt that, if the WCH wanted to make a contribution, it would be able to do so through proper collaboration—which will come—between the two bodies.
  As I said, the functions of the HPA in Wales will be fully explained when we present that information to the House. When it is established, it is intended that the HPA will provide services and expertise across the range of hazards that I have described: microbiological, radiological, chemical and so on. This information is currently—
  Mr. Bercow: There seems little doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and I are inadvertently proving to be pestilential nuisances to the Minister, but I am bound to tell him that that is part of our parliamentary responsibility. In answering my hon. Friend a moment ago, the Minister said that the presence of a representative of the special health authority for England and Wales on the board of the WCH would not change the balance of powers, and

  345
  that is accepted. However, I put it to him in all fairness that the presence of such a representative might usefully serve the purpose of sensitising the WCH to the importance of its communications responsibilities in circumstances of the kind that my hon. Friend has helpfully outlined.
  Mr. Touhig: Perhaps we will discuss communications when we debate the next group of amendments. In fact, the hon. Gentleman's party is trying to prevent such communications in tabling those amendments, so perhaps we should leave that issue until we have that debate.
  The work that the HPA will carry out in the areas I have mentioned is currently undertaken by the board of the Public Health Laboratory Service, the National Radiological Protection Board and the national focus for chemical incidents. However, field services that the HPA will provide in England—health protection functions that are provided by consultants in communicable disease control—will be provided by the national public health service in Wales. Emergency planning in Wales will remain the responsibility of the National Assembly. So because the functions of the HPA will be different in Wales, it is essential that arrangements for co-ordination with bodies that provide these services in Wales are sufficiently flexible. The HPA will need arrangements with a range of public health bodies, and as I have already said, it cannot achieve this simply by having a place on the board of the WCH.
  The HPA will need to have relationships with the national public health service and the Assembly in order to carry out its functions. Those relationships will be most appropriately set out in agreements, which will come when we introduce proposals for the HPA. Settling these relationships by agreement, rather than introducing inflexible duties in the manner of the amendment, will provide the flexibility to meet changing circumstances and to make organisational arrangements, which will be put in place when necessary.
  The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said that these are probing amendments, and I hope that I have managed to deal with the points that he and his hon. Friends raised.
  Chris Grayling rose—
  Mr. Touhig: I am not at all concerned by the hon. Gentleman's rising; each time, I swat away such contributions like flies.
  Chris Grayling: I have to say that that was not the Minister at his best—I know that he can do better. He has not addressed what is a pretty important issue at the moment, and it is clear that he was reading the brief prepared for him earlier. His response concerned the technical issues, rather than the actual ambition of protecting the people of Wales. He said that the HPA will be formed from 1 April, but I should remind him that that is two and a half months away. If the Government are incapable of synchronising a sensible measure in this Bill with one that will be in place by 1 April, they are even less competent than I thought.
  346
  The Minister talked about legislation that will eventually be put in place to set up the HPA, but the reality is that there is no guarantee whatsoever about when that will happen. A loose and vague promise for the eventual introduction of a formal measure has been made, subject to the legislative timetable.
  The Minister also talked about the independence of the WCH, but I do not believe that it can act in isolation on this issue. If I am not mistaken, we are still one United Kingdom, facing the threat of terrorism and disease. Wales is not becoming an independent country through devolution; we are working together and we need to work together. This issue needs to be about partnership, and to be frank I found the Minister's reference to not wanting Welsh bodies to have a duty to work with English bodies rather reprehensible.
  The key issue behind the amendment—
  Mr. Touhig: I did not in any way suggest that those bodies should not work together; I said that if the WCH had any contribution to make to the HPA, it would obviously want to do so and should be allowed to do so.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister specifically said that, if the amendment were accepted, the WCH would be accountable to an English body in a way that it would not to bodies in Wales, but I would argue that that is simply not true. The HPA is an England and Wales body with a duty to protect our people, and to deliver the scientific expertise that will enable our health service better to protect our people, and that will enable people better to prepare for unforeseen eventualities. In that situation, surely the role of the organisation with prime responsibility for training and communication in Wales would not be affected adversely in any way by a concept that would put a scientific expert on to its board. That is all that the first amendment in this group seeks to achieve.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) wants to leave these matters to the Welsh Assembly, but they are not solely Welsh matters. Terrorists will strike, and that will affect us all. We cannot act in isolation. Diseases such as MRSA or tuberculosis will affect the whole country; they will not stop at borders.
  Julie Morgan: There is general agreement that the hon. Gentleman is dealing with matters about which we are all concerned. However, we object to the amendment because of its implementation proposals, not because of the important matters with which it deals
  Chris Grayling: I am grateful for that remark. It is all the more disappointing, therefore, that the amendment has not sparked a debate and caused the Minister to suggest different approaches. Instead, we have merely been told that the ideas are not relevant. If the Minister will say how he will structure the relationship covered by the amendment, we will be happy to treat it as a probing amendment, as originally intended. However, our public laboratory system and health protection infrastructure are in a state of flux and the new organisation is being set up at a time of threat and risk. We need to understand now what the Government are planning, not when an incident occurs in the future.
  Mr. Touhig: I am trying to make it clear that the HPA will be a national body. It will tackle the threats—from microbiological attack, chemical and radiological weapons and other hazards, such as terrorism and so on—about which the hon. Gentleman is so worried. The WCH will not have that function; its role will be to support public health in Wales. The two bodies will collaborate closely. When the HPA is established, it will set up a series of structures through which it will collaborate with the WCH. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the overall responsibility for meeting the threats that he has described will rest with the HPA—the UK body that will take responsibility for such matters.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister said a moment ago that the WCH could—and probably should—play an active role in telling the people of Wales about risks, and in dealing with those risks. We believe that it should play an active role in helping to train medical practitioners and health service personnel to deal with threats arising from terrorist sources or from outbreaks of communicable disease. The WCH and the HPA should be closely linked. It is logical for the House to ensure that the two groups—scientists, and communicators and trainers—should work together.
  Mr. Touhig: The Government intend that the two bodies will work closely together and be complementary. The hon. Gentleman has argued that we all belong to one country, the UK, and that we need a single approach to the threats that we face, from terrorists and elsewhere. Now he suggests that the WCH should have a role in training people to deal with those threats. That role more properly belongs to the HPA, as he will understand when it is established.
  Chris Grayling: I refer the Minister to clause 3((1)(c), which states that one of the functions of the WCH will be to
  "contribute to the provision and development of training".
  The WCH will therefore be the leader in delivering public health information in Wales. It also will play an active role in providing the necessary support training in relation to that information. Surely it should therefore work hand in glove with the scientists who deliver information about communicable diseases and about security risks? I do not understand why the Minister resists establishing a duty for the WCH to work in partnership with the national HPA. That would be a signal from the House at a time when this country faces real risks.
  We are not asking the WCH to do anything specific: we are saying that the national Parliament expects the WCH to work with the national organisation that provides the scientific expertise on which the WCH will base much of its information. That would be its duty. We accept that there will be difficulties as the WCH establishes itself, and as the HPA goes through significant changes, but why is it inappropriate for the House to expect the two bodies to work in partnership?
  We want to ensure that the people of Wales are not disadvantaged by the creation of separate bodies outside the structures of the NHS. Wales is not becoming an independent country. In respect of both terrorism and diseases, its people must still receive the same quality of service and remain linked to the national expertise enjoyed by people in England.
  348
  I assure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) that we are as concerned about the threat from communicable diseases as we are about the threat from terrorists. The hon. Gentleman said that Conservative Members have been inclined to look at the worst case when considering this Bill. However, given that chemicals that can be used as weapons have been discovered in the hands of terrorists in this country, I will take no lectures about not focusing on the worst case. It would be irresponsible of the House not to look at and cater for the worst case. We must make minor improvements to the Bill to strengthen the links between our scientists and the people who have to communicate the scientists' work.
  I have been monumentally unimpressed by the Minister's response to the amendment. I hoped that he would say that the amendments were not quite right, but that he would take them in the spirit in which they were tabled and come back with his own ideas to ensure that the WCH and HPA work together. His response was inadequate, and I therefore intend to press the amendment to a Division. We need to make the point that the matter is too important not to be taken seriously.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 305.

  Division No. 44]

  [2:17 pm

  AYES

  Bacon, Richard

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Baldry, Tony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Barker, Gregory

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bellingham, Henry

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Bottomley Peter (Worthing W)

  Lidington, David

  Brady, Graham

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Brazier, Julian

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Burns, Simon

  Maclean, rh David

  Butterfill, John

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Cameron, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Paice, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Evans, Nigel

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Flook, Adrian

  Simmonds, Mark

  Forth, rh Eric

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Soames, Nicholas

  Francois, Mark

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Syms, Robert

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Grayling, Chris

  Trend, Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hague, rh William

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hawkins, Nick

  Watkinson, Angela

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Whittingdale, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Willetts, David

  349

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and

  Mr. Desmond Swayne

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cotter, Brian

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Alexander, Douglas

  Crausby, David

  Allan, Richard

  Cruddas, Jon

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bailey, Adrian

  David, Wayne

  Baird, Vera

  Davidson, Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Battle, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beard, Nigel

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Benn, Hilary

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Best, Harold

  Edwards, Huw

  Betts, Clive

  Efford, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Borrow, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, rh Derek

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Browne, Desmond

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Bryant, Chris

  Gapes, Mike (WordS)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Burnett John

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burnham, Andy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burstow, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hain, rh Peter

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Challen, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Chaytor, David

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Chidgey, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Healey, John

  Heath, David

  Clelland, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Heyes, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  350

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Morgan, Julie

  Morley, Elliot

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Mullin, Chris

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Olner, Bill

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Perham, Linda

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purnell, James

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kidney, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Rendel, David

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lamb, Norman

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Lepper, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Linton, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sawford, Phil

  Love, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Sheridan, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCabe, Stephen

  Simon, SiÔn (B'ham Erdington)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNulty, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  MacShane, Denis

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  McWilliam, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Timms, Stephen

  Michael, rh Alun

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Miliband, David

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Miller, Andrew

  Trickett, Jon

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Truswell, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Mole, Chris

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Moore, Michael

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  351

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Willis, Phil

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Wills, Michael

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Winnick, David

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Watts, David

  Woolas, Phil

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, David (Telford)

  White, Brian

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Joan Ryan and

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

  FUNCTIONS OF THE CENTRE
  Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
  'provided that it shall not use media channels widely accessible in any area outside Wales for the communication of such information unless that information is communicated jointly with those public information bodies responsible for the communication of health information in that area;'.
  Obviously, I am disappointed that we did not win the vote on amendment No. 2. I must wholly disagree with the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that the Minister was not at his best during the wind-up to the debate: we have never seen the Minister at his best, so I do not understand how my hon. Friend could arrive at that judgment. However, we shall move on.
  Amendment No. 1 is straightforward: it relates to the promotional activities with which the Wales centre for health will be involved. We are not dealing at this stage with its role in research or the development of training.
  Clause 3 provides that:
  "The Wales Centre for Health must…develop and maintain arrangements for making information about matters related to the protection and improvement of health in Wales available to the public in Wales."
  Our amendment would add the words
  "provided that it shall not use media channels widely accessible in any area outside Wales for the communication of such information unless that information is communicated jointly with those public information bodies responsible for the communication of health information in that area".
  That is a common-sense amendment.
  2.30 pm
  In many ways, the amendment builds on the Minister's earlier suggestion that, in practice, the WCH will work with several other organisations, even though that is not specified in the Bill. The Minister will remember that, in Committee, we tried to include a provision that would force the centre to work with similar bodies elsewhere in some of its campaigns. The amendment would do that, in another guise, inasmuch as we recognise that once the WCH is properly and fully established, it may embark on television campaigns that impinge on people outside Wales.
  As we know, a considerable number of people in Wales—north and south—turn their aerials away from Welsh television stations for all sorts of reasons. People
  352
  living in north Wales who were born in England may be more interested in what Granada has to offer, or people in parts of south Wales may point their aerials in the direction of Westcountry television, which is owned by Carlton, rather than watching domestic Welsh services.
  The Wales centre for health might embark on a campaign of precautions and warnings against smoking—something that we would all welcome. We know that obesity is a problem, so the centre might launch a campaign for better eating habits, perhaps coupled with the promotion of health exercise. Again, we would support that, especially if the campaign was targeted on people who were vulnerable to those problems.
  I do not think that there would be a great problem if such advertisements were broadcast on HTV Wales and also seen by people in Bristol who can receive that channel. However, there might be other campaigns where we should want the centre to collaborate with other bodies and co-ordinate its work with them. That is only common sense.
  In Swansea, for example, there is a problem in getting mums and dads to take up the MMR inoculation for their children. Several GPs are so worried about that lack of take-up that they fear that there will be an outbreak of disease. The centre could set up a campaign targeted on the Swansea area, or even nationally throughout Wales. There might be no problem in doing that, but it might run counter to messages coming from England.
  One of the beauties or strengths of devolution—so we are told—is that there can be policy differentiation between Wales and England if that is what Wales wants. For example, England already has a diabetes strategy, but Wales is still waiting for one. I am bewildered by that decision and hope that the Government will get on with a proper diabetes strategy for the whole United Kingdom and that all organisations will work together to ensure that it is sensible.
  However, the situation could be reversed: Wales might have a strategy on something while England did not. If there was an advertising campaign in Wales on the issue, some English residents might think that it was also English health policy. Such differentiation in policy might not be a strength—it could cause confusion.
  Confusion can also arise when we hear references to the "Health Minister", because, as hon. Members know, the title "Secretary" in the National Assembly for Wales has been replaced by that of "Minister". When that job title is mentioned people do not know whether it means the UK Minister or the Welsh or Scottish one.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Surely, the diabetes strategy is an example of devolution working well. It was not an English initiative but a Scottish one. England took it up and Wales will do so later on.
  Mr. Evans: I do not dispute the fact that the strategy started in Scotland and that it followed in England. The question that I want to stress is why Wales is last. People in Wales who suffer from diabetes have been pushing hard for such a strategy; indeed, even in England we waited too long for its implementation.

  353
  There is huge confusion even about simple things, such as the roles of county councillors, MPs and MEPS. We do not know who does what. We are trying to bring back some sanity and coherence. That is what the amendment is about.
  There is a problem with flu jabs, for example. Due to the recent cold snap, one hospital in Wales stopped all non-emergency operations until February to tackle the problem. Although we would endorse a campaign to encourage more people to take up flu jabs, we also know that in some areas doctors have run out of vaccine in the past. A campaign might be initiated in one part of the country but seen on television in another area where no vaccine was available. That would be a gross waste of time and extremely inefficient.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would cause huge frustration if people saw on television that they are supposed to get themselves inoculated against flu but when they turned up at their local GP surgery they found that there was no vaccine? There are already far too many attacks on people who work in the health service. Such campaigns could increase frustration with NHS staff, even though they were incapable of carrying out inoculations due to the lack of vaccine. The amendment would prevent such dilemmas.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. The frustration would be worse if people were told in a television campaign to go to their surgery, only to find when they did so that there was no vaccine. That has happened in the past, so we are not even talking about a worst-case scenario.
  If we can get everyone to work together on such matters it would be not only efficient, but would also save money. As we have said in the past, the duplication of television campaigns can be hugely expensive. Of course, I can almost read the Minister's mind as he sits on the Treasury Bench. He thinks that everything will be wonderful and that everyone will work together in their best interests. We have heard it all before, but we want such things to be stated in the Bill to ensure good practice, for goodness' sake. Much of the Bill is common sense in many ways—for example, some of the requirements that the Wales centre for health will be asked to meet—but we still think that it should be stated in the Bill none the less. That is what we are trying to do with the amendment.
  Mr. Wayne David: The amendment says that the Wales centre for health
  "shall not use media channels widely accessible in the any area outside Wales",
  but how wide is wide? Are we talking about 2 or 202 square miles? The amendment must be precise; otherwise it is meaningless.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman quotes only part of the amendment, which goes on to say that the proposal should apply unless the centre is in dialogue with its sister bodies in England. We are trying to make that dialogue the norm, so that such problems would not arise.
  There are various ways in which the centre should try to get its message across. For example, it could use regional newspapers. There are several very good daily
  354
  morning and evening newspapers and even weekly newspapers in Wales, and they get their message across. Using the South Wales Evening Post would be a perfect way to get the message on MMR across, especially in areas that face the problem, such as Swansea. There would be no problem in doing that, and I suspect that it would be far more cost-efficient.
  The use of television is the main problem because it does not respect boundaries, as has been rightly said. Many people could receive pictures from elsewhere. Of course, with digital television, people living in England can receive Welsh television, and vice versa. Satellite television, the internet and e-mails could be used, and I am sure that there is even a role for texting on telephones. All those things have to be considered.
  We feel very strong about this issue. Although we failed in Committee when we tried to get those bodies to work together to achieve coherence and joined-up thinking, the campaigning aspect for the Wales centre for health will be vital. I can imagine that Members of Parliament will get in touch with the centre, saying "This is a particular health problem in my area. Please will you look into it, and do some research and campaigning on it?" That would be a perfect and appropriate role for Members of Parliament, but, surely, given the limited amount of money that the Wales centre for health will have at its disposal, we want to ensure that it at least talks properly to similar organisations elsewhere.
  We want to ensure that the campaigns are properly costed, work together and are rolled out where appropriate, so that we can save money and be far more efficient than if we leave things as they are and simply pray that the bodies will talk to one another and work together. Why do we leave that to chance? Let us include such things in the Bill and ensure coherence.
  Hywel Williams: I would not want to disappoint the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), but I also believe in co-operation between health promotion bodies in Wales and those in England. After all, disease does not respect national boundaries, or any other boundary for that matter. However, I wish to point out some of the problems to which he has already alluded, as well as those that arise from the fact that the amendment uses the words,
  "shall not use media channels widely available accessible…unless that information is communicated jointly".
  Let us consider the media channels available. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to television. However, I contend that the amendment would constrain the Wales centre for health unreasonably because all the media channels that may be used would have to be agreed with bodies over the border. Any message that the centre wanted to broadcast in Wales would probably have to be communicated jointly with those bodies.
  I shall list the media that might be used and comment very briefly on them. First, Sianel Pedwar Cymru—S4C, the Welsh television channel—is widely available as the hon. Gentleman has already said. I occasionally watch it when in London, and I understand that it is also available on the internet and can be watched all over the place. Radio Cymru and Radio Wales—the two national radio channels—are widely available in the west and north-west of England and in the midlands,

  355
  as is witnessed by the phone-ins that they broadcast. People in many places listen to programmes on Radio Wales, so anything broadcast on those two media would then have to be communicated jointly with bodies in England.
  Of course the internet is available universally. It is available to people in Caernarfon in my constituency and to those in Caernarfon in New South Wales; to Bangor in the constituency of the hon. Member for Conwy and to Bangor, Maine. We are talking about only England and Wales, of course, but information that the Wales centre for health might produce would be widely accessible in many areas outside Wales, and any such decision would be a matter of practicality.
  2.45 pm
  Mr. Wiggin: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any reason why people in England would not agree to co-operate with the Wales centre for health?
  Hywel Williams: Certainly not; people would be very interested in co-operating, but the question is whether such things should be stated in the Bill and whether the centre should be constrained not to use media unless it agrees to communicate jointly. That question applies not only to broadcast media and the internet, but to newspapers because, as many hon. Members will know, the vast majority of people in Wales read morning and some evening newspapers that are produced in Fleet street in England, and 80 per cent. readership for the Daily Post and the Western Mail is fairly modest.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will also recognise that, for example, the Daily Mirror produces an edition for Wales called the Welsh Mirror, which predominantly carries Welsh articles on certain pages, where advertisements could be placed that would not infringe the provision.
  Hywel Williams: Yes, indeed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman; that is a matter of fact. I am sure that hon. Members would be very pleased if the print media in Wales were developed so that we could have dedicated Welsh newspapers. However, that it not the case at present, so the amendment would constrain the Wales centre for health if it wanted to use, for example, The Sun, which has a wide circulation in Wales, or, at the other end of the scale, the Shropshire Star, which is now sold in Barmouth, Harlech and various other places on the west coast.
  Those are the practical points that I want to make. I am entirely in favour of co-operation in health promotion; it is a vital function of the centre. I cannot see how the amendment would add anything to its operation. In fact, it would constrain it considerably.
  Mr. Roger Williams: I am concerned about the amendment's practicality. During a short holiday in France, I had the great joy of watching S4C by some technical wizardry that enabled the owner of the property to watch club rugby while enjoying the finest wines available in the area. I do not know whether we would need the co-operation of various organisations in France to carry out the amendment's requirements.
  356
  The Wales centre for health will have lots of organisations with which it can carry out its information campaigns, including the Brecon and Radnor Express an excellent newspaper that is widely read throughout my constituency. However, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) took things a little far when he said that the amendment would produce a reduction in surgery rage and hospital rage. I am not sure about the cost effectiveness of all the work that would have to be done.
  Mr. Wiggin: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that he does not want to see a reduction in hospital rage and surgery rage?
  Mr. Williams: I would obviously want to see a reduction in any rage in surgeries and hospitals, but I am suggesting that the amendment would have a minimal effect in achieving such a reduction.
  A number of my constituents face another problem. They do not turn their receivers towards England. The problem is that they cannot receive Welsh television, so the Wales centre for health would have a problem in communicating to those in that sector of Wales, which runs up and down the English border, who are unable to have access to television—the strongest and most important media in the country.
  In addition, I thought that the driving force of the amendment may have been to inform people in England of a special circumstance in Wales. For instance, were there an outbreak in Wales of a communicable disease such as mumps, rubella or chickenpox, it would be unwise for children from England who were not vaccinated to visit the area affected. That information might be required to be put out to people living in England. In those circumstances, it would be in the interests of everyone if the health authorities in England were informed of that. Once again, that is something that can be achieved in practice rather than in legislation, and I look forward to the Minister's comments.
  Mr. Touhig: The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) felt that I was not at my best in the last debate. He was not persuaded by my argument or my oratory. I am sure that he will forgive me, however, if I point out that 300 people were, and they followed me into the Lobby, while barely 70 followed him.
  Mr. Wiggin: They were not watching.
  Mr. Touhig: They were all listening or watching on the monitor.
  I also note the point of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) about communications and how he was watching club rugby and drinking good French wine. I did exactly the same in the Dordogne last year. Long may those methods of communication, and French wine, continue.
  The previous debate centred on the links between the health protection agency and the Wales centre for health. What is extraordinary about the amendment is that it will put a complete block on a key area of collaboration and communication between the health protection agency and the Wales centre for health.

  357
  The amendment would impose unjustified restrictions on the Wales centre for health's ability to make information available to the public in Wales. It will prevent the centre from publishing information in any way that might lead to it reaching people anywhere outside Wales, without first getting the specific agreement of those public health information bodies responsible for the communication of health information in that area, as the amendment states.
  The amendment raises two issues: the role of the Wales centre for health in communicating with the public; and the need for the centre to collaborate with other bodies. On the first issue of the role of the Wales centre for health, there may be some misunderstanding. Let me clarify the matter. The role of the centre is to assess evidence and provide information and advice on public health issues to the public, to the Assembly and to other public sector organisations in Wales, including the new national public health service. It will also monitor trends and undertake surveillance, identify gaps in information and data and encourage action to fill those gaps, build partnerships with other bodies in the public, voluntary and academic sectors, and develop the skills and knowledge base that underpin public health practice.
  What the centre will not do, however, is conduct health promotion programmes, as it appeared that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was suggesting when he spoke a moment or two ago. That will remain the responsibility of the Assembly together with the national public health service in Wales, which will take over the health promotion work done by the health authorities when they are abolished later this year. There are already several campaigns in Wales addressing such issues as smoking, HIV and sexually transmitted infections in accordance with the Assembly's national health promotion strategy, "Promoting health and well-being". There has been no need to impose restrictions on those campaigns in terms of the media used, nor do they cause cross-border problems. There can be no justification for imposing such severe restrictions on the freedom of the Wales centre for health to provide information to the public, if it wished to use such media.
  The amendment refers to
  "media channels widely accessible in any area outside Wales".
  That would include publications such as newspapers and magazines, including medical and professional journals, radio and television channels and the Wales centre for health's website. Many of those can be readily received in areas outside Wales. The amendment would therefore prevent publication through numerous media popular within Wales simply because they are, or could be, accessible in England, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) pointed out.
  I made it clear at column 58 in the second sitting of the Committee that the centre will have its own website, which will provide an important means by which it provides information across the planet. The amendment would prevent the centre from being able to post valuable information on its website simply because it would be accessible to people outside Wales. It could only overcome that embargo if it could secure joint publication with public health providers in the rest of the world. It is hard to see what form of communication
  358
  would be accessible to the centre. Even locally distributed leaflets could stray across national boundaries: a wind might blow them across the border into England, and the centre would be in trouble. That shows the quality of the amendments being tabled by the Conservative party.
  At a time when communications have never been more fluid, nor information more accessible, the amendment would impose unacceptable and unreasonable restrictions on the Wales centre for health. It would restrict the free flow of information across Wales' borders—information that could benefit the rest of the United Kingdom.
  On the second issue of collaboration with other bodies, on which part of the debate on the previous group of amendments focused, I can confirm that the centre, in its shadow form, is already taking steps to co-ordinate its work with other bodies. For instance, it is to seek partner status with the public health observatories in England, and it is in contact with the Public Health Institute of Scotland and the Institute of Public Health in Ireland. It will work closely with the Health Development Agency in its development of a public health evidence base.
  Paragraph 20 of schedule 2 gives the centre the power to co-operate with other public authorities. The Assembly intends that it should do so with other bodies in Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom and with other countries in the world. The centre will co-operate with other bodies in providing evidence and information. The amendment, however, would place severe restrictions on the means available for the centre to do so. It would also restrict the means by which public bodies outside Wales could learn of the information provided by the centre.
  The amendment is too prescriptive and is unworkable. The Bill requires the centre to make information about matters related to the protection and improvement of health in Wales available to the public in Wales. It must be up to the centre to decide how it intends to make that information available within Wales. I can only suggest that the author of the amendment must have been somebody related to comrade Ceaucescu.
  Mr. Evans: I did not realise that S4C was so widely viewed in France. I am sure that it will be delighted to learn that its viewing figures, at certain peak times, may be larger in France than they are in Wales. Perhaps the French are tuning in to look at the quality of club rugby in Wales so that they can improve their game.
  The amendment is clearly designed to get everyone working together. The Minister tells us to accept with blind faith that organisations are doing what the amendment suggests and that they will do that in the future. However, when we try to make the position clear in the Bill, we are told that we are handcuffing organisations and that it would be dreadful to force them to do what we are told they are doing anyway. That argument does not wash with me.
  I have heard more red herrings than are in Billingsgate about what might happen if the amendment

  359
  were accepted. The Minister talked about leaflets straying in the wind. Leafleting is possibly one of the most effective tools for communicating a message if the leaflets are targeted and delivered and are not thrown up on the borders in the hope that the wind is blowing in the right direction. That would be ridiculous.
  The vast majority of local newspapers would not fall foul of the provisions in the amendment. They are most widely read in the area in which they are distributed. I am sure that people from England and other parts of the world subscribe to the newspaper circulated in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). However, it is most widely read in its own patch, as is the case with most local newspapers.
  I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. He was not at his best in the previous debate and he certainly has not been at his best in this one. He has not convinced me, so we shall press the amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 326.

  Division No. 45]

  [3 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lidington, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Barker, Gregory

  Loughton, Tim

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bercow, John

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Maclean, rh David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Maples, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Brady, Graham

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Butterfill, John

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Cameron, David

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Cash, William

  Robathan, Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Clappison, James

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Ruffley, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Flook, Adrian

  Selous, Andrew

  Forth rh Eric

  Simmonds, Mark

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Francois, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Goodman, Paul

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Grayling, Chris

  Syms, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tredinnick, David

  Gummer, rh John

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hague, rh William

  Watkinson, Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Whittingdale, John

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Wiggin, Bill

  Hendry, Charles

  Wilshire, David

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lansley, Andrew

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Mr. Desmond Swayne

  360

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cooper, Yvette

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainger, Nick

  Cotter, Brian

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Allan, Richard

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Allen, Graham

  Crausby, David

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Austin, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bailey, Adrian

  David, Wayne

  Baird, Vera

  Davidson, Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Battle, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beard, Nigel

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Hilary

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Best, Harold

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blackman, Liz

  Edwards, Huw

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Efford, Clive

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Farrelly, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Follett, Barbara

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, rh Derek

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & RYE)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Browne, Desmond

  Francis Dr Hywel

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Gapes, Mike (IlfordS)

  Bryant, Chris

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Burnett, John

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burnham, Andy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burstow, Paul

  Gilroy, Linda

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hanson, David

  Challen, Colin

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chaytor, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Chidgey, David

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clapham, Michael

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heath, David

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heyes, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Hodge, Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Connarty, Michael

  Holmes, Paul

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  361

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Moore, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Moran, Margaret

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Julie

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, rh John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

  Perham, Linda

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Picking, Anne

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Prescott, rh John

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Purnell, James

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lamb, Norman

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lammy, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rendel, David

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ruddock, Joan

  Love, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Salter, Martin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCabe, Stephen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonnell, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacDougall, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheerman, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheridan, Jim

  McKechin, Ann

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simon, SiÔn (B'ham Erdington)

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Michael, rh Alun

  Southworth, Helen

  Miliband, David

  Spellar, rh John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mole, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  362

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  White, Brian

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Wills, Michael

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Wilson, Brian

  Tripkett, Jon

  Winnick, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner Dr Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tyler, Paul (TV Cornwall)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Watts, David

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.13 pm
  Mr. Touhig: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill has been considered in Standing Committee and on Report. It exemplifies the partnership that exists between the Labour Government and the Labour-led National Assembly for Wales and is a practical example of the benefits of devolution. Although Westminster and Cardiff have already achieved a great deal by working together, the Bill proves that that partnership has the potential to deliver much more for the people of Wales. The Bill helps to fill in the detail of the strategic framework established in the last Session by the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. It will deliver some of the key elements of the Assembly's 10-year plan to improve the health and well-being of the people of Wales. By bringing patients closer to the centre of the stage, the Bill will give them a stronger voice in the improvement, development and running of the health service in Wales. The newly reformed community health councils will be the main vehicle for giving patients a greater say.
  The Bill retains and reforms CHCs in Wales and provides an independent NHS complaints and advocacy service, which will strengthen public and patient involvement in health service planning and delivery. It establishes the Wales centre for health to provide independent training, advice and research in health care, which will make an important contribution to arrangements for protecting and improving health. It also establishes Health Professions Wales to provide education and training of health care professionals. That will increase the equality, effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system.
  The Bill is important not just for its content, but for the process by which it has come before us. It is the first all-Wales Bill to have been subject to the rigours of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is no exaggeration to say that it is regarded as the model for the way in which that should be carried out. As such, it comes to us not only improved in its contents by pre-legislative scrutiny, but as an

  363
  ambassador for the process. It underlines how the House can change and reform its processes to improve legislation making. The Government are rightly proud of that innovation and gratified by the reaction to it. We consequently intend to make more use of that form of scrutiny. However, it is right to pay tribute to the four Opposition parties and their leaders in Wales and the House who welcomed and embraced the pre-legislative process. They helped to underpin its legitimacy. Rather than merely having a political party express its will, hopes and aspirations in Parliament, they expressed the will of the House in Parliament.
  The Bill was first published in draft as the NHS (Wales) Bill in May last year. Some 87 organisations and individuals representing the profession and other bodies that would be affected by it were sent copies and explanatory notes on which they were invited to comment. Some 27 did so. To facilitate the widest possible public involvement, the draft Bill was also published on the Wales Office website. Some 15 people responded to that including, as I said on Second Reading, a Mr. Lei Leiu in China, who sent an e-mail offering to sell us an excellent forging hammer. It is clear that something was lost in translation. That aspect of scrutiny produced 25 recommendations for changes to the draft Bill.
  The Welsh Affairs Committee considered the draft Bill in this House. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who chairs that Committee, and Committee members for their work in scrutinising the Bill. The Committee also consulted stakeholders widely. Both the Assembly Health and Social Services Minister, Jane Hutt, and I gave evidence before the Committee, which produced a carefully considered report with 17 recommendations for change. The Welsh Grand Committee had a full day's debate on the report. The National Assembly for Wales also debated it in Cardiff in committee and in its plenary session. The Health and Social Services Minister and I also accepted an invitation to appear before an all-party group in the other place. The Assembly asked for a number of changes to the Bill to which we were able to accede in most cases.
  Publication in draft has allowed for a lengthy, thorough and open consideration of the Bill and the policies that it contains. It says much for the effort put into the original draft, including discussion with stakeholders by the Assembly, that the draft Bill received warm and widespread welcome across Wales. Indeed, none of the pre-legislative scrutiny revealed any concerns with the principle of what was proposed. The pre-legislative scrutiny produced 45 recommendations for changes to the draft Bill. Some of those duplicated recommendations and some suggested extending the Bill to include, for example, a ban on smoking in public places, which, as I explained on Second Reading and in Committee would be outside the Bill's scope.
  The Bill adopts the principles behind 16 of the recommended amendments. The revised Bill was considered by the Standing Committee and agreed without amendment. It remains unchanged. All amendments to the draft Bill could be categorised as minor or technical—even the change to the long and short title. It is worth reflecting on some of the more
  364
  significant changes because they provide a context for the issues raised in Standing Committee. The Bill is essentially enabling by nature. It quite properly devolves responsibility for determining the detail of the function of the bodies established by the Bill—the reformed community health councils, the Wales centre for health and Health Professions Wales—to the Assembly. It would fly in the face of devolution to do otherwise.
  Questions were raised during consultation about the extent to which this approach might be seen to constrain the freedom or independence of the bodies. The policy intention was that they should enjoy considerable autonomy. On reflection, we concluded that the Bill would be improved if we made that clearer, so we amended the draft Bill to give more powers to CHCs to require information, and to impose on them a clearer duty to report on their activities. We also restricted the Assembly's powers to direct the activities of the Wales centre for health and removed the Assembly's power to issue directions about the functions of Health Professions Wales.
  When we came to Second Reading, several hon. Members dwelt on those issues. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asserted that the Assembly's powers over CHCs were too wide. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) called for greater independence for CHCs, and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) extended that to call for more independence for CHCs, the Wales centre for health and Health Professions Wales.
  In the Standing Committee, we were privileged to work under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want me to pay tribute to his wise and skilful chairmanship and to say that we will miss him when he stands down at the next election. We wish him well for the future. He made a major contribution to the Bill's passage through the Committee. Opposition Members tabled several amendments, and some, where the Bill's intentions may not have been clear enough, were of a probing nature. I hope that we satisfied all hon. Members on those matters. Other amendments continued the theme of the Second Reading debate and sought to strengthen the position of the CHCs, the Wales centre for health and Health Professions Wales.
  The intention behind those amendments was summarised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell at the Committee's third sitting, when he said:
  "Broadly speaking, the Committee is agreed that the Bill is a decent set of steps, sensible, based on consultation and welcomed by health care professionals in Wales."
  In fairness to him, I point out that he went on to say:
  "Its main weakness is that in several different ways it hands excessive power to the politicians of the Assembly".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 December 2002; c. 89.]
  I wholeheartedly concur with his first point, but I disagree with him totally on the second. Giving power to the Assembly within a carefully constructed legislative framework, and making those powers subject to the Assembly's arrangements for democratic determination, so that there can be detailed, open and transparent consultation, can hardly be deemed excessive when considered in the context of the devolution settlement.

  365
  The independence that Opposition Members seek to enshrine in the Bill is already assured. We took careful note of the views expressed by stakeholders during pre-legislative scrutiny. We amended the draft Bill in 16 areas to address the concerns expressed and, as I was able to remind the Standing Committee, amendments were made to provide greater autonomy and to clarify the independence of CHCs, the Wales centre for health and Health Professions Wales.
  I was also able to assure the Standing Committee that the Assembly's freedom to impinge on the autonomy of those bodies was itself constrained by its own consultation arrangements, which I further explained in a subsequent letter sent to all members of the Committee.
  This is a short Bill—short in content and short on controversy—but it is important. It breaks new ground in pre-legislative scrutiny and it is important for the future of health care in Wales. It is a key part of the reform agenda of the Government and the Assembly. It had a thorough airing before introduction. It reflected the views of stakeholders when introduced, and its intentions have been further clarified in Standing Committee and in the House today. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House and asking hon. Members to give it a Third Reading.
  3.24 pm
  Mr. Evans: We have heard a lot about the strengths of devolution, and in all honesty I cannot say that the NHS in Wales is a prime example of it. However, I heard the Secretary of State for Wales on the Frost programme on Sunday trying to entice Sir David Frost with the news that, thanks to devolution, he can look forward soon to receiving a concessionary bus pass. There was a look of bemusement on Sir David's face at the prospect of catching the No. 13 bus from Swansea to Townhill. I am not sure what he thought the Secretary of State was saying.
  The Minister has just spoken about the procedure that the Bill followed, which we certainly welcome. Pre-legislative scrutiny is important, particularly as, time and again, we find our opportunities for detailed consideration of Bills further constrained. Perhaps the Minister should have bought the forge hammer from Mr. Lei Leiu of China so that he could have knocked the Bill into better shape. However, we know that the Bill has a further journey to make. Judging by its consideration in Committee and in the House today, the Government should not be so obsessed with timetabling. There is a great deal of good will on this side of the House towards Bills that genuinely deserve support.
  I echo the Minister's comments about the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who chaired the Standing Committee well. Of course, he takes a great interest in this area of the NHS in Wales, and has much experience of it. We wish him well for his retirement at the end of this Parliament.
  We know that the Government intended the Bill to be much bigger, but parts of it were hived off to the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. Problems will arise from that Bill, not this one. I have huge reservations about that new bureaucratic system, with five health authorities being replaced by 22 local health boards and other bodies.
  366
  We know that the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills said yesterday in an interview that politicians should be more credible and admit when they have made mistakes. This is one area in which Welsh politicians and UK politicians could achieve more credibility with the public by admitting that they have made a big mistake with those reforms. A report out this week says that £8.5 million of savings must be made in the NHS in Wales if the reforms are to be cost-neutral, and that is without the £15 million of transitional cost in setting up the new bodies, so there will be problems with that bureaucracy.
  Returning to the Bill before the House, we support the retention of CHCs in Wales. We supported their retention in England as well, and we would have welcomed that measure if Labour Members had voted for it. We tried in our amendments to give CHCs more independence. The issue is not whether we should trust the Welsh Assembly to retain power over CHCs but whether we should ensure that CHCs, which are the whistleblowers, watchdogs and champions of patients, will be given independence. They would not then need to worry that the Welsh Assembly could change their name, savage them or even abolish them, which the Bill gives the Assembly the power to do.
  We know that CHCs will be hugely busy. Headlines randomly selected from newspapers make that clear. One says "Hutt again fails to meet targets" and another, from the South Wales Evening Post, says "Woman, 82, stranded in hospital". Another headline is, "Health wait deadline passes"—a reference to people who had to wait more than 18 months for orthopaedic surgery. I know that the Minister said that the Welsh Assembly had made advances in that key area, but I am afraid that in some parts of Wales the waits are still huge. Other headlines are, "Health board shake-up costs 'rise"—a reference to the fact that an imperceptible improvement in the service will cost a lot—and, "Nursing vacancies plague Welsh NHS".
  Those are important headlines. One can hardly open a newspaper in Wales without reading a story about the dire problems faced by the NHS. In Wales, more money is spent per head of population than in England—£822 in Wales compared with £740 in England, although waiting lists in England are lower than in Wales. Since 1997, the number of beds in Wales has been reduced, and both in-patient and out-patient waiting lists have gone up. Total activity has gone down, as has elective activity. I referred earlier to University hospital of Wales, which has stopped non-emergency operations until February because of winter problems. I have talked about orthopaedic surgery. In Gwent, 1,200 patients have waited more than three years to see a consultant for the first time, which is not acceptable or humane. Waiting lists are also rising in several other key areas.
  At the same time, bed blocking is a problem in Wales, and we have not heard any solution to the issue. Local authority care homes are closing, which will add even further to the problems of the NHS in Wales. We know that the health service is scouring the world for nurses and that more patients are being sent abroad or to England for their operations, which is causing a huge problem for trusts' budgets in England. As I said, trusts are spending more in Wales than in England. It is terrible that the NHS in Wales faces all those dire

  367
  problems, and I feel sorry for the dedicated staff who are dogged by politicians, whether from Westminster or Wales. They are being prevented from getting on with the job that they sincerely want to do and which was their reason for going into the NHS in the first place.
  I do not believe that the Government woke up one day and said, "Let's see how we can wreck the NHS," but that is exactly what has happened since they came to power in 1997. As for the Bill, we wish it well. We hope that when it goes to the other place, peers will look at some of our suggestions and table their own amendments. Indeed, I hope that the Government in a quieter moment will reflect on our suggestions and amend the Bill in the other place themselves. However, we wish the Bill well, and I do not wish to delay its progress any further.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. Roger Williams: We welcome the Bill as well. During an earlier discussion of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) spoke about the stress he suffered as a result of the Conservatives' delay in announcing whether they would support the Bill. I am pleased to say that he has recovered and is now doing his bit in Committee.
  I congratulate everyone who has contributed to the progress of the Bill, particularly the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on his work with the Select Committee. The good relationship that has developed between the Assembly and Welsh Members will stand the legislative system in Wales in good stead, and will give us a huge advantage when we come to consider other Bills. We all recognise the problems that Wales faces, and the Bill represents a step forward in improving the NHS there. To a large extent, the poor state of the health of the Welsh nation is an historic problem. Any audit would point out that many people suffer health problems such as pneumoconiosis and silicosis as a result of their employment in the mining and slate industries. In the farming industry, people suffer from farmer's lung, an illness that attacks the lungs.
  Those chronic illnesses are not cured easily, if at all, but we should ensure that people's quality of life is improved so that they can have a longer and more enjoyable life. People whose jobs involve heavy lifting can suffer from orthopaedic conditions. As I walk around farmers' markets in my area, I see many farmers hobbling away, waiting for their hip replacement, an operation that can provide many with comfort and relief.
  Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman disturbed by the increasing number of people who have to use their life savings and, indeed, borrow money to go private because of the wait, often in great pain, that they have to endure before getting a hip replacement on the NHS?
  Mr. Williams: I agree. Many of us have dealt in our surgeries with people waiting for hip replacements who are forced to use the private sector. To some extent, that is an historic problem that cannot be solved at the stroke of a pen: it will take time.
  368
  Ill health in Wales is due not only to employment, but to high unemployment. The closure of the steel industry and the coal mines has brought relative poverty to many areas. There is a close relationship between poverty and ill health. Through a cycle of ill health and deprivation, families that have suffered from ill health for many years go on to produce another generation whose lifestyle and quality of life make it more prone to long periods of ill health. Youth unemployment has decreased over recent years, but many people have difficulty in finding gainful employment, and drug abuse has dragged them into ill health and exclusion from the health service.
  The Bill is, as the Minister said, an enabling Bill. I welcome that. It gives powers to the Assembly to organise the structure and workings of the three organisations in a way that is suitable for Wales. In Committee, I was critical of some of the Tory amendments—
  Chris Grayling: Tell us about yours.
  Mr. Williams: I shall in a moment. I was glad to see Tory amendments, as we would have had a very short Committee stage without them. I was critical of them because they showed a misunderstanding of the devolution principle and settlement. It is not in the interests of devolution for the primary legislation to contain such fixed requirements that they give the Assembly no discretion to use its powers to make the organisations responsive to the needs of the people of Wales. I was happier with the tone of today's Tory amendments, which reflected a sense of partnership and working together. I am sure that that can be achieved, not necessarily by being written into the Bill, but through the working partnerships that will grow up between people working in different areas of Britain who are concerned to improve the health of the nation.
  We are pleased that community health councils are to be retained in Wales and their role enhanced and extended. If that is to be achieved, we must ensure that the their membership is of suitable calibre and sufficiently representative of the people who live in Wales. I have mentioned on several occasions the amount of training that CHC members will have to undertake to carry out their responsibilities. I am pleased that the Assembly will be able to arrange appointments to the CHCs.
  Although local authority members have for a long time made a huge contribution to the work of the CHCs, too many of them on such a council will not enhance its work. Many local authority members give much time and effort to that work, while some see it as an extension of their local authority work. They put more emphasis on the local authority work, and less time and effort into their CHC work. I have spoken to local authority members about the provision. They are happy about it. If they want to obtain or retain membership of a CHC, they can put their name forward and go through the process. The Nolan principles for the system of appointment are well established in Wales and widely respected. Gone are the times when all three members for the Brecon Beacons national park went to the same church, which was the church that the Secretary of State attended.
  Since the Standing Committee proceedings finished, I have received representations about the name of CHCs. We discussed whether they had a good brand name and

  369
  whether it should be retained on the basis that everybody knows where to go. However, certain members of CHCs believe that they could be renamed with a term that makes them more accessible and is more descriptive of their job and their advocacy work on patients' behalf.
  The Wales centre for health will undoubtedly do much good work that will be valuable in addressing the endemic problems that affect the Welsh nation in relation to health. A huge amount of work certainly needs to be done on research and to roll out some specific results on Welsh conditions and medical problems.
  I do not think that Health Professions Wales will act as a bar to prevent people from coming to Wales to work in nursing or any of the other health professions. It will be an enabling body that will encourage people to come to Wales to work. It will also produce an environment in which people can enter their chosen profession and look to it to give them a good quality of life and experiences. The body could also be influential in improving the qualifications to which health professionals can aspire and perhaps increasing their number. Qualifications might be introduced in relation to skills or duties that would be useful in a specifically Welsh context.
  I am sure that everybody will want the Bill successfully to complete its passage.
  3.41 pm
  Mr. Wiggin: The Bill will, sensibly, retain CHCs for Wales. It is a disgrace that English CHCs have not been preserved in the same way. While I am happy to work in the House for what is best for the Welsh people, it is fair to point out that Labour Members have a responsibility to look after the whole of the UK and that the Bill will therefore stand in the statute book as a monument to new Labour's double standards.
  What is good for the goose is good for the gander—and my entry in the Register of Members' Interests shows that I have some expertise on geese. We know that CHCs are a good thing, as does the National Assembly for Wales. What a shame that nobody told the Executive of this Government, as was shown when my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) asked the Prime Minister this question:
  "Following the Government's humiliating defeat in another place last night, will the Prime Minister finally agree with the views of medical charities, the British Medical Association and the Opposition and withdraw his mad plans to abolish community health councils?"
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "No, we will not, because the replacement of community health councils by patient forums and patient councils is, we believe, and as the College of Health made clear earlier, a better way to make sure that patients' interests are represented. There has been a debate about community health councils for many years, but patient forums"—[Official Report, 25 April 2002: Vol. 376, c. 305.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We are debating on Third Reading the contents of the Bill that is before the House. The hon. Gentleman cannot remain in order while making such comparisons with matters outside the Bill. He must speak about the contents of the Bill that is before the House.
  Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you for some guidance? I was
  370
  quoting those remarks because the retention of CHCs is the sole purpose of the first part of the Bill. That is why I was making such comparisons. Am I out of order in that respect?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can allow the hon. Gentleman to allude to the fact that a different policy is being pursued in England, but that is outwith the scope of the Bill. On Third Reading, a much more restrictive approach is taken than on Second Reading, when hon. Members can speak about what they would like a Bill to deal with and make complaints in that regard. On Third Reading, it is not in order to talk about matters that lie outside the Bill.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I remain a little muddled about the matter. However, I shall cease quoting the Prime Minister, although it is fair that hon. Members have a good idea of the double standards.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I could clear up the muddle more drastically for the hon. Member.
  Mr. Wiggin: I hope that you will not feel that that is necessary, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Let me deal with the aspects of the Bill that cover the National Assembly. Until your recent intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had not witnessed such pathological delight by Labour Members as that shown in their eagerness to hand over opportunities to the National Assembly to exercise powers such as those in the Bill. I am worried about the autonomy of Health Professions Wales and the Wales centre for health as well as Welsh CHCs when the National Assembly can exercise almost unlimited power over them.
  I am also worried about the Bill's ambiguity on the co-ordination of the activities of the Wales centre for health and Health Professions Wales with those in rest of the United Kingdom. For example, there is the bureaucracy involving Welsh patients who seek medical treatment in England or vice versa. I support the Conservative view that a strong, independent body separate from the Welsh Assembly needs to be created to support CHCs. We were dismayed that none of the amendments that we tabled in Committee in favour of the independence of Welsh CHCs was accepted.
  Let me give an example of imbalance. The Bill gives highly centralised powers to the National Assembly for Wales to abolish or alter the CHCs, to abolish or assume the functions of the Wales centre for health as well as to appoint its members and chairman, and to abolish Health Professions Wales. Although I am sure that it is possible for the Government to know and agree with the intentions of the current Welsh Assembly Administration, it is impossible to know the type of Administration that will exist in future.
  I have always believed that, when making law, we should take the longer-term view and attempt to prevent as many unknown eventualities as possible, thus ensuring that the powers in the Bill will not have to be redistributed yet again. I am not against its concepts, but I am increasingly saddened by the short-term approach that it exemplifies.

  371
  Foundation hospitals constitute another missed opportunity. We have all expressed anxiety that there are no plans to create foundation hospitals in Wales. An article in the Daily Post on 12 December confirmed that there are no plans for such hospitals. The Secretary of State for Wales endorsed the views of the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, that foundation hospitals are not an option for Wales. He effectively endorsed Mr. Morgan's criticisms of the Prime Minister's national health and social policies on the development of foundation hospitals.
  Although I appreciate that some may describe Rhodri Morgan as a dinosaur with extreme socialist views who is stuck in a prehistoric shell and refuses to accept that we have moved on from the 1940s, the First Minister is more than entitled to his views. However, the Secretary of State deserves criticism for endorsing those seriously outdated views. Despite criticising the two-tier health service, the Government are trying to construct a similar division.
  Mr. Touhig: The Secretary of State made it clear in his comments that we are a partnership. The Government here and the Government in the Assembly have the same objectives, which we shall follow by different routes. However, the objectives are the same, and the Secretary of State emphasised that.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention.
  I am also worried about the excessive bureaucracy that the Bill will add to the already horrific amount in the NHS in Wales. Health spending in Wales is significantly higher than in England, yet Wales has worse health outcomes. The Labour-Liberal Democrat Welsh Assembly Government have failed to meet their targets for waiting lists, which continue to increase. Welsh consultants rejected the Government's offer of a new contract because they were worried that the waiting list targets distorted clinical priorities.
  The shortage of funding for Welsh patients who seek treatment in England has threatened the principle of treating patients according to clinical priority. Shortages of care home places and delayed discharge are also significant problems in Wales. There are also many GP vacancies. A truly Welsh health Bill would deal with those matters and strengthen the excellent work of the staff, doctors, nurses and managers who work in Wales. A Welsh health Bill of which we could all be proud would put patients first.
  3.49 pm
  Hywel Williams: I am sure that hon. Members will be gratified to learn that I intend to be brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down, then!"] I shall in a moment, if hon. Members contain themselves.
  I welcome this, the first all-Wales Bill since devolution. It is the product of extensive preparation and discussion. The proposals that have been fashioned are extremely appropriate for Wales and do not preclude co-operation between the health service in Wales and that in England, Scotland or any other country. The Bill contains valuable proposals for the
  372
  Wales centre for health, which will have a vital job in promoting public health. I also welcome the establishment of Health Professions Wales, and the strengthening of the CHCs, including, I hope, their all-Wales body.
  I would like to look at the process by which we have reached this point. It has involved an extensive process of consultation, consideration and discussion involving the National Assembly for Wales and its committees, the public, the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee, followed by the Bill's Second Reading, the Standing Committee, Report and Third Reading—nine steps, so far. The interpretation of this process will, no doubt, be varied and could form the subject of much discussion in Wales in political and academic circles. I look forward to that discussion, as I think that we need to develop our understanding of Welsh political processes through as wide a discussion as possible. Bearing in mind those nine steps, however, I conclude by commending to hon. Members—and, incidentally, to Lord Richard—the good business principle of cutting out the middle man.
  3.51 pm
  Mr. Touhig: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that we have had another good debate on the Health (Wales) Bill this afternoon, and we have again explored in fine detail some of its provisions. The outcome has confirmed that the pre-legislative scrutiny that preceded the Bill's introduction was successful, and proceedings in the Standing Committee and here today have further assisted in providing a thorough understanding and appreciation of the Bill and the policies that it seeks to implement.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) gave the Bill a welcome but then, as usual, dwelt on some of the problems that we have had with the health service in Wales. We recognise that there are problems, but I hope that he will also recognise that the legacy of his party's time in government was closed hospitals, fewer doctors and nurses, and fewer hospital beds. One wonders where the Conservatives' present proposal for a 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure would leave the health service in Wales, if ever they were in power and able to do anything so drastic and insane.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) welcomed the Bill. He referred to some of the problems that we face in Wales, in terms of the legacy of ill-health and inequality. He also touched on the worries about orthopaedics. I can tell him that, in Gwent, where there has been a problem with the delivery of orthopaedic services, the health expert Professor Brian Edwards will carry out a review of orthopaedics in the area of the Gwent NHS trust, and produce a report on ways in which waiting times can be reduced. We all look forward to that.
  The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) highlighted the different approaches in Wales and England, so far as giving patients a clear voice is concerned. That is devolution, and this Labour Government, working in partnership with the Labour-led Assembly, share the same objectives, although we may well follow different routes to achieve them. That is perfectly valid within the context of the devolution settlement in Britain. He also mentioned waiting lists.

  373
  As I said earlier, there have been significant improvements in reducing waiting lists in Wales. Money is being put in to tackle the problem, reforms are being put in place, and the taskforce headed by the Assembly's deputy Health Minister is now monitoring progress to see how quickly we can reduce waiting lists across a range of areas in Wales.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) welcomed the Bill, but also spoke about the processes by which we brought it here. No doubt we shall continue to evaluate how successful they have been. I am sure that there will be Wales-only legislation further down the line and that we shall examine how we should consult, in a pre-legislative sense, before it comes before the House.
  The Bill contains three key elements that have been extensively considered and welcomed. The first is the retention and reform of community health councils, which has been widely welcomed. The second is the welcome from stakeholders for the establishment of the Wales centre for health, which was conceived back in 1998 in the days of the old Welsh Office before devolution and taken on as a result of the commitment of the Cardiff Assembly. That means that we shall strengthen public health capability and capacity in Wales. The third is the creation of Health Professions Wales—a body to perform the functions of the former Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and to support post-registration education and training of health care professionals.
  Proceedings in Standing Committee improved Members' understanding and knowledge of the Bill, which have also been enhanced this afternoon. I am grateful for all contributions made by Members throughout the pre-legislative process and in Committee as well as on Report and Third Reading. We have done a good job of work between us and I am very pleased. I have every confidence in commending the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th January, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion relating to Fisheries at Six o'clock, or three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Mr. Caplin.]

Lords Bills
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 57 (Presentation and first reading) be amended, by leaving out paragraph (3);
(2) The following Standing Order (Bills brought from the Lords) be made:
'57A.—(1) If a Member informs the Clerks at the Table of his intention to take charge of a bill which has been brought from the Lords, the bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time on the day on which the Member so informs the Clerks, and to have been ordered to be read a second time on such day as he shall appoint, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been read the first time and ordered to be read a second time on the day so appointed, and shall be ordered to be printed.
(2) If a public bill is passed by the Lords and carried to the office of the Clerk of the House at a time when this House is not sitting, then, provided that a Member shall have notified the Clerks at the Table, in writing, of his intention to take charge of the bill—
(a) the Clerk of the House shall arrange for the printing and circulation of copies of the bill, and
(b) the bill shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been read the first time on the next sitting day and as having been ordered to be printed pursuant to this standing order and to be read a second time on such day as the Member shall have appointed.'; and
(3) Standing Order No. 78 (Lords amendments) be amended as follows:
Line 1, after 'bills', insert 'and Lords reasons';
Line 3, at end insert 'and the provisions of S.O. No. 57A (Bills brought from the Lords) shall apply to the appointment of consideration and the printing of Lords amendments and reasons as they apply to the appointment of second reading and the printing of bills brought from the House of Lords'; and
Line 5, after 'bills', insert 'or Lords reasons'.—[Mr. Caplin.]
3.56 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I apologise for bringing back to the House a matter that I raised earlier on a point of order. In apologising to the Minister, I should perhaps explain that we were made fully aware of the potential defect in the motion only this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), our Chief Whip, has been seeking enlightenment from various parts of the House for the past 48 hours or so, and he has had considerable difficulty in finding the author of the motion. We understand that it has been at the bottom of a drawer for some time, but its original author has, at long last, been discovered today. He—I think the author is a he—has acknowledged that there is a potential lacuna, which my hon. Friend will refer to in more detail in a moment.
I have been a Member of the House long enough to be immediately suspicious whenever anybody from the Government Whips Office tells me that something is a mere technicality and that we need take no notice whatever of it. In such circumstances, we thought that we should look carefully at the issue. Initially, we thought that there was a potential relevance to the issue of ping-pong between the two Houses, but that does not seem to be the real problem. Nevertheless, there is a defect.
It seems to me that a point of principle is involved. If any Member, whether a Back Bencher or a Front Bencher, identifies a possible problem with any motion brought before the House, it is their responsibility to

375
raise it in the House before that motion goes through so that we can deal with it there and then, rather than wait for another occasion on which to try to correct it.
I hope that the Minister's response to this brief debate indicates that he is prepared to take the motion back for further consideration in the light of the issues that we have raised with the House this afternoon and the misgiving of the author in the Clerk's Department that it may not be as watertight as he originally intended. If he does so, there will be no need to divide the House. If not, we must deal with the point of principle. We shall listen carefully to his assurances to see whether a Division is necessary.
I must tell the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who remains on the Front Bench, that the shadow deputy Leader of the House has indicated that he shares our misgivings, so no doubt he would join us in the Lobby if that became necessary. Following those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove may catch your eye.
3.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: The context for the debate is the change to the sitting hours of the House, as there will be more occasions on which a sitting of the House of Lords continues beyond a sitting of this House. It has therefore been thought fit to introduce a change to our Standing Orders such that when a Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords and is returning to this House, it would not be necessary for this House to remain sitting to receive it at the close of business.
The motion, apart from continuing the existing procedure, albeit with a different numbering, would introduce a new procedure to, in effect, allow the House to be deemed to be sitting so that a Bill coming from the House of Lords could be carried straightforwardly and picked up by a Member of this House.
We have no problem with the principle or the theory of a change in our Standing Orders that we consider practical and sensible in the light of the change in our arrangements generally, but we see a difficulty in the proposed process. Normally, when a Bill has completed its progress in the House of Lords it is physically brought to this House and laid on the Table, at which point a Member can take it up. If this House is not sitting, however, there is no point at which a Member can take up a Bill.
Paragraph (2) of the proposed new Standing Order, in paragraph (2) of the motion, states:
"If a public bill is passed by the Lords and carried to the office of the Clerk of the House at a time when this House is not sitting, then, provided that a Member shall have notified the Clerks at the Table, in writing, of his intention to take charge of the bill",
and so forth. The key words are:
"provided that a Member shall have notified the Clerks at the Table, in writing, of his intention to take charge of the bill".
That seems perfectly sensible, until we ask when the Clerks can be notified of that intention. There is no start date, and no end date. In the case of our normal procedures, the start date is clear: it is the day on which the Bill has been laid on the Table when the House of Commons is in session.
376
Today I asked the motion's original author whether there would be anything to prevent me from submitting to the Clerk of the House some 36 letters covering each of the Bills that the Government are taking through the House of Lords and declaring my intention of taking them up when they reach this House. If I wrote the letters today or tomorrow, I would be the first person to submit such a request and, according to the motion, would therefore appear to have absolute priority. He quite properly told me that all Standing Orders are subject to interpretation by Mr. Speaker; he also told me that such matters must be interpreted with common sense.
I fully accept both those points. Clearly our business could not proceed solely on the basis of the literal interpretation of every Standing Order, and common sense must indeed be brought to bear. Let us suppose, however, that I did not write my 36 letters tonight. Later in the Session, also on a Thursday and perhaps at about this time of day, it might become clear that our business would end before 6 pm, and also that a Bill would emerge from the Lords later than 6 pm. Would it be in order for me to give a letter to the Clerk at this point, in anticipation of that Bill's arrival, or would I have to wait for the moment at which the Bill was passed in the Lords? Or is there some other start date?
I have told the draftsmen, and the Clerk of Legislation—with whom I had a discussion today—that we are faced with the possibility of a race without a starting line or a starting time.
It could be argued that we can leave all these matters to the rulings of Mr. Speaker, and the common sense and good judgment of the House. Although I have no objection to that in principle, I think it unfortunate that, in changing our Standing Orders positively and introducing a new procedure, we may also introduce a gap—a hole—in the evidence needed for an interpretation.
In the light of this debate, the Minister may want to agree to withdrawing the motion, and to taking a second look at the two lines in paragraph 2(2) stating
"that a Member shall have notified the Clerks at the Table, in writing".
We need a starting moment for such submissions.
This is not an entirely academic point. The House will undoubtedly be aware that there have been occasions when it has been a matter of contention as to who should pick up a Bill from the other place and who should proceed with it. Indeed, it has sometimes been a matter of competition as to who gets to the Table first to take the Bill up. Well, we understand the procedures of this place, and earlier this week there was an example of that kind of competitive approach to the Clerks at the Table which has yet to be fully resolved. I want to make it clear that that process is understood and is acceptable when the House is sitting, but when it is not, how does that competition find effect? How is priority given to one Member over another, where such competition exists?
In the light of advice that I received from the Clerk of Legislation, of discussions with the original drafter of this motion, and of points that have been made in the House, I hope that the Government will agree to withdrawing this motion, so that a second look can be taken and a simple and straightforward tweaking of the wording can be made, which would be for the good order and best conduct of this House.
4.6 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I am very grateful to the hon. Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for raising this matter earlier in a point of order, because that gave me the chance to consult with my officials and the Clerks of the House. I think that the House agrees that this is a sensible motion in principle. It deals with the strange anomaly that, until now, the House has been unable to receive Lords messages when it is not sitting. That contrasts with the other place, which can do the reverse.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove has identified a potential problem, which I shall briefly describe as the possibility of a hostile takeover of a private Member's Bill coming from the other place. Following conversations with my own officials and, through them, with the Clerks of this place, it has become clear that the author of the motion does not in fact consider it defective. It is true that he has identified a potential problem, but I hope that, in the light of what I am about to say, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to support the motion.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but there are a couple of caveats. First, the provision will apply only if a Lords message arrives when the House is not sitting—a point that is obvious to all of us. Secondly, it is already possible that two or more Members might vie to take up a Bill arriving from the Lords, so the theoretical problem already exists. The hon. Gentleman's prime concern appeared to be that the Standing Order applies no starting date for a notice in writing of a Member's taking up a Bill. The House authorities assure me that they would not accept notice way in advance in the manner that he suggested, nor would they accept any attempt to set down a Bill for Second Reading at a far off date—the other hypothetical example suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
I should say in all honesty that no Standing Order in this place is utterly safe from some kind of abuse, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that, were problems to emerge in practice as a result of this motion, we would make changes. In the light of
378
those assurances, I hope that he and other hon. Members will feel able to support the motion. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Stunell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. If the Minister has sat down he cannot take an intervention, and the hon. Gentleman is not allowed to speak again.
Question put and agreed to.

Lords Bills

  COMMITTEES
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos. 5 to 7.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Mark Simmonds be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr. Peter Ainsworth be added.
  That Angela Watkinson be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Richard Bacon be added.
  That Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas be discharged from the Regulatory Reform Committee and Mr. John MacDougall be added.—[Mr. Woolas.]

  PETITION

    Food Supplements
    4.9 pm
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: The petition from Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares:
    Consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies and fear that the European Food Supplements Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Herbal Products will severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural herbal products.
    And the petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Oil Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
4.10 pm
Mr. Eric Joyce: A great deal has been said and written in recent months about employment in the North sea and elsewhere off the UK coastline. As far as I am aware, virtually all of that debate has been about the fishing industry, which I understand accounts for about 5,000 jobs. It is certainly true that the fishing industry is going through a challenging time and I know that the Government and the Scottish Executive are working hard to ensure the best possible deal for workers in that sector, but it would be wrong to allow the imperative edge of recent debate in that field to obscure the fact that more than 30,000 people in this country are employed offshore in the oil and gas industries, and many more related jobs exist on the UK mainland, including around BP's Grangemouth refinery. That refinery is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), but it employs more people from my constituency, in places such as Falkirk, Camelon, Denny, Banknock, Bonnybridge and Larbert, than from any other constituency.
We cannot take those jobs for granted, nor the immense contribution that the industries make to the UK Exchequer. A key role for the UK Government is to ensure that relationships with employers and trade unions are in good order, and that fiscal and other policies achieve the best returns for as long as possible to both the Exchequer and workers, while at the same time ensuring that the UK remains a profitable and attractive place for major oil and gas industries to invest in.
I want to take this opportunity to raise three important issues that relate to the near and medium future of the oil and gas industries. The first issue is that of the European working time directive, which was adopted by the European Council of Ministers on 23 November 1993. For entirely defendable reasons, this important directive has not yet been implemented in respect of UK offshore industries. However, following the endorsement of a horizontal amending directive by the European Parliament on 18 May 2000, the working time directive will apply to UK offshore workers from 1 August this year.
I know that the Government are engaged in discussions with employers and trades union representatives about exactly what form the application of the working time directive will take. Naturally, many of the issues are complex, especially in logistical terms, and all parties will no doubt accept an element of compromise.
I have been impressed by a number of arguments to do with matters such as travel to work time that were raised during a recent lobby of the House by members of trade unions such as Amicus-AEEU, the T&G, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the GMB. I have been impressed, too, by the efforts over the past few years of the offshore industries liaison committee in respect of the working time directive. I should also say that both of my brothers have worked offshore for many years. They have given me considerable assistance in respect of my perspective
380
on the matter. Of course, industrial employers have presented strong balancing arguments. I note that both sides have placed great emphasis on health and safety, which is very welcome.
In the time available today, however, I wish to single out the issue of paid leave. Crucially, I understand that the original exclusion of the working time directive for the offshore sector was granted on the basis of the entirely understandable difficulties that surrounded shift patterns. It was not accepted that the nature of offshore working had any implications per se for the right of workers to paid leave. Employers will understandably balk at any legislative measures that will raise their costs, so I expect them to fight a rearguard action in this respect. In a sense, that is their job. Kvaerner employs one of my brothers on a Talisman rig and, for the first time in 25 years offshore, he now receives paid leave. That, I believe, is a response by an employer to the increasing scarcity of skilled workers offshore, and it represents good employment practice.
The exploitation of our assets is not served best by unhelpful speculation about the long-term future of United Kingdom-based oil and gas industries. It sometimes serves to constrain entry to employment and makes it less attractive to jobseekers. That, in turn, drives up the average age and increases the scarcity of those workers in the field. I hope that all North sea employers will take the same line as those who have already recognised the right to paid leave in contractual if not legal terms.
In many ways it is preferable for changes to occur according to the natural equilibrium of the markets, but the working time directive has proven its worth elsewhere. It is now in order for it to be applied in this respect to the offshore sector. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will respond specifically to the issue of paid leave.
Mr. Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an important health and safety element in respect of travel time to and from the rigs, and that workers offshore are concerned that that should be included in the current negotiations on the working time directive? Does he agree that travel time should be included in the total working time for those working offshore?
Mr.Joyce:The hon.Gentleman raises an interesting point. Travel time is a different concept in this context. Virtually everyone travels to work, but the travel-to-work arrangements for offshore workers are very specific and are governed by tight rules and regulations. I am sympathetic to that but, similarly, anyone who flies to and from work—the hon. Gentleman will have an understanding of that—has to comply with the rigid and strict implications that apply when travelling anywhere by air. To that extent, there are constraints on anyone who flies to work.
This is a difficult area in which to legislate, and the best thing may be for companies to recognise their obligations. However, it is important—I think that the hon. Gentleman is hinting at this—to recognise that workers can spend a great deal of time between the heliport and their place of work. There are tight constraints on their behaviour in the heliport and in the aircraft. I understand that this is the subject of continuing negotiations.

381
As the Minister knows, the international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage, to which the UK is a signatory, was adopted in 1969. It has since been subject to a number of additional protocols and amendments, most recently in 2000. In essence, the present situation, following the 2000 amendments, is that while liability for any spill technically rests with the shipowner, in practice a strict limit is placed on that liability unless wilful negligence can be proved. That is difficult to prove, even in cases such as the Prestige recently.
The size of the limited liability relates to the size of the vessel, but it is presently set at between £2.6 million and £52 million, although the larger figure would apply mainly to oil companies, which tend to be the operators of such large vessels.
Independent operators insure themselves through an insurance arrangement that mutualises the risk among them. I understand that the typical cost of coverage for a £25 million liability is about £5 million. Where the amount covered by the insurer is insufficient, and that liability is insufficient, the international oil producing countries fund meets the balance of the costs up to a limit, at present, of £117 million.
That fund is, in turn, realised by signatory Governments through a levy on the oil industry. The calculation of the levy is complex and I do not intend to go into it, but it is proportionately broken up between the oil companies according to their activity in that sphere.
The figure will soon be raised to reflect the increasing costs of cleaning up spillage and the increased perception of risk in that area. After the Prestige spill, the EU is set to propose, in advance of the International Maritime Organisation conference in May, that the figure covered by the IOPCF should be raised to €1 billion, or about £660 million. Moreover, I understand that although the limited liability figure placed on operators may be increased, it will not reflect that new overall figure of €1 billion. There will thus be a substantial increase in the oil industry liability but no proportionate increase in the liability for the shippers.
The major oil and gas companies accept that a substantial increase to their liability via the IOPCF is on the cards, although the extent to which they agree as to the necessity for that increase or its size is a moot point. In some cases, as operators themselves, they have a foot in both camps. That is why it is important that their point of view is heard on whether the possible failure to raise shippers' limited liability to reflect the new €1 billion figure will have the effect of ensuring that best practice for safety, health and the environment is maintained.
Oil companies use independent shippers for most of their transport. It is important to note that each time an oil company hires such a shipper, the operator's credentials are checked carefully. However, while oil companies can share limited inspectorial information—an inspection is carried out in each case—that is limited to a broad letter of comfort. Anything exceeding that opens the risk of breaching anti-trust legislation in force elsewhere. As a result, some bad apples will, from time to time, sneak through. Although we must be careful not to make the risk to the shipping industry prohibitive, we should also be aware that not increasing the liability to
382
the industry in line with the likely new IOPCF liability of €1 billion could send the wrong messages to the small minority of operators who may be tempted to "wing it".
I understand that, in February, the UK will take part in a summit of European Ministers with the aim of agreeing the new IOPCF figure at €1 billion. At that juncture, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to raise the question of the limited liability figure placed on shipowners. Perhaps he can deal with that point in his response to the debate.
My third point relates to charges at St. Fergus, where gas is piped from the North sea through the Miller and Flags systems. The charges in fiscal terms and the future of wet gas in market and exploration terms are complex matters and I have neither the wish nor the expertise to reproduce that complexity in this debate. What I want to do is to flag up—if the pun is not lost on industry enthusiasts—the pivotal stage that we are approaching for jobs in places throughout the UK, such as Grangemouth, and the wider future of wet gas extraction from the North sea.
Wet gas reserves in UK waters will be exhausted relatively soon—within years. When that happens, the focus for extraction will be on the Norwegian sector. If present circumstances continue, and if the economics do not add up, there is a risk that the Norwegians will create their own infrastructure, thus bypassing St. Fergus and possibly dashing many related jobs in the UK wet-gas sector.
That alternative infrastructure—I draw on an excellent article by Alf Young in The Herald last Friday—could take the form of up to a £1 billion investment by the Norwegians to create a wet gas pipeline to a location that would compete aggressively with St. Fergus. It is reasonable to conclude that, if the pipeline investment were made and the pipeline were constructed, locations such as Bacton would almost certainly involve lower costs.
It is clear, of course, that the major players in the oil and gas industry have a crucial role to play, and I imagine that the relationship between those interests and the Government in this respect have been even more productive since the Chancellor abolished oil royalties in his excellent pre-Budget report. The energy White Paper will, no doubt, focus on wet gas, among many other issues, but I wonder whether the Minister can confirm whether that will he the case. Any comments on that would be most helpful.
I should like to conclude with what may to some seem like a statement of the obvious: we are all heavily dependent on the oil and gas industries, domestically, economically and even geopolitically. In the cut and thrust of public discourse, those facts are too often sidelined or regarded as unavoidable but undesirable necessities. Indeed, too often the wider public discourse about energy policy involves an unthinking excoriation of the oil and gas industry, and considerable adjustment is required.
Energy is a gripping part of public policy, and issues such as the growth of renewable sources and the future of the nuclear industry merit extensive treatment. Debate about the future of energy policy is not always helpful, however, when it is characterised by interventions that apparently seek to consider the oil

383
and gas industry as lepers, and the wider geopolitical and economic basis on which our success as a modern society is based is sometimes viewed similarly.
Of course the reality is that, for at least another 30 or 40 years, our energy needs will be hugely reliant on our continued efficient exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons the world over and, for as long as possible, in the United Kingdom. The Government enjoy strong relations with the oil and gas industry, with employers and trade unions. That acts very much in the interests of those whose jobs and future jobs depend on a buoyant offshore industry. In many ways, the interests of my constituents, people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom converge very closely much more often than people imagine with the interests of the oil and gas companies and wider oil and gas interests. I hope that the Minister can respond to the three points that I have made in the debate today.
4.27 pm
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing this debate and on raising some important issues, including some that are not often raised even when the House considers the oil and gas industry. I am also grateful to him for courteously giving me notice of the issues that he has covered in advance of the debate.
I want to say something general about the Government's strategy and objectives in relation to the United Kingdom continental shelf. We are committed to doing everything in our power to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas in the United Kingdom, and we work towards that objective in very close partnership with the industry through Pilot. In particular, we are working to attract new entrants into the North sea, where a good range of companies are active and continue to break new technological ground. Our fallow fuels initiative and Promote UKCS project have been successful recently in attracting companies from the USA and Canada that are new to the United Kingdom to invest in projects in the North sea. We intend to hold a new, 21st offshore licensing round early this year to give all those companies and, of course, the established players in the United Kingdom sector, further opportunities to invest.
However, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial to maintain the industry's status as an attractive place to work. The Government and the industry recognise that the work force in the oil and gas sector are ageing and that the industry must be attractive to younger people, and we have been addressing that at all levels. For instance, last month, I launched the "Opportunities" graduate attraction scheme to raise awareness of the sector and to introduce talented youngsters to the exciting career opportunities on offer. That takes the form of a road show, which is currently touring the UK and visiting universities, particularly in Scotland, where young people who have entered the oil and gas industry are communicating with their peers about the prospects on offer. The Government are therefore committed strongly to working with the industry, through Pilot, to maximise continuing activity on the UK continental shelf, and to ensure that this country has a healthy oil and gas industry for a long time to come.
384
I shall now turn to the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend about the working time directive. As he rightly says, it provides for weekly and night working-time limits, rest breaks and paid annual leave entitlements. As he mentioned, the offshore sector was excluded from the directive when it was adopted in 1993. Its provisions will be extended to cover the offshore sector and others that were previously excluded on 1 August this year through the horizontal amending directive.
We have already issued a consultation document to implement the horizontal amending directive through amendments to the working time regulations. That consultation began on 31 October, and is due to end on 31 January. As part of the consultation process, my officials are holding a series of meetings with employer and trade union representatives from the previously excluded sectors, including the offshore sector. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions told me just before this debate that he has had meetings with both the employers and the trade unions in the offshore oil and gas sector. We are therefore acutely aware of the need to get this right and to ensure that the people who work in the industry benefit from the extension of the working time directive to offshore oil and gas.
As we are still within the consultation period, I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that I cannot comment on what might be in the final regulations. I can assure the House, however, that those workers covered by the amending regulations will receive all their entitlements, including annual leave. I should also like to pay tribute to the way in which employers and trades unions have engaged in discussion on this issue, and I assure him that his comments will be taken into account.
My hon. Friend then turned to the question of liability for offshore oil spillages and pollution from both shipping and the offshore industry. Two separate sets of arrangements exist. On pollution from shipping, for which the Department for Transport has policy responsibility, the 1992 protocol to the civil liability convention of 1969 determines the level of liability for oil pollution carried as cargo by oil tankers. The limit of liability is determined by the gross registered tonnage of the tanker. The minimum is equivalent to £2.6 million, with a maximum of £52 million. As my hon. Friend rightly said, when that limit proves insufficient, an international oil pollution compensation fund provides additional compensation up to an overall limit, which is currently equivalent to £117 million. That compensation fund receives its revenues through levies on major oil receivers in each of the contracting states to the convention and the fund.
I am pleased to let the House know that, following an initiative by the UK at the International Maritime Organisation in 2000, following the Erika oil spill off the French coast, the international oil pollution compensation fund regime limit will be increased with effect from 1 November this year to the equivalent of £176 million. That will also raise the shipowner's liability by 50 per cent. to a minimum of £3.9 million for a small tanker and a maximum of £78 million for a large tanker. We believe that that strikes a fair balance between the interests of potential claimants who suffer losses arising from oil pollution and the respective liabilities of shipowners, oil companies and other receivers.

385
My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he talks about the supplementary approach being taken through the European Commission. As a response to the Erika incident, the Commission made a proposal for an EU compensation fund to supplement the international regime. This envisaged a limit of €100 billion, and it is due to be adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in May this year. The fund will be open to all contracting states to the civil liability convention international oil compensation fund regime. The limit will be determined at the IMO's diplomatic conference in May but, following the recent Prestige oil spill in Spain, EU Ministers at the Transport Council recently agreed to seek a limit of up to €1 billion, which is approximately £660 million. The €1 billion compensation will be in addition to the £176 million that I mentioned earlier.
I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is playing a prominent role in the EU and internationally to promote implementation of the proposed supplementary fund, as well as other international conventions dealing with maritime liability that arise from polluting and hazardous cargoes and pollution from ships' bunker fuel oils.
To put the figures in perspective, it is worth reflecting that, at the time of the Braer and the Sea Empress oil spills in January 1993 and February 1996, the overall limit available from the regime that existed at the time was approximately £51 million. All eligible claims were eventually met under that regime. The limit was subsequently raised to the current limit—the equivalent to £117 million—in June 1996. It is clear that the sums that are being talked about now as a compensation fund in the event of oil spills are and will be substantially greater than they have been in the past.
As I have said, there are two sets of arrangements. The other is for offshore oil installations and that reflects the different situation for structures in a fixed location, often many miles from land. Under the terms of their licence, every operator of an installation on the UK continental shelf must be party to the offshore pollution liability scheme. As a member, companies must demonstrate adequate financial ability—insurance cover, for example—to meet claims for pollution damage and remedial measures.
Companies must agree to accept strict liability for claims up to $120 million per incident, although payments beyond that are not ruled out. A recent study, part funded by my Department, confirmed that, in the vast majority of scenarios, the potential costs of damage and remedial action for pollution from an offshore installation would be considerably less than $120 million. A further provision of the scheme is that, if an operator should fail to meet claims for pollution, the other members of the scheme are obliged to step in to cover the default.
I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend that an active approach is being taken by the Government and internationally to ensure that the money is in place to cover all eventualities when spills and incidents occur. Of course, the most effective way of dealing with them is prevention rather than paying compensation in circumstances that are always damaging to the environment.
386
My hon. Friend raised an important point about entry capacity charges at St. Fergus. He sees a reduction in those charges as critical in ensuring a future for St Fergus, so it is perhaps important to go over the history. The entry regime at St Fergus—that is, the arrangements governing the access by gas from offshore to Transco's national transmission system for gas—has been a live issue for a number of years. More than four years ago, in the autumn of 1998, entry capacity constraints arose as a result of a work overrun in de-bottlenecking entry capacity at St Fergus at the same time as a new oil-cum-gas field, the Britannia, was coming on stream. In the circumstances of the time, Transco addressed the problem of excess demand by "scaling back". That was a short-term administrative solution that could not last into the longer term.
Ofgas was already working on what became known as the new gas trading arrangements to introduce a computer-based on-the-day commodity market in gas together with entry capacity auctions. Those reforms were introduced a year later, in October 1999. The new entry capacity auctions went some way to wards replacing the old administrative arrangements for allocating entry capacity with a market-related solution, but they were only designed to allocate existing capacity. Given the excess demand for entry capacity at St. Fergus, the options led to high prices at St. Fergus.
The next step was to develop an investment regime to incentivise the construction of additional entry capacity when that is an appropriate response to market conditions. That has been a focus of Ofgem's work over the past few years. An innovative investment incentive regime is part of Transco's price control covering the period 2002–07. In parallel with the new investment regime, Transco is in the process of introducing long-term entry capacity auctions. Until now, Transco's auctions for entry capacity into the national transmission system have looked no further than six months ahead, but from next week—Wednesday 15 January to be precise—Transco will, for the first time, hold long-term entry capacity auctions. Those will cover not six months, but 15 years, which is the whole period until 2017.
The auction arrangements are complex. There are, however, three key points to which I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention. First, for the first time the auctions cover possible new, as well as existing, entry capacity. Secondly, the auctions have an important link with Transco's new investment incentive regime, because the prices hid in the auctions, and the prices paid in the secondary markets following the auctions, will be taken into account by Transco when deciding whether to invest in new physical infrastructure. Thirdly, the auctions should help to put downward pressure on future entry capacity prices at St. Fergus and elsewhere because new entry capacity will have reserve prices set by Transco on what is essentially a cost-related basis.
I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to forecast prices for entry capacity at St. Fergus or, indeed, anywhere else. What I can say is that for the first time, Ofgem and Transco have put in place arrangements that are designed to make a link between the market demand for entry capacity, the price of that capacity and the cost of increasing entry capacity. That should help the market to work more

387
effectively so that it can signal where it needs additional entry capacity and for what it is willing to pay. It should also help it to respond to the opportunities to flow more gas where weak demand may be leading to low entry capacity prices.
Mr. Weir: I am interested in what the Minister says. Does he believe that the new arrangements will bring the cost of landing at St. Fergus nearer to that at other terminals? The worry is that landing at St. Fergus is much more costly than, say, at Bacton.
Mr. Wilson: The arrangements will certainly help to achieve that end. Whether they are part of the solution or the solution itself remains to be seen. They do represent a significant advance and innovation, however, and we need to see how they work out. I am aware of the importance of the issues to the future of not only St. Fergus, but the oil that flows from it. Discussions between my Department and its Norwegian counterpart are under way about the possibilities for a new framework treaty to facilitate continued supplies of hydrocarbons both as a primary fuel and as a source of feedstock for the UK chemical industry. I know that the issues are also important for Grangemouth, Mossmorran and other downstream activities within the chemicals industry. In the context of the treaty, it will be important to get the infrastructure right to facilitate
388
the flow of hydrocarbons across the median line. Discussions have already taken place in Pilot on how, in doing that, we balance the need to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and the need to leave open the option for new pipelines to enhance capacity. That is a difficult equation and an important one to get right.
There are under consideration a number of potential projects to bring additional supplies of gas to the UK. There are different views on the necessity and desirability of those projects, but I welcome that interest in the UK market. It will be important for the UK to have as many import options as possible as we move towards becoming a net annual importer of gas later in the decade. It is for the market to determine which of the various projects under consideration will ultimately go ahead. The Government's role is to set the right political and regulatory framework to ensure that commercially driven projects are not impeded
My hon. Friend has raised three diverse and significant issues, and I have had a little more time to respond to them than I would normally have had. The third issue in particular has immense implications for the future of not only the oil and gas industries, but the chemical industries in Scotland and the UK as a whole. I should be pleased to respond to any point that I have not covered in correspondence with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Five o 'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Housing Benefit Reform
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Ms Joan Ryan.]
2.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Nicholas.
It is clear that housing benefit and its reform should be high on our agenda. I welcome the opportunity of outlining the Government's views on housing benefit and our ideas for future reform. I am sure that we will have a constructive debate, given the hon. Members who are here.
About one in six households—almost 4 million households—are supported by housing benefit at an annual cost of £11.5 billion. Those householders include many older citizens and families with children. For those households, housing benefit often provides the only means of paying for decent accommodation. Without it, those struggling to live on a low income could find themselves living in poverty or even homeless.
Since its introduction in 1988, housing benefit has been relied on as a safety net for tenants in privately rented accommodation. It is vital, especially for people who are moving to get work, moving out of the family home or cannot afford home ownership.
To develop a scheme that fixes levels of benefit in line with market rents and that can cope with variations in rent is highly complex. Once again, we find ourselves wrestling with the same concerns that William Beveridge faced when he was drawing up his famous 1942 report. In many respects, that is at the heart of this question.
The existing scheme provides reasonable support, but its sheer complexity makes it difficult for local authorities to administer it effectively. Some can cope with the administration, but others are struggling to manage and are falling well below acceptable standards. Following the assessment of the benefits service as part of the comprehensive performance assessment, which was published shortly before Christmas, our benefit fraud inspectorate now has a complete picture of how benefits are being administered by all single-tier authorities. The results were encouraging: about 30 per cent. of authorities achieved the top score for benefits. However, about 14 per cent. have been assessed as providing a poor service, which means that they are achieving less than 40 per cent. of the performance standards used in the assessment process.
We also know from our quarterly performance monitoring that a quarter of local authorities are taking more than 60 days to process a new claim for housing benefit. That cannot be right. By contrast, the best take only a week or two. The administrative complexity of housing benefit has a direct effect on claimants and their
136WH
families, and can inhibit any move from benefit dependency into employment. The system is complex because it requires endless form filling, and is confusing to tenants and landlords. Delays in payments often lead to uncertainty, anxiety and even eviction.
We are especially concerned about the lack of transparency in the scheme. In the privately rented sector, tenants are in many ways "shopping in the dark." They do not know how much housing benefit they will receive when choosing somewhere to live. As a result, they must cope with the uncertainty that their benefit may not cover the rent. That is why reform is needed and we should consider the deeper issues about how tenants should be supported.
The first stage of our housing benefit reform programme is already under way. It has been a strategy for far closer co-operation and partnership between central and local government. The aim has been to understand the reasons why administration of housing benefit varies so much and to start addressing them one by one.
Our strategy has combined clear objective and standard setting. Last year, we published the first set of national performance standards, setting out our expectations for a good housing benefit service. The strategy also combines inspection and monitoring by the benefit fraud inspectorate; practical support, for example, through the Department's help team, which involves our officials and outside experts, including from local government; and the removal of some structural inefficiencies.
The strategy has already delivered demonstrable results. Backlogs are falling in many authorities that we have been working with—for example, Hackney, Manchester, Kirklees and Northampton. I am pleased that that is the case. In authorities that we have been working with, there are also clear signs of more general improvement in claims processing and dealing with changes of circumstance. I am pleased that complaints to the ombudsman about housing benefit have declined in number significantly.
We have boosted the strategy by making the biggest investment in housing benefit administration since the scheme began in 1988. The support that we announced in this year's spending review represents a 32 per cent. cash increase over the next three years. That includes £200 million for a performance standards fund for investment in performance improvement. Funding has also been provided for the extra work for local authorities in respect of the Government's new tax credits and pension credit.
A further stage of reform is needed, however, as there is still plenty of room for improvement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced on 17 October last year a vision for a much simpler and much fairer system. The new reform package includes ending the requirement to make a new claim when a person gets a job; providing a simpler, rapid re-claim process if the job does not work out; developing a modern service that facilitates claiming over the telephone; cutting out duplicate claim forms; and abolishing the need to re-claim housing benefit automatically after a fixed time, the so-called benefit period. That is particularly important. It makes no sense in extremis for someone of 90 who has lived in the same

137WH
dwelling for 40 years on more or less the same income to have to re-claim housing benefit more or less every year. We are ending that bureaucratic nonsense.
The key element of the package is the introduction of a standard local housing allowance, initially in the private rented sector. In a nutshell, housing benefit payments will be based on a system of standard allowances. These will be fixed according to area and family size, but not to the rent charged. The standard allowance will be calculated in a similar way to the local reference rent, reflecting rents in the middle of the range for different sizes of property in each locality.
Publishing those rates in advance will allow tenants to know how much they can expect housing benefit to pay for and to use that knowledge to find affordable accommodation that meets their needs. That will reduce the administrative burden for local authorities and make the system far more transparent for tenants and landlords. It will minimise the delays that make tenants worry that starting a job will complicate their housing benefit claim and increase their debts.
We will begin by introducing the standard local housing allowance in 10 pathfinder areas. It is a big step forward and we need to undertake a full evaluation of how it is working before a national roll-out. A number of the authorities have confirmed their participation: Blackpool, Edinburgh, Brighton and Hove, Lewisham and North East Lincolnshire. Early on, one of the chosen 10, Tendring, had to drop out of the process because of the IT changes affecting that authority, but Blackpool took its place. A number of other authorities will, I am sure, join in the process, but in the coming weeks they are going through their own due process at local authority and council level. The remaining authorities are Conwy, Coventry, Leeds, Middlesbrough and Teignbridge. I am confident that the great majority of those authorities will be able to help us in the pathfinder areas.
Mr. Andrew Love: Given that there are particularly acute problems with housing benefit in Greater London, and particularly in inner London, has any thought been given to having two London authorities rather than one, in order to obtain a better judgment of whether the system will work in that particularly difficult market?
Malcolm Wicks: The London borough of Lewisham has already agreed to take part in the pathfinder scheme. Those of us who know Lewisham will agree that it has many characteristics, including inner London characteristics. We considered including a further London borough. At present, because we have the 10 we require, we do not intend to do so, but our mind is not closed to that possibility. The inner London boroughs have particular problems, so my hon. Friend's point is well made.
An important part of our radical proposals for change involves moving to payment of benefit to the tenant in the majority of cases, rather than to the landlord. We know that some landlords are worried by that proposed shift away from direct payment to landlords. However, we are building in safeguards so
138WH
that direct payments will continue for vulnerable people, such as those with learning difficulties who might be unable to manage their own affairs, or for tenants who have built up arrears.
We will be monitoring that area carefully in the pathfinder schemes, during the two years of the project, and we will engage with landlords to explore ways of handling the matter. We have already begun those discussions with landlords.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: As the Minister said, the city council in my area has agreed to participate in the pathfinder scheme. I know that the decision to do so eventually received support from all the parties on the city council. Although the attitude to the pathfinder project has been generally supportive, concern has been expressed that the monitoring of the scheme should be sufficiently flexible and should be put in place sufficiently quickly to take account of any difficulties that arise during the operation of the scheme. In areas such as my own where there is high housing demand, it is important that the standing housing level allowance is sufficiently high to reflect the real market conditions and any increases in the general market rent that could occur very quickly. Will the Minister give an assurance that the pathfinder scheme will be operated in a sufficiently flexible way to take account quickly of any problems that are identified in particular communities?
Malcolm Wicks: In thanking my hon. Friend for that intervention, may I say that we had a useful meeting with the city council in Edinburgh on our proposal for a pathfinder scheme in the city? We learned a lot from that meeting.
The purpose of running the 10 pathfinder projects is to learn a great deal about this novel and radical proposal. We will work closely with each of the 10 local authorities in a number of different ways. We have planned a seminar for the pathfinder authorities next month. Obviously, we need to take account of the lessons that we learn.
I know that there are a number of concerns about the possible impact of the proposals on local housing markets, and we must take account of those concerns. I hope that there will also be a continuing dialogue with the MPs from the pathfinder areas. Our view is that this is the way ahead in the privately rented sector and that, nationwide, this is probably where we want to move to before the end of the decade. That is why we have called it a pathfinder, because we know where we want to go, but we need to find out exactly how to get there, rather than simply using a pilot.
I am not saying that we have all the answers. There are a number of proper concerns that we must monitor and evaluate. In the coming weeks we will be discussing the nature of the monitoring and evaluation that should take place. It must include the impact on the local housing market, as my hon. Friend said. It must include the attitudes and behaviour of both landlords and tenants. We also need to evaluate the impact on the local

139WH
housing benefit administration. We are contemplating a complex monitoring and evaluation process and a complex action research exercise.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Briefly, my concern is not only about flexibility at the end of the project, but about the ability to change quickly during the course of a pathfinder project.
Malcolm Wicks: I cannot provide a guaranteed assurance about that because a project might need to be tested across the country—nationwide and nations wide: one in Scotland, one in Wales, others in England—and we shall need to study the effects, but we will be sensitive if any adverse consequences arise. That is as far as I can go.
The proposal to assume that in future housing allowance should be paid to the tenant is not a wholly radical change. About 40 per cent. of claimants in the deregulated private rented sector already have their benefit paid to them rather than to their landlords. Many landlords have seen the advantage of having tenants take on full responsibility for rent payments.
From the tenant's point of view, if the rent paid were less than the allowance—part of the choice that might be made—and he could find accommodation for less than the allowance, he could keep the difference. That is a practical expression of the choice and responsibility strategy that we are pursuing. Someone looking for accommodation who placed a high value on housing and wanted to spend a few extra pounds of their own money on it could readily do so. Again, it is part of the empowerment programme that we are trying to implement, initially through the pathfinders.
Richard Younger-Ross: I apologise for missing the beginning of the Minister's comments. Following up the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), my constituency of Teignbridge may be one of the pathfinder authorities. When the Minister came to speak about it, he was asked whether the housing market could dry up as a result. Local authorities would then have to put more people into bed-and-breakfast accommodation at their own cost. The Minister said that no financial burdens would result from the exercise, so will the money be made available for such an eventuality?
Malcolm Wicks: I am not at all anticipating that eventuality. The financial guarantee that we have offered local authorities is that the reasonable costs of a pathfinder project will be borne by my Department. It would be unfair if they fell on the local council, but we are not embarking on these projects on the assumption that they will create the sort of difficulties that the hon. Gentleman anticipates.
Any change produces anxieties among landlords, but they should benefit from our setting out and publishing clear housing allowances. Sometimes they complain when, unbeknown to them, a tenant left a property weeks or months before they knew about it, and overpayments are sought from landlords who have received the direct housing benefit payment. Of course, that would cease in future under our housing allowance proposals.
140WH
We are not pretending to have all the answers. If we did, we would go nationwide as soon as possible. At present, we are monitoring and evaluating developments in the 10 areas. We shall keep in the closest possible contact with local authorities and with right hon. and hon. Members who are actively involved in the process. I was pleased to accompany the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) in his own constituency.
The system will empower benefit recipients to make similar choices to those paying their own way about whether to move nearer to a local school or to relatives, whether to share with friends or to trade quality for a bit more space. The great majority of citizens at their respective income levels have to make such choices about housing and we want to enable those currently receiving housing benefit to enjoy the same choices in future.
We believe that tenants will benefit from the responsibility of paying their own rent, but we are also concerned to ensure that no one loses out financially from the new scheme. We do not believe that anyone will lose out; in fact, we estimate that about half those affected in the pathfinder areas will gain from the changes.
As well as benefiting tenants, the simplified scheme and removal of benefit periods will release resources at local authority level for a more targeted approach to fraud, which is the final topic on which I want to comment. Like everyone else, I attach great importance to combating fraud in our social security system. We have an ambitious target—the first time that a target has been set for tackling housing benefit fraud—of reducing by 25 per cent. fraud and error in housing benefit by 2006. We need a more flexible system that meets the needs of our modern customers, but we must also ensure that local authorities carry out regular, targeted checks on tenant circumstances. We will build a strategy to combat fraud and error into the reforms from day one, and our benefit fraud inspectorate will be closely involved throughout.
That is our vision of a better system, towards which we will work during the next few years. It is a vision that will make housing benefit a rewarding area in which to work and that is at the heart of the Government's strategies to target poverty and enable more people to enter employment. Housing benefit spending is a large part of the Government's housing bill, and getting it right has become a high political priority. We are determined to put right the legacy of neglect and cuts-driven change that housing benefit has endured in the past.
We are in a phase in which housing benefit has a positive role and key part to play in handing choice and decision making to the customer. We are half a century from direct state action and the issues of shortage and rationing that affected the post-war Governments. Expectations are higher now. We expect a flexible, responsive benefit system that enables people to get work and choose the home in which they live. That is why our housing benefit reform is so important to our overall social security strategy. We are working hard with others to achieve it.
2.56 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I, too, welcome the opportunity for today's debate on this important subject and join others in welcoming you to the chair, Sir Nicholas. I apologise in advance to the Committee—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Order. We are not a Committee: we are part of the House.
Mr. Brazier: I am sorry. I apologise to the Chamber in advance that I may have to leave early for an emergency visit to the dentist, but I hope that that will not stop me getting my teeth thoroughly into the subject.
The cost of housing benefit has extended steadily under all Governments, and the Opposition will support any sensible initiatives, although for the system to be reformed, bold action is needed. It is worth setting the context. When Labour came to power nearly six years ago, the reform of the whole benefit system, of which housing benefit is one of the most important elements, was declared as one of the Government's highest priorities. The Opposition are in favour of pilot tests when they are appropriate, but it is sad to think that nearly six years on we are hearing the second series of announcements of pilot testing of doing something serious about housing benefit.
We also supported the Back-Bench proposal of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to withhold housing benefit payment from families who cause problems to their neighbours through antisocial behaviour. The Liberal Democrats shamefully talked that out in July last year, and we would like to know, and were hoping that the Minister was going to tell us in his introduction, whether the Government will introduce that measure themselves.
Today, just fewer than 4 million households receive housing benefit. That includes many families with children and a high proportion of pensioners. The benefit assists one in six households, and the cost to the taxpayer has risen to £11.5 billion, so what happens to the benefit is important not only to a large number of recipients but to taxpayers.
At the last election, we focused on improving the administration of housing benefit through sharing best practice, lowering the regulatory burden and reducing overpayments, error and waste. Alas, it will not have escaped the House's attention that we did not win the election, and it is interesting to see what the Government have done. Today, there are people who are homeless on the streets having been evicted from their houses by councils whose failure to pay housing benefit reliably is a source of the problem. It is a scandal that affects thousands of people throughout the country and needs to be tackled.
However, the truth is that the blame for that does not lie entirely with the councils concerned. The Government have done as much to hinder councils and complicate the system as would almost seem possible. In recent years, the number of statutory instruments and circulars relating to housing benefit has increased.
3 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.15 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Brazier: I was saying before we suspended that the number of statutory instruments and circulars made the work of councils in administering housing benefit much more difficult. In the five years before this Government took office, there were in total 61 statutory instruments and 230 circulars. Many of us feel that was too many. In the first five years of this Government, statutory instruments increased by half to 90 and the number of circulars almost doubled to 400.
It is not just the Opposition who are saying this. In a report last year the Audit Commission pointed out that
"over time, the Government has made many changes to the scheme…because of these changes local authorities are finding the scheme increasingly complex and difficult to administer and the service provided to claimants has worsened since the mid 1990s".
It went on to say:
"In the past, the Government has not always allowed adequate time for councils to comment on proposed changes, or for councils and IT suppliers to implement them. This has often led to problems after implementation…The Government provides funding for local authorities to make HB payments through an over complex regime containing perverse incentives."
Another critical body was the Government's own Better Regulation Task Force which reported last year that
"the local authorities complained that the housing benefit regulations and their many amendments have not been consolidated since the original regulations were made in 1998."
The BRTF also found housing benefit administration was "in a mess" and "needing urgent action". It also mentioned considerable delays before claims were assessed and paid and stated:
"Housing Benefit is almost impossible to understand. The rules are complex and it is not clear how decisions are made."
That same report also made it clear that the Government have made the situation worse by an excessive number of minor changes and an overflow of paperwork. It concluded:
"the whole housing benefit regime is in need of radical reform."
Today around two fifths of claimants do not receive their housing benefit within 14 days. Some families have to wait over six months to receive any money. That is despite the fact that the numbers of new claims are falling. Even after such long waiting times numerous mistakes are made; some councils have errors in about 30 per cent. of their housing benefit claims. Information placed in the Library after a recent parliamentary question shows that clients in Sedgefield have to wait 102 days on average for their housing benefit claims to be cleared. The figure for Oxford, another place chosen quite at random, is 76 days. The average processing time is 52 days in England and very nearly as long—48 days—in Scotland.
Behind those statistics lie thousands and thousands of cases of individual misery. Delay in some cases can mean eviction. In most cases it results in terrible stress, often on extremely vulnerable people. The Government have failed to ensure that there is at the very least a minimum standard of housing benefit administration in

143WH
different areas. Processing times, administrative costs and the level of error vary widely and are unacceptably high in many areas.
In October last year the Audit Commission published a report that found that long delays in paying housing benefit and failures of customer care are causing hardship and anxiety as well as the threat of eviction to which I referred earlier. The administration is tarnished by error, waste and fraud, which cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
We are all in favour of tackling housing benefit fraud, but it is a little disappointing that the Minister should be announcing a target for doing so only now—nearly six years into the Government's term in office. It is also disappointing that it is presented in such a long-term way.
Even within local authorities, departments have been unable to communicate, because of the Data Protection Act 1998. As a result, families have faced eviction, and fraud has prospered. Does the Minister accept that some people who are homeless today were evicted from their houses simply because the council failed to handle their housing benefit properly?
Ms Karen Buck: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned outsourcing. Does he accept that housing benefit administration collapsed in several local authorities—including Conservative-controlled Westminster, which is my local authority—after it was outsourced to Capita? At one point, 25,000 items of post were unopened. Does he believe that ill-thought-out outsourcing can be a major factor in poor administration?
Mr. Brazier: I cannot comment on the particular circumstances in Westminster because I have not been briefed on them. However, outsourcing has a mixed record. In some cases, it has proved extremely successful; in others, it has been unsuccessful. The Government, whom the hon. Lady supports, are very enthusiastic about outsourcing across a range of issues, so I invite her to think carefully about what she is saying.
In its 1997 manifesto, the Labour party claimed that housing benefit fraud cost £2 billion a year, but the estimate now seems to have come down. I may have to find out from Hansard what the Minister says in his winding-up speech, but I look forward to him setting out the Government's current estimate of the level of fraud and how it equates with the long-term target that has been announced.
Measures designed to tackle fraud are not helped by the recent lack of successful convictions. Figures from the House of Commons Library obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, show that 50 per cent. of local authorities have failed successfully to prosecute anyone for housing benefit fraud or council tax benefit fraud over the past full year. According to the National Housing Federation, the Government have failed to recognise the extent of the problem and its seriousness for landlords and, in particular, tenants.
I end with a few comments on the measures that have been announced today, although little about them is new. The Minister acknowledged that two fifths of
144WH
payments already go directly to tenants, rather than landlords. What impact will increasing that proportion have on the incentive for landlords to take in harder cases? Will those in areas where there is competition for rented properties be more enthusiastic about taking in social cases if they think that they will not be paid directly? That is worth considering.
How far will the scope for ending periodic revision extend? The Minister gave the uncontentious example of a 90-year-old lady who had been living on a state pension at the same address for many years, but what other cases will be affected and how? Someone may innocently overclaim because they are unaware of the impact that a change in their circumstances has on their housing benefit. Is there a danger that such people, who might be quite vulnerable, will suddenly face huge claims for back-payments?
Is there a danger that we might return to the situation in the old days when there were two different housing benefit regimes, one for social housing tenants and another for private tenancies? The Minister's announcement about pilots applies to only one category. He has a long track record in this area, extending back long before he was a Member of Parliament. Does he recognise—perhaps I should ask whether he still recognises, because he certainly used to—that the central problem with housing benefit and its sister benefit, council tax benefit, is that huge numbers of people are trapped in dependency because of the incredibly high rates of tax and of benefit withdrawal?
Mr. Love: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which reminded me that the central problem with housing benefit was its introduction in 1988 as the most complex of all benefits. That complexity leads to all the problems that he outlined. Does he, therefore, accept some responsibility, on behalf of the previous Conservative Government, for the difficulties that we are discussing today, which this Government are now trying to cure?
Mr. Brazier: I am happy to respond to that point. As a Back Bencher in 1988, I wrote not one but three pamphlets, at least one of which was reviewed in the newspapers, attacking the changes and making it clear that I thought that many of them were mistaken. One of the saddest features of the Labour Government is their approach to social security, because they have built on the worst features of the mistakes made in 1988. They have steadily increased means-testing, while undermining their strong inheritance in other areas, such as the sheer scale and scope of the pension funds that existed when the Labour Government came to power in 1997. Six years on, they have not offered us a comprehensive new approach. Instead, in addition to the huge number of small, detailed changes that they have made, we are today enjoying the announcement of a small number of pilots and a few new ideas. I have made it clear that, in principle, we support the idea of introducing a standardised local rate, but that idea has been a long time coming and we are still only at the stage of a few pilots being announced, and those on a tentative basis.
Will the Minister say in his winding-up speech whether the Liberal Democrats' shameful talking out of his distinguished colleague's proposal to link deductions

145WH
from housing benefit to grossly antisocial behaviour—a measure that received support right up to Downing street—will be the end of the matter or whether the Government plan to reintroduce the proposal in Government time?
3.28 pm
Mr. David Lepper: I am pleased that this debate is taking place under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas.
I thank the Minister and his officials for spending time in discussions with officers and leading councillors at Brighton and Hove city council about the proposed pathfinder status. I am glad that my city council has agreed to be one of the pathfinders. I also thank the Minister for the time that he spent discussing the proposals with representatives of local agencies in the city of Brighton and Hove that are working on housing issues.
I said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, privately, when he first announced the proposals, "I think they are good and if they work in Brighton and Hove, they will work anywhere." I felt that then and I feel it now because affordable housing is the big issue in the Brighton and Hove city area, perhaps even more than in some other parts of south-east England. Strategies, such as quotas in planning, the Government's starter homes initiative, the NHS housing allowances for some of its staff, the rent deposit scheme and the proposals in the Local Government Bill, which is at present before the House, to allow council tax discounts on empty properties and second homes to be varied help us locally to deal with the problem.
However, Brighton and Hove relies far more heavily on the private rented sector for housing than most other parts of the country do. It is an area of very high house prices, it is a high-rent area and it is a popular area for second homes. That is not new; it can be traced back to the Prince Regent's deciding to build his winter palace in Brighton at the start of the nineteenth century. Ever since, it has been a popular place for second home owners. It is worth remembering that when he built his palace he was converting a local farmhouse into something rather more palatial. That trend has continued. All these factors put pressure on the unemployed and those who are on low wages when they try to find somewhere to live.
The Minister stressed the importance of housing choice. However, many in my constituency feel that where there is housing choice it is on the part of the landlords, who can choose who will rent their property. It is right that they should, but they know that however high the rent, there will always be somebody in the queue for a property who is willing and able to pay the high price.
I will give my very sympathetic support to the pathfinder status of Brighton and Hove city council area. The Minister will not be surprised that I have concerns that I wish to raise with him. I spoke of landlords having the choice of whom they should rent to. Some council officers, councillors and housing agencies in Brighton and Hove are concerned that the unfortunate bias against housing benefit tenants might
146WH
be aggravated by the proposal of further direct payment to the tenant. Direct payment is good; it should be the responsibility of the tenant to decide how to pay their rent. However, the proposals, if they are to be successful, must be presented in such a way that they help to overcome such discrimination.
There are also concerns about how the scheme will be delivered. Training and retaining skilled housing benefit staff is a real problem for my city council. There is a simple explanation for that: once staff have been trained they can earn much higher pay working for agencies, often across south-east England. They use the skills that they developed working for my council. There are severe resource implications for my city council and its housing department services. They may have to buy back some of the agency staff on higher rates of pay as well as attempting to recruit their own staff. It would be helpful if the Minister suggested the level of support, with respect to resources for staffing and the training and retention of staff. What I am discussing is part of a vicious circle. Who can blame housing benefit staff who have been attracted away by the higher rates of pay at agencies in a high rent, high housing cost area such as Brighton and Hove?
I should be grateful if the Minister said something about the level of support and planning that is already being carried out in relation to information and communications technology. We have already had mention of occasional unfortunate ICT support programmes that are found wanting at an early stage in the introduction of a new project. I should welcome the Minister's thoughts about how to ensure plainer sailing than has been the case with some other new schemes.
I welcome what the Minister has said about guarding against the possibility of fraud and his statement about the flexibility that will be allowed, particularly in relation to vulnerable tenants. It would be helpful to know to what extent it will be possible to exercise that flexibility at a local level, or whether it will be subject to strict national guidelines. I hope, also, that the Minister will comment on the question, which I know the National Housing Federation has raised, of moving away from the four-weekly arrears payment system for benefit. That is a matter of some concern to people working in the housing field.
My hon. Friend will not be surprised at my mentioning an omission from the proposals, because it concerns the issue on which I have had more conversations with him and his predecessors than any other since I was elected. It is what is now called young people's rent—the single room rent. I welcomed the decision that the Government took in 1997 not to extend the restrictions involved in the single room rent to those aged over 25, as the outgoing Conservative Government had planned to do. Minor, but nevertheless welcome, changes were made to the single room rent last year. I like to think that not least among the reasons for the changes was lobbying by me and other hon. Members because of what was happening in our constituencies. Nevertheless, for 18 to 25-year-olds in my constituency, there are continuing and, I believe, worsening problems in relation to housing. I am not sure that the current proposals will address them.
Prior to the introduction of the single room rent by the Conservative Government in 1996 a major local agency in my city, the Brighton Housing Trust, was able

147WH
to house 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the young people who approached it for housing advice. It would house them in the private rented sector. By December 2000, following the introduction of the single room rent restriction, that proportion was down to 11 per cent.
I talked this morning to representatives of the Brighton Housing Trust and of Hove YMCA youth advisory service, which is the other major agency working with young people in the Brighton and Hove city area. They told me that it is now virtually impossible for them to place young people on housing benefit with landlords in that area. In 1996 there were 25 landlords quite willing to accept young people as tenants. By June 2000 that number had dwindled to two and, as I was told this morning, it is now none.
The need to consider again the single-room rent for young people was one aspect of the Brighton and Hove City private sector housing forum's manifesto on housing benefit, which I presented to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—by chance, exactly one year ago today. I am pleased that many of the other things that local agencies, tenants and councillors in my constituency asked for or suggested in that manifesto are included in the proposals that we are debating.
However, the special needs of our young people need to be recognised by further steps in relation to their right to housing benefit. I do not argue that that should be by further shifts in the definition of their entitlement, but by an ending of the system that discriminates against the under-25-year-olds.
3.40 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, of which there should be more in the House. It has been measured and considered, with expert and informed contributions, such as those from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), who has first-hand experience of the pilot areas, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz)—he is no longer present—who were able to bring a local perspective. We have enjoyed the expert perspective of senior members of the Select Committee. I hope that we can critically assess the proposals.
I welcome a number of aspects of what has been proposed on housing benefit reform. The waiving of the requirement on pensioners to make regular annual claims must be a good thing—it is long overdue and is welcome. The possibility that someone making a claim will have a clearer idea of eligible rent upfront must, if deliverable, be a step in the right direction. I think that pre-tenancy determinations were supposed to have delivered that, but for some reason have not done so. They are a potential benefit of the pilot schemes.
I want to focus on some of my concerns about the pilot schemes and on some questions that need to be answered during the evaluation. However, it is worth setting that in the context of housing benefit. The consultation paper, which was produced in October 2002, had a fascinating chart on page 9, which I took to bed with me last night. What struck me about the information was that elderly and disabled people dominate housing benefit. With all the talk about housing benefit, work incentives and poverty traps, one
148WH
imagines that housing benefit is about low-paid workers, yet predominantly it is not, though it obviously matters to such people. We are mainly talking about pensioners and disabled people. According to the chart, roughly £8 billion of the £13 billion of expenditure projected by the end of the public spending planning horizon will be spent on elderly and disabled people. Perhaps most strikingly, the growth in housing benefit expenditure since the mid-1990s has occurred almost exclusively in those two groups. It has continued to fall for employed people and to ease off for lone parents and other groups.
An objective that the Minister did not state for the reform—he hinted that it was not an objective—is to control expenditure on housing benefit. He said that he did not want a cuts-driven agenda. Could he clarify his stance on whether one of the objectives of the pilot and the eventual national roll-out is not to cut expenditure on housing benefit? If the proposals are a way of controlling or perhaps reducing spending by the back door and if, given the current state of the labour market, spending on the unemployed or lone parents probably cannot be reduced by much more, the reduction will have to come from the elderly and the disabled trading down. That is part of the incentive structure being put in place through the standard housing allowance.
I question whether we want to encourage disabled people and some 4 million pensioners to trade down. Would that be realistic? I do not think so. It would be very unsettling for many older people and for many disabled people. If we do not expect them to trade down, it calls into question how effective the strategy might be. After all, the Minister says that we might get round to the whole of the private rented sector by the end of the decade. Another chart on the same thrilling page of the document says that the private rented sector is less than a quarter of the whole stock of housing benefit cases.
I am always wary when I see a Government document with the word "radical" on the cover because I know that it is not radical. The Government seem to be saying that somehow, into what the Minister hopes will be new Labour's fourth term of office, less than a quarter of tenants on housing benefit will be on the new regime. Radical it ain't.
The problem is the other three quarters. If I were to say on the streets of Yate in my constituency that the Government's ethos for those on housing benefit is an agenda of choice, people would fall over. The notion that there is any choice, particularly in the social rented sector, is a joke. People are desperate for anywhere that is better than where they are. They do not have a choice; they simply take what they are given. That is true of the vast majority of the social rented tenants, and I suspect that it is also true of the private sector in large parts of the country. I accept Peter Kemp's comment that it is wrong to say that nobody has any choice, but there must be large swathes of the country in which most people have little choice. To suggest that this is an agenda for reform and choice for tenants is overselling, to put it no more strongly than that. I rather doubt that it is a new agenda for choice and options.
Benefit is mostly for social tenants, not for the people we are talking about today. It is mainly about pensioners and disabled people, whom the Minister does not wish to move around. Therefore, the benefits for them of a flat rate housing allowance when they

149WH
know at the start of the tenancy what the rent will be are probably pretty limited. Most of these people probably do not move much anyway. We must remind ourselves that this is not very radical at all.
Mr. Brazier: I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but will he tell us why disabled people, whom nobody wishes to see less well off, should not have incentives? Many of them would like to get back into the labour market, if they are not already there. Does he not agree that many disabled people tell us that the structure of the benefits system puts strong perverse disincentives in the way of their getting back into the labour market?
Mr. Webb: We should remind ourselves that disabled people can be part of the workforce. Indeed, some of the people we are talking about are working and in receipt of housing benefit. However, many of the people that we are talking about are long-term sick and disabled for whom therapeutic work might be appropriate. The reason that most disabled people who could work and who want to work do not work has nothing to do with the housing benefit system. Housing benefit would not be near the top of the 10 main reasons why disabled people are not working. It is not irrelevant, but it is not the primary consideration.
The main incentive is not to take a job but to move house, which is what seems to lie behind the Government's agenda. If you give people a flat rate housing allowance they may move to somewhere cheaper and keep the difference.
Fundamental to the proposals is how the standard housing allowance is determined. We are told that it will be determined in a similar manner to the local reference rents and the young person's rent. At present, that process is far from transparent. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the manner in which the reference rents and the standard housing allowances have been worked out will become much clearer. The average punter may claim housing benefit, only to be told some months later that he will receive less rent allowance than he expected. In theory, he can query the decision; in practice, he will accept it as if it had been handed down from on high.
There seems to be no accountability or transparency about where these numbers come from. They will be critical to the operation of the new system, because they will determine the amount of money that people get. We need to know much more openly how the levels are calculated—and that has to be more open to challenge.
As was intimated in an intervention on the Minister earlier, the information needs to be very up to date. If local rental markets are changing rapidly, we cannot have rent officers using 18-month-old data. That will cause real hardship and mess up the system. We need it to be transparent and up to date.
The locality over which the reference rent for standard housing allowance is calculated is critical. Some concern has been expressed to me that the Government want to progress towards using bigger localities. One can see the attraction of that. One can see that being able to post on a web page the information
150WH
that anywhere in Stockport the rent will be such and such would have the attraction of simplicity. However, there is a real danger in providing a single rent figure for diverse housing markets. What that approach means is that if there are nice areas where people want to live and nasty ones where they do not, the people on housing benefit then end up in the nasty bits. It is straightforward. Unless localities are defined to include only areas where rents to not vary a great deal for comparable property, we could bring about ghettoisation. I do not say that hysterically, but I see it as a real danger. That would be contrary to much of what the Government want to do in mixing tenures and social groups. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that there is not a drive towards bigger localities in which one rent figure will be applied to all, but that localities will be chosen carefully.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion was right to draw the Minister's attention to the continuing issue of the young person's rent. The change that the Government made was marginal. I am not aware whether they have yet published any assessment of its effects, showing whether it has tackled any of the iniquities of the single room rent system. I am told that in some cases it made the allowable rent something like a pound a week higher. Does the Minister have any up-to-date information about the effect the switch has had? How much more can people now receive in housing benefit? Is the change removing some of the problems that young people have faced?
The evidence from charities, such as Barnardo's and Shelter, is that young people who live independently of their parents often do not do so out of choice. The Minister talked about choice, but often the young people in question are living away from their homes and families not because they want to but because they have to. In many parts of the country a shared house is not necessarily available. Is it right to penalise someone, telling them that they will be given only the rent for digs or a shared house, even if there is no suitable house to share and they are not willingly living independently?
One can understand that the taxpayer does not want to pay for 19-year-olds to live on their own in big flats with hefty rents, but have we not gone too far in the other direction? Should not a civilized and caring man such as the Minister feel uncomfortable that the current system for young person's rent continues at all? In particular, should he not feel uncomfortable about the arbitrary distinction between 24-year-olds and 25-year-olds? We all know that lines must be drawn, but what is the rationale for that one? One could understand drawing it at 16 or 18, but there is no justification for drawing a line between the ages of 24 and 25, and treating 24-year-olds as second class citizens compared to 25-year-olds.
The determination of the standard housing allowance is built on shaky foundations. It is built on the local reference rent, which is murky, and on the single room rent, which is decidedly dodgy. We need to examine those foundations.
We need to consider the issue of shopping around. The Government want people to know how much rent they pay. Fair enough. Based on that information they want them to look for cheaper rents—to shop around. Is that always a good thing? Is it always a good thing to put pressure on people to move away from the

151WH
community and support networks that they have been part of, including schools and child care that might enable them to move off welfare into work? Is such pressure self-evidently a good thing? We seem to take it as read that it is, but I should like to sow a seed of doubt. Do we want people to become more itinerant and less settled, or to put down roots? In particular, surely we want people who are on housing benefit and who then get jobs not to move out but to stay put, to provide role models and patterns of being that will bring others with them. If big localities are used to set rent levels, we shall have a greater problem with shopping around and more ghettoisation.
If, in the short term, the Government pay a standard amount of housing allowance, and landlords become aware that that is the standard amount, landlords will know that tenants are carrying that amount in their back pockets. What is to prevent landlords who are charging below average rents from jacking them up? That point was made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) in response to the ministerial statement. I understand the Government line that there will be competition in the housing market and that perhaps other people will undercut them, but it is simply not like the market for baked beans among different supermarkets. There is not that quick entry and exit, and contestability. Surely there is a real danger—the pilots will show this—that the measure will put low rents up. Is that really what we want?
Direct payment to landlords has been mentioned and I am very concerned about the proposal in that regard. I spoke to Citizens Advice—the name now used by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—which expressed concern about low-paid workers who get some help with their rent through the housing benefit system and pay some of the rent themselves. Those people know how much their rent is; the system does not shield them from that. The example was given of someone in low-paid work who had other debts. Someone might call at their door to say that they want payment on a particular debt. If people in low-paid jobs get cash from the benefit system and someone knocks at their door to put pressure on them, the temptation will be to prioritise that bill over the rent, and we all know the consequences that rent arrears can have.
I am not being patronising. I am not suggesting that direct payments should be mandatory; I am talking about enabling. There should be a choice. Why are we against giving tenants a choice as to whether there is direct payment? The Government seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. They have now gone to the extreme whereby, apart from vulnerable people or those who have got into deep arrears, people have no choice about direct payment. Surely people should have that choice, particularly those who are already paying something towards their rent.
The Minister will say that if people get into arrears, it is all right, because there can be a switch to direct payment, but that will happen only after eight weeks, at which point the landlord has gained increased rights to throw someone out. In addition, by the time the local council has sorted out the direct payment, a few more weeks of non-payment might have gone by. Those are real problems. I believe that the consultation paper referred to the unpopular or criticised system of direct
152WH
payment, but there was a reason for its introduction, and I wonder how confident the Minister is that those reasons will not come back to haunt us.
I have a couple of other observations to make on the pilots before setting out a slightly different strategy. I am keen that, when assessing the pilots, the Government should ask all the questions, not just the ones about their own scheme. In other words, they should take this unique opportunity to consider in detail all aspects of the housing benefit system and the way in which they work.
We have not talked about non-dependant deductions, for example, which is clearly a complex system. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion rightly praised the Government for not introducing the single-room rent for the over-25s, but he did not mention that that was paid for by jacking up non-dependant deductions, which made it harder for young people to live with their parents. There is always a quid pro quo with these things.
Will the pilots consider the whole operation of housing benefit in local areas? If it becomes apparent to the people doing the assessment that other aspects, such as the single-room rent, are causing problems, will those lessons be learned, too? Will the Minister assure us that the Government will consider not only the questions that they want to, but other, awkward issues?
What can the Minister tell us about control authorities? What are we comparing those people with? Obviously, we can compare them with the way they used to be, but given the way in which these things change and the complexities of the housing and labour markets and so on, it is hard to compare now with then. We want to compare now with a different now. What work is the Department doing on coming up with control authorities? How will that process work?
Will the pilots teach us any lessons about the social rented sector? That is where the bulk of housing benefit tenants are, where most of the money goes and where many of the problems are. Will the pilots tell us anything about the main group of people who have problems with the housing benefit system? I fear that we are talking about the end of the decade or the mid-2010s before we get on to the private sector. Admittedly, I would be happy to take that in my in-tray as the incoming Secretary of State at that stage, but it would be nice to think that some work had been done beforehand—I think that I got away with that.
It behoves those of us who quibble and criticise to suggest what else might be done. I want to float an idea that I believe was original when I thought of it, but which has been suggested by many other people since, so I cannot claim that it is unique. There are two big problems with the route that the Government are taking: one is an omission and the other a commission. The omission is low-income homebuyers. This debate is about housing benefit, not renting benefit. If we believe that there are so many issues, such as poverty traps, that affect low-income renters, why are we so silent on homebuyers?
The consultation document cites approvingly a report that discusses shopping incentives and housing benefit reform for renters, but that report also discusses support for low-income homebuyers. Mysteriously, the Department does not cite approvingly the sections of the report that discuss homebuyers.

153WH
What is the strategy for low-income homebuyers? The real poverty trap that I come across in my surgery is not primarily experienced by people with high rents who cannot afford to work—perhaps because the rents are not as high in my area as they are in some—but by people with big mortgages who cannot afford to work. Is it not time to get rid of the distinction between a low-paid person trying to pay a rent and a low-paid person who cannot afford a mortgage?
How might that be done? Now that the tax credit system has been extended not only to families with children, but to childless couples and single people over 25, some sort of flat rate housing credit—not pro rata to housing costs—could be put into the tax credits system. That credit could then be top sliced off the eligible rent in the housing benefits system. In that way, low-income homebuyers could be brought into the equation, and the number of people receiving both tax credits and housing benefits could be reduced, which is the opposite of what the Government propose to do.
The pilot schemes will increase the number of people receiving both tax credits and housing benefit, because by paying a flat rate rent, rather than the actual rent, some people who would not have qualified will be brought in. As a result of the proposed changes there will be more, rather than fewer, people on housing benefit and more people receiving both tax credit and housing benefit.
However, with my proposal, if, for example, the first £20 of someone's rent or mortgage was met by a £20 payment through the tax credit system, then the eligible rent for the remainder would be £20 less. Thus, if that person was only receiving £5 or £10 per week in housing benefit, they would not have to touch housing benefit at all. That would mean less hassle for local authorities and would give them more time to spend on anti-fraud measures or other areas.
Will the Minister reflect upon what I have said and tell us what his strategy is for low-income homebuyers? Will he also tell us why he did not take the route of putting fewer people on housing benefit, rather than of adopting a strategy that will increase their number?
I welcome the fact that the Department has sought to bring the issue before the House and that we have had the chance, in this forum, to have a more measured consideration of such matters than we often do. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the concerns about whether the pilots will achieve, even over nearly a decade, some of the things that have been claimed for them.
4.2 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I start by declaring a couple of interests. I write for Housing Today, and I receive some research support from Shelter.
I welcome this debate and the fact that, as has been said, we are able to analyse in a more considered way some of the issues arising from the proposed flat-rate housing allowance and the policy implications of housing benefit more generally.
I intend to speak about some of the problems associated with housing benefit as it currently applies, and as it will probably continue to apply for some years,
154WH
to the majority of claimants across the country. I will reflect in some detail on the ways in which we should monitor the pilots of the proposed flat-rate housing allowance, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for doing so in such detail. I believe that it will be helpful to have on the record some of the means of measurement that we will need to adopt to ensure that we have rigorously analysed whether the scheme will work. I shall also refer to one particular group of people for whom I have concern—households in temporary accommodation.
I welcome the fact that the proposal will be piloted. That is an important gesture, because it allows us to take a considered approach to whether it will work. As someone who is deeply sceptical about the proposal, I will be happy to be proved wrong. If the proposal works, by increasing access to housing supply, increasing choice and helping to cut poverty, no one will be more pleased than me. Those are shared objectives. I doubt that those things will happen, but I shall be pleased if they do. I share the objectives stated by the Government of greater transparency, greater clarity—some of which may be afforded by a flat-rate allowance—and greater choice.
I accept—it is an extremely important point that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper)—that the Government's proposal may work in some parts of the country but in others it could be a disaster. As with anything housing related, we have to come to terms with that reality. Policies that could work wonderfully in areas crippled and blighted by the crisis of low demand may benefit from a choice-based system, and I would be the first to say that they should. However, we should also recognise that there is another side to the coin. There are wide areas, primarily in London and the south-east, where such a system could have the opposite effect, and people should not be driven into homelessness or debt as a consequence.
My hon. Friend said that if the policy worked in Brighton it would work anywhere. I beg to differ slightly with him for one reason. Brighton is a self-contained community; it is a town in which people may look within the local market for housing. My hon. Friend may want to contradict me—I appreciate that people go to Brighton from London and other areas. However, the city of London is subject to the separate problem of displacement. That is something that worries me about the single London pilot—it will be in the borough of Lewisham—that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned. If people are unable to access properties in Lewisham, they will find a rented property elsewhere, and if that does not work out they will end up in the queue for social housing in that area. That will have to be measured, and I will return to the matter briefly later.
I am schizophrenic about what the Minister said in his introductory remarks. If the roll-out for the private rented sector is not completed for several years, part of me cheers. My heart soars like a lark because I am so anxious about it. On the other hand, there is the consequent likelihood that for the majority of people caught by other problems in the present system of housing benefit there will be no possibility of change, and they need such a possibility for two reasons.

155WH
It is different in parts of the north of England, but the present system in London and parts of the south-east fails, first, because the absence of choice in the private rented sector for low-income households is driving an increasing number of families, households and individuals into the queue for social housing. My borough and other London authorities cite the fact that the end of an assured shorthold tenancy is a major route into social housing. Access to the private rented sector by households on housing benefit has declined dramatically since the mid-1990s, for reasons such as the housing market, trends in buy-to-let and so on. It is possible that the pilots may exacerbate that trend, and we will have to measure it.
The queue for social housing is lengthening dramatically. One of the principal routes into the queue for social housing in high-demand areas is through a short-term, unsustainable private tenancy. That is bad news for local authorities in high-need areas and for those who are forced through a series of moves into an unstable lifestyle. In my casework experience, that frequently results in people running up thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pounds of debt as they attempt to sustain a tenancy that they cannot afford. People in the private rented sector are often in deeply unsuitable, unattractive and poorly maintained properties; they are asked to pay £300 or £400 a week and their housing benefit is restricted. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).
The Minister will correct me if the figure is wrong, but I understand that 70 per cent. of private tenancies have a rent restriction applied to them, and that the average rent restriction is £19. In Westminster, which I admit is at the sharp end of the trend, it is common for people to face a rent shortfall of £60, £70 or £80 a week. People are trying to manage that on income support. They fail, and end up being accepted as unintentionally homeless and joining the queue for social housing. That is utterly mad. We must seriously address the failure of the present system, which, even if the pilots provide us with a workable alternative, will continue for many years to drive households into the lengthening social housing queue.
The second and related point is the fact that housing benefit shortfalls are a major contributory factor to poverty. The Government are to be wholly commended both for their targets and for their action in reducing poverty, particularly child and pensioner poverty. I am an enthusiastic supporter of almost every element of that policy and am happy that the Government are achieving demonstrable success. However, we have a blind spot about housing costs, particularly in areas such as London. As a result, inner London has the most child poverty in Britain—41 per cent. of our children are in poverty. Before housing costs are taken into account, there is a relatively even pattern of child poverty across the country. When housing costs are taken into account, the picture is transformed, and the figure for London is devastating. If we are to tackle poverty, as the Government are committed to doing, we have to do it evenly across the country. It is no good saying that places such as inner London, and other areas with high housing costs, can go hang; the issue is too difficult to deal with.
156WH
In the short term, alongside any pilots—which I hope are successful—we must recognise the chronic nature of the housing benefit shortfall and find a better way to integrate housing benefit with tax credits. Part of the poverty problem in London is that there is a considerable pool of people who are some distance from the labour market. Many of them cannot get over the barrier of high housing and child care costs. We must not allow that situation to continue for years.
I also support the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon about low-income homeowners. Even allowing for the fact that—thanks to the Government's economic stewardship—mortgage rates are admirably low, in London and some other areas with high housing costs, people who are on mortgage protection and income support and have high mortgages are unable to make the transition into the labour market for fear of losing their protection and being unable to maintain their mortgages. The problem must be addressed.
Those are my concerns. I have a few questions for the Minister concerning the flat rate housing allowance. I am not expecting him to reply now, but hope that he will respond in writing. Will he test a number of issues in the pilot schemes as an ongoing baseline assessment, with control groups and with what I described earlier as a posthumous assessment? That involves, first, local reference rents, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon, whom I support. There is evidence from some areas that the clustering of localities for local reference rent purposes leads to a significant increase in the local reference rent. That happens in areas with sharply contrasting housing costs, such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), and it is bad news. It means either that people cannot access housing at all or that they are forced entirely into low-income housing, which undermines the Government's objective of creating mixed communities. Will the Minister revisit the already flawed system of determining local reference rents, and make sure that the rent officers reality test local reference rents against the availability of properties, because there is undoubtedly a disparity in several areas? Given that local authorities have strategic housing responsibilities, which the Government recently reinforced, will the Minister give them a role, alongside rent officers, in determining the localities for local reference rents?
Will the Minister consider using indicators in the pilots to measure changes in the supply of property at, above and below local reference rents? Will he look at precise data on the extent and scale of shortfalls between rent and housing allowances? Will he consider the number of homelessness applications that are made because of private sector rent arrears and the loss of shorthold tenancies? Will he take account of the reasons why people lose such tenancies? They may do so because of the rent or for other reasons. Will he also look at the change in average rent levels during the pilot schemes, at the distribution of rents across the deregulated private sector in the relevant areas and at evidence of clustering around local reference rents, which would show that some landlords were taking advantage of them?
When he winds up, will the Minister comment on the under-occupier incentive scheme, which the Department for Work and Pensions introduced? Cash incentives do not seem to have a significant effect in

157WH
encouraging people to move to smaller properties. Does he accept recent research, which compounds the findings of earlier studies when it suggests that
"the quality of vacancies and the practical help offered to potential movers are much more significant than the availability of incentive payments"?
Clearly, one objective for the schemes is to encourage people to utilise the housing stock better, but cash incentives do not appear to do that. Would a penalty component—people facing loss of income if they remain in a property with a rent higher than the reference rent—have an impact on behaviour?
Will the Minister commit himself to regular surveys of tenants to establish whether they find it easier or more difficult to find property at or below the local reference rent?
Can the Minister let me know what percentage of claimants in each authority is paid under the new rules and is, therefore, affected by the change? I assume that tenants who are still under the old system, in which the difference between the rent and the local reference rent is topped up, will continue to get that top-up. Will the Minister confirm that?
We also need to know how many landlords of properties where a current shortfall is due to the property-specific rent accepted the benefit that was previously paid but then increased the rent to the flat-rate level. That would illustrate that landlords who provide substandard accommodation can charge the same as those who own similar accommodation of a decent standard. As I said, I do not expect the Minister to respond to such detailed points today.
Lastly, the Minister will be aware that the number of families housed in self-contained temporary accommodation is rising rapidly. That is partly thanks to the admirable commitment to remove families from bed-and-breakfast accommodation. However, families remain in so-called temporary accommodation for many years, and the rents are extremely high. Something must be done to enable such people to enter the labour market. Families in my constituency often rent ex-council flats that were sold under the right to buy, and they pay £300 to £350 a week in rent. The money is reimbursed through housing benefit, because they are in temporary accommodation. However, it is impossible for those people to enter the labour market. Sixty thousand households are in temporary accommodation, and the figure is likely to rise, certainly in the short term. Can the various Departments do something to provide proper work incentives for families in temporary accommodation to keep them in touch with the labour market or to help them back into it after suffering the trauma of homelessness? Otherwise, a huge pool of people will be locked out of the labour market for many years, to everyone's detriment.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to make these points. I am sceptical about the flat rate allowance, although I am sympathetic to the idea of making one available through the tax credit system to people in all housing sectors. Obviously, that would require a form of means-testing, but I can live with that because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. The critical point, however, is that, alongside any such system, there must
158WH
be scope to act sensitively in individual cases and to top up the rents of people in very high rent areas, whether they live in the social housing sector or the private rented sector. Otherwise, the consequences for them could be very severe.
4.19 pm
Andrew Selous: I echo the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) in saying that it is a pleasure to take part in this afternoon's debate. The measured and thoughtful contributions to an important subject show the House at its best.
Housing benefit is extremely important, involving nearly 4.5 million households in the UK. The cost to the Exchequer is about £11.5 billion—12 per cent. of all social security benefits—and it is paid by the Department for Work and Pensions. The figure approaches nearly 1 per cent. of total GDP. It is also worth noting that council tenants' rents in England and Wales contribute £1.5 billion towards the cost of paying for housing benefit.
When the Labour party wrote its manifesto in the run-up to the 1997 election, it rightly identified some £2 billion of housing benefit fraud per year. The Labour Government came into office with the laudable intention to do something about that. We are all enemies of benefit fraud; it benefits no one other than those who defraud the system and it brings the welfare state into disrepute. We are all committed to doing something about it.
Jeremy Corbyn: I agree that fraud is wholly unacceptable, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that another form of fraud can be seen in the incompetent delivery of housing benefit by contracted companies such as ITNet? The people in my borough suffer from that and it amounts to fraud.
Andrew Selous: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hold no brief for any company involved in the outsourcing of housing benefit, to which the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) has already alluded. In some parts of the country, that clearly has been a disaster. Like me, the hon. Gentleman probably knows of some successful experiments in outsourcing. I shall be moving on to administration later, but the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says.
The National Housing Federation report, "Housing Benefit—missed opportunities", claimed that the £2 billion figure had become considerably larger since it was first identified by the incoming Labour Government in 1997. The report stated:
"In much of the country the problem has reached, or gone beyond crisis point".
In the light of the available figures, it is regrettable how little success has been achieved in tackling this laudable aim of 1997. In 1997–98, 220,000 cases of fraudulent weekly claims were established, from which only 700 successful prosecutions resulted. In 2000–01, only 100,000 such fraud claims were established, which I find alarming. I fear that that is not the result of the disappearance of fraud from the system, but due to local authorities, the Benefits Agency or Jobcentre Plus giving up the task of identifying and tackling the problem. Of

159WH
the 100,000 cases, only 1,100 resulted in successful prosecutions, yet 460,000 were referred to the fraud and investigation section. Only the tip of the iceberg results in a successful prosecution, which is extremely worrying.
We know that 40 per cent. of authorities did not prosecute a single case, which I find especially worrying. Not one incident has been reported in the local media that can be drawn to people's attention to let them know that they will be prosecuted if they defraud the system. People get the message that they can get away with it, that this is an easy benefit to fiddle, that everyone does it and that nothing will be done about it. It would have a marked effect on the problem if only one or two high-profile prosecutions were given sufficient publicity in every local authority.
Why not incentivise local authorities by letting them keep some of the savings from successful prosecutions? There must, of course, be the highest standards of evidence and proof; we do not want local authorities bringing spurious prosecutions. Where the due process of law is observed and the correct evidence is collected, why not give local authorities an incentive to tackle the 460,000 cases that are going unchallenged and unprosecuted?
It is a fundamental principle of English law that we do not presume guilt before it has been proved. Cases have come to my attention—I raised them with the Secretary of State—where housing benefit was stopped while the local council made its investigation, only to be reinstated later when the local authority admitted that there was no proof or evidence of any wrongdoing. The tenant had to endure the fear of eviction, if not eviction itself. That is wrong. We would not stand for that in our legal system, and I fail to understand why we permit it to happen in relation to housing benefit. We should be tough on fraud, but things have got out of hand in that area. We must not stop benefit before guilt has been proved.
The Audit Commission severely criticised the administration of housing benefit in their report published in 2001, which has been mentioned. We know that some authorities are taking 100 days to process new claims and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) pointed out, the time taken to process claims varies greatly throughout the country. Some authorities are especially good, such as Camden council, which always does well. Others offer their residents a very poor service.
The Conservative party had two proposals in its manifesto for the general election in 2001 that would have helped. I ask the Minister to comment on them in his closing remarks. We proposed that the administration of housing benefit should revert to Jobcentre Plus—formerly the Benefits Agency—where local authorities clearly cannot cope; my hon. Friend has mentioned the worst 14 per cent. The Department should consider that option if it is clear that a local authority is giving an appalling service.
Our second proposal was that regulations should be changed only once or, at the most, twice a year. It is incredibly difficult for local authorities to cope with the constantly changing regulations, especially with all the different elements that must be entered into computer programs that run housing benefit. We all accept that
160WH
there will have to be some changes, and that changes will not disappear. However, can we please have them at just two fixed points a year—say, in January or July—and can they be delayed until that time? It would be a considerable change if they could.
I welcome the fact that the Minister says that he is bringing in more money for the administration of housing benefit but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury rightly pointed out, there has been a huge increase in the number of statutory instruments and circulars to local authorities. It would do as much as anything to help the administration of housing benefit if there could be a decrease in the volume of such regulations to local authorities.
Many elements of the reforms proposed by the Secretary of State on 17 October 2002 are welcome. As the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said, I am sure that they will be successful in the parts of the country where there is genuine choice; mainly those parts north of Birmingham. However, in other parts of the country, it is clear that tenants do not have a great deal of choice, and the evaluation of the pilots will be critical. It is worth pointing out that even if the pathfinders were deemed to be successful and the scheme was rolled out nationwide, it would affect only some 800,000 out of the 4.5 million tenants who are on housing benefit. We are talking about reform of only a small part of the housing benefit system, and I urge the Government to move housing benefit further up their list of priorities and, in particular, to tackle the remaining tenants who will not be affected by the reforms.
Mr. David Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman include in the choice the introduction of Supporting People, which is happening this April? Supporting People has a particular impact on tenants living in sheltered accommodation and a disaggregation between Supporting People and the housing benefit budgets will possibly result in a stark choice for those who get housing benefit, who may lose out, and those who do not get housing benefit, who may end up paying increased charges. I hope that that can be examined—the Minister may wish to respond later—because it is an important aspect of housing benefit.
Andrew Selous: The matter of rent restructuring is also significant for housing benefit. I know that some district councils, not least my own, are severely concerned about the impact of both Supporting People and rent restructuring on their budgets. The integration of that with housing benefit will be critical to local authorities' budgets, as well as to the tenants themselves.
I want to examine the rights and responsibilities of housing benefit. In his statement to the House on 17 October, the Secretary of State said that in making tenants responsible for paying their rent, he was reinforcing the link between rights and responsibilities. Many Members welcomed that element of his statement. Indeed, if I remember rightly, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) described that element of reforms as an end to serfdom for tenants. In pursuing the theme of rights and responsibilities, I am particularly exercised by cases of "neighbours from hell" who are in receipt of housing benefit and their effect on the communities that they terrorise. By what

161WH
right do those tenants take tax payments from the neighbours whom they terrorise and claim housing benefit to pay their rent? The Government are examining different measures, including how to improve antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contracts.
Ms Buck: On the point about taxpayers funding families who are guilty of antisocial behaviour, is the hon. Gentleman also proposing that jobseeker's allowance, income support and child benefit should be withdrawn from such families?
Andrew Selous: No. We should consider what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said in an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 5 May 2002, from which I shall quote briefly:
"When thinking about what might tip the scales of justice away from the brutes and bullies, and towards my decent constituents, I singled out housing benefit above other social security payments precisely because so much trouble is generated by a few families, whose arrogance and aggression is increased by their sense that they are untouchable."
Such people think that they cannot be moved from their properties, whatever behaviour they indulge in.
I shall illustrate my point with two cases from my constituency, which are fresh in my mind because I have dealt with them recently. We know that the Government want to make more use of antisocial behaviour orders and that they are trying to improve acceptable behaviour contracts. We know that they are also considering introducing stricter tenancy agreements. The threat of withdrawing housing benefit should be one weapon in their armoury. The Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead proposed that housing benefit should be withdrawn from any tenant who was found guilty twice by a court—there is a high standard of proof; it is not something that can be done on the whim of a local authority—of antisocial behaviour in three years, and that the tenant should possibly be threatened with eviction. The Government have said that they support the Bill in principle and intend to take forward the idea.
It is no part of my brief as a Member of Parliament to see a single extra homeless person on the streets. However, I served on the Committee that considered the Homelessness Act 2002—along with the Minister who is here today—and I went into that Committee with a genuinely open mind. I did not know what my views on the subject were. I sat and listened to Labour Members from all over the country, including areas where things are probably much tougher than they are in my constituency, and to many of my own colleagues, and every single one of them supported the measure because of their experiences of seeing constituents terrorised by a minority of families.
A couple of months ago, there was an extremely nasty case of aggressive, racist antisocial behaviour in my constituency, where one coloured family was being terrorised and the whole community suffered badly. I attended meetings with the police, local authority and local clergy, and it was only when local council officers went and spoke to the two families responsible and those families realised that their tenancies were at serious risk
162WH
that they stopped their bad behaviour. That community is now peaceful, the two families who were responsible for the bad behaviour are behaving better and the family who were terrorised are no longer being affected.
Mr. Love: I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that we face some terrible difficulties with antisocial tenants in our constituencies. Did the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred—whose members, he suggested, all agreed on the proposal—consider the consequences of withdrawing housing benefit and its likely impact not only on the immediate family, but on a wider group of people?
Andrew Selous: Yes, indeed. It is not just my suggestion that everyone on that Committee agreed. If the hon. Gentleman cares to examine the record of the Standing Committee, the votes make it clear. He will see that every single Conservative and Labour Member voted the same way. Indeed, it is a pleasure to be able to say a few words about that Committee because the filibustering of one Committee member prevented us from getting a word in edgeways.
I want to illustrate my point by referring to another case in my constituency. An Indian gentleman visited my surgery twice in the past two months. He and his partner, who is expecting their first child, have been terrorised for months by their next-door neighbour. The council has tried every single measure known and open to them to stop the antisocial behaviour of the council tenant who lives next door, sadly to no avail.
Jeremy Corbyn: It is good of the hon. Gentleman to give way. Is he aware that racist behaviour is a criminal act anyway and there is a criminal law to deal with it? It does not have to be dealt with through tenancy law; criminal law deals with it. Likewise, if an owner-occupier behaves in a socially unacceptable way, housing benefit cannot be taken away because there is probably none to take away. Criminal law is there to be used for that purpose.
Andrew Selous: I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with both the hon. Gentleman's points. It just happens that the two incidents that I mentioned had a racist dimension. However, I have many other examples of constituency cases, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has, in which race has played no part. Of course I accept that there are laws that deal specifically with race crimes. Race crimes are hateful, and it is right that we have such laws. However, race was an incidental factor in the two cases to which I referred.
As far as those two cases are concerned, the local authority has tried everything. In the Indian gentleman's last letter, he asked whether it was worth coming back to see me. He had been through all the options with the council and had tried all that I had suggested to him, yet it seemed impossible for the council to obtain the required level of evidence. The Government must consider that in their reform of housing benefit. Indeed, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, has said in the House that he is committed to the principles of housing benefit reform.
The current Minister, when he took the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill through Committee, said that he was committed to and

163WH
understood those principles. Therefore, this is an important area. I hope that the threat of withholding housing benefit will result in people ceasing appalling behaviour. I hope that the threat is used rarely, if ever, but I have already seen that when a council gets really serious and says that someone may lose his home if such behaviour continues, that can lead to a great improvement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir A. Kirkwood)—I hope that I shall have the support of all Members here—I congratulate him on the award of a knighthood in the Queen's new year's honours' list. It is an honour that is richly deserved. I call Mr.—I mean, Sir—Archy Kirkwood.
4.42 pm
Sir Archy Kirkwood: I am humble and happy and proud, Sir Nicholas, because you and I both know that there have been only two such awards made for services to Parliament. I am deeply delighted to follow you, the first person to receive such an award. I am sure that Members here would want me to recognise that.
This has been a good debate. It is a pleasure to follow my colleague the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who makes a thoughtful contribution to the work of the Select Committee. He made a thoughtful contribution this afternoon, as indeed did all colleagues who preceded me. It is a particular delight that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), who all represent pilot areas, have taken the trouble to attend. The Minister is correct—this is an important debate which has been well attended. Not only is it an important subject but it is being seriously and tangibly piloted throughout the United Kingdom in a way in which we shall have a continuing interest. It is a pleasure to be here.
I can make a shorter speech because of the quality of the debate so far. Many of the salient points have been made. The Minister has done reasonably well. I gave his consultation document on the pilots a warm welcome before Christmas because I was desperate for something to be done. I must say, however, that having read the consultation document over Christmas, I am now less enthusiastic about it. I shall come to that in a moment.
We must understand that bigger forces are at work in the formulation of housing benefit policy. The Government need to sort out housing policy before housing benefit will ever be positively affected. A diversity of rented accommodation and affordable owner-occupation has to be available to communities. There is no magic formula. There is no piece of algebra that will suddenly simplify housing benefit. We must all recognise that. The only way in which the Minister could have made real progress in this area would have been if the comprehensive spending review last year had afforded some more money. I know that the Government are trying to make some progress, but more money needs to be put in and more thought needs to be given to providing affordable housing throughout the United Kingdom.
164WH
The Government's policy is to make strategic wholesale moves in the direction of tax credits rather than benefits. The Minister cannot ignore that; he has to work within and around it. There are some real worries there. I agree with the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) that the Government have done a lot of commendable work in addressing poverty. They have targeted poverty for their own reasons and have taken the whole profile of public spending in the direction of tax credits. The worry for housing benefit is that the ways in which tax credits are being delivered, based on annual gross household assessments, do not sit that well with the legacy system that he is left to work with for housing benefit based on income support. There is a disjunction between the two systems.
There are bigger forces at work within which the Minister must work as best he can. He has £30 million for this important pilot. We have to make the best of it. Like the hon. Lady, I have an open mind on this. I wish the pilot well. However, having looked at it more closely, I wonder whether we are going to get much out of it. She is right to want to nail down what we are trying to get out the results of this pilot by way of monitored measurement that is meaningful and can be translated to other parts of the country in other ways.
We should not forget that there are still big problems in the current system. Much has been dealt with in earlier speeches. The Government seem to be saying in the consultation document that they have ticked the box of addressing the administrative problem of the current system and are now moving on. That was the sense I got from the consultation paper. That is not quite right. It is true that the situation has improved, dramatically in some cases. In my local authority some of the problems are being addressed. There is more consultation between central Government and local authorities. That is welcome. But there are still far too many circulars going around. Too much concern is given to minor changes of income from week to week. It is all de minimis. It should all be swept away. Little would be lost in terms either of additional fraud or extra expenditure if changes could be accepted more easily. People have to register all sorts of tiny changes and then they are sent another form. That does not help the system.
There is real concern about some of the non-dependent deductions. That has been mentioned earlier. There is an ethnic dimension to that. I have learned much about this from my colleagues on the Select Committee. There are not large numbers of people from the ethnic minorities in south-east Scotland. Non-dependent deductions bear down heavily on ethnic minorities. The single room rent restrictions have a particularly bad effect on disabled people who sometimes need larger properties to live in. A whole series of things must still be borne in mind, not least take-up. Take-up is an issue with all these new means-tested benefits, but it continues to be an issue in housing benefit.
It is not safe to assume that the administration of housing benefit, improving as it may be, is yet properly addressed. More needs to be done. The second point that I should like to make, which was made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is that home ownership issue needs to be addressed, certainly before 2010. The focus of the

165WH
debate in that period of time will be on the private rented sector. If we are to be effective in dealing with poverty, something must be done in the home ownership category.
I refer the Minister to a valuable new piece of work by Roger Burrows, using the Joseph Rowntree Foundation poverty and social exclusion survey of Britain, which was reported in yesterday's Financial Times. I find it surprising that, according to his research, half of all people living in poverty are home owners. He asks, with some force, whether it is equitable that home owners receive only 8 per cent. of state support for housing costs. We must be careful not to spend all our time focusing on a small, although important, piece of reform that we hope will go well; there are bigger issues to be considered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said.
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is the second Liberal Democrat to raise this issue. Is he suggesting that part of the £11.5 billion currently spent on housing benefit should be redeployed, or that there should be a substantial, costly new benefit, that will affect large numbers of people?
Sir Archy Kirkwood: The Institute for Fiscal Studies has made the sensible point that the Government missed an opportunity in addressing private and public aspects of housing benefit when they put large amounts of money into dealing with child poverty. There is an argument for doing so, and they have made progress in that respect, but the point that the IFS makes is that to go so far in that direction without doing anything to redress issues surrounding benefit in general was a missed opportunity, and I agree with that. I am not the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the matter, so the hon. Gentleman cannot pin what I say on my party, but we do need to put more money into housing support. However, I am not going to be daft and say that on Monday we should introduce huge extra public expenditure on home owners. What I am saying is that between now and the end of the decade, as growth develops, resources become available and reform evolves, we must not forget low-income home owners. I do not say that off my own bat: there was a unanimous, all-party Social Security Committee report on housing benefit in July 2000 to which three distinguished Conservative Members signed up. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with that, I suggest that he talks to them, not just to me.
I hope that we will have the opportunity to say that the pilot did not work if that is the case. If it takes us no further forward and no conclusions can be drawn from the £30 million spent after the evaluations have been made, I hope that we will be big enough to say, "Okay, we tried it. It didn't work and we need to try something else." That is not to prejudge the pilot but to say that pilots are not necessarily for ever. If it makes no effective difference or, indeed, if it causes unforeseen problems, we should reserve the right to say that it was worth trying but we do not think that it will be fruitful to pursue such a proposal.
From a Scottish Member's point of view, I am nervous that in the long term, in the next 10 years, we will end up with a devolved rent policy and a reserved
166WH
UK housing benefit policy. The Minister is making a claim for a policy in England whereby English and presumably Welsh social rented sector markets will he reformed over that period, but I am aware of no such policy in Scotland. I am in favour of devolution, but we must be careful to avoid ending up not only with different policies in the tiers of the private rented and home owner sector. It is a problem throughout the UK, but we must keep the policy in some sort of kilter. Otherwise, it will cause us problems in future.
Finally, I do not think that the Government have finished with tax credits; I believe that there will be more reform in that direction. We must therefore find a way to ensure that, as things evolve, housing benefit is properly integrated with tax credits, as the July 2000 Select Committee report also said. That cannot be done on a cost-cutting basis. All the reforms undertaken before 1997 were difficult and failed because the agenda was really to save money. I do not believe that this Government's reforms fall into that category, but unless we ensure that proper integration continues and that proper housing provision is a priority, there will always be problems with housing benefit.
4.56 pm
Mr. Andrew Love: I was not sure whether it was appropriate for me to make a contribution this afternoon. With so many Front-Bench spokesmen and Select Committee members present, I felt a little isolated. In any case, much of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I shall try to be brief, but it is important that my hon. Friend the Minister hears views on housing benefit issues from throughout the House.
This has been an excellent debate. Hon. Members have made measured and thoughtful speeches, and I do not particularly want to strike a party political note, but it is important to remember that housing benefit was introduced under the previous Conservative Government and that in many ways we are still living with the consequences.
The complexity and confusion of housing benefit has been talked about, and a number of contributions have focused on fraud and error. One of the propensities of such a complex system is that, in the main, it allows error, but also a significant level of fraud. Much has also been said about overpayments, but the other side of that coin in housing benefit administration is that there is a significant level of underpayment, which is even more worrying.
I think that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) spoke about work disincentives. We must put that in context: 42 per cent. of housing benefit is paid to pensioners. When talking about work disincentives, we must be clear who is affected. I believe that it is mainly a problem of high-rent areas, such as Greater London, Brighton and some of the other areas that have been mentioned. There is a very significant disincentive in those areas.
Shopping incentives have been mentioned. Again, where there is an adequate supply of rented accommodation, such a system may be appropriate and may work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said, but I am sceptical about its ability to work in some of the more stressed areas of the country, particularly Greater London.

167WH
There are many problems with housing benefit administration, from low standards to the very variable way in which many people, including my constituents, are treated daily. It is a considerable problem. Many tenants are threatened with eviction because of administration failures. Looked at the other way, that means that many landlords do not receive the correct rent because of those same failures. We need to put that into context; it is a significant problem, but others are more serious. The steps that the Government are taking to harmonise rent structures, among other things, are leading to a radical change in housing benefit. However, as the Minister said earlier, that will happen over 10 years. The problems are so great that we should do something immediately. Therefore, with some caveats, I welcome the reform that we have discussed today and the introduction of the standard local housing allowance.
One of the things that has reassured me about the pilot schemes is that the document "Building choice and responsibility: a radical agenda for Housing Benefit" produced by the Department for Work and Pensions, says that the intention of the reform is that rents will
"aim to reflect market conditions and reflect rents in the middle of the market."
That is important. I hope that that policy will overcome some of the problems caused by rent restrictions, which we have debated. Not only are people in great difficulty because they have to bridge the gap between the benefit payment and their rent, but society faces a significant amount of homelessness and has to deal with the costs that that entails and the additional demands that are placed on social housing. That is a significant issue, especially in Greater London.
It is important to echo the comments made on a number of issues by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. The first is transparency. One of the great difficulties with the current rent officer service is that nobody seems to know how determinations are reached, yet there is great controversy over them. We must consider seriously how the system of rent determination can be made trustworthy, so that people can have confidence in it. I should not like there to be litigation in this area, but if we are to avoid controversial situations, transparency is the first principle that must be underscored.
The second is accuracy. When I deal with local cases, I hear of determinations that are based on statistics that are a year, 18 months or two years out of date. That cannot be the right basis on which to make a rent assessment. It is particularly important in areas that have experienced enormous house price inflation and private rent inflation in the past couple of years. If I were to compare rents there now with those of a year or two ago, there would be a significant difference. That affects those who are hoping to move into the private sector and are looking to housing benefit to meet their costs.
It is an important principle that there should be consultation with local organisations that are familiar with the localities in which determinations are made—local authorities, Citizens Advice bureaux and landlords have a role to play. We must ensure that we have accurate, up-to-date figures.
We have talked about localities. We need to reflect the housing markets in each locality. As has been said, if there is an enormous variation in rent in a locality,
168WH
people will inevitably move from the higher rent areas to the lower rent areas. We therefore need rent comparability across localities. If the proposals are to work, that point will be particularly important, particularly in the context of London, where there is an enormous variation in the rents that can be charged, even within relatively small areas.
We have talked about tenants taking responsibility for the payment of their rents. Like others, I would not quibble with that. However, there have been good reasons why rent has been paid directly to landlords and those will not be whisked away because of the introduction of a pilot scheme. We should consider people who are particularly vulnerable and whether eight weeks is the appropriate time, as tenants and landlords will be in difficulty in relation to housing benefit payments. I would like the Minister to consider that carefully. Although I accept the principle, and know that the matter will be dealt with sensitively, cases in which it would be appropriate to make the payment directly to the landlord need to be considered, as that will ensure the success of the scheme.
People have talked about changes in circumstances. I will not go into every improvement that the Government have made, all of which I welcome. However, I would like the Government to go further; for instance, by looking at the week-by-week adjustments made to housing benefit in an area. In terms of the working families tax credit and the new credits that will be introduced, a longer time scale will be used. The Government could usefully look into that in trying to merge the ways in which the housing benefit and those tax credits are dealt with. Improvements could still be made there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned pathfinder areas. I am disappointed that only one London authority has been considered. Lewisham shares some inner and outer London characteristics, though I think that there are issues that are specific to inner London. Choosing another area of London to be part of the pilot scheme would help to ensure that the right lessons are learned about the pilot schemes in the different areas.
In relation to the scheme's introduction, it will be important to monitor the results. We must ensure that the scheme that is to be rolled out nationwide takes into account the lessons learned from the pilots. For example, organisations of landlords have expressed their concerns about the impact of the pilot schemes on them, and about whether they want to enter into them. The word "choice" is used a lot. The hon. Member for Northavon said that the change is perhaps not as radical as some suggest. I agree that the choice will be limited. However, any increase or improvement in choice for tenants is to be welcomed. I hope that we shall monitor that carefully.
On the impact on work incentives, one of the Government's central aims is to get people back to work. We should consider how the pilot scheme assists that. Housing benefit has generally not been very good at providing work incentives, particularly in high-rent areas. It would be good to know whether the pilot schemes will improve that situation.
The single room rent provisions are now called the younger person rent restrictions. Others have commented on the matter before, and it is important to

169WH
do so. The research that the Government carried out showed that the restrictions on single room rent, as it was called then, were causing financial hardship. There was considerable debt among young people under 25, and eviction. The extension to the scheme was introduced because that and other research, on which hon. Members have commented, showed that the shortfall between the amount received in benefit and the amount of rent that young people were having to pay was around £34, and could be even higher in Greater London.
The scheme was introduced more than 18 months ago in. I believe, July 2001, and should be evaluated because of concern expressed by organisations such as Shelter and others to which hon. Members referred that it has made little difference. People are not receiving significantly increased housing benefit and are still facing similar problems. The Institute of Revenues, Ratings and Valuations, which I hope we can regard as an independent body, has said that the scheme has made little practical difference. An evaluation of the scheme and a report to Parliament are now overdue. I believe that a report was promised when the changes were introduced, and I urge the Minister to produce one.
In general, I welcome the pilots and the new scheme, which offers the prospect of a significantly different benefit scheme that will ameliorate at least some of the substantial problems with the current scheme. That must be welcomed, and I look forward to seeing a report to Parliament on how the scheme is going.
5.11 pm
Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Minister for saying that he will involve the Members responsible for the pathfinder areas. We all look forward to seeing how the detail is rolled out, as it is only through the detail that we will see just how effective the scheme will be, whether it will ultimately work or fail, and whether it will throw up unexpected problems.
I have concerns about the scheme, especially about the effect of the standard allowance. If a level is set above the existing lower rents, as it is in the documentation distributed by the Minister, there has to be an expectation that the rent levels will rise in areas with a housing shortage. There can be no other consequence. If landlords can see what the rent level is, they must use the opportunity to raise their rents. That will not matter to the Minister as it will have no effect on Government money. Its impact will be to undo one of the benefits claimed by the Minister—that it is putting extra money into the pockets of people on benefit.
Such a level will also affect those people who are not on housing benefit, as well as those on low incomes who are not entitled to any Government help but who are in rented accommodation. Many people in a constituency such as Teignbridge fall into that category. They already struggle to find appropriate accommodation. I fear that any jacking up due to the allowance will have a detrimental effect. I am not saying that that will necessarily happen. I hope that those predictions are wrong and that the Minister is right, but I have my concerns.
170WH
I have a second, albeit lesser, concern. Any scheme that is to work and be effective must be seen to be fair and just. How the boundaries are drawn up may throw up apparent injustices on both sides of the same street. It is possible to have identical properties with identical tenants but with different rent levels because the properties fall into different areas. The result may be that a couple on one side in No. 48 may have an extra £5 a week in their pocket, but the couple opposite may have an extra £15. That will create a sense of injustice and unfairness. Any system with such a built-in injustice will eat like a cancer into the long-term viability of the scheme.
As I mentioned earlier, I am concerned about the impact on the availability of rented accommodation. As the scheme is reviewed, we must have clear, comparable control areas in order to assess the exact impact on the market. It would be easy for people to see an apparent reduction in rented accommodation in an area for X, Y and Z, but we cannot have excuses for any reduction: we need a proper comparison to show that the scheme is the reason for the reduction. Control zones are crucial to the task.
Teignbridge is an area of high-cost housing, but low salaries. The ratio between salary, income and housing costs is as bad as in the south-east and we suffer from many of the same problems. The area has a real shortage of rented housing. Costs are lower than in London, so when some Londoners retire, they buy a small property in Teignbridge, perhaps after selling their Kensington property, and have enough money left over in the bank for their retirement. That forces up housing prices and impacts on the availability of accommodation for people on low incomes.
The scheme relies on landlords buying into it. People moving into second homes or seeking summer let holiday accommodation exert pressures on the market. If landlords fear that some tenants will not pay, they will look for the easy option. In a place like Teignbridge, that means selling up, realising the capital and investing in something else, so we might face the prospect of significant reductions in available accommodation. Furthermore, Teignbridge has already stretched the number of people paid directly by the Government rather than landlords. As the Minister said when he visited Teignbridge, nationally about 60 per cent. of housing benefit is paid to landlords and 40 per cent. is paid directly to tenants, but the reverse is the case in Teignbridge, so we have a smaller element to play with. If we lose that smaller element, the effect on Teignbridge will be catastrophic.
Until recently, Teignbridge has not had to put people into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Any reduction in the housing market will result in more homeless people unable to secure accommodation. When they come to the local authority for help, all it can do is find bed-and-breakfast accommodation for them. That will mean greater costs for the authority and worse conditions for all concerned.
Another concern is the impact on rent deposit schemes. The local organisation wrote to me to say that its rent deposits system will not work under the scheme. I ask the Minister to reflect on the problem and talk to the rent deposit schemes in the pathfinder areas to

171WH
establish how best to overcome it. I cannot give the Minister any instant answers, but we might be able to find a solution in the coming months.
5.18 pm
Malcolm Wicks: With the permission of the House, I shall say a few more words. We have had a serious debate, reflecting the importance of housing benefit. At times the scrutiny of our proposals has been detailed. At least one hon. Member was generous enough to say that she did not expect me to answer all the questions today. Although she reserves the right to change her mind, I reserved the right to listen to her the first time. As usual on these occasions, if it would be more useful to answer some points in writing, I shall of course do so.
At the start of the debate, Sir Nicholas, you advised that succinctness would be a virtue. So it is, but I have a fistful of replies to present and scrutiny, too, is important. However, I shall try to be as brief as that balance allows me.
One theme of the debate, not least of the contribution of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) at the opening of the debate, was the issue of antisocial tenants. There is widespread concern about that in our communities, let alone in the House. At this stage, I can say only that, as announced in the Queen's Speech, the Government will be legislating further, with a range of measures, to tackle those problems that seriously blight the lives of so many of our constituents. For example, the Government will be legislating for new action against antisocial tenants in the social housing sector. As has been noted, were it not for the Liberal filibuster we would now have on the statute book a minor but useful measure providing housing benefit sanctions; but despite the clear will of the House, that was stopped by the Liberal Members, and they need to explain that to the electorate at the relevant time. The Government will be legislating widely on the matter.
As a footnote, I add that whenever such proposals are brought forward we understandably hear that it might create homelessness. We need to look at the problem more widely than the Liberals were able to do. For instance, at least one of my constituents was a victim of antisocial tenants and had in effect to make herself homeless because she was not prepared for her children to be subject to abuse and cruelty from a neighbour. She became homeless and her child, therefore, had to go to another school. Homelessness should not be used as a card for only one side of the debate; far from it.
Ms Buck: Certainly for me, the point is not primarily about homelessness, because that must regrettably be used as a tool only in extremis. My concern is that we already have tools to evict people—the antisocial behaviour order and the acceptable behaviour contract—which are well used in my locality. I do not believe that we need to add extra penalties; we need to make the existing penalties work effectively.
Malcolm Wicks: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I shall not say more, because the Government will be making proposals across the board on antisocial behaviour.
The hon. Member for Canterbury spoke about housing benefit expenditure, rather implying that it continues to increase. Let us look at the facts. Housing
172WH
benefit expenditure more than tripled between 1979—a significant date—and 1997—another significant date. Since then it has fallen by about 20 per cent. in real terms. That speaks for itself. It is not about the Government setting out to reduce housing benefit expenditure per se, but about the success of other antipoverty and welfare-to-work strategies, which people will welcome.
Another theme raised by a number of hon. Members was that of regulation, red tape and the number of circulars being issued. I am sensitive to that. Nevertheless, we need to bring a bit of common sense to bear. Some of the circulars are not always there to change benefit regulations in complex let alone needless ways. Some of them will simply present local authorities with helpful information on how to run the scheme more effectively, or reflect other changes being made by the Government.
To play the red tape card all the time can be a little silly, although there is a substantive point to be made. For that reason I have established within the Department a regulation scrutiny group, which includes local authority representatives, that advises the Department on the flow of regulations that we need to make. I cannot remember whether the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said that it was in the Tory party manifesto, and it is not my job to deliver all the manifesto commitments of every party; and I did not know about that. However, I have done it: whenever possible, which is not always, we now endeavour to introduce changes only in April and October. That is important, and our regulation scrutiny group helps us with that. We have introduced a monthly newsletter to local authorities that includes some of the helpful information that previously might have been in circulars. Partly as a result of that, but for other reasons too, the number of circulars issued in 2002 reduced substantially. Hon. Members will be pleased to see my commitment to Tory party manifesto pledges in that respect as well.
Jeremy Corbyn: On the question of circulars and information, the Minister will be aware that the benefit inspectorate has examined the administration of housing benefit in Islington and found its system seriously wanting. Many other authorities are in the same situation, with contractors failing to deliver an adequate system. Is he prepared to intervene and hand back the systems to local authorities to run them in the way that Camden does so efficiently?
Malcolm Wicks: That is a matter for the local authority concerned. In this debate, we have sometimes not allowed for the fact that although housing benefit is a social security policy administered at one level by our Department, local administration is carried out by local authorities. They are democratically elected and make different judgments from time to time, not least in London, about whether to contract out or to contract back in. Some have chosen the latter course.
Much of the detailed work that we have done has removed burdens on local authorities. For example, we have piloted and will now go nationwide on the idea that registered social landlords—or housing associations as I still prefer to call them—may in future help verify claims for housing benefit, rather than the local authority

173WH
having always to do that. That was a successful pilot that removed a piece of bureaucracy. We have also allowed agency and contract staff, some of whom are highly professional and experienced as I saw in Hackney, to undertake more functions in housing benefit determinations, which we discussed in a delegated legislation Committee. The local authority will conduct a 10 per cent. check on quality, and it is a way of cutting out needless bureaucracy because, at the moment, the contracting agency or agency staff member in the town hall makes the determination before the whole decision is then gone through again. Those are small but significant ways in which we are trying to improve the situation.
The hon. Member for Canterbury outlined many criticisms of housing benefit administration, some of which I agree with. I mentioned some in my opening remarks, and my next comment has to be, "hence our reform programme". The problems are why we are scrutinising housing benefit in ways that I outlined, including measures such as the performance framework, the help team and extra money to local authorities. We have listened to local government about the funding, and our medium-term reform programme is about that. There are also our more radical ideas, if the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) will forgive me for using the word "radical", for a housing allowance scheme.
Understandably, we do not talk tough only on fraud, but are delivering results. Fraud in related benefits—income support and jobseeker's allowance—has declined in recent years by some 24 per cent., which has saved the taxpayer £230 million. We take fraud seriously, which is why we are undertaking a research exercise to establish a new measure of how much fraud exists in the housing benefit system and why, in advance of that, we have established for the first time a fraud reduction target for housing benefit of 25 per cent. by 2006.
Like many other Members, the hon. Member for Canterbury raised the pros and cons of enabling the tenant to receive housing benefit, rather than paying it directly to the landlord. It is a strategy not without risks, which is why we are piloting it and will evaluate it carefully. However, the hon. Gentleman should understand that we have to get away from a nanny state and the assumption that we cannot trust the citizen, individual or tenant to receive her or his rent but that it should go directly from the state via the local authority to the landlord. That is not about citizenship or empowerment, and both the Conservatives and the Liberals need to take seriously the notion of balancing individual responsibility with individual rights.
Mr. Webb: If the Minister recalls what I called for, it was to give individuals choice about the way in which they wanted to receive their money. If an individual finds it easier for the assistance he or she gets with the rent to be paid directly to the landlord and to budget
174WH
with what is left, is it not empowering to give that individual the choice rather than to take it away from them?
Malcolm Wicks: The majority of landlords are responsible and decent, but as many of us know, not least in London, not all of them are. We need to be careful that a tenant—
Mr. Webb rose—
Malcolm Wicks: Hang on a minute, if I may use such an unparliamentary term. The hon. Gentleman must realise that some tenants who appear to be making the choice that the money will go direct to the landlord in future may have been pressurised into that choice by the landlord turning up on the doorstep. There is no need for naivety about that. I have met one landlord—I will not say from where—who told me that he had already asked his tenants, and that they would all like him still to receive the money. Let us not be too silly about this.
Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again on the same point. I asked him to evaluate in the pilot whether there would be a disincentive for landlords to take tenants, particularly those in some of the more sensitive categories. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have testified to the huge areas of southern England where landlords can choose their tenants because there is such a shortage of rented accommodation. My concern is that the pilot should address the question whether that has the effect of disadvantaging some people in the market.
Malcolm Wicks: Obviously, we need to safeguard the privately rented housing system. In many areas, it is the oil in the housing market, and can make the market more flexible and provide housing for vulnerable people. That is why we will continue to talk to landlords about that issue, and will include them fully in the evaluation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) raised a number of important points. I was pleased that he was able to participate in our meeting at Brighton city hall. I believe that I have to call it the city hall now, since for some reason Brighton narrowly beat Croydon to get city status. My hon. Friend enabled me to meet a number of local representatives from the voluntary sector and landlords in Brighton and Hove to discuss the issues. I recognise the difficulties of the Brighton housing market. The rents are high, and it is a city that is under pressure in many ways. That is one of the reasons why we wanted it to be a pathfinder area. Later in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) referred to Brighton as self-contained. That is not a phrase that I would have applied to Brighton—I would have called it extrovert rather than self-contained. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion for his intervention.
With regard to transparency, the advantage of the housing allowance scheme is that tenants will know their budget in advance, and as any renter knows, that is the first condition for finding accommodation. I hope that even in difficult housing markets such as Brighton, the housing allowance scheme will have many advantages.

175WH
The issue of information and communications technology has become increasingly important in a whole range of social security policies, as we in the Department know. We will work closely with the software suppliers in the 10 pathfinder areas. We have already had some discussions with them to ensure that they are fully on board and aware of what the pathfinders scheme is about.
The issue was raised about landlords finding it more convenient to be paid in advance rather than in arrears. I understand that point, but housing benefit is paid in arrears like other benefits, and that is the way in which most of us are paid our wages and salaries. Changing to payment in advance would instantly worsen the problems of delay and overpayments. There are difficulties.
The Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir A. Kirkwood), spoke about vulnerable tenants and about paying landlords directly. We will be talking very carefully to local authorities about the discretion that they have in the matter. We believe in a social philosophy of empowering tenants by giving their housing allowance to as many of them as possible. It is their housing allowance; it should not go directly to a landlord. Many vulnerable tenants, although by no means all, may wish to continue paying the landlord directly.
One or two hon. Members raised the issue of the single room rent. I understand its importance, and it has been acknowledged that the Government have made some progress on it. There are serious difficulties; perhaps that was an omission in our deliberations this afternoon. If we are to be wise about social policy and about those who are heavily dependent on benefits, we must also consider their position vis-à-vis that of many of our other constituents. We must consider the housing experience and aspirations of those who are in work but who are not well off. There is a difficulty in that most under-25s who are not on benefit can afford only shared accommodation. That is the experience of the young people whom I know.
Would it be right or wrong for us to enable those on housing benefit to have superior accommodation, perhaps not very superior but still superior, to that of young working people? That poses a serious difficulty. We must consider how the experiences of those on housing allowances should compare with those of the working population, as it could raise serious issues. At present, most working people in London or in Brighton, for example, cannot choose exactly where they want to live. We must consider those difficult issues more deeply than perhaps we have.
Mr. Webb: Another comparator is the many young people who are lucky enough to have a loving, secure home where they can live until they have enough money to live, independently. They have a choice; they have somewhere where they will be looked after. I am sure that before the Minister became a Member of Parliament he would have attacked the single room system; he would not have supported it then. The Minister is penalising those who have no choice; they do not lead the life of Riley; they are often forced out of their homes. How can it be fair to tell such people that we will not even meet their rent?
Malcolm Wicks: We have become fairer on that. As a result of the changes that we made, the average rent level has risen by £5 a week—I will check that and verify it if necessary—and that is reflected in housing benefit. There has been a not insignificant change in that matter. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. There have been welcome changes for children who have been in care and who, until recently, were left at the age of 16 to fend for themselves. Our mind is not closed on the issue. Nevertheless, we must consider the needs of other young people if we are to get the broad acceptance of the welfare state that we all want.
Mr. Drew: With regard to my earlier intervention on the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), does my hon. Friend accept that this is not just about working people? Pensioners are also affected; that is the point that I made about Supporting People. We must consider very carefully how housing benefit affects those who do not get it as well as those who do.
Malcolm Wicks: That point is well made, and we must reflect more on it in future. I may have only 11 or 12 minutes now and I have a fistful of scrutiny to get through. It would be wrong for me to allow any more interventions, if colleagues will forgive me.
The hon. Member for Northavon made several points. He challenged how radical these proposals are. The last radical thing that a Liberal Government ever did in this field was to introduce rent controls in 1915 when the working class in Glasgow rose up during the first world war as their men were fighting at the front. The hon. Gentleman often sounds older than he looks, but I do not think he was there at that radical moment.
People will judge whether we are being radical. We are starting with the private rented sector. The hon. Gentleman seemed to get excited about page 9 of our document, which he was reading in bed last night. Perhaps, tonight, he should venture on to page 19, where we say
"In principle, however, we shall also look to introduce standard allowances for social rented housing and would like to test this out through an early Pathfinder where conditions allow."
I refer him to page 19, to read with his mug of Horlicks tonight, and he may be excited by our radical ambitions; but that is another debate.
I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman seemed to raise doubts about the proposals. They are not without risk—that is why we are evaluating them—but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not more in favour of our proposals because, in terms of choice, empowerment and a proper sense of citizenship, they set out the direction that our social policies should take.
What is the alternative? I cannot believe that the radical Liberal alternative is simply to stick to the existing housing benefit system, which requires us to make detailed inquiries about each and every rent that is paid. We still tolerate a situation in which the rent of six out of 10 people is paid to landlords. I doubt whether that is where we want to be in the future.
The hon. Gentleman is in danger of supporting the status quo, and I do not think that he entered Parliament to do that. All the issues will be properly evaluated and there will be control groups of local

177WH
authorities to reflect different markets; high, medium and low rents. We are thinking seriously about the problems. The hon. Gentleman and I have backgrounds in social research, and I hope that he will trust me to take seriously the evaluation process. I am happy to talk to him about that.
Another important issue is that of low-income homeowners. We all understand that, compared with 30 years ago, there are now many homeowners on lowish incomes. That is partly to do with the ageing of the population, but partly to do with marital breakdown. It may have something to do with the adverse consequences of the policy of selling council homes. Some people who have become homeowners might have fallen on difficult times, although they still live in those dwellings.
There is no code here, but we are actively thinking about all those issues. Indeed, only next week, I am meeting with the homeowners steering group, which includes representatives from the industry, academics and others. We talk to the likes of Professor Steve Wilcox. I have noted the new Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on these matters from the professor in the department at York university where I used to work at the beginning of my career. I hope to be talking to him about these serious and challenging issues.
My hon. friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North is sceptical about our proposals, but she will not want to become a force of conservatism on housing benefit because that is not her instinct. She hoped that she was wrong about the issue. We can agree on that; I hope that she is wrong, too. London Members understand—my London accent is at least as good as that of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love)—the current acute housing difficulties. If, on further reflection, it seems necessary to start another pilot scheme in inner London, we shall. I cannot promise that, but we have an open mind on the matter.
I understand the difficulty with housing benefit restrictions affecting the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and many other people throughout the country. It is proper for there to be some restrictions. For example, the community would expect restrictions to be in place to deal with cases in which people are living in accommodation that is far too large or in which the landlord is asking an extortionate rent for the property. The community would expect us to have those restrictions in place. However, I understand those concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North might be surprised to learn that a smaller percentage of rents are restricted in London than in any other region. I shall send her the figures; they are 59 per cent. in London—I have to say that that surprises me—against an average of 67 per cent. However, the absolute level of restriction tends to be higher in London than elsewhere, which reflects the higher rent levels in the conurbation.
I was asked whether the so-called housing benefit top-ups would remain in place. Local authorities will still be able to use discretionary payments to top up people's
178WH
benefits if they want to. There are no plans to abolish those additional payments, which will continue to be available in exceptionally difficult circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was generous enough to say that I could not be expected to reply to all the points raised during the debate, but she raised important points about the evaluation—I put a lot of store by it—such as local reference rents, the concept and nature of localities, questions of supply and homelessness. I promise that we will consider all those issues.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire focused particularly on fraud. I take the problem of fraud seriously. The verification framework was introduced, not without some controversy. The work of the benefit fraud inspectorate includes trying to drive up housing benefit standards and the encouragement of home visits so that local authorities can ensure that the claimants are who they say they are and that they have not sub-let the house. Those issues are important, and we take them very seriously.
The latest figures show that in 2001–02, local authorities successfully carried out 50 per cent. more prosecutions than in the previous year. Local authorities started making full use of formal cautions in 2001–02. I am encouraged by those figures. The hon. Gentleman mentioned, at the extreme, those local authorities that take more than 100 days to process claims; there are some like that, but we should not exaggerate. For the record, our quarterly monitoring figures show that only 20 authorities—that is too many—out of 408 take more than 100 days. However, the overall record is not good enough and we are trying to drive up standards.
I was asked whether, in extremis, the Government could take over the powers local authorities. We have powers to issue directions, and we have done so on a limited number of occasions. We order local authorities in specific ways and monitor them while they get their act together. In a different way, we had quite properly to be heavy-handed with Hackney and I am pleased to say that the authority has now seriously turned the corner in the right direction.
Jeremy Corbyn: They got rid of a contractor in order to do so.
Malcolm Wicks: That was certainly part of it.
The Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, raised a number of important points. The background to the debate is the sheer importance of housing and housing policy. Housing benefit alone cannot solve what are essentially housing and policy questions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of home owners, and I promise that our minds are not closed on that. He also asked whether we would still proceed if the pathfinder or pilot schemes went seriously wrong. No, we would not. We call them pathfinders because we are trying to find the exact detailed path to follow. I do not anticipate it but if something went seriously wrong, we would think again. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned devolution, which was interesting, as housing has been devolved and housing benefit comes under the United Kingdom social security system. We have to work through those matters; I had a meeting with the Scottish Minister responsible for housing on that very subject.

179WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton spoke about the problem of underpayment or non-take-up. Our position is clear; we want every social security pound to be properly claimed and paid honestly and properly to all those who have a proper entitlement to it. Housing benefit take-up figures may not be good enough, but they are not too bad compared with other benefits. About 92 per cent. of people entitled to housing benefit receive it. I am not complacent about that, but it is at least moving rapidly in the right direction. My hon. Friend suggested that rent officer data could be out of
180WH
date. I understand that, but rent officers use only recent market evidence; it is up to six months old. Reference rents are reviewed every month to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the market. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): We are grateful to you for what you have done, Minister, but we have run out of time.
It being ten minutes to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Parliamentary Security
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission pursuant to his answer of 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 980W, what arrangements are in place to ensure best value in the provision of security arrangements within the parliamentary estate. [87867]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Regular monthly meetings are held between officials of both Houses and Metropolitan Police Administration to review costs, staff overtime and attendance.

  Contracts for physical arrangements are let following the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply's recommended procurement practices and Government recognised best practice. Contracts below the EC threshold are subject to competitive tender and value for money considerations. Contract management procedures are to be reviewed across the House next year to ensure the arrangements deliver the quality, service and cost benefits identified in business cases.

  The House's Audit Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), is charged by the Commission with having general oversight of the work of internal audit and review, with particular emphasis on promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

TRANSPORT

  Air Traffic Control
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the comparative level of investment by the United Kingdom in national air traffic control equipment with that of the EU average. [89007]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is little financial information available from national air navigation services providers across the EU on the magnitude of investment in air traffic control equipment. Even if comparative information were available, it would be difficult to make a meaningful assessment because the level of investment by any service provider depends where that provider is in its investment cycle, for example whether or not it is currently introducing major new facilities as NATS has recently done at Swanwick.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what co-operation there is between British and Dutch air traffic controllers; and what form this takes. [89002]
  290W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority has proposed new arrangements for the upper airspace over the North Sea and, as part of these changes, a small area of UK airspace amounting to less than 0.1 per cent of North Sea airspace will, from 20 March 2003, be serviced by the Dutch national authorities. Co-operation between national air traffic control authorities is widespread and routine across Europe and is effected under the auspices of Eurocontrol and—in the case of the UK—the Civil Aviation Authority. The co-operation takes the form of one national authority handling traffic which is in the national airspace of another state where this will facilitate the most expeditious movement of air traffic.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many air traffic controllers were employed by NATS on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 2002; and how many hours of training was provided to air traffic controllers annually in the year ending (a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 2002 [89005]

  Mr. Jamieson
  NATS employed 1,735 air traffic controllers on 1 May 1997 and 1942 on 1 May 2002. These figures include trainee controllers. I am informed by NATS that trainee controllers received 145,054 hours of training in the year ending 1 May 1997 and 235,346 hours of training in the year ending 1 May 2002. Information about continuing in-service training of qualified controllers is not readily available.

  Miss Anne McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the level of staff morale at NATS; and if he will make a statement; [89000]

  (2) what the level is of medical ailments registered by employees at NATS on (a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 2002 in (i) the appropriate book and (ii) by other means. [89003]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Staffing issues are matters for NATS, as the employer. NATS inform me that on 1 May 1997, 112 staff were absent out of a total of 5,142 (2.18 per cent.). On I May 2002, 102 staff were absent out of a total of 5,294 (1.93 per cent).

  Heathrow (Runway Alterations)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the results of the two-year trial, beginning August 2000, to extend night period runway alternation at Heathrow to the hour between 6 am and 7 am; and if he will make a statement. [89536]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The trial was expected to run for about two years. During 2002 it was affected on approximately 35 per cent of mornings by engineering works, including replacement of the instrument landing systems (ILS), runway resurfacing and replacement of runway lighting. Completion of the resurfacing work on the southern runway has also been delayed, and will resume in April. Consequently it is not possible at this stage to draw any firm conclusions from the trial, which will need to continue for a sustained period following the completion of the engineering works later this year.

  Major Road Schemes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which major road schemes in the local transport settlement for 2002 were(a) accepted, (b) provisionally approved, (c) considered work in progress and (d) rejected. [89535]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Mansfield-Ashfield Regeneration Route was fully accepted in the 2002 Local Transport Settlement announced in December.

  The following schemes were provisionally approved. It will now be for the relevant local authorities to progress the schemes through the remaining statutory procedures.

  North Middlesbrough Accessibility Improvements—Middlesbrough

  Sunderland Central Route—Sunderland

  Cadishead Way—Salford

  Ashton Northern Bypass Stage 2—Tameside

  Wigan Inner Relief Road—Wigan

  A58 Blackbrook Diversion—St. Helens

  A165 Reighton Bypass—N. Yorks

  A43 Corby Link Road—Northamptonshire

  A24 Horsham-Capel Improvement—W. Sussex/Surrey

  A24 Ashington/Southwater Improvement—W. Sussex

  A228 Leybourne and West Mailing Bypass—Kent

  Mereoak Roundabout Improvement—Wokingham

  Insufficient information was available for a decision on the following schemes which are now classified as 'work in progress'. The schemes will be reconsidered when the local authorities concerned provide sufficient further information.

  Halfpenny Link—Sheffield/Rotherham

  Roscommon Way—Essex

  A391 St Austell to A30 Link—Cornwall

  Northern Gateway—North Tyneside

  Manor Park Bends Improvement—Bradford

  A605 Stanground Bypass—Peterborough

  A38-A370 Link Road—North Somerset

  No schemes were rejected.

  Pollution
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the level of CO2 emissions from road transport in(a) 2005 and (b) 2010. [88438]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our latest forecasts suggest that in 2010 CO, emissions from road transport in England could be in the range 29.3 to 30.2 million tonnes of carbon. We do not currently have interim forecasts for levels in 2005, but will produce these shortly.

  Seaports and Harbours (Security)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve security at small seaports and harbours to prevent(a) acts of terrorism and (b) importation of material for use in terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [89248]
  292W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The United Kingdom already has a comprehensive security regime in place covering ports and harbours which service international ferries and cruise ship calls. In addition, the three border agencies, police Special Branch, HM Customs and Excise and the Immigration Service, control the movement of passengers and goods through small ports. Their presence at the ports is determined by a risk assessment.

  This national regime will be augmented by July 2004 with the implementation of the recently agreed International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) global maritime security regime. This agreement requires signatory nations to develop and implement maritime security procedures. All ships over 500 tonnes engaged in international voyages and all ports which service such ships will be party to the security requirements.

  Transport (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the Local Transport Plan budget for Newcastle City in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04; what the spending was in 2001–02; whether spending is likely to be reached in 2002–03; and what action was taken over underspending. [89105]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Capital funding for local transport is provided by Government in two main ways: for maintenance and schemes costing below £5 million, as a block of funds over which local authorities have discretion; and for major schemes costing over £5million, as scheme-specific funding. In recent years, up to and including 2001–02, authorities had permission to carry over their 'block' funds from one financial year to the next.

  Newcastle city council were provided with the following allocations:

  (a) £36.479 million in respect of maintenance and schemes costing below £5 million; and £5.159 million for major schemes.

  (b) £5.992 million in respect of maintenance and schemes costing below £5 million; and £6.738 million for major schemes.

  (c) £5.055 million in respect of maintenance and schemes costing below £5 million; and £1.400 million for major schemes.

  In 2001–02, £3.938 million was spent on maintenance and schemes costing below £5 million; and £3.210 million was spent on major schemes. Newcastle city council have taken advantage of the flexibility available to carry funds forward into 2002–03 and plan to spend their full allocation in the current year. Outturn spending figures for 2002–03 will be available in July 2003. Ministers have made clear to all transport authorities the importance of having effective spending programmes and of making progress towards the targets and objectives set out in their local transport plans.

DEFENCE

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and

  293W
  Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88132]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Specific information on any official festive expenditure is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Any expenditure incurred on entertainment, decorations and any other festive activities is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government accounting.

  Fire Brigades Strike
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the safety of movements of munitions between military bases during industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union. [89444]

  Mr. Ingram
  An assessment of the safety of movements of munitions between military bases during industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union has been made by the Ministry of Defence Explosives Storage and Transport Committee (ESTC), responsible for setting MOD policy, standards and regulations for the transport of military explosives. This concluded that the risk to the general public and MOD personnel is not increased during industrial action.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much ordnance has been dropped on Iraq by the RAF in each year since 1992. [88961]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between 1992 and the start of Operation Desert Fox at the end of 1998 no ordnance was released. Information on ordnance released during Operation Desert Fox is not held.

  Since 1999 the RAF, responding in self-defence against air defence targets, has released the following tonnages of ordnance.

  Year

  Tons

  1999

  79.1

  2000

  18.3

  2001

  22.2

  2002

  55.8

  Note:

  The figure for 2002 covers up to 4 December only.

  Landmines
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the(a) Landmines Act 1998 and (b) Ottawa Treaty permits United Kingdom armed forces or other British nationals acting in consort with the armed forces of another state to handle or otherwise provide support for the deployment of landmines. [89017]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the Ottawa Convention, each State Party undertakes, inter alia, never under any circumstances to use anti-personnel mines (APM) or to assist, encourage or induce, in any way anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party to the 294W
  Convention. On ratification of the Convention, the United Kingdom made a statement of understanding of our obligations indicating that
  "the mere participation in the planning or execution of operations, exercises or other military activity by the UK's Armed Forces, or individual UK nationals, conducted in combination with armed forces of States not party to the Ottawa Convention, which engage in activity prohibited by that Convention, is not, by itself, assistance, encouragement or inducement".

  This statement of understanding is reflected in section 5 of the Landmines Act 1998, which is designed to provide a defence to members of the armed forces in cases which would fall within the terms of the statement.

  Our obligations under the Ottawa Convention are fulfilled not only through the Landmines Act but through training and instruction of the armed forces. Personnel are instructed that, as well as not being permitted to lay APM, they may not seek benefit from the use of APM by allies who are not bound by the Ottawa Convention by requesting the use of APM in direct support of UK forces. Moreover, UK forces may not engage in any physical activities specifically related to the emplacement of APM by allies not bound by the Ottawa Convention.

  Manning Control Reviews
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 515W, how many army personnel were issued with manning control warning certificates in each of the last 10 years, other than those discharged and listed in the answer of 27 November 2002, Official Report, column 332–33W, broken down by regiment. [89279]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 November 2002,Official Report, columns 332–34W which provides details of those issued with manning control warning certificates and discharged under Queen's Regulations 9.413 "Not required for a full Army career". The number of those issued with a manning control warning certificate but not subsequently discharged is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Missile Defence
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce a decision on the US application to site national missile defence facilities in the UK. [89372]

  Mr. Hoon
  No specific date has yet been determined for a final decision on the United States request to upgrade the early warning radar at RAF Fylingdales. Once we have carefully considered the issues involved and taken account of parliamentary and public discussion, I will inform the House at the earliest opportunity.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what distribution, and in what languages, has been arranged by his Department of the consultation document Missile Defence; and if he will make a statement. [89381]
  295W
  Mr. Hoon
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the public discussion paper published on 9 December. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library of the House and in the main public libraries in the United Kingdom. It has been sent to Members of this House, other people and organisations with an expressed interest in missile defence, the media and to embassies in London. The paper is also available on the Ministry of Defence website. The paper is in English.

  RAF Welford
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is in command of munitions convoys entering and leaving the US Air Force Base at RAF Welford; and what arrangements are made for providing security and safety escorts for these convoys. [89445]

  Mr. Ingram
  Overall command of United States Visiting Forces munitions convoys entering and leaving RAF Welford is vested in Commander Third Air Force USAF. Ministry of Defence Police provide security escorts, if required, to suit the size and nature of the munitions being carried.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recommendations the Defence Munitions Rationalisation Studies made concerning the RAF Welford site; and when he plans to implement them. [89446]

  Dr. Moonie
  An estate rationalisation exercise undertaken by Defence Munitions (DM) in 2000 identified over capacity within the national DM estate. Following consideration of a number of options it was decided that DM Welford should close with its tasks being transferred to other DM locations. The site was emptied of United Kingdom owned munitions by December 2000. The UK portion of the Welford site was transferred for use by the United States authorities in October 2002. The facilities offered by Welford therefore did not feature in a follow on DM rationalisation study carried out in 2002.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who manages contracts for the haulage of munitions to and from RAF Welford; who is responsible for initiating and controlling an emergency response in the event of an accident involving munitions in transit to or from RAF Welford; and whether the West Berkshire emergency planning officer and the Berkshire fire and rescue service are informed of movements of such munitions. [89448]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Transportation and Movements Agency manages the contract for haulage of military munitions throughout the United Kingdom. The United States visiting forces are a party to that contract. Initiation of emergency action in the event of an incident/accident is the responsibility of the driver, attendant or other person responsible for a vehicle carrying military munitions. The civil authority notified of the emergency would then be responsible for its control.

  There is no requirement to notify the West Berkshire Emergency Planning Officer or Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service of munitions movement from or to RAF Welford.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Colombia and Bolivia
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid has been given to(a) Colombia and (b) Bolivia in the last three years; what proportion was to combat production of hard drugs; and if she will make a statement. [89412]

  Clare Short
  Over the last three financial years, gross bilateral aid to(a) Colombia and (b) Bolivia was:

  Gross bilateral aid to Colombia and Bolivia

  £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  DFID

  Total

  DFID

  Total

  DFID

  Colombia

  2,190

  1,537

  2,252

  1,730

  1,480

  934

  Bolivia

  39.785

  6,334

  9.837

  7,592

  31,495

  12,684

  No DFID funds have supported direct activities to combat the production of hard drugs.

  From 1998 to 2001 DFID gave £720.000 to support a UN alternative development programme, to provide sustainable alternative livelihoods to coca growing, in agro-forestry systems, in Bolivia. Since then DFID has not supported alternative development activities in Bolivia.

  The FCO Drugs and Crime Fund (DCF), which is active in Colombia and Bolivia, is aimed at reducing the supply of class A drugs to the UK. DCF projects focus on increasing capacity to intercept drugs being trafficked and not on combating production. DCF funds do not come from the aid budget.

  In addition, DFID contributes approx 19 per cent. to the EC. The latest available figures for Colombia and Bolivia are as follows:

  1998

  1999

  2000

  £ million

  DFID share

  £ million

  DFID share

  £ million

  DFID share

  Colombia

  6.33

  1.14

  10.94

  1.97

  9.64

  1.78

  Bolivia

  17.86

  3.19

  18.60

  3.39

  16.77

  3.10

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which Minister in her Department is nominated Green Minister; how often she has attended meetings of the Green Ministers; and which official has responsibility for the DEFRA rural proofing check-list in her Department. [88463]

  Clare Short
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development represents DFID on the ENV(G) Committee. The Rural Proofing check-list is not relevant to DFID's activities and policies.

  Unanswered Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) parliamentary questions and (b) letters from hon. Members, in Session 2001–02 remain unanswered, broken down by those

  297W
  which are (i) one month old, (ii) two months old, (iii) three months old, (iv) four months old and (v) over six months old. [84752]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: There are 11 parliamentary questions in total:

  10 are over six months old,

  1 is two months old.

  As of 3 December there are no letters which are one month old and which remain unanswered from hon. Members in Session 2001–02.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in(a) Newcastle upon Tyne and (b) Gateshead have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage; and what was the average uplift on earnings. [89529]

  Alan Johnson
  We do not have information on numbers of national minimum wage (NMW) beneficiaries specific to Newcastle upon Tyne or Gateshead. For the north-east region as a whole, it is thought that around 80,000 people should have benefited from the introduction of the NMW in April 1999. The number who should have benefited from the NMW uprating in October 2001 is estimated to be 110,000.

  In spring 1998, prior to the introduction of the NMW, the average wage for full-time employees on adult rates in Newcastle upon Tyne was £336.9 and in Gateshead it was £352.5. In spring 2002 the average wage in Newcastle was £409.9, an increase of nearly 22 per cent., and in Gateshead it had risen to £389.4, an increase of 10.5 per cent. over the period. Over the same period the average wage for the north east as a whole increased by nearly 18 per cent., to £399.3, and for Great Britain by 21 per cent., to £464.7.

  Wage Payments
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she will take to encourage employers promptly to pay the wages due to those entering work; and if he will make a statement. [89291]

  Alan Johnson
  When employees are to be paid is a contractual matter for negotiation and agreement between employers and employees (or their representatives). If wages are not paid at the agreed time, employees can seek redress though the employment tribunals or the ordinary courts.

  The intervals at which wages are paid must be set out out in the written statement of employment particulars to which employees have a statutory right. Measures in the Employment Act 2002, once brought into force, will provide an improved enforcement mechanism for the requirement to issue written statements.

  Cats and Dogs (Products)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations there are to 298W
  prevent the (a) importation and (b) sale of goods made from (i) cats and (ii) dogs; and if she will make a statement. [88377]

  Nigel Griffiths
  At present there is no provision in the EU to prevent either the importation or sale of goods on the basis that they are made from cats and dogs.

  My noble Friend, the Minister for Trade and Investment in response to an oral question from Baroness Gale on 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 1234, has undertaken to report to Parliament on the Government's findings on how much cat and dog fur is coming into the UK; whether a similar ban to that enacted in the US would be effective; and to explore all options for stopping the trade, if there is evidence that it exists. She has invited those MPs and Peers who have written to Ministers on this topic to a meeting in the Houses of Parliament on 15 January 2003 to discuss the issue further.

  People's Panel
  Dr. Vincent Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who the(a) current and (b) past members are of the People's Panel; and if she will make a statement. [88822]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The People's Panel came to an end in January 2002. Over the course of its lifetime it was made up of a representative sample of more than 5,000 members, recruited at random from among the UK public. It is standard practice for the personal details of members of the public involved in such research to remain anonymous.

  Post Office
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of(a) the savings to be achieved and (b) the number of sub post offices to be closed under the Post Office's network reinvention. [87340]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: Post Office Ltd. estimate that collectively savings from the urban reinvention programme together with savings from other measures and initiatives including reductions in administrative costs and overheads should make a substantial contribution to restoring the network business to profitability. The Network business made an operating loss of £82 million in the financial year 2000–01.

  Post Office Ltd. does not have a predetermined list of offices which will close under their urban reinvention programme, nor is there any arithmetical formula which will determine the number of closures in any given area.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there are in each parliamentary constituency; how many of them transacted more than 40 per cent. of their work volumes on behalf of the Benefits Agency in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [87865]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 18 December 2002]: A special exercise was undertaken by the Post Office in 1999 to determine the numbers of post offices in each

  299W
  Parliamentary constituency and how many of them derive more than 40 per cent. of their income from benefits work. That information is set out in the reply given to the then hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington on 29 November 1999, Official Report, column 22W, and remains the latest information available in that form.

  Post Office Ltd. also compiled a list of post offices by Parliamentary constituency as of 20 April 2002 showing their classification as urban or rural offices. This exercise did not include information on percentage income derived from benefits payments. A copy of this list is held in the Libraries of the House.

  Trade Unions
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the TUC and (c) the Institute of Directors regarding union recognition in the workplace. [89045]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department of Trade and Industry is currently undertaking a Review of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes the provisions for statutory trade union recognition. DTI officials have already held a number of informal consultation meetings with interested parties, including the CBI and the TUC.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also holds regular meetings with employer and trade union representatives, including the TUC, CBI and IoD, at which employment matters are discussed.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Air Quality
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her most recent estimate is of the proportion of the population that in 2010 will be living in parts of the country that have achieved the air quality strategy objective for 2010. [88439]

  Margaret Beckett
  Different air quality objectives apply in respect of different pollutants, different dates and different parts of the country. For many pollutants, our latest modelling indicates that by 2010 100 per cent. of the population will be living in areas that meet the current air quality strategy objectives. But in respect of other pollutants, there remain some areas where the current objectives may not be met. In respect of particulate matter (PM10), for example, our latest air quality projections estimate that in 2010, 88 per cent of the population of England (excluding London) will live in areas that meet the air quality strategy objective. Furthermore, it is estimated that 98 per cent. of the population of London will live in areas that meet the air quality strategy objective for PM10 for London in 2010. Additional measures will need to be developed over the coming years to increase the proportion of the population living in areas that meet the strategy targets for PM10.
  300W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her most recent estimate is of the proportion of the population that will live in the parts of the country where the air quality strategy objective for NOx will have been achieved by 2005. [88440]

  Margaret Beckett
  My Department's latest air quality projections estimate that more than 98 per cent. of the population will live in parts of England where the air quality strategy objective for nitrogen dioxide will have been achieved in 2005. Additional measures will need to be developed over the coming years to increase the proportion of the population living in areas that meet the strategy objective.

  Accreditation
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department is doing to support the Government's policy on accreditation. [88088]

  Alun Michael
  The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as the sole national body for the accreditation, against international standards, of certification and inspection bodies, testing and calibration laboratories. Defra uses UKAS accreditation services whenever it is appropriate to do so.

  Eggs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of eggs sold were(a) free range and (b) intensively farmed in the last year for which records are available. [89086]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2003]: In 2001 the proportions of total throughput of UK egg packing stations by type of egg production system were as follows:

  Percentage

  Free Range

  22.9

  Laying Cages

  71.7

  Barn

  5.4

  Farming
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to encourage the formation of co-operatives among farmers; and if she will make a statement. [88866]

  Mr. Morley
  We have been working with an industry led steering group on the development of proposals for a new body called English Farming and Food Partnerships to encourage greater co-operation and collaboration between producers. It will aim to enable farmers to become more competitive by advocating collaboration, providing specialist advice and project delivery, and through training and education. It is intended that the body will be launched early this year.

  We have also announced that projects which aim to strengthen and expand collaborative activity among farmers will be one of the priorities of the new Agricultural Development Scheme. The Rural Enterprise Scheme offers grants for the formation or development of collaborative groups to market quality products. Collaborative groups of producers are also eligible to apply for capital grants under the Processing and Marketing Grant scheme.

  We are also exploring what legislative or fiscal constraints or disincentives to the development of agricultural co-operatives might exist.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason slaughter premiums are included in foot and mouth disease valuations after April 2001, but not before. [88593]

  Mr. Morley
  This is not the case. Foot and mouth disease culled cattle did not meet the criteria for receipt of the slaughter premium subsidy. Compensation was based either on market valuation, and thus needed no adjustment, or, from 22 March to 29 July alternatively, the standard values, which were set at fixed rates including the value of the subsidy.

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average price per kilogram dead weight for pigmeat was in June each year from 1990. [87292]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the price for pigs in pence per kilogram deadweight for June each year from 1990.

  Deadweight pig prices (pence per kilogram deadweight) for each June from 1990

  Date (June)

  Price p/kg/dw £

  1990

  138.24

  1991

  113.22

  1992

  121.21

  1993

  117.39

  1994

  109.84

  1995

  122.41

  1996

  150.40

  1997

  134.03

  1998

  91.38

  1999

  84.51

  302W

  Deadweight pig prices (pence per kilogram deadweight) for each June from 1990

  Date (June)

  Price p/kg/dw £

  2000

  98.96

  2001

  103.01

  2002

  103.39

  Rural Economies
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to support rural economies, with special reference to communications links. [86776]

  Alun Michael
  The new rural Public Service Agreement sets targets for increasing productivity in the least well performing rural areas and improving service accessibility. Both sets of targets require good quality communications links, both physical and electronic.

  Welfare Milk Scheme
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the dairy industry about the impact of the proposed changes to the welfare milk scheme; and if she will make a statement. [88979]

  Mr. Morley
  The Dairy Industry Association was represented at a meeting which my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Lord Whitty, held jointly with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mrs. Blears), on 24 October 2002 to discuss the proposed reform of the welfare food scheme. This followed earlier discussions my hon. Friend had had with the Association.

CABINET OFFICE

  Accreditation
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the Office is doing to support the Government's policy on accreditation. [88093]

  Mr. Alexander
  The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as the sole national body for the accreditation, against international standards, of certification and inspection bodies, testing and calibration laboratories. My Department has engaged in a number of useful discussions with UKAS and are currently developing with them new assessment procedures in relation to the Charter Mark scheme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Indian Ocean Territories
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the planned assistance is to elected representatives of the Bois people
  303W
  by the British Indian Ocean Territories administration in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [89383]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no specific plans to assist any representatives of the Chagossian community in the next financial year. However, the BIOT Government has stated that it will consider reinstating the visit to the outer islands of the archipelago of a group of Chagossians which had to be cancelled earlier this year.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance was offered to the group of British Indian Ocean Territories people who arrived in the UK on 16 September travelling on UK passports. [89384]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Although British citizens are not automatically entitled to benefits on arrival in the UK, the UK passport holders within this group were offered assistance from Crawley social services to find accommodation and employment. This help was also provided for their non-British family members.

  Caspian Sea
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with EU representatives and countries surrounding the Caspian Sea regarding the securing of energy resources in the Caspian Sea region for European markets. [88860]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Ministers and officials discuss Caspian energy issues with governments in the Caspian region and with EU partners on a regular basis. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Kazakh Foreign Minister Tokaev on 2 December and discussed UK energy investment in Kazakhstan. My hon. Friend the Minister of Energy and Construction (Mr. Wilson) visited Moscow recently and discussed energy issues, including the Caspian, with the Russian Energy Minister. Caspian energy issues are regularly discussed between EU partners and those Caspian countries with which the EU has Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan).

  EU Diplomatic Service
  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the establishment of(a) an EU diplomatic academy and (b) an EU diplomatic service. [89127]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are content with the idea of an EU diplomatic academy which would exist alongside member states' national training arrangements, as suggested in the report from the External Relations Working Group of the Convention on the Future of Europe. We will remain engaged in the debate on this issue as it develops.

  On the establishment of an EU diplomatic service, we believe that it remains for EU member states to organise their respective bilateral diplomatic services at the national level, though co-ordination and co-location of diplomatic missions with EU partners may be appropriate. There are already 138 bilateral and
  304W
  5 multilateral delegations overseas which represent the Commission abroad. As the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy develops under the Council of Ministers and its High Representative, currently Javier Solana, there will be increased demands upon the delegations of both the Commission and member states.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what security concerns were raised regarding EU enlargement at the Copenhagen summit. [88951]

  Mr. MacShane
  There was no discussion at the Copenhagen European Council of security concerns regarding EU enlargement. The conclusions of the summit emphasise that enlargement"testifies to the common determination of the peoples of Europe to come together in a Union that has become a driving force for peace, democracy, stability and prosperity on our continent".

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will identify the independent studies on migration referred to in his written statement of 16 December 2002,Official Report, columns 537–551, on EU enlargement and free movement of workers. [89247]

  Mr. MacShane
  Successive independent studies have indicated that there is unlikely to be a large influx of workers from the new member states to the UK after accession. Two recent examples include: Bauer, Thomas K and Zimmerman, Klaus F (1999), "Assessment of Possible Migration Pressures and its Labour Market Impact Following EU Enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe", and Boeri, Tito and Bruecker, Herbert (2000), "The Impact of Enlargement on Employment and Labour Markets in the EU Member States".

  Murder (Overseas)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are open to the Government to seek legal redress in the event of a United Kingdom citizen being murdered overseas by the forces of art occupying power. [88610]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The steps available would depend on the circumstances of any particular case. The UK's rules applying to international claims were published in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 37 (1998) 1006–08.

  National Missile Defence
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contradiction there has been with NATO member states on national missile defence; and if he will make a statement. [89380]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Prague summit underlined the commitment of all our NATO allies to examining ways to address the threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation through an appropriate mix of political and defence efforts. As a follow on to work on protecting deployed forces using theatre missile defences, NATO partners agreed to set up a new
  305W
  feasibility study to examine options for protecting alliance territory, forces and population centres against the full range of missile threats.

  Somalia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what UK representation there is at the peace negotiations on the future of Somalia; and if he will make a statement. [89375]

  Mr. Rammell
  The deputy high commissioner in Nairobi attended the opening ceremony of the Somalia National Reconciliation Conference on 15 October 2002 in Eldoret, Kenya. Experts from the U K attended some of the early sessions of the conference and we have had an expert in Eldoret since 2 December 2002.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are in operation for UK diplomatic representation in Somalia; and if he will make a statement. [89376]

  Mr. Rammell
  The British Embassy in Mogadishu has been closed since 1990 for security reasons. Coverage of Somalia is provided by the British Embassy in Addis Ababa and by the British High Commission in Nairobi.

  Syria (Elhannan Tannenbaum)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) the Syrian Government, (b) the Syrian ambassador in London, (c) the head of Hizballah and (d) the International Red Cross in respect of medical treatment for Mr. Elhannan Tannenbaum during his captivity. [88590]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  HMG has made a number of representations to governments in the middle east about the fate of the missing Israelis, including Elhannan Tannenbaum, and will continue to do so, pressing particularly for access to the hostages for the International Committee of the Red Cross. Most recently I raised them with the Syrian Foreign Minister, Farouk Al Shara'a, in London during the Syrian President's official visit to the UK on 16 to 18 December 2002. Our ambassadors in Beirut and Damascus also raised the missing men with their host governments, who took note of our interest on 3 October 2002 and 19 September 2002 respectively. On 12 December 2001, our ambassador in Beirut raised hostage taking in general terms with Hizballah. On each occasion we emphasised our absolute opposition to hostage taking, and that those holding hostages should free them at once.

  Our ambassador in Tel Aviv met families of the missing men, including Mr. Tannenbaum's son, on 9 September 2002

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UK Government have taken to ensure that the Liberian Government, under UN Security Council resolution 1408 (2002), has established a transparent and internationally verifiable audit regime to ensure that revenue derived from the Liberian timber industry 306W
  is used for legitimate social, humanitarian and development purposes, and not for purchasing arms, and if he will make a statement. [89069]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: We regret that the Government of Liberia have not yet established an audit regime, and we remain concerned that revenues derived from logging activities are used to purchase arms in breach of UN sanctions. We have made repeated calls in the United Nations Security Council for the Government of Liberia to instigate an internationally verifiable and rigorous audit of their timber and shipping revenues as required under UNSCR 1408. We have briefed two potential auditors. Unfortunately, after discussion with the Government of Liberia, both decided not to undertake the contract.

  Turkey/Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on discussions with Turkey about the decision to admit Cyprus as a candidate member of the European Union. [88985]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to his Turkish counterpart during the Copenhagen European Council. They discussed the step forward Copenhagen signalled in Turkey's own candidacy and also touched on Cyprus, including the EU's continued wish to see a reunited island accede.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of Algeria on the future of the western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [89377]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I met Amine Kherbi the Algerian Presidential Special Envoy when he visited London to discuss western Sahara last July. Officials in London, Algiers and New York are in regular contact with their Algerian counterparts.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive proposals from the UN special representative on the future governance of the western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [89379]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The mandate for MINURSO, the UN mission for a referendum in western Sahara is due to expire on 31 January 2003. We expect the UN Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the situation before that date.

PRIME MINISTER

  Referendums
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2002,Official Report, column 811W, what criteria he (a) applied and (b) applies in determining whether referendums are appropriate on (i) devolution and (ii) further European union. [89317]
  307W
  The Prime Minister
  The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) provides a generic statutory framework for the conduct of referendums held across the United Kingdom, or a referendum held in Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland, or in any region in England. There are no criteria, set out either in the PPERA or elsewhere, for deciding when it is appropriate to hold a referendum on a particular issue.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Community Sports Initiatives
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to develop a local agency approach for(a) gaining access to, and (b) supporting funding for community sports initiatives; and if she will make a statement. [89999]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England is, at my request, working on a programme of modernisation and restructuring. A key feature of the programme is the devolution of greater responsibility for funding decisions to the

  Development

  Resources

  School Sport Co-ordinators

  £40 million

  Community Club Development Programme

  £20 million

  Step into Sport Volunteering Project

  £4 million

  Coach development

  £3 million

  New Opportunities Fund—School Sport and PE Programme

  £581 million (between 2001 and 2005)

  Space for Sport and the Arts

  £130 million (between 2001 and 2004)

  Sport England Grant in Aid

  £38.275 million (much of this will be directed to programmes for young people and grassroots sport.)

  Lottery Sports Fund

  £178 million (almost 80 per cent. of this will be allocated to youth and grassroots sport)

  The Department for Education and Skills will also be investing significant resources in sports provision in schools including £184 million for school sport coordinators and 115 million for specialist sports colleges over the next three years and £10 million for sporting playgrounds in 2003–04.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with European colleagues regarding(a) resources for and (b) co-operation in securing international sporting events in European countries. [88730]

  Mr. Caborn
  I meet ministerial counterparts in EU member states at a range of international fora. In the course of these meetings, I have discussed major sporting events.

  In the UK, sport's national governing bodies are responsible for securing the resources necessary for bidding for major international events, assisted where appropriate with Lottery and other funding from UK Sport and Sport England. Other EU member states have similar arrangements. It is the nature of the bidding process that national governing bodies compete for the rights to host events. As such, the scope for co-operation is limited to ensuring that fair criteria for bidding nations are applied by international sporting organisations.
  308W
  regions. To facilitate this process the regional sports boards are being reconstituted as sub-committees of Sport England. New chairs and members are being appointed, with the new boards becoming operational in April this year. Membership will comprise of representatives of local government, voluntary sport, education, health and private sectors. The boards will, in consultation with other regional agencies and local interests including regional assemblies, regional development agencies, regional cultural consortia, local, education and health authorities, produce regional sports strategies which will reflect national sporting priorities. The strategies will inform decision making by Sport England's regional offices on funding for community sports initiatives in their regions.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department intends to spend in the next year developing sport at(a) youth and (b) grassroots levels. [89553]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department and the National Lottery will be investing the following resources in 2003–04 in the development of youth and grass roots sport.

  Sporting Events
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received regarding the staging of major sporting events in England; and if she will make a statement. [88306]

  Mr. Caborn
  Government are currently assessing whether or not to support a bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games in London. We will take forward the recommendation of the strategy unit to create a strategy for bidding for mega events and we will consider with UK Sport how to help organisations bid more effectively for major sporting events.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which bodies his Department makes appointments; how many members there are(a) in total and (b) in each body; and how many of those appointed are (i) businessmen, (ii) businessmen in SMEs and (iii) businessmen in micro-businesses. [87392]
  309W
  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 607W.

  Asylum Seekers (Somalia)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in each of the past ten years from Somalia have(a) applied for asylum, (b) been recognised as refugees, (c) been granted exceptional leave to remain, (d) been removed to a third country, (e) made a voluntary departure and (f) returned to Somalia. [89378]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the asylum applications, and grants of asylum or exceptional leave to remain (ELR), for Somali nationals over the last ten years.

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, and initial decisions1,2 1992–2001, Somalia

  Initial Decisions

  Cases considered under normal procedures4,5

  Backlog clearance exercise6

  Applications received3

  Granted asylum

  Granted ELR

  Refused

  Granted asylum or ELR under backlog criteria

  Refused under backlog criteria7

  1992

  1,575

  25

  2,210

  320

  —

  —

  1993

  1,465

  45

  3,075

  210

  —

  —

  1994

  1,840

  5

  1,575

  150

  —

  —

  1995

  3,468

  10

  2,205

  185

  —

  —

  1996

  1,780

  15

  3,580

  235

  —

  —

  1997

  2,730

  985

  1,015

  305

  —

  —

  1998

  4,685

  2,330

  375

  100

  —

  —

  1999

  7,495

  130

  55

  120

  35

  5

  2000

  5,020

  5,310

  3,575

  2,365

  55

  15

  2001p

  6,465

  2,845

  1,960

  3,495

  —

  —

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  3 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2002.

  4 Information is on initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals ore other subsequent decisions.

  5 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  6 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  7 Included some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  p Provisional data.

  CCTV Cameras
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal prosecutions have been brought as a result of evidence obtained via CCTV cameras in each of the last five years. [88152]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of CCTV in combating crime in small retail businesses. [88649]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Under the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative, a potential of £170 million will be spent funding 684 public area CCTV schemes. Many of these schemes cover shopping areas. Under the
  310W
  The number of Somali nationals removed between July 2001 and June 2002 was 25. Details of the destination country are not collected centrally.

  "Removed" means principal applicants removed only and includes persons known to have departed `voluntarily' after the initiation of enforcement action against them, and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Returns Programmes run by the International Organization for Migration. There are no reliable removal data available prior to these dates by nationality.

  We do not know how many asylum applicants have left the United Kingdom voluntarily after they have been refused asylum or exceptional leave to remain without informing the Home Office.

  Information on asylum applications and decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from the end of February 2003 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl. html.

  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas Initiative, £15 million is being provided to improve security of small retailers, including the provision of CCTV where appropriate. In year one of the Initiative (2001–02) approximately 50 per cent. of projects involved the installation or upgrading of CCTV. This figure rose to almost 70 per cent. in year two (2002–03).

  Police operational experience and various other research studies show that CCTV has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.

  Early findings from a number of Home Office funded schemes are very encouraging:
  Alhambra Shopping Centre, Barnsley: Retail property crime dropped by 35 per cent. in first two years after launch in 1999.
  Thornton Estate, Hull: Shop theft has been reduced by 70 per cent. since inception in 2000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan of 9 July 2002, regarding his constituent Mr. A. Innes of Banff. [88644]

  Beverley Hughes
  The hon. Member was sent a reply to his letter on 31 December 2002. I am sorry for the delay in doing so.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 4 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Dr. Aisha Budhwani [89236]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 19 December 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 11 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Muhammad Khaziz. [89239]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 17 December 2002.

  Crime Reduction Partnerships
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funds are available to crime reductions partnerships to(a) install CCTV in problem crime areas and (b) combat crime in deprived areas. [88650]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Under the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative around £170 million will be spent between 1998 and 2003 funding 684 CCTV schemes. More than 520 of these schemes are already fully operational, with further schemes coming on line weekly.

  Although this initiative is now closed, other opportunities for funding of crime reduction measures, including CCTV schemes, currently exist under the Safer Communities, Communities Against Drugs and the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas initiatives.

  In 2002–03 the funds available under these three initiatives total £96-million Safe Communities Initiatives (SCI) £20 million, Communities Against Drugs (CAD) £70 million, Small Retailers in Deprived Areas (SRDA) £6 million.

  The Updated Drug Strategy was published in November 2002, and makes further progress towards breaking the link between drugs and crime by introducing or extending a range of interventions aimed at getting offenders with drug problems into drug treatment, in particular taking forward the work we have already done on Arrest Referral and Drug Treatment and Testing Orders, building on the pilot Drug Testing projects by extending this approach more widely, and developing better systems for throughcare and aftercare.

  In addition, in 2003–04, funding of £236 million has been made available from the National Pooled Budget for the treatment of adults and young people, from
  312W
  1999, £20 million has been made available over three years for Arrest Referral schemes and £53.7 million for Drug Treatment and Testing Orders.

  Foreign Prisoners (Deportation)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals serving prison sentences in prisons in England and Wales are to be deported on the completion of their prison sentence. [88838]

  Beverley Hughes
  As of 23 December 2002 there were 3,930 prisoners serving sentence who are known to be liable to be deported on completion of their custodial sentence. Each case is reviewed on its merits not sooner than 12 months before the prisoner might expect to be released having served the required period in custody.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the longest time was that a foreign national(a) man and (b) woman who had served a prison sentence waited on completion of that sentence to be deported from the UK in each of the last three years. [88839]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested is not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals held in prisons in England and Wales are awaiting deportation and have completed their prison sentence. [88841]

  Beverley Hughes
  As of 23 December 2002 there are 94 prisoners detained beyond completion of their criminal sentences awaiting deportation.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by him or his predecessor and (b) by Ministers in his Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87353]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 608W.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a national database of missing persons. [88186]

  Mr. Denham
  There are already arrangements nationally to record missing persons. Details of all missing persons should be recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) as soon as possible and in any case within 48 hours of their disappearance.

  Notification of all outstanding missing persons should be sent to the Police National Missing Persons Bureau (PNMPB) within 14 days. Most missing persons are found locally within this period. Forces will not, however, be precluded from forwarding information to the PNMPB in a shorter time if a particular case appears to warrant more urgent attention.
  313W
  The National Missing Persons Helpline (NMPH) also maintain a database for all missing persons reported to them and these files are not closed until there is a definite resolution to each case.

  The Home Office is currently working with key stakeholders within the area of missing persons, which includes the police and the NMPH, to increase co-operation and information sharing between Government Departments, and statutory and non-statutory agencies. £810,000 has been made available from the Invest to Save Budget (ISB), to put in place a new system for handling missing person cases. The aim of the project is the establishment of joint working arrangements between the United Kingdom police service and NMPH, together with improved recording and information sharing, to improve the service to missing persons and their families and to inform our understanding of the problem and develop strategies to address it. One of the key objectives of this project is to establish a unified national database of missing and unidentified people reported either to the police or to the NMPH.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for a common risk assessment between police services for missing persons. [88191]

  Mr. Denham
  The Association of Chief Police Officers' (ACPO) 'Manual of Guidance for the Management of Missing Persons' promotes the use of a three-tier risk assessment procedure consisting of low', 'medium', and 'high' risk categories with an additional list of factors that need to be considered when assessing this risk.

  Nationality Applications
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog is of applications for nationality. [88567]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 237W, which stated that information on the number of cases outstanding was not available.

  This is because information on the number of applications for nationality outstanding is not routinely published.

  Overseas British Citizens
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made to end the status of Overseas British Citizen and to provide those affected with full British citizenship; what representations he has received about amending the status of Overseas British Citizens; and if he will make a statement. [88625]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have no plans to end the status of British Overseas Citizen. We received representations during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill about the plight of British nationals who had no right of abode in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. As a result we amended the Bill to confer an entitlement to British citizenship, and with it the right of abode in the United Kingdom, on British Overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons 314W
  who have no other nationality and have not, since 4 July 2002, given up another nationality. The relevant section (s.12) will be commenced by order as soon as the administrative arrangements for receiving and considering applications are in place.

  The remaining provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981 relating to the statuses of British Overseas Citizen, British subject and British protected person will continue in force to cater for those who are unable or unwilling to acquire British citizenship, and to facilitate the voluntary renunciation of those statuses.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of people who would benefit from a change in the status of overseas British citizens. [88626]

  Beverley Hughes
  We estimate that there are now some 35,000 British overseas citizens and 10,000 British subjects and British protected persons who have no other citizenship. However, a margin of error must be allowed. These figures are based largely on personal contact with our overseas missions in the course of applications for passport and other consular services. There will be people who have not availed themselves of these services. Conversely, there will be people eligible for British citizenship who will not apply.

  Police
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department can take in circumstances where police forces refuse to investigate particular complaints. [88981]

  Mr. Denham
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department does not have the power to intervene in the recording or investigation of individual complaints.

  Under section 69 of the Police Act 1996, the chief officer of the force is the appropriate authority for recording and investigating complaints, other than complaints against senior officers. All complaints about the conduct of police officers must be recorded. It is for the chief officer to determine whether a complaint relates to the conduct of officers. A complaint may be resolved informally if the complainant consents and the chief officer is satisfied that the conduct complained of would not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings. Otherwise the complaint must be formally investigated.

  A new police complaints system will be introduced in April 2004 under provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002. This system will operate under the guardianship of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

  Under the new system, if the chief officer considers that a complaint should not be recorded because it does not relate to the conduct of police officers, he will be required to give reasons for that decision to the complainant. The complainant will have the right to appeal against that decision to the 1PCC. The IPCC will be able, if appropriate, to require the complaint to be recorded. It will also have the power to call in any complaint and to determine how any subsequent investigation should be handled.
  315W
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officer working days have been lost due to(a) stress and (b) illness (i) in each police force in England and Wales and (ii) in total in each of the last five years. [87912]

  Mr. Denham
  At present sickness absence in the police service is not broken down by categories such as stress or illness. Therefore it is not possible to express the number of working days lost due to stress or illness over the last five years.

  Sickness absence tables for the last five reporting periods will be placed in the Library, which give overall

  HMIC Matrix of Indicators 1997–98—sick leave

  Police days lost to sick leave

  Police days lost to long term sick leave

  Average number of police officers

  Police officers on long term sick leave

  Support staff working days lost to sick leave

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  25,456

  4,870

  15,035

  2,673

  2,976

  289

  53

  6,814

  7,738

  Bedfordshire

  11,621

  3,918

  7,058

  2,572

  1,086

  34

  11

  1,038

  3,566

  Cambridgeshire

  11,462

  2,556

  4.449

  1,098

  1,297

  16

  5

  2,134

  5,691

  Cheshire

  22,670

  5,746

  13,983

  2,758

  2,078

  81

  23

  2,861

  10,077

  City of London

  8,635

  1,691

  4,686

  722

  869

  17

  1

  1,555

  2,227

  Cleveland

  14,323

  3,387

  8,305

  1,743

  1,494

  35

  9

  1,663

  5,989

  Cumbria

  9,508

  2,362

  5,866

  1,497

  1,166

  17

  8

  1,340

  2,807

  Derbyshire

  19,977

  4.976

  12,622

  3,451

  1,772

  40

  7

  3,920

  8,626

  Devon and Cornwall

  24,153

  6,106

  13,722

  3,342

  2,929

  40

  7

  6,594

  9,869

  Dorset

  I1,764

  2,639

  6,025

  1,277

  1,287

  80

  19

  3,462

  5,368

  Durham

  12,854

  4,250

  7.663

  2,759

  1,486

  141

  47

  2,416

  3,878

  Dyfed-Powys

  8,831

  1,755

  4,936

  779

  1,007

  92

  22

  856

  3,832

  Essex

  26,240

  7,827

  14,045

  3,980

  2,959

  52

  14

  5,680

  15,629

  Gloucestershire

  9,748

  2,186

  5,633

  999

  1,123

  92

  18

  1,860

  4,516

  Greater Manchester

  81,843

  25,051

  55,050

  17,493

  6,930

  999

  274

  18,448

  41,793

  Gwent

  10,046

  2,530

  6,209

  1,737

  1,245

  15

  6

  1,271

  3,140

  Hampshire

  25,476

  11,189

  13,546

  8,011

  3,471

  272

  127

  16,383

  0

  Hertfordshire

  14,983

  5,479

  7,408

  3,230

  1,750

  13

  5

  1,900

  9,806

  Humberside

  20,258

  3,954

  9,575

  1,871

  2,056

  28

  6

  3,805

  5,801

  Kent

  28,115

  8,449

  14,355

  4,601

  3,285

  45

  6

  5,136

  11,906

  Lancashire

  29,335

  8,084

  12,850

  3,483

  3,344

  271

  80

  4,622

  10,011

  Leicestershire

  18,466

  5,375

  8,571

  2,456

  2,020

  20

  5

  3,579

  9,529

  Lincolnshire

  11,576

  2,889

  6,773

  1,921

  1,194

  24

  5

  1,469

  2,783

  Merseyside

  40,792

  13,219

  30,333

  10,442

  4,322

  66

  26

  6,275

  19,550

  Metropolitan Police

  310,220

  84,348

  185,460

  54,325

  27,028

  2,273

  592

  70,874

  170,711

  Norfolk

  12,432

  2,621

  4,259

  704

  1,451

  61

  9

  2,322

  5,039

  Northamptonshire

  12,107

  2,637

  5,013

  1,028

  1,182

  17

  8

  1,946

  4,024

  Northumbria

  35,457

  7,872

  27,636

  5,691

  3,437

  524

  110

  5,897

  11,884

  North Wales

  11,603

  2,279

  5,582

  1,000

  1,396

  20

  6

  1,730

  4,020

  North Yorkshire

  12,059

  2,866

  6,753

  1,548

  1,375

  28

  8

  1,925

  4,481

  Nottinghamshire

  22,928

  6,601

  13,795

  4,332

  2,341

  31

  14

  5,101

  12,320

  South Wales

  42,985

  7,162

  —

  —

  2,884

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  31,298

  7,529

  15,452

  3,609

  3,194

  72

  11

  4,822

  10,995

  Staffordshire

  22,074

  6,794

  7,203

  2,607

  2,258

  134

  47

  2,655

  8,773

  Suffolk

  7,829

  2,752

  4,613

  1,745

  1,189

  18

  7

  1,942

  3,208

  Surrey

  18,401

  3,597

  12,271

  2,085

  1,642

  211

  43

  2,687

  3,246

  Sussex

  29,587

  7,248

  15,182

  3,834

  3,063

  283

  77

  6,059

  13,378

  Thames Valley

  36,466

  10,934

  23,547

  7,575

  3,820

  59

  24

  5,487

  17,003

  Warwickshire

  11,132

  2,344

  5,263

  1,114

  933

  22

  5

  1,748

  4,239

  West Mercia

  19,040

  4,544

  8,331

  1,599

  2,036

  19

  7

  4,433

  8,776

  West Midlands

  66,784

  23,097

  33,729

  11,166

  7,194

  463

  148

  9,443

  37,901

  West Yorkshire

  47,587

  12,949

  21,219

  5,739

  5,215

  331

  79

  10,116

  17,622

  Wiltshire

  7,920

  2,299

  4,151

  1,345

  1,167

  10

  5

  1,923

  3,526

  Support staff working days lost to long term sick leave

  Average number of support staff

  Support staff on long term sick leave

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  4,255

  3,920

  1,573

  77

  86

  Bedfordshire

  556

  1,664

  551

  25

  70

  Cambridgeshire

  784

  1,987

  649

  1

  6

  Cheshire

  1,482

  5,356

  815

  6

  22

  City of London

  669

  1,320

  349

  3

  4

  Cleveland

  744

  3,161

  657

  4

  12

  Cumbria

  892

  1,328

  521

  3

  7

  Derbyshire

  2,625

  5,344

  934

  4

  23

  316W
  sickness absence figures on a force-by-force and a national basis.

  From next April forces will be expected to measure sickness absence according to a new dataset, issued by the Home Office last July. This dataset will recommend a series of sickness absence categories which it is recommended that forces use for internal management purposes in order to target treatment at the categories of sickness producing the most absence.

  Forces using these categories will, from the reporting period commencing in April, be able to break down their sickness absence figures into categories such as psychological disorders or infection.
  317W

  Support staff working days lost to long term sick leave

  Average number of support staff

  Support staff on long term sick leave

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,861

  4,698

  1,384

  8

  23

  Dorset

  2,073

  2,261

  805

  27

  35

  Durham

  1,597

  2,259

  618

  3

  5

  Dyfed-Powys

  348

  2,461

  404

  12

  42

  Essex

  2,923

  7,677

  1.471

  23

  13

  Gloucestershire

  1,045

  2,202

  491

  15

  38

  Greater Manchester

  11,599

  25,043

  3,207

  195

  436

  Gwent

  723

  1,588

  523

  1

  3

  Hampshire

  2,049

  6,639

  1,493

  41

  129

  Hertfordshire

  733

  4,356

  959

  2

  8

  Humberside

  1,964

  1,895

  920

  6

  9

  Kent

  2,982

  5,461

  1,485

  8

  17

  Lancashire

  1,652

  3,412

  1,398

  32

  62

  Leicestershire

  2,025

  4,434

  855

  4

  15

  Lincolnshire

  588

  1,250

  579

  5

  5

  Merseyside

  4,009

  12,077

  1,533

  9

  37

  Metropolitan Police

  37,940

  109,330

  13,705

  644

  1,764

  Norfolk

  568

  1,127

  727

  10

  20

  Northamptonshire

  951

  1,255

  694

  4

  4

  Northumbria

  3,541

  7,481

  1,479

  84

  163

  North Wales

  635

  1,318

  526

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  944

  2,317

  610

  2

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  2,836

  6,908

  1,212

  8

  20

  South Wales

  —

  —

  1,241

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  1,906

  2,836

  1,638

  7

  6

  Staffordshire

  1,727

  5,170

  911

  25

  68

  Suffolk

  1,308

  1,676

  634

  4

  7

  Surrey

  1,574

  1,082

  806

  65

  114

  Sussex

  3,197

  6,665

  1,457

  54

  100

  Thames Valley

  2,566

  8,108

  2,082

  5

  16

  Warwickshire

  982

  1,808

  435

  4

  4

  West Mercia

  2,143

  3,502

  1,066

  3

  10

  West Midlands

  3,823

  15,207

  3,329

  40

  148

  West Yorkshire

  5,181

  7,515

  2,558

  69

  111

  Wiltshire

  1,169

  1,561

  576

  5

  5

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Government Actuary to investigate police pension costs. [88504]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 January 2003]: As stated in the National Policing Plan, the Government are considering options for modernising police pensions to make them more flexible and affordable for future entrants. We are also seeking to meet the needs of police authorities and chief officers for a scheme which brings greater certainty about the financial impact on individual police forces.

  The Government Actuary's Department is giving such advice as is necessary regarding police pension costs and options for reform.

  Prince of Wales (Gifts)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the police received a report of the existence of a written authority from the Prince of Wales to Harold Brown to dispose of a gold wedding ring; and if he will make a statement. [86245]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that, at the conclusion of the hearing on 3 December, the existence of a written authority from the Prince of Wales to Harold Brown to dispose of a gold wedding ring was made known to the court by defence counsel.

  Settlement Applications
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average his Department took to consider an application for settlement in each year since 1990. [89459]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no published data on decision times specifically to determine applications for settlement. We aim to screen all postal applications within three weeks and decide those that are straightforward at that point. However, because of the high number of applications in the latter part of 2002, this is, regrettably, taking around 10 weeks on average. Some that need further inquiries or more detailed consideration can take around 12 months to decide. We are taking measures to improve this situation and expect to make significant progress towards our three-week target for initial screening over the next two to three months, and to reduce the turnaround time for deciding more complex cases.

  Solicitors (Immigration Advice)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking on solicitors who fail to give appropriate assistance to clients seeking to regulate their immigration status in the UK. [89062]

  Beverley Hughes
  Anyone dissatisfied with the immigration advice or immigration services provided by their solicitor may complain to the Office of the
  319W
  Immigration Services Commissioner, which was established under Part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Any subsequent disciplinary action is a matter for the relevan designated professional body. Complaints may also be submitted direct to the particular solicitor's professional body. The Commissioner must report annually to the Secretary of State as to the effectiveness of each designated professional body in regulating its members regarding the provision of immigration advice or immigration services. The Commissioner's first such report was incorporated in his Annual Report for 2001–02 which the Secretary of State presented to Parliament on 23 July 2002.

  Terrorism
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to ensure that communications between the emergency services and local authorities are compatible in the event of a terrorist attack. [88406]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  In a major incident, including a terrorist attack, it will fall to the police to co-ordinate the emergency response, as laid down in the Home Office guidance manual, "Dealing With Disaster". This is closely co-ordinated within the framework maintained by the Cabinet Office, working with the Home Office as Department with overall responsibility for counter terrorism. The Cabinet Office has regular contact with local authorities in England and Wales on this issue, through the provision of formal guidance, funding and coordination of local arrangements with national policy. The system for communications between the emergency services and local authorities has been well tried and tested through the many major incidents in which they are involved.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with local authorities on preparations for a terrorist attack. [88407]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local authorities have a general role in emergency planning, preparing to deal with the consequences of all emergencies, including those arising from terrorist attack. This is closely co-ordinated within the framework maintained by the Cabinet Office, working with the Home Office as Department with overall responsibility for counter terrorism. The Cabinet Office has regular contact with local authorities in England and Wales on this issue, through the provision of formal guidance, funding and co-ordination of local arrangements with national policy.

  Visa Processing
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are issued to hon. Members hotlines on what length of time must expire in the process of a visa application before an hon. Member's staff are permitted to make enquiries to the hon. Member's hotline; and what steps he has taken to communicate these guidelines to hon. Members. [88701]
  320W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Member of Parliament's hotline was set up to deal with general immigration inquiries of an urgent or compassionate nature. From 1 July 2002 this has been expanded to include urgent and compassionate enquiries about asylum, appeal or removal casework.

  I wrote to all the hon. Members on 18 July setting out the new arrangements and enclosing copies of an updated leaflet "Information for Members of Parliament about immigration and nationality enquiries".

  Hon. Members may make inquiries about the progress of applications at any time. However, applications for variation of leave to enter or remain are dealt with in order of receipt in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). Initial consideration is currently taking 10 weeks. Complex cases which cannot be decided at this stage can take around 12 months to be determined. However, if the inquiry is about an application which is still awaiting a decision by IND for over six months or where compelling evidence is provided of compassionate reasons for resolving the application quickly, the hotline and casework teams will endeavour to complete it or explain why that is not possible.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Incitement to Racial Hatred
  21. Mike Gapes
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service works to secure a higher percentage of prosecutions in cases of alleged incitement to racial hatred. [89227]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and I regard it as of great importance that those who commit crimes of racial hatred are brought to justice.

  Prosecutions of race hate crimes are monitored closely by the CPS. Last year Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service produced a report on such prosecutions and made recommendations which the CPS is acting on.

  Fraud
  24. Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Solicitor-General when she next expects to meet representatives of the small firm sector to examine ways of combating fraud perpetrated against businesses. [89230]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have not met with representatives of small firms of organisations to discuss ways of combating fraud perpetrated against businesses. However, I meet regularly with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to examine methods on combating, investigating and prosecuting fraud.

  The Serious Fraud Office investigates and prosecutes cases involving serious and complex fraud and is aware that small businesses are at risk from fraud, whether internal or external, in the same way as larger companies.
  321W
  27. Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General what expertise has been developed in the Crown Prosecution Service for dealing with fraud cases. [89233]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service deals with fraud cases of all types, from simple "high street" frauds to major corporate frauds. The most complex cases do require highly specialised knowledge, for instance knowledge of Stock Exchange practices. The Casework Directorate of CPS Headquarters has a number of specialist lawyers, working with dedicated accountancy support, to deal with those cases.

  Elsewhere in the CPS special casework lawyers deal with large fraud cases, particularly in the larger urban areas where these tend to arise. The capacity of the CPS to devote more senior lawyer resources to complex cases, including fraud, has increased following its restructuring in 1999 and a significant increase in resources in recent years. In response to the recent inspection of the Casework Directorate by HMCPS Inspectorate, the CPS will shortly be considering how best it can deploy its resources to deal with fraud cases in the future.

  Prosecutions
  25. Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action she is taking to reduce the number of cases prosecuted but discontinued before trial. [89231]

  Total number of emergency calls 1996–97 to 2001–02 (thousand)

  Ambulance service NHS trust

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Percentage increase

  Rural services

  Cumbria

  19.0

  20.7

  26.0

  25.6

  26.9

  29.6

  9.8

  Lancashire

  96.7

  107.7

  113.9

  119.4

  125.3

  136.4

  8.8

  Urban

  Greater Manchester

  215.5

  222.5

  229.5

  259.6

  272.5

  284.0

  4.2

  Mersey Regional

  183.5

  193.7

  221.7

  222.6

  228.1

  243.9

  6.9

  Source:

  DOH Health statistical health bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2001–02"-Form KA34

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how his Department ensures that primary care teams are made aware of the rights of(a) refugees and (b) asylum seekers to permanent GP registration. [86161]

  Ms Blears
  National health service medical primary care services are available free to all persons who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. Refugees and asylum seekers given leave to remain in the UK, or awaiting the results of an application to remain, are regarded as ordinarily resident and entitled to full NHS general practitioner treatment.

  This will be re-emphasised in a resource pack for those who work with asylum seekers, which has been developed with the Refugee Council and will be issued early this year. Department of Health initiatives such as local development schemes and personal medical services contracts also help locally in registering refugees and asylum seekers with GPs.
  322W
  The Solicitor-General
  A number of steps are being taken to reduce the percentage of cases that are discontinued before trial:To ensure the right evidence there is closer working between the police and CPS.
  Better support for victims and witnesses.
  More CPS lawyers to ensure good quality case preparation.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average response time was for ambulances in Clitheroe, Lancashire, at the latest date for which figures are available; and what the average response time was in each of the last five years; [83789]

  (2) what the average response time is for ambulances in (a) Lancashire, (b) the north west of England and (c) each NHS trust in England at the latest date for which figures are available: and what the average response time was in each of the last five years. [83790]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about ambulance response times is not available specifically for Clitheroe.

  The latest information available about the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's target response times, including the Lancashire Ambulance NHS Trust and those covering the north west of England, is shown in the table.

  Cancer Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the most recent national average referral rate for non-urgent cases of suspected breast cancer was. [87474]

  Ms Blears
  Cancer referral guidelines were issued in March 2000 to help general practitioners identify patients with suspected cancer, including breast cancer and to refer them urgently where appropriate. We do not collect data on those patients who are routinely referred for investigation. The cancer services collaborative is working in every cancer network to modernise cancer care by streamlining and redesigning the care pathway ensuring all patients receive speedy diagnosis and treatment.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to publish information on waiting times for treatment of cancers not covered by NHS cancer plan targets before 2005. [87962]
  323W
  Ms Blears
  The NHS Cancer Plan set out new goals to reduce waiting times for cancer treatment. Data is currently published by geographical area on the Department of Health website for the two week outpatient waiting time standard and the treatment targets for 2001. Reporting of performance against the December 2002 target of a two month maximum wait, from urgent general practitioner referral to treatment for breast cancer, will begin in 2003. National reporting of performance against the 2005 targets, which relate to all cancers, will similarly begin when those targets come into force. Arrangements are being put in place to enable those providing and commissioning services for cancer patients to monitor progress in the interim.

  Cancer Plan Website
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it cost to set up the NHS Cancer Plan website. [89358]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Cancer Plan website is part of the overall Department of Health website. It is not possible to calculate either the costs of developing or maintaining a particular area of the Department of Health website. The content and format of the Cancer Plan website is currently being revised and will be launched this year.

  Cancer Registries
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which Department the Cancer Registries are responsible; whether they are covered by the code of practice on access to Government information; and if he will make a statement on the availability to the public of data from the Cancer Registries. [83249]

  Ms Blears
  Individual cancer registries in England are responsible to regional directors of public health who will act to ensure that both local and national requirements are met on behalf of the Department of Health.

  Information collected by cancer registries in England is published either by the individual registries or via the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in an aggregate format to protect patient confidentiality.

  Cancer registries conform to both the national health service code of practice on patient information and the code of practice defined by the United Kingdom Association of Cancer Registries (UKACR).

  Information processed by ONS on behalf of the Welsh cancer registry is published both by that registry and via the National Assembly for Wales.

  Care Plan Costs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned over the past 10 years on the economic costs of complying with the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 in(a) performing assessments and (b) developing care plans for patients being discharged from hospital. [85706]

  Jacqui Smith
  While the Department has commissioned a range of research into the implementation of the changes introduced by the NHS and Community Care 324W
  Act 1990, none of this research looked specifically at the costs of undertaking assessments and developing care plans for patients being discharged from hospital. In general, however, the research confirms the cost-effectiveness of well-organised assessment and care management for vulnerable older people and other adults in hospital or the community.

  Carers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) carers and (b) young carers of school age there are in (i) the Twickenham constituency, (ii) the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and (iii) London; what support is given to (A) carers and (B) young carers of school age; and if he will make a statement. [88819]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information on numbers of carers is not held centrally. Carers are entitled to an assessment to determine their needs as carers and eligibility for support. The Carers Grant, worth £100 million next year, provides money for local councils to provide short breaks for carers to enable them to continue in their caring role. Following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement in July the Grant will continue until 2006, during which time it will more than double to £185 million to provide extended care and 130,000 further breaks to carers.

  Additionally for young carers we are supporting the development of over 100 projects across the country to give carers of school age access to appropriate advice, information and support or leisure.

  Complementary Medicine
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which complementary treatments and therapies are available through the NHS. [88362]

  Ms Blears
  Front-line health professionals decide which complementary therapies to provide, depending on the evidence of their effectiveness and the availability of properly regulated practitioners. A survey of primary care trusts, conducted by the University of Sheffield in 2001, found that acupuncture, homeopathy, medical herbalism and osteopathy or chiropractic were most widely used.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days were lost in the NHS in(a) England and (b) Wales due to delayed discharges in the last 12 months; and what was the estimated cost to the NHS. [82836]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: There was an average of 5,989 delayed transfers of care of patients of all ages in England per day, between the quarter beginning September 2001 and ending in June 2002. The broad estimate of the cost to the national health service where these patients have experienced delayed discharge in an acute hospital bed for this period is around £600,000 per day.
  325W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Shropshire were classed as delayed discharges in each NHS trust in the last year for which figures are available. [83186]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested for Shropshire is shown in the table. The figures are not directly comparable because of the structural changes within the national health service.

  Numbers of delayed discharges of patients of all ages by primary care trust

  Number

  Quarter 2 2002–03

  10

  Quarter 1 2002–03

  5

  Numbers of delayed discharges of patients of all ages by health authorities

  Quarter 4 2001–02

  9

  Quarter 3 2001–02

  27

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 963W, on delayed discharges, (1) if he will (a) list the organisations his Department consulted and (b) set out the methodology his Department used when calculating the extra £100 million for social services; [86923]

  (2) what (a) assumptions and (b) data were used to make his estimate of the £100 million cost of transfer from the NHS to social services. [88562]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer dated 16 December 2002]: The additional £100 million funding for social services announced on 28 November was not the subject of a formal consultation.

  The assumptions underlying the £100 million figure are as follows: assuming that local authorities reach the targets they have set themselves to reduced delayed transfers of care by March 2003, and which are conditions of their receiving Building Care Capacity Grant for that year, there will be a total of 4,200 delays on average per day. Of the 4,200 delays, it is assumed that 1,900 would be at the £100 rate per day and 2,300 at the £120 rate per day. Of these, it is assumed that social services might be responsible for some 60 per cent. On that basis and on the assumption that social services make no further progress in reducing delays beyond the March 2003 targets, the total sum that social services departments would have to pay in reimbursements to the National Health Service per year would be around £100 million.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the rates of delayed discharge were for health authorities in each of the last four quarters in the areas of(a) 3 star social services, (b) 2 star social services, (c) 1 star social services and (d) 0 star social services; [87322]
  (2) which 3 star social services departments chose not to allocate their funding for Delayed Discharges, Special Grant, 2002–03, to reducing delayed discharge; [87323]
  326W
  (3) what assessment he has made of the effects of the special grant for delayed discharges made available to social services departments in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [87324]

  Jacqui Smith
  The grant was used in a variety of ways, consistent with its purpose. High proportions of the grant were used to fund residential and nursing care placements, and increase fees. The funding allocated to councils will provide for a continued reduction in the number of delayed discharges from hospitals, so that 20 per cent. fewer beds are blocked in March 2003, compared to March 2002.

  The National Health Service Quarter 2 (September 2002) figures on delayed discharge and emergency readmission have been placed in the Library, along with earlier quarters' data. These data are not available by council areas. Delayed discharges are a joint health and social services indicator, but data are submitted to the Department on the basis of NHS organisations, the data having been agreed with their social services partners. No social services departments chose not to allocate their building care capacity grant funding to reduce delayed discharge, as this was a condition of their receipt of the grant.

  Depo-Provera
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of the Depo-Provera injection; what the effect is of the level of availability; and what steps his Department is taking in response. [88242]

  Ms Blears
  Departmental officials became aware in early November that there was a shortage of the injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera, which was caused by production problems. Officials have been in regular contact with the manufacturer of this product to assist rapid action to alleviate the shortage. Doctors were advised that if Depo-Provera was unavailable locally they should agree with women individually the most suitable alternative form of contraception for them. Supplies of this product are now available but due to the previous shortages, it may take several weeks for the situation to fully return to normal. Departmental officials will continue to closely monitor the situation.

  Drug Treatment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of people suffering from addiction to class A and B drugs are receiving treatment for that addiction. [88766]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not available centrally.

  In England, during the year 2000–01 the overall number of drug users reported as being in treatment was around 118,500.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health of those undergoing drug treatment, how many(a) were referred by a GP, (b) are under GP supervision, (c) are heroin addicts, (d) have a dual diagnosis, (e) are prescribed (i) methadone and (ii) Subutex and (f) are in residential rehabilitation. [86695]

  Ms Blears
  Information on drug users undergoing treatment is as follows:
  327W
  In 2001–02, 16 per cent. of drug users presenting to drug treatment agencies in England were reported as having been referred by a general practitioner1.

  In the six month period ending 31 March 2001 around 35,100 clients were reported at drug treatment agencies in England; around 1,900, or five per cent. were reported to be clients presenting to general practitioners2.

  In 2001–02, 73 per cent. of individual drug users who presented to drug treatment agencies in England were reported as having heroin as their main problem drug3.

  Information about dual diagnosis is not available centrally.

  In the six month period ending 31 March 2001, about 8,000 drug misusers presenting for treatment were reported as having been prescribed methadone, amounting to 60 per cent. of all those who had been prescribed a treatment drug, and 420 buprenorphine, or three per cent. Information was collected when the individual first presented for treatment and other drugs may subsequently have been prescribed, as treatment developed4.

  Sources:

  1 Statistical press release "Provisional Statistics from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System in England, 2001/02". http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/spndrugs0212.htm.

  2 Statistical bulletin "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases for the six months ending March 2001". http://www.doh.gov.uk,public/sb0207.htm.

  3 Statistical press release "Provisional Statistics from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System in England, 2001/02" http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/spndrugs0212.htm.

  4 Regional Drug Misuse Databases.

  Drug/Alcohol Treatment (Epsom)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2002,Official Report, columns 392–93W, if he will make a statement on the future of the Greenbank Drug and Alcohol Inpatient Unit at West Park in Epsom. [88361]

  Ms Blears
  Information on unit closures is not routinely collected centrally. However, I am advised by Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority that the Greenbank Unit is planned to close in March 2003. This decision was taken following a full public consultation.

  Surrey Oaklands National Health Service Trust has been working closely with service users and a multi-agency steering group to restructure services to meet the needs of a wider range of service users. This includes a stronger focus on drug users and socially excluded groups.

  Herbal Medicines Directive
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what pharmaceutical production and testing standards will be imposed on herbal remedies by the proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive. [88687]

  Ms Blears
  The production and testing standards under the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would be those which apply to herbal medicines with a marketing authorisation, but modified to the extent that there would not be a328W
  requirement to demonstrate the efficacy of a product for which a traditional use registration was sought. The proposed requirements are intended to provide appropriate consumer protection, for example, by ensuring that the correct ingredients of appropriate quality and free from unacceptable levels of contamination are used and that the proposed shelf life of the product can be supported. The specific requirements include meeting European guidelines on Good Manufacturing Practice for herbal medicines and compliance with the European Pharmacopoeia monographs for products of herbal origin.

  Home Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many households received older person home care in each of the last five years. [83765]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: At 31 March 2002, 661,000 older people were helped to live at home through the provision of a variety of community-based social services, an increase of 4 per cent., from 638,000 in March 1999. Community-based social services include day care, meals, transport and equipment as well as home care.

  Homeless People
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which studies are looking at screening homeless people more effectively; and when they will be finalised. [83324]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: I am not aware of any Government studies currently looking at the effectiveness of health screening programmes for homeless people.

  Hospital Discharge and Readmission
  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many delayed hospital discharges there were associated with(a) delays in housing adaptations, (b) assessment for re-housing needs, and (c) other services provided by local authority housing departments in each year since 1997; [85707]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the quarter 2 2002–03 emergency readmission and delayed discharge figures for over 75s, broken down by (a) region and (b) trust. [86870]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information from quarter 2 of 2002–03 on the numbers and percentage of delayed discharges and emergency readmissions for over 75s, at primary care trust level, has been placed in the Library. No further breakdown of this data is collected centrally.

  We have recently announced the introduction of the access and systems capacity grant, which is a special grant to local councils to expand community based social care services and reduce hospital discharge. This is the first specific departmental investment in home improvement agencies and will contribute to reductions in delayed discharges by prompt supply of housing repairs and adaptations.

  Informed Consent
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to legislate on the subject of informed consent by or on behalf of incompetent patients in advance of the implementation of European Directive 2001/20/CE. [86978]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans to introduce such legislation prior to the introduction of the regulations to implement European Directive 2001/20/EC.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under the age of 16 are receiving treatment for mental health problems. [88526]

  Jacqui Smith
  Children and adolescents with mental health problems are seen in a wide variety of health, social care, education and other settings, mainly at primary care level, by a wide variety of professionals. Information on total amounts is not collected centrally.

  National Drugs Treatment Monitoring System
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget for the national drugs treatment monitoring system is; and by how much the system is projected to exceed its budget. [88359]

  Ms Blears
  The development of the national drug treatment monitoring system (NDTMS) has been seen as a priority project and a substantial investment has been made not only to develop the system, but also to maintain it for the next seven years. The cost of the system was originally estimated as follows:

  £

  Cost of Development

  543,484

  Cost of support and maintenance over 7 years

  600,650

  Total cost over 7 years

  1,144,134

  As with any large scale project there will always be unforeseen additional requirements, which will need further investments. In the case of the NDTMS project, additional investments have been required to maintain the interim system and to ensure the development of the full software system remains on track. At present it is estimated that the original budget for the project has been exceeded by some 8 per cent.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the nature and objectives of the national drugs treatment monitoring system. [88360]

  Ms Blears
  The national drug treatment monitoring system (NDTMS) is the national system for collecting information about problem drug users presenting for and entering into structured drug treatment services. The NDTMS will also gather information on the number of people who sustain and complete treatment programmes. The primary function of the NDTMS is to provide information on the national drugs strategy treatment target:330W
  "To increase the participation of problem drug users in drug treatment programmes by 55 per cent. by 2004 and by 100 per cent. by 2008, and increase year on year the proportion of users successfully sustaining or completing treatment programmes".

  The system will become fully operational on 1 April 2003.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) nurses and (h) health care workers applied to the NHS Pensions Agency for permanent injury benefit for a disorder in the year from Apri12001 to March 2002; and how many were successful at (i) their first application and (ii) subsequent appeal; [89108]

  (2) how many (a) nurses and (b) health care workers applied to the NHS Pensions Agency for permanent injury benefit relating to muscular skeletal disorders in the year from April 2001 to March 2002; and how many were successful at (i) their first application and (ii) subsequent appeal. [89109]

  Mr. Hutton
  I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Reproductive Health Services
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he gave in each of the last five years to(a) Marie Stopes International, (b) International Planned Parenthood Federation, (c) British Pregnancy Advisory Service, (d) Pregnancy Advisory Service, (e) United Nations Population Fund and (f) Family Planning Association (UK) for the purpose of (i) abortion, (ii) family planning and (iii) other reproductive health services; and how much was given by his Department to other organisations, in each of the last five years for which figures are available, to promote reproductive (A) health care, (B) abortion and (C) family planning, broken down by organisation. [86857]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has not provided any funding to Marie Stopes International, International Planned Parenthood Federation, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the Pregnancy Advisory Service (which is no longer in existence) or the United Nations Population Fund in any of the last five years. Funding has been given to the organisations shown in the table.

  Funding for Brook Advisory Centres includes funding for various projects and core funding under the Section 64 General Scheme (Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968) to support the central office of this organisation for the purpose of reproductive health services and advice for young people aged under 25. Funding for the fpa includes funding for various projects and Section 64 funding to support the central office of the organisation. Funding for the Contraceptive Education Service is for the purposes of providing reproductive health advice and

  331W
  information to the public and health professionals. Funding for Education for Choice was to support specific projects for the purposes of education on

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total

  Brook Advisory Centres

  158,953

  126,460

  121,000

  120,000

  120,000

  646,413

  fpa (formerly the Family Planning Association)

  189,400

  315,500

  212,000

  209,000

  80,000

  1,005,900

  fpa (Contraceptive Education Service)

  900,000

  900,000

  900,000

  900,000

  975,000

  4,575,000

  Education for Choice

  31,000

  52,000

  83,000

  Fertility UK

  25,000

  35,000

  30,000

  30,000

  120,000

  1,248,353

  1,341,960

  1,264,000

  1,311,000

  1,175,000

  6,340,313

  Royal Alexandra Children's Hospital
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what NHS funding is allocated for total parental care(a) within the NHS and (b) administered at The Royal Alexandra Children's Hospital, Brighton. [81931]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available from the Department, as expenditure on total parenteral nutrition cannot be disaggregated centrally from funding allocations.

  Sexual Health
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent by the Government on sexual health in each of the last six years. [86569]

  Ms Blears
  Prior to the development of the sexual health and HIV strategy, there was no central departmental budget for sexual health. Funding was available under the Section 64 General Scheme (section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968) and other central budgets to fund a variety of projects and organisations involved in sexual health provision and health promotion. Allocations for HIV/AIDS, which were mainstreamed from April 2002; are shown in the table.

  Following publication of the sexual health and HIV strategy, new investment of £47.5 million was announced to support initiatives in the strategy. During 2001–02, we invested £5.5 million to prepare for implementation. During 2002–03, we have invested a further £14 million, including over £5 million in genitourinary medicine services, £1.5 million to roll out the chlamydia screening programme and £2 million to launch the national information campaign.

  The vast majority of funding for sexual health services is from mainstream national health service allocations to health authorities, up to March 2002, and primary care trusts.

  HIV/AIDS funding, England

  £ million

  NHS

  Local authorities

  Voluntary sector

  1996–97

  237.7

  13.7

  1.63

  1997–98

  251.9

  13.7

  1.52

  1998–99

  281.4

  13.7

  1.58

  1999–2000

  286.4

  15.5

  1.60

  2000–01

  289.4

  16.0

  1.32

  2001–02

  331.0

  16.5

  1.16

  332W
  pregnancy choices and funding for Fertility UK was Section 64 funding to support the central office of this organisation for the purposes of family planning.

  Social Work Admissions System
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications were received by the social work admissions system in each of the last five years. [84808]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The number of individual social worker applications received by the social work admissions system in each of the last five years were:

  Year

  Number

  1998

  6,254

  1999

  5,175

  2000

  4,723

  2001

  4,703

  2002

  5,093

  We also know that additional applications are likely to have been made direct to the course providers.

  Unpasteurised Milk and Cream
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to ban the sale of unpasteurised(a) milk and (b) cream. [88950]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans to ban sales of unpasteurised milk and cream in England and Wales.

  In Northern Ireland, there are no known sales of these products.

  In Scotland, sales of raw cows' drinking milk and cream are banned, and there are plans to extend a ban to all raw drinking milk and cream.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many telephone calls were made to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in(a) January, (b) February and (c) March in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001, and (iv) 2002. [86994]

  Malcolm Wicks [pursuant to his reply, 17 December 2002, Official Report, c. 772W]: The information requested is in the table.
  333W

  Number of calls to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  Year

  January

  February

  March

  1999

  13,925

  13,798

  16,901

  2000

  14,272

  19,285

  23,118

  2001

  17,340

  18,191

  28,093

  2002

  18,621

  15,871

  18,199

  Source:

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline

  Pension Credit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners within the(a) Twickenham constituency, (b) London borough of Richmond upon Thames and (c) London will benefit from the introduction of the pension tax credit in October 2003; and if he will make a statement. [88817]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates of Pension Credit entitlement are not available on an individual constituency or regional basis due to the insufficient sample cases in the survey data used. However just under half of all pensioner households across Great Britain will be eligible for Pension Credit. Such information as is available relates to pensioners receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee and is as follows:

  Area

  MIG Recipients1

  Twickenham PC

  1,600

  LB Richmond upon Thames

  2,700

  London Government Office Region

  212,100

  1 As at August 2002

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2002

  Pension Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what criteria will be placed on deciding eligibility to a home visit from the Pension Service; and which benefit forms the visiting officers will be trained to help pensioners with. [86884]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: Where a pensioner requires a home visit from The Pension Service we expect to be able to provide one. Pensioners will have that option. There is as such no set criteria for deciding eligibility to a home visit although we expect the vast majority of queries will be dealt with swiftly and effectively without the need for a home visit. Indeed a simple call to a pension centre is likely to be the most effective and satisfactory way of dealing with customers' inquiries without the delay of appointments.

  Our local service staff will be trained on pensioner entitlements including how to help our customers fill out application forms. This training will include detailed completion of claim forms for Minimum Income Guarantee, Retirement Pension, Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Invalid Care allowance and Pension Credit. In addition staff will be trained to signpost customers with possible entitlement to Industrial Injuries, Constant Attendance Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, Social Fund, Bereavement Benefit and general NHS information.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the effect is of a short period of residence in the UK on the rate of retirement pension payable to a British citizen living overseas in a country where pensions in payment are not subject to annual uprating. [88793]

  Mr. McCartney
  When a British citizen who is eligible for a UK State Pension returns to the UK, their State Pension is uprated for the duration of their stay only.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners within the(a) Twickenham constituency, (b) London borough of Richmond upon Thames and (c) London failed to claim the winter fuel allowance for the 2001 period; and if he will make a statement. [88818]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Most, but not all, people aged 60 and over are eligible for a Winter Fuel Payment. The vast majority of those eligible receive their payment automatically, without the need to claim. Of those who need to claim, it is up to the individual to choose whether to do so.

  However, for winter 2001–02, over 17,000 people in Twickenham constituency, some 29,000 people in Richmond upon Thames local authority area and just over one million people in London received Winter Fuel Payments.

  Source:

  Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuel Payment 2001–02 exercise.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Students
  15. Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to change the Government's targets for students entering higher education. [89221]

  Margaret Hodge
  It remains the Government's aim, as set out in the Department's public service agreement, to increase higher education participation towards 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds by the end of the decade. I will be publishing a strategy for higher education later this month which will include our plans for achieving the target.

  Truancy
  16. Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research he has commissioned into truancy. [89222]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department has commissioned research on the causes of truancy from school as part of its research programme which will be published around the end of this month. We are also evaluating the outcomes of the recent national truancy sweep exercise.

  Sure Start
  17. Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on progress with the sure start scheme. [89223]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The first sure start programme, announced in 1998, has worked by bringing together early education, child care, health and family support for the benefit of young children living in disadvantaged areas and their parents.

  On 11 December the Government launched the new sure start programme (in England) which will support families from pregnancy until children are 14. The new sure start will bring together universal, free, early education and more and better child care, with greater support where there is greater need, through child care tax credit, children's centres, and on-going support for sure start local programmes.

  Exclusion
  18. Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on progress with the education and behaviour of children excluded from mainstream schooling. [89224]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  All local education authorities were committed to offering a full timetable to permanently excluded pupils from September 2002. In targeted schools in 34 local authorities provision is also being made for those excluded on a temporary basis. These arrangements will be extended to a further 27 local authorities in the coming year.

  Qualifications
  19. Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the analysis he has made of the degree to which the provision of education and training will match the economic demand for qualifications in the next 10 years. [89225]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government have established sector skills councils to ensure that economic demand is more clearly articulated and the learning and skills council to ensure that provision is responsive to meet demand.

  We are also working with key partners to ensure that advances in new technology result in improved choice and quality for learners.

  Maintained schools, full-time equivalent1 number of teaching assistants by type of school—1997–2002—position in January each year—England

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Teaching Assistants2

  Nursery

  2,119.1

  2,099.3

  2,201.1

  2,249.0

  2,322.9

  2,476.4

  Primary3

  39,751.2

  42,726.6

  44,444.4

  51,127.3

  63,175.9

  69,307.0

  Secondary3

  7,820.8

  8,973.4

  10,590.1

  12,451.7

  15,466.6

  19,527.6

  Special4

  11,302.8

  12,140.2

  12,681.0

  13,424.9

  14,227.4

  14,246.9

  336W
  Research and analysis on the value of education and training will be summarised in a forthcoming Department for Education and Skills publication, "Education and Skills: The Economic Benefit".

  Admissions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when new admissions arrangements provided for under the Education Act 2002 will come into effect. [88941]

  Mr. Miliband
  Some sections of the Act dealing with admissions have already been commenced. Most depend for implementation on Regulations, to be read in conjunction with revised Codes of Practice on School Admissions and School Admission Appeals. Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Regulations and Codes of Practice are expected to come into force on 20 January. Most aspects of the Regulations and Codes are intended to apply to admission arrangements affecting intakes from September 2004, which means, for example, that each LEA must have an admission forum in place by 20 March 2003. The obligation to co-ordinate admission arrangements applies to intakes from 2005 but LEAs are encouraged to co-ordinate secondary intakes earlier.

  Basic Needs Funding (Wokingham)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of whether Wokingham Unitary Authority would qualify for the last round of Basic Needs funding; and what discussions he has had with Wokingham Unitary Authority on its ability to qualify for the last round of Basic Needs funding. [89252]

  Mr. Miliband
  All local education authorities (LEAs) were invited to bid for Basic Need funding when the guidance for 2003–04 was issued on 30 July 2002, and the deadline for LEAs to submit their bids was 30 September 2002. It was for LEAs to decide whether or not to bid for funding based on the criteria in the guidance. Wokingham LEA did not submit any bids for Basic Need funding in 2003–04. Officials within the Department confirmed with Helen Rowlay at the LEA that no bids were being made.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many classroom assistants were in service in England in each year since 1997 in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) all schools. [89308]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  337W

  Maintained schools: full-time equivalent1 number of teaching assistants by type of school—1997–2002—position in January each year—England

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Pupil Referral Units

  267.8

  366.1

  428.9

  538.6

  622.7

  891.7

  Total Teaching Assistants

  61,261.7

  66,305.6

  70,345.4

  79,791.6

  95,815.5

  106,449.6

  1 Includes both full-time and the full-time equivalent of part-time non-teaching staff.

  2 Includes nursery assistants, special needs support staff, minority ethnic pupil support staff and non-teaching assistants. Excludes administrative staff, technicians and other non-teaching staff.

  3 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  4 Includes non-maintained special schools and special and general hospital schools.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money his Department has spent on(a) advertising, (b) marketing and (c) public relations in each year since 1997; and on which projects this money has been spent. [89297]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Expenditure from the Department's central advertising and publicity budget is as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  10,879

  1998–99

  13,426

  1999–2000

  9,902

  2000–01

  14,595

  2001–02

  11,688

  2002–031

  4,413

  1 Year to date

  In addition to expenditure from this central budget, expenditure from budgets allocated to individual programmes will also include spend on publicity related activity. However, it is not possible, except at disproportionate cost, to separately identify all such publicity related expenditure.

  What is possible is to identify expenditure on advertising and public relations drawn from all budgets and this is as follows:

  £000

  Advertising

  Public Relations

  1997–98

  9,992

  0

  1998–99

  15,673

  549

  1999–2000

  11,900

  88

  2000–01

  29,066

  794

  2001–02

  20,489

  1,574

  2002–031

  8,817

  1,567

  1 Year to date

  Campaigns over £500,000 are:

  £

  1997–98

  Disability Discrimination

  521,000

  Modern Apprenticeships

  912,000

  National Traineeships

  800,000

  New Deal

  6,409,000

  338W

  £

  1998–99

  New Deal

  4,772,000

  Reading and Literacy

  3,648,000

  Disability Discrimination

  1,924,000

  National Traineeships

  1,502,000

  Learning Direct

  619,000

  Career Development Loans

  604,000

  Millennium Bug Busters

  585,000

  1999–2000

  Disability Discrimination

  2,643,000

  Maths Year 2000

  2,322,000

  Age Diversity

  1,128,000

  National Traineeships

  1,077,000

  One

  873,000

  Childcare Link

  810,000

  Time Off for Study

  702,000

  2000–01

  Don't Quit Now

  2,700,000

  New Deal 50 +

  2,400,000

  ICT Employability

  2,011,000

  Childcare Recruitment

  1,821,000

  Disability Discrimination

  1,242,000

  Modern Apprenticeships

  856,000

  Individual Learning Accounts

  612,000

  Fast Track Teachers

  1,056,000

  Parents' Magazine

  1,484,000

  2001–02

  Childcare Recruitment

  2,505,000

  New Deal 50 +

  673,000

  Adult Basic Skills

  5,096,000

  Foundation Degrees

  1,816,000

  Modern Apprenticeships

  1,560,000

  Science Year 2001–02

  1,803,000

  Childcare Link

  584,000

  Connexions

  1,277,000

  Fast Track Teachers

  1,250,000

  Parents Magazine

  770,000

  Aim Higher

  1,750,000

  Millennium Volunteers

  848,000

  2002–031

  Childcare Recruitment

  666,000

  Aim Higher

  2,650,000

  Foundation Degrees

  542,000

  Connexions

  1,166,000

  Adult Basic Skills

  3,369,000

  1 Year to date

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what guidance has been issued to local education authorities on the undertaking of tests to determine whether a school pupil is dyslexic; [89340]
  339W
  (2) what his policy is on (a) updating assessments of children who have previously been assessed as dyslexic and (b) the incorporation of support for dyslexia in statements of special educational needs. [89341]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Guidance on identifying and assessing children's special educational needs is given in the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, to which schools and local education authorities must have regard. The guidance is organised under four broad areas of need—communication and interaction; cognition and learning; behaviour, emotional and social development; and sensory and/or physical needs—to recognise that children often have needs in one or more areas. Dyslexia is referred to specifically in relation to communication and interaction and cognition and learning. The Department has also produced specific guidance to support pupils with dyslexia as part of the National Literacy Strategy.

  Local education authorities (LEAs) must review statements of special educational needs at least annually to ensure that the educational provision specified remains appropriate. It is for individual LEAs to decide whether to reassess children previously assessed as dyslexic, taking into account the provisions of section 328 and 329A of the Educational Act 1996, and the advice contained in the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. LEAs must also decide upon the appropriate level of support to include in statements for such pupils, having regard to the statutory guidance contained in the Code of Practice and the advice they have obtained as part of the statutory assessment of the child's special educational needs.

  Education Act 2002
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list(a) schools and (b) local education authorities which have expressed an interest in establishing companies under the provisions of the Education Act 2002; and for what purpose. [88883]

  Mr. Miliband
  Provisions of the Education Act 2002 concerning school companies will commence on 20 January 2003, at the same time as relevant regulations come into force, and therefore no such school companies yet exist.

  Although some schools and LEAs have contacted officials to discuss the power to form or join school companies, these inquiries are purely informal.

  Regulation 25 of The School Companies Regulations 2002 and Regulation 17 of The School Companies (Private Finance Initiative Companies) Regulations 2002 provide for the supervising authority of a school company to notify the Secretary of State of certain details concerning the school company. Through this notification the Secretary of State will know the number of school companies in existence at any one time.

  Education Facilities (Wokingham)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2002,Official Report, column 142–43W, on education facilities (Wokingham), if he will place in the Library the list of criteria against which the PFI proposals were judged; why these criteria were chosen,
  340W
  what the (a) scoring system and (b) methodology used to assess the criteria were against which the PFI proposals were judged; and what weighting was given to each criterion when converting the scores into the ranking of the PFI proposal. [89253]

  Mr. Miliband
  Proposals from local education authorities for the 2003–04 schools PFI bidding round were assessed against five main criteria:

  (a) the extent to which the project would contribute to raising educational standards and to tackling the most urgent premises related needs;

  (b) the contribution to wider DfES and school priorities and initiatives;

  (c) the contribution to wider Government priorities and initiatives;

  (d) value-for-money;

  (e) the contribution to the future development of public private partnerships, including PFI.

  I have today placed a full copy of the bidding guidance for the 2003–04 PFI round in the Library.

  Each proposal was evaluated independently by two officials from the Department's schools private finance unit and moderated through discussion with the full team of assessors. Technical assessment was provided by external quantity surveyors and the advice of other officials in the Department was sought, where appropriate.

  The scores were weighted across the first three criteria, as follows:

  (a) 40 per cent.

  (b) 30 per cent.

  (c) 30 per cent.

  Criteria (d) and (e) were not included in the above weightings but assessed on a pass or fail basis.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the education funding provision is in 2003–04(a) for Leicestershire and (b) on average for English counties for (i) primary and (ii) secondary pupils. [88622]

  Mr. Miliband
  The average primary and secondary formula spending share per pupil for Leicestershire and for upper tier authorities is set out in the table.

  £

  Average level of primary formula spending share per pupil

  Average level of secondary formula spending share per pupil

  Leicestershire

  2,083

  2,663

  Upper tier authorities

  2,184

  2,771

  341W
  The new system of funding for LEAs consists of a basic entitlement which is the same for all pupils, plus a top up for all deprived pupils, which is the same for all deprived pupils, and a further top up for those LEAs in areas with additional costs for recruitment and retention of staff. The average formula spending share per pupil for upper tier authorities is higher than for Leicestershire, because most upper tier authorities have a higher percentage of deprived pupils, and some have higher area costs.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the(a) cash and (b) percentage change in education funding for Leicestershire County Council local education authority in each year from 1991–92 to the latest year for which figures are available. [88623]

  Mr. Miliband
  The tables show the Department's total Education Standard Spending Assessment (ESSA), revenue and capital grant allocated to Leicestershire local education authority for the financial years 1997–98 to 2002–03 along with cash and percentage change for these years. 2002–03 figures are to date and provisional. The local government reorganisation and changes in ESSA methodology means that data for financial years 1991–92 to 1996–97 does not conform to current boundaries so comparable figures are not available.

  Education standard spending assessment and revenue grant

  £million

  Total cash

  Year on year cash change

  Year on year percentage change

  1997–98

  207.9

  N/A

  N/A

  1998–99

  221.8

  +13.9

  +7

  1999–2000

  238.6

  +16.8

  +8

  2000–01

  266.1

  27.5

  +12

  2001–02

  290.2

  24.1

  +9

  2002–03

  310.4

  20.2

  +7

  Note:

  Revenue funding comprises Standards Fund Grant (Departmental contribution), School Standards Grant, School Budget Support Grant, Education Budget Support Grant, Post 16 Budget Support Grant, Nursery Education Grant, Childcare Grant, Teachers Pay Reform Grant, Education Maintenance Allowance, Transitional Funding and Transitional Insurance Grant.

  Capital

  £million

  Total cash

  Year on year cash change

  Year on year percentage change

  1997–98

  2.9

  N/A

  N/A

  1998–99

  6.5

  +3.6

  +124

  1999–2000

  9.0

  +2.5

  +38

  2000–01

  21.0

  +12.0

  +133

  2001–02

  15.7

  -5.3

  -25

  2002–03

  25.0

  +9.3

  +59

  Note:

  Funding includes Basic Need (ACG), Standards Fund Grant (Departmental contribution), Voluntary Aided School Grant, Schools Access Initiative, Supplementary Credit Approvals and, New Deal for Schools Grant.

  General Teaching Council
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the unit cost is of collecting General Teaching Council registration fees by(a) compulsory deduction and (b) voluntary payments. [88887]

  Mr. Miliband
  I am informed by the General Teaching Council that it estimates the direct cost to the Council of collecting the registration fee for 2002–03 through voluntary payments from 153,000 teachers to be £90,000. The direct cost incurred by the Council in respect of a further 227,000 teachers whose fee was deducted from salary is estimated to be £166,000. The Council expects administrative costs to reduce next year as fee collection processes bed down.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates he has made of the money lost through fraudulent activities associated with the individual learning account scheme. [89309]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The precise extent of fraudulent activity within the Individual Learning Account programme will not be known until the Department's investigations are complete. However, the Department estimates that fraud and serious irregularities may amount to some £67 million.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what hourly rate of pay an individual who signs up for a modern apprenticeship is entitled to receive during the course of his or her training. [88731]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There is no national or average hourly rate of pay for modern apprentices. The rate of pay for a modern apprentice is agreed by the employer and the individual apprentice. Modern apprentices are either paid a wage by their employer or receive a training allowance. The minimum training allowance is £40 per week.

  Music Teaching
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research his Department has undertaken to assess the music literacy of children in schools; and if he will make a statement. [88679]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills has carried out no recent research into the music literacy of children in schools. However, the effectiveness of National Curriculum music continues to be monitored through teacher assessments at the end of Key Stage 3.

  Last year, the Department conducted a national survey of instrumental lessons and other music activities provided by LEA Music Services. A summary of the results is available on the DfES website at www.dfes.gov.uk/musicservices

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to encourage(a) teaching, (b) listening to and

  343W
  (c) participation in music in schools; and how much his Department has spent on music in schools in each year since 1997. [88680]

  Mr. Miliband
  Music is a statutory entitlement for all pupils up to the age of 14, and can be taken as an option at Key Stage 4.

  My Department is strongly committed to music education and has a number of projects underway to encourage the teaching and learning of music in schools. For example, we have made a commitment, over time, to offer every primary school child the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. We have commissioned the QCA to produce new units for the music schemes of work to help teachers work more effectively with peripatetic music specialists and to develop their confidence and skills; and we are exploring best practice in music education through the inspection of LEA Music Services; through a network of advanced skills teachers for music; and through six pilot projects focusing primarily on instrumental tuition at Key Stage 2.

  With regard to the amount spent on music in schools, it is for individual schools to use their budgets as they judge appropriate, in music as in other areas. Additional funds from this Department come primarily through the Music Standards Fund (MSF) and the Music and Dance Scheme (MDS). Since it was set up in 1999, this Department has provided around £125 million through the MSF for the protection and expansion of LEA Music Services; while the MDS has allocated just under £65 million to gifted and talented young musicians since 1997 through its Aided Pupil Scheme.

  National Insurance (Teachers)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the increases in national insurance on teachers' salaries will cost, expressed on a per pupil basis, in the next financial year. [89216]

  Mr. Miliband
  The estimated costs of the increase in national insurance contributions for teachers will be in the region of £15 per pupil in 2003–04 when overall funding per pupil will rise by an average of £140 in real terms.

  Pupil Violence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many serious injuries to teachers caused by violence were reported to the Health and Safety Executive in each year from 1999–2000 to 2001–02. [88885]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Health and Safety Executive statistics for all school and post-school teaching sectors in Great Britain cover reported injuries that lead to an absence from work of more than three days. In 1999–2000 there were 160 such reported injuries. In 2000–01 there were 171. The provisional figure for 2001–02 is 143.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) head teachers have encountered violence or abuse from pupils in each year since 1997. [89212]
  344W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not centrally collected. But any act of violence or abuse against heads, teachers or other school staff is one too many. Pupils must respect the authority of school staff, and parents must take their share of responsibility. That is why we are proposing to extend Parenting Orders.

  School Exams (Re-marked Papers)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of re-marked papers at(a) GCSE, (b) AS-level and (c) A-level resulted in marks being (i) increased and (ii) decreased in each of the last three years. [88939]

  Mr. Miliband
  The data for 2002 are currently being collated by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and will be included in the authority's annual report on inquiries on results and appeals to be published in April. Re-mark or inquiries on results outcomes have only included the possibility of a reduction in grade since 2001. Data for 2000 and 2001 are set out as follows.

  2000

  2001

  Percentage of entries involved in inquiries

  Percentage of inquiries where grade raised

  Percentage of entries involved in inquiries

  Percentages of inquiries where grade raised

  Percentage of inquiries where grade lowered

  A-level

  3.8

  16

  2.6

  18.8

  1.2

  AS-level

  1.5

  15

  2.5

  16.5

  0.5

  GCSE

  1.0

  11

  0.8

  16.9

  0.1

  Schools (Race Relations)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools did not have a written statement of race relations policy in place by 31 May. [88889]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Commission for Racial Equality has responsibility for the enforcement of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2002. Ofsted is responsible, through their routine school inspections, for ensuring that schools have a written race equality policy in place. There is no information currently available to indicate how many schools have not complied with this specific duty.

  Schools (Specialist Status)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have been granted specialist status in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) local education authority and (b) category of specialism. [89302]

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

  Secondary Schools (Admission Policies)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice he gives to local education authorities on admission policies to secondary schools from out of area children; and if he will make a statement. [89373]
  345W
  Mr. Miliband
  Local education authorities (LEAs) and admission authorities for schools may set their own admission arrangements, as long as they comply with legislation and have regard to the statutory Code of Practice on School Admissions. The Code gives advice to LEAs and schools on setting admission arrangements, and refers to the 'Greenwich Judgement' of 1989 which ruled that LEA maintained schools could not refuse applications simply because a child did not live in the Authority's administrative area. However, admission policies may give priority for entry to oversubscribed schools to children who live within a specified catchment area, to those who live closest to the school, or (for secondary schools) to those who attend named "feeder" schools. These, and the many other criteria which are used to determine priority for admission to schools, may include children who live both inside and outside a LEA's area.

  Teachers' Hours
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average working week for teachers in England was in each year since 1997 in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) all schools. [89307]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on the average working week for teachers for each year since 1997 is not available. The School Teachers' Review Body has carried out diary studies on over 3,000 teachers in 300 schools based on one week in March 1994, 1996 and 2000. Their findings in respect of the average hours per week worked were as follows:

  Primary

  Secondary

  Classroom teachers

  1994

  48.8

  48.9

  1996

  50.8

  50.3

  2000

  52.8

  51.3

  Headteachers

  1994

  55.4

  61.1

  1996

  55.7

  61.7

  2000

  58.9

  60.8

  Threshold Assessments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in what proportion of cases the threshold assessment made by a headteacher has been overturned in each round of applications. [88940]

  Mr. Miliband
  Details about the proportion of threshold assessments made by headteachers in England and Wales which were overturned in each round of applications can be found in the following table:

  Percentage

  Round

  Overturned headteacher assessments

  1

  0.24%

  2

  0.29%

  3

  †

  *England only. Information in Wales not collected in Round 1

  † Information not available until summer 2003

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has(a) to increase the supply of affordable housing in areas of shortage and (b) to make changes to reduce the loss of housing stock through the Right to Buy. [88546]

  Mr. McNulty
  In his statement to the House about sustainable communities on 18 July 2002,Official Report, column 438, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister promised to return to the House with a comprehensive long-term programme of action to tackle a number of housing and planning issues in order to deliver a step change in the Government's policies for building successful, thriving and inclusive communities in all regions. The statement, which will be made shortly, will set out how the additional funding announced in the 2002 spending review will be used and what it will buy over the three years up to 2005–06. It will cover the provision of affordable housing in areas of shortage.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is concerned about some aspects of the way in which the Right to Buy is operating, and about exploitation of the rules, and is looking at ways of addressing this.

  Homeless People
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless people, broken down by local authority, have been placed in hotel annexes of self-contained accommodation where meals were not provided in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [89125]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information distinguishing the number of households accommodated in self-contained hotel annexes has only been collected since March 2002 (previously, local authorities recorded such accommodation either as bed and breakfast or as private sector accommodation). These annexes are not necessarily directly attached to a hotel, and meals may or may not be provided, but the household has exclusive use of all facilities.

  Information on households in such accommodation confirmed, or not reported, by local authorities in England at the end of each quarter since March 2002 is presented in the table; authorities not listed reported nil returns.

  Homeless households accommodated by local authorities in self-contained hotel annexes during 2002, as at

  30 March

  30 June

  30 September

  Adur

  2

  1—

  1—

  Arun

  0

  1—

  0

  Babergh

  1—

  1—

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  1

  0

  0

  Barnet

  482

  1—

  682

  Basildon

  1—

  0

  1—

  Bexley

  40

  34

  34

  Boston

  0

  1—

  0

  Bradford

  0

  0

  5

  Brent

  16

  11

  4

  Bromley

  36

  37

  30

  Broxbourne

  17

  9

  22

  Calderdale

  2

  0

  0

  Camden

  310

  305

  376

  Carrick

  0

  0

  1—

  347W

  Homeless households accommodated by local authorities in
  self-contained hotel annexes during 2002, as at

  30 March

  30 June

  30 September

  Chelmsford

  1—

  0

  0

  Chesterfield

  1—

  1—

  0

  Christchurch

  3

  0

  8

  City of London

  13

  12

  12

  Colchester

  0

  0

  1—

  Craven

  0

  0

  1—

  Crawley

  0

  1—

  1—

  Dartford

  1

  1—

  1

  Doncaster

  2

  2

  0

  Dudley

  0

  0

  1—

  Ealing

  9

  19

  68

  Easington

  0

  0

  1

  East Cambridgeshire

  0

  18

  0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0

  1—

  0

  East Staffordshire

  1

  0

  0

  Eastbourne

  22

  0

  0

  Elmbridge

  0

  0

  1—

  Enfield

  820

  833

  827

  Epsom and Ewell

  0

  0

  1

  Erewash

  1—

  1—

  0

  Fylde

  1—

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  3

  29

  2

  Guildford

  0

  0

  1

  Hackney

  1—

  1—

  92

  Halton

  1—

  0

  1—

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1—

  0

  0

  Harborough

  1—

  0

  0

  Haringey

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Harrow

  4

  10

  8

  Havering

  1—

  0

  0

  Hertsmere

  0

  6

  7

  Hillingdon

  120

  119

  88

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  45

  Ipswich

  0

  0

  1

  Islington

  1—

  1—

  297

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  294

  349

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  1—

  Knowsley

  2

  1—

  0

  Lambeth

  1—

  130

  183

  Leicester

  1—

  1—

  0

  Lewes

  1

  0

  0

  Lewisham

  1—

  0

  0

  Luton

  66

  37

  69

  Macclesfield

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Medway

  7

  1—

  1—

  Merton

  0

  6

  2

  Mid Sussex

  1

  0

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  1—

  1—

  Newham

  1—

  184

  198

  Northampton

  0

  0

  1

  Nottingham City

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Oxford

  1—

  1—

  0

  Pen with

  0

  1—

  0

  Portsmouth

  9

  13

  14

  Preston

  0

  1—

  1—

  Purbeck

  0

  1

  8

  Redbridge

  91

  122

  91

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  21

  18

  Richmondshire

  1

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  2

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  1—

  South Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  1—

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  7

  South Somerset

  1—

  0

  0

  Southwark

  1—

  7

  20

  Spelthorne

  0

  1—

  1—

  Stockport

  0

  11

  17

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  1—

  Surrey Heath

  3

  4

  3

  Sutton

  5

  6

  3

  Tameside

  1

  5

  6

  Tamworth

  0

  1—

  0

  Three Rivers

  0

  1

  0

  Torbay

  16

  16

  0

  Torridge

  0

  0

  2

  Tower Hamlets

  177

  149

  99

  Tunbridge Wells

  6

  9

  6

  Walsall

  0

  0

  1—

  Waltham Forest

  193

  225

  249

  Warrington

  1—

  1—

  1—

  West Berkshire

  0

  1—

  0

  West Lindsey

  1—

  0

  0

  348W

  Homeless households accommodated by local authorities in
  self-contained hotel annexes during 2002, as at

  30 March

  30 June

  30 September

  West Oxfordshire

  1

  0

  1

  West Somerset

  0

  1

  0

  West Wiltshire

  0

  0

  4

  Westminster

  107

  90

  134

  Winchester

  0

  1—

  1—

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1

  0

  0

  Woking

  1—

  0

  0

  Wokingham

  0

  2

  20

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  1—

  1 Not reported

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which of the top 44 authorities have indicated that they anticipate meeting the commitment that no homeless family with children will live in bed and breakfast accommodation by March 2003, as stated in Issue No 5 of the Bed and Breakfast Unit Newsletter. [89126]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government have made a clear commitment that by March 2004 no local authority should place a homeless family with children in Bed and Breakfast accommodation other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than six weeks. In April 44 of the highest using B&B authorities were required to produce bed and breakfast action plans detailing how they would meet the commitment by March 2004. Some authorities set out ambitious plans to meet the commitment a year early in March 2003, 10 currently appear on target to do so:London borough of Camden, Brighton and Hove city council, London borough of Richmond upon Thames, Colchester borough council, London borough of Waltham Forest, Poole unitary council, City of York council, Royal borough of Kingston, Hastings borough council, London borough of Harrow.

  Homelessness Act
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evaluation has been undertaken of the implementation by local housing authorities of the Homelessness Act 2002 and associated statutory instruments; and if he will make a statement. [89397]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002 (si 2002/2051), made under the Housing Act 1996, and the main homelessness provisions of the Homelessness Act 2002 came into force on 31 July 2002. The Homelessness Directorate within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is monitoring implementation of the new provisions, including local housing authorities' progress in carrying out a homelessness review in their district and preparing a homelessness strategy for adoption and publication by 30 July 2003. In addition, local housing authorities have been asked to submit a statement to the directorate indicating how they propose to spend their share of £10 million, allocated by the directorate in 2002–03, to assist with the cost of implementing the Homelessness Priority Need Order. The provisions of the 2002 Act which amend part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 (allocation of housing) will not come into force until 31 January 2003.

  National Land Information Service
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to make use of the provision for
  349W
  differential pricing contained in the Electronic Communications Act 2000 to support the work of the National Land Information Service; [88672]

  (2) how many local authorities have introduced pricing for the electronic provision of answers to land and property search enquiries; [88656]

  (3) what plans he has to provide financial support to the National Land Information Service to encourage take up of its services; [88670]

  (4) whether it is his policy to support differential pricing for local authorities for the provision of answers to land and property search enquiries between electronic search and other methods of searches; [88658]

  (5) what plans he has for action in the next six months to encourage local authorities to introduce pricing for the electronic provision of answers to land and property search enquiries; [88657]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the (a) administrative and (b) staffing cost to local authorities of responding to land and property search enquiries by (i) electronic means and (ii) other means; [88671]

  (7) what steps he has taken in the last six months to encourage local authorities to introduce pricing that encourages take-up of the electronic provision of answers to land and property search enquiries. [88655]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government supports the National Land Information Service (NLIS) initiative as a way of delivering property searches electronically within the context of the 2005 target for e-enabling public services and as a part of the seller's pack initiative. Over the last year the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has supported NLIS by contributing to a reception for exemplar authorities and co-ordinating the distribution of a letter to all authorities briefing them on the benefits of NLIS and the National Land and Property Gazetteer (NLPG). In particular, the briefing [paragraph 13] makes the case for lower fees as an incentive for electronic searches. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library of the House. Officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and other government departments have formed a central government stakeholders group to co-ordinate work with NLIS across Government. NLIS is an integral part of our proposals to reform the home buying and selling process. It provides the information needed for conveyancing searches more quickly and with more certainty than paper-based systems. NLIS will help ensure that sellers' packs can be produced quickly and thus reduce the scope for gazumping and other problems to occur.

  Fees for searches of the local land charges are prescribed by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. Fees for other land and property searches are set by individual local authorities. These powers are already wide enough to allow different fees to be set for electronic and manual searches, so the question of an order under the Electronic Communications Act does not arise. As with other services they provide, it is the responsibility of local authorities to set income targets and fees for dealing with conveyancers' enquiries, taking account of the cost of the service and the level of charges
  350W
  the market will bear. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister supports reasonable levels of differential pricing where local authorities consider this appropriate in light of these criteria. Completely electronic based services are likely to be cheaper and the briefing quotes the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) and NLIS calculation that fees for searches received could be set at least 18 per cent. lower than for other searches (even without counting savings from electronic payment).

  There has been no assessment of administrative and staffing costs of the search methods as it is for councils to set the level of charges. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is encouraging Information House's efforts to market NLIS and the cost savings from e-enabling is clearly an attractive part of the business case for adoption. NLIS reports that over 70 authorities have introduced differential pricing for land and property searches.

  It is not the intention of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to offer financial support to either Information House or individual councils to accelerate take up of NLIS. It has always been framed as a self-funding proposition for both Information House and participation councils. However, councils may, if they wish, use part of the 200,000 capital grant made available by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Implementing Electronic Government monies) for e-Government to support local implementation of NLIS.

  Over the next month and beyond, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will work with other government departments and NLIS in the context of the Central Government Stakeholders group to consider ways of encouraging the take up and success of NLIS. Officials are currently working with the IDeA and Information House to discuss the provision of funding to support the NLPG project and the development of Local Land and Property Gazetteers (LLPGs) in local authorities. The implementation of LLPGs in local authorities and NPLG will assist take up of NLIS. Officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellors Department are working together to examine a proposal from the Local Government Association for differential prescribed fees for searches of the local land charges register.

  Refrigerators (Recycling)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local authorities who have made representations to his Department for additional resources to deal with the recycling of refrigerators; and if he will make a statement. [88820]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the Department with lead interest in this issue and they have received five representations since Special Grant Report No. 109 was approved by Parliament on 16 December 2002, from the following areas:

  Cambridgeshire county council;

  Devon county council;

  Gloucs county council;

  Nottinghamshire county council; and

  Stoke-on-Trent city council.

  351W
  Special Grant No. 109 provided £40 million to cover the extra costs to local authorities as a result of the Ozone Depleting Substances Regulations for the period 2002–03. Local authorities previously received an extra £6 million through Revenue Support Grant to cover the period from the introduction of the Regulations on 1 January 2002 through to 31 March 2002. Additional funding for 2003–04 onwards has been provided through Spending Review 2002 within Revenue Support Grant. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently consulting on its proposals for the funding of local authorities' revenue expenditure in 2003–04 and will consider carefully all representations received on these proposals.

  Section 106
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment has been undertaken of the operation by local authorities of section 106 planning obligations; and if he will make a statement. [89395]

  Mr. McNulty
  The consultation document "Reforming Planning Obligations—delivering a fundamental change" issued in December 2001 received over 500 replies. Many of these were from local authorities that provided information on how they use planning obligations.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will publish a further consultation document on planning obligations in the near future.

  Social Housing
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that the increased funding announced in the Spending Review 2002 is used to provide good quality social housing for rent. [88543]

  Mr. McNulty
  The 2002 Spending Review settlement provided £1.4 billion extra for housing, taking the total housing spend to over £4.5 billion (rising to £5.9 billion when the Major Repair Allowance is taken into account) by 2005–06.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has channelled £365 million from the Spending Review to the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 2003–04 to provide housing for rent and low cost home ownership. It must, as a minimum, comply with the corporation's scheme development standards.

  The remainder of the funding from the Spending Review will be allocated when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister reports to the House with a comprehensive long term programme of action to tackle a number of housing and planning issues in order to deliver a step change in the Government's policies for building successful, thriving and inclusive communities in all regions. The statement, which will be made shortly, will set out how the additional funding announced in the 2002 spending review will be used and what it will buy over the three years up to 2005–06.

  Temporary Accommodation
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues to ensure that information on the placement of families in 352W
  temporary accommodation is shared among statutory agencies across local authority boundaries, with particular reference to (a) housing departments, (b) education authorities, (c) social services, (d) primary care trusts and (e) the National Asylum Support Service in order to ensure that such families can gain access to the services to which they are entitled. [88545]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is jointly funding the Association of Local Government and the Greater London Authority to develop a notification project which will improve systems for London boroughs to make notifications to housing, health, social services and education authorities of families with children placed into and leaving temporary accommodation.

  The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, issued in July 2002, was published jointly by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). The code includes general guidance about joint working between housing authorities, social services and health authorities, and specific guidance on the importance of local authorities ensuring that all babies and young children placed in temporary accommodation have the opportunity to receive health and environmental checks from health visitors and other primary health care professionals.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also hosts an ad hoc Ministerial Committee on Homelessness, chaired by myself to ensure dialogue between departments, which includes Ministers with portfolios covering housing, education, social services, health and asylum issues.

SCOTLAND

  Accreditation
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her Department is doing to support the Government's policy on accreditation. [88085]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as the sole national body for the accreditation, against international standards, of certification and inspection bodies, testing and calibration laboratories. My Department currently has no schemes requiring accreditation.

  Airport Expansion
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the expansion of airport capacity in Scotland. [89324]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues on a wide range of issues, including matters relating to airport capacity in Scotland. The Government, in its consultation documents on future development of air transport in the United Kingdom, has jointly with the Scottish Executive sought comments from the aviation industry
  353W
  and all those affected by air travel on issues affecting the future development of air services in Scotland, including airport capacity. This consultation process is still ongoing and will inform the development of the Government's White Paper on aviation policy to be publish next year.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on her plans to implement the latest review by the Boundary Commission for Scotland. [88594]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Boundary Commission is required to submit its final report before December 2006. It is a matter for the Commission when, within that timescale, it does so. I am required by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to lay the report before Parliament, together with the draft of an Order in Council giving it effect, with or without modifications, as soon as may be thereafter.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many departmental Christmas cards she and her Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if she will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card she has sent this year. [88107]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Scotland Office Ministers sent around 420 Christmas cards. Other cards were issued by the Department. The total cost of purchasing Christmas cards was £830 and the expenditure was incurred in accordance with the principles on financial procedures and propriety set out in Government Accounting. Details of postage costs and staff time involved in issuing the cards is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I have arranged for a copy of the Scotland Office Christmas card to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by her Department and Government agencies answerable to her Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88131]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: My Department spent £1,520 on Christmas decorations for the public entrances to its office buildings. The expenditure was incurred in accordance with the principles on financial procedures and propriety set out in Government Accounting.

  No money has been spent on entertaining or other festive activities in the Department or Ministers' private offices. I do not have an official residence.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Minister in her Department is the nominated Green Minister; how often she has attended meetings 354W
  of the Green Ministers; and which official has responsibility for the DEFRA rural proofing check-list in her Department. [88454]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office represents the Scotland Office on the ministerial committee ENV(G).

  Policy responsibility for the rural proofing check-list in the Scotland Office rests with the Parliamentary and Constitutional Division.

  Tax/Government Spending
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will calculate(a) the tax revenue from Scotland since 1980 and (b) the total government spending in Scotland since 1980; and if she also will calculate these figures omitting tax revenues from the continental shelf. [88219]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: A table setting out estimates of aggregate expenditure and revenues for Scotland is provided in the table. As noted in the footnote to the table, there are different sources for different parts of the series and therefore some potential for variation in the estimating approaches used.

  Estimated Aggregate Expenditure and Revenues, Scotland 1980–81 to 1999–2000

  £ billion

  Financial year

  Expenditure 1

  Revenues (excluding North Sea revenues) 1

  UK North Sea revenues2

  1980–81

  11.0

  8.5

  3.7

  1981–82

  12.3

  10.0

  6.5

  1982–83

  13.3

  10.6

  7.8

  1983–84

  14.2

  11.4

  8.8

  1984–85

  15.1

  12.0

  12.0

  1985–86

  15.8

  13.1

  11.3

  1986–87

  16.6

  13.7

  4.8

  1987–88

  18.7

  14.9

  4.6

  1988–89

  19.4

  16.3

  3.2

  1989–90

  21.6

  17.6

  2.4

  1990–91

  22.3

  18.7

  2.3

  1991–92

  24.2

  19.5

  1.0

  1992–93

  27.0

  19.4

  1.3

  1993–94

  28.6

  20.2

  1.2

  1994–95

  29.9

  22.1

  1.6

  1995–96

  31.3

  23.9

  2.3

  1996–97

  31.5

  25.0

  3.3

  1997–98

  32.2

  26.8

  3.3

  1998–99

  33.1

  28.4

  2.5

  1999–2000

  33.8

  29.8

  2.5

  1 Sources: 1978–79 to 1987–88—unpublished data used to compile parliamentary answer, 21 March 1997, Official Report, column 969;

  1987–88 to 1991–92—unpublished data produced in September 1993 by the Scottish Office, using the methodology used for the publication "Government Expenditure & Review In Scotland" (GERS) and updating the first GERS, 1992;

  1991–92 to 1995–96—GERS 1995–96 (Scottish Office 1997);

  1995–96 to 1999–2000—GERS 1999–2000 (Scottish Executive 2001).

  2 Petroleum revenue tax, oil royalties and North Sea Corporation Tax before ACT set-off.

  Source:

  Inland Revenue Statistics
  355W

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what training is provided within the health and social services system in Northern Ireland in relation to attention deficit hyperactivity for workers with personal contact with sufferers to help inform their practice. [88260]

  Mr. Browne
  Psychiatrists are educated about Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) during their general professional training as part of child and adolescent mental health subjects. Child and adolescent psychiatrists, who undergo higher professional training prior to becoming consultants focus on relevant areas such as ADHD in more depth. Postgraduate training, as part of continual professional development, also ensures increased awareness and keeps professionals abreast of developments in this area.

  Nurses and social workers can also specialise in child and adolescent psychiatry and in 2001 17 nurses and each year six social workers have received this training.

  Ballycastle to Campbeltown Ferry
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress towards restoring the Ballycastle to Campbeltown ferry. [88935]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Scottish Executive has the lead role in relation to the tendering exercise to restore the Ballycastle to Campbeltown ferry service. Northern Ireland officials are working closely with their Scottish colleagues and final tender documentation will be issued shortly. This holds open the prospect of the service resuming in time for the summer 2003 season.

  Broadband Coverage
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public finance has been allocated to support extending broadband coverage in Northern Ireland. [89110]

  Mr. Pearson
  In September 2001 the Northern Ireland Executive approved £18.04 million to be allocated to telecommunications development over the following three years. In addition Northern Ireland secured £1.46 million as its share of the £30 million UK Broadband Fund.

  In November 2002, under the EU's Interreg III Programme, approximately £4 million (7 million euros) was allocated to stimulate investment in efficient communications and e-commerce infrastructure in Northern Ireland and the border counties of ROI. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is liasing with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) in Dublin to develop a Call in line with the aims of Interreg III.

  Childminders
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which health trusts in Northern 356W
  Ireland permit children to be looked after by childminders who are related to them; and how many examples there are in each trust. [88060]

  Mr. Browne
  Health and social services trusts do not collect the information requested as a matter of routine enquiry. The information therefore would not be readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Eastern Health Board
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take measures to achieve greater equality of funding for the NHS trusts in the Eastern Health Board. [88914]

  Mr. Browne
  The resources available to the DHSSPS are distributed to each of the four HSS Boards on the basis of a regional capitation formula, which takes various factors into account, such as the population profile and additional need. It is the responsibility of each board to allocate resources equitably to its population. Boards are encouraged to use the capitation formula to inform spending decisions for their sub-board populations.

  The Eastern Health and Social Services Board is currently reviewing the equitable distribution of resources to its sub-board population. The board has been working on a strategy to address the equitable allocation of resources to all trusts in its area and, following public consultation, implementation of the resultant strategy should commence from April 2003.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of grammar schools in Northern Ireland. [88796]

  Jane Kennedy
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) on 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 302.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further action he intends to take to reduce hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement. [88802]

  Mr. Browne
  A wide range of measures is being taken to tackle hospital waiting lists. These include the expansion of existing bed capacity, the development of protected elective facilities, the provision of additional in-patient procedures, the development of community provision as an alternative to hospital treatment, the validation of waiting lists and improved management of waiting lists.

  I believe that these measures will have an impact. For example, half of HSS Trusts were able to report a fall in numbers waiting at 30 September 2002. It is also important to note that, despite the large numbers of people waiting for hospital treatment, almost three-quarters of inpatients treated between July and September 2002 waited for less than three months and 95 per cent. waited less than a year for their treatment.
  357W

  Land Banks
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the locations of land banks held for housing development by(a) the Housing Executive and (b) housing associations are; and what estimate he has made of the number of new homes which will be built on those land banks over the next five years. [89467]

  Mr. Browne
  The Housing Executive owns land mainly as an inheritance from former housing authorities and through acquisition to satisfy identified need. Most of its land is in estates and would comprise a mixture of firstly, land on which the houses, or other essential buildings, have been built and secondly, amenity or open space land. The Housing Executive is currently identifying sites in its ownership that could be suitable for development, without giving rise to a serious loss of amenities or space.

  The Housing Executive's land transfer programme for development by housing associations would allow for the following units to be built:

  Housing Executive's land transfer programme for development by housing associations

  Units

  Schemes

  2002–03

  342

  26

  2003–04

  413

  28

  2004–05

  446

  31

  2005–06

  310

  20

  Note:

  Figures for 2006–07 are not yet available.

  Additional land required to meet the Department's new build targets is acquired on an ongoing basis.

  Housing Associations do not maintain a land bank. When a housing need is identified in a particular location, land is purchased on a one-off basis to meet that need. The land purchase is, therefore, specific to a particular project. In general, the land is used right away.

  The identification of individual locations of land held for both could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Nursing and Personal Care
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the provision of free nursing care and personal care in Northern Ireland. [88937]

  Mr. Browne
  Since 7 October 2002, up to £100 a week is payable on behalf of residents who would otherwise have to pay all of the nursing home fees themselves for their nursing care in a nursing home. This payment is dependent on an assessment of nursing needs.

  The Northern Ireland Executive commissioned work on free personal care and a report was forwarded to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 8 August 2002. Following discussion at the Executive on 12 August, Ministers asked for further work to be undertaken. That work has not yet been completed. It is not possible at this stage to give any indication about the timing or subsequent handling of the report, since this is a matter which should be determined by the Executive.
  358W

  Primary and Post-primary School Budgets
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he plans to allocate additional monies to primary and post-primary schools' central budgets. [88794]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education plans to allocate an additional £2 2.2 million to schools over and above their delegated budgets. An announcement regarding how these resources are to be divided among schools will be made in the new year.

  Public Transport (Free Fares)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of providing free fares on public transport in Northern Ireland has been in each of the last three years. [87332]

  Angela Smith
  Costs incurred by the Department for Regional Development in respect of the provision of free fares on public transport in Northern Ireland under the Concessionary Fares Scheme in each of the last three years are as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  719,343

  2000–01

  807,084

  2001–02

  3,600,528

  Costs incurred by the Department of Education in respect of the provision of free travel for school children on public transport are:

  £

  1999–2000

  21,923,075

  2000–01

  20,708,035

  2001–02

  22,464,968

  Schools (Investment)
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding has been made available under the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity, Measure 4, Investing in Early Learning, to(a) controlled, (b) maintained and (c) grant-maintained integrated schools; and if he will make a statement. [86869]

  Jane Kennedy
  A total of 11.34 million Euros (of which 8 million Euros is the EU contribution) is available to the Department of Education under Measure 3.4 of the European Union's Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme, for securing the building of controlled, maintained, integrated and Irish-medium pre-school education facilities in local communities. The Measure will allow the Department to reclaim capital expenditure on a programme of nursery units, either built or to be built. The programme must, however, go through the application and selection procedure required by the EU. This procedure has not yet been concluded, and at this stage it is not possible to attribute any costs to Measure 3.4.
  359W
  However, between 1 January 2000 and November this year, a total of £5,103,000 million has been spent on building units for which the Department expects to reclaim the EU contribution. £2,660,000 million of this has been spent in the controlled sector, £2,134,000 million in the maintained, £239,000 in the integrated and £70,000 in the Irish Medium.

  Step-up Job Scheme
  Mr Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to provide pilots of the step-up job scheme. [88846]

  Jane Kennedy
  The report of the askforce on employability and long term unemployment, which I launched on 16 December, contains a proposal to pilot an intermediate labour market based on the step-up pilots in GB. Consideration is presently being given to the arrangements for the introduction of this pilot.

  Trainee Mathematics Teachers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to award golden hellos to trainee mathematics teachers. [88786]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no plans to introduce financial incentives in Northern Ireland to attract mathematics graduates, or graduates in any other subjects, into the teaching profession.

  Wind Farm Developments
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) public grants, (b) loans and (c) subsidies are available to support wind farm developments. [89401]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Trade and Industry manage a £79 million UK-wide capital grant fund to assist the deployment of offshore wind farms. There are however, no grants, loans or subsidies available to support the further development of onshore wind farms in Northern Ireland.

TREASURY

  Climate Change Levy
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of 360W
  his policy of exempting the biodegradable elements of waste feed from the climate change levy upon the economic size of incinerators. [88583]

  John Healey
  The exemption from climate change levy (CCL) for electricity generated from new forms of renewable sources covers a range of renewable sources, including biodegradable waste. No assessment has been made of the effect of the exemption on the economic size of incinerators. However, the scope and rates of all taxes, including CCL, are reviewed annually as part of the Budget process.

  Government Procurement
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress towards delivering savings in Government procurement through the office of Government Commerce. [89270]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The total value for money gains in Government procurement reported by central civil Government bodies for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 is £815 million.

  Landfill Levy
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of anticipated receipts from the landfill levy will be allocated to(a) continuing funding for environmental schemes and (b) funding to encourage sustainable waste management in (i) 2003–04, (ii) 2004–05 and (iii) 2005–06. [88584]

  John Healey
  No decision has yet been made on the precise figures that will apply. However, in 2003–04, landfill operators will be able to divert approximately 6 per cent. of their total tax liability to the funding of local environmental schemes. About a further 14 per cent. will be used to fund the uptake of more sustainable waste management practices. Estimates for future years will depend on the figures applied in 2003–04. The figures for 2005–06 will also depend on decisions the Government take on how the revenue from the proposed tax increase of £3 per tonne is recycled.

  Public Services Productivity
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place the minutes of the Public Services Productivity Panel for calendar years 2000 to 2002 in the Library. [87211]

  Mr. Boateng
  It has been the practice of successive administrations not to release the minutes of meetings concerned with the development of policy. Exemption 2 (internal discussion and advice) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short)
  Ethiopia remains dependent on food aid year on year. However needs have grown throughout 2002 and the Department for International Development has been continuously monitoring the effects of the drought and contributing to the relief efforts. In 2002 we had committed some £7 million to the ICRC and UN agencies by March. After further monitoring we provided an additional £2 million to ICRC in July and continued to support interventions in response to the unfolding situation. By early December DFID had committed over £17 million bilaterally. In addition we contribute almost 20 per cent. of the EC support. In 2002 this included an October commitment of €23 million for food; €4.2 million for other relief, and the Commission's pledge of emergency food aid programme worth €70 million, made in December, equivalent to about 260,000 metric tonnes, to help meet requirements in the first half of 2003.

  The early warning systems have been indicating that, as a result of poor rains and harvest failure across many parts of the country since about the middle of 2002, many rural communities are likely to face difficulties in 2003. On 7 December, a joint Ethiopian Government/UN appeal was launched for humanitarian assistance in 2003; 11.3 million people were identified as needing more than 1.4 million metric tonnes of food assistance with a further 3 million people requiring close monitoring. The World Food Programme considers current food aid pledges to be sufficient to meet needs until end of this month but there is concern about prospects after that. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said during the Appeal launch that he does not anticipate a repeat of the suffering experienced in 1984 provided support is forthcoming from the international community. We agree with his judgement.

  We are continuing to keep the situation under review, using the reports and assessments made by the Government and international agencies involved. We have also been involved in the frequent in-country dialogue on the humanitarian situation between the Ethiopian Government, other donors and nongovernmental organisations. Overall, the main rainy season ended on time having started late. The harvest is now in, and early indications are that it is 21 per cent. down on average. Recent nutritional data indicates unusual levels of malnutrition for this time of year.

  On the basis of our continuous monitoring and using information from a wide range of sources, we now consider a further substantial UK bilateral humanitarian contribution is timely. We have therefore made a further £15 million available for food-aid
  14WS
  through the UN World Food Programme. This contribution should continue to help allow greater certainty about food supplies in the months ahead and thus avert a crisis. We hope it will encourage others to act too.

  In the longer-term we are working with the Ethiopian Government and key donors to help tackle some of the deep poverty and underlying causes of food insecurity. For example, we will contribute to improvements in agriculture sector policies and support efforts to increase people's access to markets through improvements in rural transport infrastructure. We will also help to reduce the vulnerability of the poor to drought by promoting the development of safety nets for the predictably food insecure. Pastoralists, who are one of the most vulnerable groups, are an important target group for this work. Our country assistance plan, outlining our proposals for long-term partnership with Ethiopia, is currently in final draft form, having been subject to wide consultations since November. We are holding development talks with the Government on 14 January at which we expect to agree the final version, which will then be published.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Temporary Workers
  The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson)
  On 28 November 2002 the European Commission issued a revised draft directive on working conditions for temporary (agency) workers. The DTI will publish a revised explanatory memorandum and regulatory impact assessment on the revised proposal on 10 January. A summary of the responses to the Government's earlier public consultation on the directive will be published at the same time. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

HEALTH

  Diabetes
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy)
  We are publishing the diabetes national service framework delivery strategy today, just 13 months after publishing the diabetes national service framework standards. An implementation group of outside experts has helped us to develop the delivery strategy. This is an important NSF and the first to be published under the "Shifting the Balance of Power" reforms. As such, it needed to be developed in a new way.

  The delivery strategy confirms the targets in improvement, expansion and reform: the next three years:
  putting in place registers, education and advice, to support systematic treatment regimes
  ensuring a systematic eye-screening programme to national standards.

  15WS
  These are the first steps in reaching national diabetes standards for services which:
  lead to fewer people developing diabetes and better care for those who have it
  are centred around the needs of people with diabetes, developed in partnership with health care staff, equitable, integrated and focused on delivering the best outcomes for the person with diabetes
  offer care that is structured and pro-active providing people with the support they need to manage their own condition.

  The delivery strategy offers a framework for the NHS to build capacity to put in place building blocks for the NHS to reach the national service framework (NSF) standards over the next ten years. In addition to the two targets, key elements are:
  setting up a local diabetes network, or similarly robust mechanism, which involves identifying local leaders and appointing and resourcing network managers, clinical champions and a person(s) with diabetes to champion the views of local people
  reviewing the local baseline assessment, establishing and promulgating local implementation arrangements with a trajectory to reach the standards
  participating in comparative local and national audit
  undertaking a local workforce skills profile of staff involved in the care of people with diabetes and developing education and training programmes with the local Workforce Development Confederation.

  As announced in the delivery strategy, we plan to appoint a national clinical director for diabetes this spring to provide both national leadership and support to localities in delivering the national service framework.

  Copies of the diabetes national service framework delivery strategy have been placed in the Library.

  Health Costs
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy)
  When new tax credits start from next April—working tax credit and child tax credit—the arrangements for entitlement to help with health costs via tax credits will continue largely the same as now. Families (single people or couples) who get:

  working tax credit and child tax credit, or

  working tax credit with a disability addition

  and whose income is below a certain limit will be entitled to full help with health costs.

  In addition, families who cannot get working tax credit because they do not work 16 hours per week but get child tax credit, and whose income is below the same limit, will also be entitled to full help with health costs. This will include families whose income support stops when they start to get child tax credit.
  16WS
  The income limit will be based on the family's gross annual income, that is income for the year before tax and national insurance are taken off. For tax credit awards which start from April 2003 the income limit will be £14,200 gross per year. This is around the same income level as now after taking account of inflation and 2002 Budget changes to tax and national insurance.

  Currently the Inland Revenue sends out a tax credit exemption certificate to families who are entitled to full help with health costs. For awards of the new tax credits, the Prescription Pricing Authority (in Newcastle) will send out exemption certificates on behalf of all the health departments. Families in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland getting new tax credits who are entitled to full help with health costs will all be sent their exemption certificates by the Prescription Pricing Authority on the basis on information provided by the Inland Revenue.

  The Inland Revenue will include information for the public in a leaflet to be sent out with new tax credit awards.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche)
  I am today placing in the House library a short briefing note, as provided to the Standing Committee, covering the detail of the secondary legislation to be made under part 1 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. The note will also be available on my departmental website.

  I will be issuing further briefing notes on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill as it progresses through its Committee stages.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Curriculum
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I have today placed my decision, in the form of a letter to Gavyn Davies of 8 January and its accompanying schedule, on the BBC's application for approval of a licence-fee funded digital curriculum service in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I have approved the application, and have attached specific conditions to the approval to ensure that the service makes a positive contribution to a varied and competitive industry in education software.

  The service against the approval will be reviewed within two years of its launch.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Blackstone to be taken after that in the name of the Lord Grenfell; and on Wednesday next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Henley to be taken before that in the name of the Baroness Cumberlege.—(Baroness Symons of Verham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [H.L.]
11.8 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Enforcement notices]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
"(2B) No notice under subsection (2) or (2A) shall be served in respect of any pay reference period more than six years before the date of the service of the notice.""
The noble Baroness said: The Bill is intended to correct an unintended anomaly in the substantive Act. It overrules a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal whereby a person who has been underpaid his entitlement to the national minimum wage but has left the employment forfeits his right to recover the lost amount.
Parliament unarguably intended that every employee— present and past—should be able retrospectively to recover the arrears. The Bill, supported by these Benches, puts that matter right.
However, the amending Bill, introduced by the Government, throws up yet another drafting omission in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The power to make retrospective orders under Section 2 of the Act did not impose any limitation on the extent of arrears that,
"the Officer acting for the purposes of the Act",
could order to be paid. But such underpayments when they occur, whether reprehensibly, deliberately or through inadvertence or ignorance, are nothing more or less than civil debts.
Amendment No. 1, of which I gave the Government advance notice on Second Reading, simply confirms that this civil debt is subject to the same right of recovery under the Limitation Acts as any other civil debt. Even from the errant employer's point of view, the fact is that the majority—if not all —cases of underpayment, whether deliberate or accidental, will be by very small employers and even equity does not demand that he should be faced with a retrospective claim for what could be seven, eight or even more years of arrears. Six years is ample time for an employee to discover that he has been underpaid and to seek to recover those arrears.
It would be another anomaly if an employee who pursued his civil claim via the courts was subject to the limitation Acts whereas one engaging the mechanics of this Act had unlimited time.
The Committee may recall that when I raised this issue at Second Reading the Minister rejected the point on the grounds that,
"the measure … can only be retrospective for three years as companies are required only to keep records for three years".
He went on to say, in order to emphasis that argument:
"Although I believe that civil debt can go back six years, the measure we are discussing could be retrospective for only three years".—[Official Report, 10/12/02; col. 156]
I thank the Minister for correcting that misstatement of the law in response to a letter I wrote to him after Second Reading. He is always very courteous; he was very courteous and speedy in this case.
While referring to possible difficulties in establishing a claim going back more than three years, which I acknowledge, he wrote:
"There is no time limit in the legislation on how far back enforcement notices may be taken".
There is no time limit. Exactly. That is precisely the point of the amendment. I should like to think that the Government are not seeking to create a specially privileged class of creditor who would not be subject to the normal statute of limitation and that they will therefore correct the anomaly I have pointed out by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: The noble Baroness raises an extremely interesting point. I do not want to go into the arcane precedent of the law of limitations, as no doubt the Minister will have to do in order to respond to the noble Baroness, but I shall ask the Minister one fundamental question. I can envisage in 10 or 15 years' time, when presumably the minimum wage legislation will still be in force, although the rates may be different, that the kind of cases which the Bill

1103
contemplates will arise when someone discovers— albeit in this case after he or she has left the employment in question—that he or she has been underpaid for a considerable period of time. Why in those circumstances should the period of back pay to which that person is entitled be limited only to three years, or six years as in the amendment of the noble Baroness?
If someone has been earning £6,000 a year in their previous employment and they should have been paid £7,000 a year, why should they not be entitled to the extra £1,000 a year going back to the time they started that employment? That is the core of the point which the Minister needs to answer before the Committee can comment or vote on the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Government agree with the general thrust of the amendment, which aims to ensure that enforcement notices cannot go back for more than six years. However, in practice, we believe that the amendment is not needed.
I shall begin by explaining the position under the present legislation. If an employer fails to comply with an enforcement notice, enforcement officers can pursue one of two options. First, officers can take a case to the county courts, in which case the Limitation Act 1980 already applies. They could seek to recover arrears only for a period of up to six years. Almost all the cases brought so far by the Revenue have used that route and are, therefore, already subject to the six-year restriction sought by the amendment. Secondly, officers can take a case to the employment tribunals, using the powers in the Employment Rights Act 1996. In that case, officers must put their case before the tribunals within three months of the last underpayment, but the Limitation Act does not apply. In theory, officers could pursue underpayments over a period exceeding six years. However, the three-month limit for bringing a claim is extremely tight and, in practice, that route has hardly ever been used by the Revenue.
The legislation was deliberately designed to give enforcement officers similar rights in this area to those already held by the individual workers concerned, essentially to create the possibility that officers should be able to stand in for the workers and enforce their rights in much the same way as the workers themselves. In this legislation, we are talking about enforcement rights and enforcement officers, not the underlying rights in the basic legislation.
I therefore think it would be wrong to create a position in which officers using the tribunals route could not go back as far as the workers themselves could, even though, as I said, few cases use that route. The great majority of cases brought by the Revenue can go back for only six years. Although, in theory, some cases could be taken back further, that seems extremely unlikely in practice. I should add that the average minimum wage case extends back for less than a year and—a point that I have made before—the
1104
minimum wage came into force only in April 1999. At the moment, therefore, cases could be taken back only for three and a half years in any event.
The minimum wage regulations require employers to hold pay records only for three years, so that, in practice, the Revenue would find it difficult to pursue cases that went back further than three years, unless there was clear evidence, such as payslips, held by the worker and no dispute about the hours worked.
For all those reasons, it seems likely that few cases will go back further than three years and very few will go back as far as or further than six years. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance that she seeks and that she can agree to withdraw the amendment.
11.15 a.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall withdraw the amendment, but I shall read carefully what the Minister said. The Minister intends to be helpful, not convoluted, but what he said struck me as being convoluted.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, does not want to limit the period even to six years, and I understand that. I would not like the noble Lord to think that I do not want the employee to get whatever he deserves. I believe that he will—
Lord Razzall: Or she.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Or she. I thank the noble Lord. However, he should not be able to bring the case 20 years later. That would be intolerable for a small employer. If the Minister is saying that it does not matter because there will be so few cases—one would be too many, if the person did not get paid—I cannot understand why the amendment cannot be accepted. It would not interfere with the Bill in any way.
The Minister's letter says:
"there is no time limit in the legislation".
There ought to be. The Minister says that, in practice, there is a limit, but it seems that it is hard for him to accept amendments that I put down. He may smile at me, but I know that it is hard for him.
All that the Minister need do is stand up and graciously accept the amendment. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: At this stage, this is a probing amendment. When the Bill, which is intended to correct an anomaly that operates to the possible detriment of what may, admittedly, be a small number of employees, becomes an Act, it will not come into effect for two months. What is the reason for the delay?
Neither employers, employees nor the Inland Revenue need to gear themselves up extensively to give effect to the Act. It is a simple matter. All that it involves is that, possibly, some extra cases—not many, I suspect—will be brought into the system now, rather than later. Whatever the number, there is no reason why they should be deferred at all. I remind the Minister of the adage:
"Justice delayed is justice denied".
If an employee discovers that he has not been paid what he is entitled to, he ought to be able to bring a case. As I said, it may be only a few people, but we are concerned that they should all get what they are entitled to as quickly as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe that this amendment is intended to be helpful, as it would bring the Bill into force as soon as Royal Assent is obtained. I take this as an indication of general support for the Bill from the noble Baroness and am grateful to her for that.
Personally I rather sympathise, being of a rather impatient temperament myself, with the proposal to bring the Bill into force straightaway, but I think that there is a good reason for not doing so.
We have checked the position with the Cabinet Office and the established procedure is that Bills commence two months after Royal Assent, unless there are pressing reasons for bringing the Bill into force more rapidly. The idea is that both business and employees should have a reasonable opportunity to see and understand the implications of a new Act before it comes into force. Although I agree with the noble Baroness that the argument is not particularly strong in this case—where we are not changing the existing entitlement to the minimum wage—I think we can all agree that in general it is highly desirable that there is this period before a Bill comes into effect.
Even where there are pressing legal reasons the two month commencement period is generally retained, except in the case of emergencies. This is clearly not an emergency. The Bill will allow enforcement officers to issue notices in respect of pay periods ending before the Bill comes into force, so we shall be able to recover past moneys owed to workers whether the Bill comes into force in, say, March or May of this year.
So, although I sympathise with the aims of this amendment, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I made it clear that it was a probing amendment. I thank the Minister, first, for having sympathy with the amendment and, secondly, for taking it to the Cabinet Office. I am grateful to him for that. However, while I shall certainly withdraw the amendment, I do not really accept what he is saying because in this case the reason for bringing forward the Bill is that the first Bill was drafted incorrectly. Had it been drafted correctly the employee would receive his money immediately. In view of that, I believe that employees are entitled still to do so because the mistake is the fault—I do not say of the Government or the Minister—of the actual Act and the way in
1106
which it was drafted. Therefore, I ask the Government and the Minister to be sympathetic again and push the point. If the Government had not made the error in the first place, employees would have been able to receive their money on the same day as the Act came into force, which was over a year ago. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Voting Age (Reduction to 16) Bill [H.L.]
11.24 a.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill does exactly what it says on the can. It would reduce the voting age in parliamentary and other elections to 16. There are two principal reasons for doing this. One is equity and justice. The other is the opportunity which it might give us to make a contribution to the revival of active democratic politics in this country, whose decline over many years we are all well aware of and much concerned with.
I turn first to the argument of equity, which I see as the main argument. In the process of a child's life from birth to 21 we accord it various responsibilities at various ages. At age five, a child is expected to know how to behave well—and can be thrown out of school if he or she does not. At age 10, a child can be convicted of murder and has criminal responsibility. At age 16, a whole slew of responsibilities are lumped onto children. They can get married; they can leave home; and they can join the Armed Forces. It is an age when we turn children out of children's homes. Sixteen is a great turning point in a child's life. At 17, we allow them to drive; at 18, we allow them to buy cigarettes and alcohol; and at 21, we accord them the most dangerous privilege of all, which is standing for election for Parliament.
The question is: where in that spectrum should we allow them to vote? I suppose it depends on whether a vote is regarded as a right or a privilege. Through the centuries a vote has been regarded as a privilege—for example, in arguing against women's suffrage. I remember from my own youth the argument against the extension of suffrage to the black population in Rhodesia—they were not ready for it; they did not know enough; and it was not a privilege that they were yet up to exercising. If we did give them the vote they would merely elect a monkey, as in Hartlepool. That is an argument founded on the idea that a vote is a privilege. If one follows down that route we in this country should have some kind of examination before someone is allowed to exercise a vote to prove that they understand the issues in question.
However, that is not the basis that we act on in this country. In this country, we regard a vote as a right. Rights should go with responsibilities. In this country, after our various efforts over past years, 16 is the age

1107
at which we accord children responsibilities. That is when we throw them out into the world, when we put the burdens of the world on their shoulders and that is when we should accord them the right to vote.
As the old adage says, "No taxation without representation". Much the same, to my mind, applies to all the other burdens that we place on children's shoulders. We have chosen to do it at 16. That is when they should have the right to have a say in how they are governed and how those burdens are placed on them.
Turning to the other aspect which is of opportunity, we are taking steps at last to see whether we can revive an interest in democratic politics in this country and reverse the gradual decline in participation in general and other elections. One of the most significant changes, to my mind, is the introduction of a citizenship curriculum in schools, so that children will go out into the world knowing something of what their rights and opportunities are in a world of democratic politics. It will be a little strange to say to those kids, "We can teach you about it before 16 but you haven't actually got any rights to exercise and get involved in these things until you are 18". That misses a tremendous opportunity to get kids involved at that age.
As part of the citizenship curriculum, children could be encouraged to register for voting and encouraged to participate in whatever elections are taking place at the same time. There is so much practical application and involvement in the modern curriculum. One could even have it as a project: "This is what I did during the 1986 local elections. These were the issues. These were the positions I took. This is what I did. This is my participation in it." There are elections of one form or another most years—certainly every other year—in which children could be involved. There is no reason why it should not be part of the curriculum—if children so wish they could pursue it and to be involved.
There is no bar on politics in schools. We teach extensive politics under the headings of environmentals and history. There is a great deal of politics in that. Not to include the full span of current politics, current involvement and current issues seems to me to be a great missed opportunity.
We should not be afraid of political debate and political radicalism at that age. A lot of the current Cabinet were active politically at that age. Yes, now they do not hold the opinions that they held then but that does not invalidate the fact that when they were 16, 17 and 18, they were active politically and held views which were a valid set of views for them to have at that age. We should not deny children the right to vote merely because with mature reflection 40 years on they do not hold the view that they held then.
Therefore, there seems to me to be a great argument in favour of getting the young involved politically. It provides the opportunity to revive real democratic debate. We can also find other ways of involving young people. There seems to me to be no reason why we should not allow them to stand for election to parish councils. It is hard enough to get good people
1108
on to parish councils in any event and if a young person is prepared to participate and put in the necessary amount of time, why not? We should encourage them to be part of other semi-democratic bodies such as school governing bodies and so forth. That happens in some cases, but not as widely as might be the case.
Indeed, when we are looking at the future of this House, we might even consider having a youth representation. How else are we to choose the democratic representatives who are to come here? It cannot be on the basis of parliamentary constituencies or we would rival MPs, and it cannot be on the basis of Euro constituencies because that is a recipe for apathy. To use proportional representation would make us more legitimate than the House of Commons. The template we have been offered is that we should be a House which represents all parts of the kingdom and all interests. Youth is part of that, and if you get people to vote for a group of which they believe themselves to be part and in which they take an interest, you have a hope of reviving real interest.
There are many ideas to be pursued, and if we are to revive democratic politics in this country we must be prepared to be adventurous and try different things. It may not work—so many things must come together to make it work. Giving votes to 16 year-olds has worked in Germany and there is greater participation and interest, but it may not work in this country. However, we have the opportunity to try things and we should consider votes at 16 now. Because of all that we have done to give responsibilities to 16 year-olds, it is right that we should give them the right to vote. We need to take the opportunity now to start at the base and revive an interest in democratic politics in this country.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. Does he not believe that there is a danger of parental bullying of 16 year-old kids when they go to vote? That is a danger.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, surely the point of the secret ballot is that what a person does in the voting booth is entirely up to him. I suspect that a great deal of bullying of grandmothers goes on, too. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas.)
11.32 a.m.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, it is 34 years since a Bill was passed that lowered the minimum age for voting in this country. Much has changed in Britain since then. The attitudes of young people as well as attitudes towards them have moved on considerably. So it must be right to reconsider the question of what is the appropriate age to allow someone to vote. We should therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing forward this Bill.
The Bill is actually in full accord with Liberal Democrat policy that voting rights should be afforded from the age of 16. It will, of course, be suggested by

1109
some that many young people are not sufficiently mature, well informed or interested to cast a vote. My experience of elections, however, suggests that it would be quite wrong to suggest that everybody over the age of 18 has this maturity, level of knowledge and interest—while nobody aged 16 or 17 possesses these qualities.
This Bill does not suggest that voting should be compulsory for 16 and 17 year-olds. It would simply allow those who attain the age of 16 by the end of October 2004 to vote in public elections thereafter—if they wish to do so. The age at which it may be appropriate to vote will actually vary from person to person. Perhaps I would have been too young to cast my first vote at the age of 16. But by that age, I was the secretary of the Liverpool Wavertree Constituency Liberal Party and I had been treasurer of the Church Ward Liberal Association for three years.
In my sixth form at the Liverpool Blue Coat School, there were many of my contemporaries sufficiently interested in politics and current affairs to hold a sensible discussion and who would have been conscientious voters at the ages of 16 or 17. Sadly, from my point of view, they were overwhelmingly Conservative in the late 1970s—but they were certainly able to make an informed choice.
Nearly two years ago, I took part in a sixth form debate at Upper Warlingham school in Surrey together with representatives of the Conservative and Labour parties. The concerns of young people were eloquently addressed by the sixth formers present. An intelligent and well informed discussion was held on issues ranging from homelessness to the environment, from cannabis to student tuition fees.
There was no doubt that many of those young people were at least as ready as most voters to consider carefully how they would mark their cross on a ballot paper. But perhaps because those aged 16 and 17 are not able to vote, many of the issues about which they are most concerned are not fully reflected in the priorities of many politicians.
All those who believe in democracy must want to encourage democratic participation. It is my belief that if people do not engage in the process of choosing their lawmakers, they are less likely to respect the laws that are enacted, less likely to believe that change can come about in a fair and democratic way, and their opting out of the democratic process has many dangers. We should therefore encourage 16 and 17 year-olds to engage in the process as soon as they feel ready.
Someone who is 16 in 2004 might not have a chance to vote in a general election until he is 21 and has learnt to experience many facets of adult life, but not including voting for his Government. By then, the evidence is that he may well have come to the conclusion that voting is for someone else and not for him. There will, of course, be partisan interest by the parties as to what would be the effect of allowing younger people to vote. Indeed, Peter Riddell in The Times on Monday suggested that the only hope for the Conservative Party might be to raise the minimum age
1110
of voting to 56 and above. But let us put the interests of younger people first and let us encourage them to be responsible citizens as soon as they are ready.
11.37 a.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for giving us the opportunity to consider this matter. However, I must confess that I do not believe that there is any case in favour of giving school children at the age of 16 the responsibility of deciding which party shall be in power and what kind of government we shall have. I will come to more of that later.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, of course one remembers well. Perhaps I may confess that I was born a Liberal, too, and that at the age of about 10 I started talking politics with my father, who was also a Liberal. I became very interested in the subject but the more I did so and the older I grew, the more I realised that experience of life and the world was necessary for one to exercise a useful judgment in voting. I must say that I am totally against the proposal in my noble friend's Bill and I see little chance of it reaching the statute book, thank goodness.
I hope that no one will take it amiss if I point out the limitations of the electorate as it is, with all men and women over the age of 18—or (shall I say?) with young men and girls over the age of 18—having the right to vote. I hope that your Lordships will not mind my reminding the House that I fought and won 10 general elections; that I never had a majority of less than 5,000; and that in the large and varied constituency I represented for 34 years at least two-thirds of the voters—certainly two-thirds of those who voted—were wage earners and their families. I had great respect for them and they did not hesitate to vote for or against me. But most of them, of course, in order to get the majorities that I had, must have voted for me.
The issues in every general election are varied, but every time we find among them the issues of foreign affairs and defence, which are very big subjects; the economy; the standard of living; poverty; the need for ever improving education; and the avoidance of crime, which has become much more of an issue more recently and difficult to decide. Indeed, we are told—I do not like to think of it—that even within Her Majesty's present Government there are various opinions on how to reduce crime.
In addition to the issues that arise to a greater or lesser extent at every general election, there are other issues which vary considerably. It seemed to me during the years that I spent as a Member of another place that relatively few voters understood the causes of all the variable important problems; less, sometimes, did they understand the nature of the variable policies put forward by the parties for dealing with those problems. They were not easy issues to understand. Indeed, the younger and less educated the voter, the more difficult they found them to be.
The lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18, some 34 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, pointed out, increased the number of voters who found it difficult

1111
to understand the issues or their solutions. If we were to lower the voting age from 18 to 16, so bringing in vast numbers of semi-educated—and, indeed, sometimes under-educated—children, we would make democracy in this country even less reliable. For those reasons, I trust that the Bill will never be enacted.
11.43 a.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, argue most persuasively, as always, the case for his Bill.
It is fascinating to compare the setting of different voting ages in different countries historically. It might be assumed that a low minimum voting age would be associated with prowess and modernity, and a high minimum voting age with small "c" conservatism and even reaction. But if you were to assume that you would be wrong. Some 50 or so years ago, Professor C. Northcote Parkinson set out to rank the nations of the world according to their degree of civilisation overall as he saw it. Factors considered in this evaluation included, for example, long average life expectancy, low infant mortality, free access to good quality medical care and education, low crime rates, low road accident rates, minimal censorship and so on. Although this formula was devised by Professor Northcote Parkinson himself, few political commentators challenged it or disagreed with it.
The half-dozen countries deemed on this basis to be the most civilised in the world included the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Yet the minimum voting age in Norway and Sweden at around that time was 23, and in Denmark and the Netherlands it was 25. Conversely, the first major countries to lower their minimum voting age to 18 were the Soviet Union, and South Africa in the days of apartheid. As Desmond Tutu used to complain wearily, although neither he nor any other highly-educated black person had access to the ballot box, any semi-literate 18 year-old white labourer had full voting rights—and we all know what a farce voting in the Soviet Union used to be. So clearly there is no historical correlation between a low minimum voting age and what might be described as "national virtue".
Nowadays, of course, almost all democracies have a common minimum voting age of 18, in line with the age of majority. What is the case, therefore, for stepping out of line with most of the rest of the world and lowering the voting age to below the age of majority, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, bearing in mind that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as anyone under the age of 18?
One argument that I have heard was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. One accepts that Britain, albeit to no greater extent than the rest of Europe or Japan, is afflicted by a frankly inadequate birth rate, causing the average age of the population to go up and up, with many unfortunate consequences. One of these, although by no means the most serious, is that the average age of the electorate is obviously
1112
rising in tandem, posing the theoretical danger that the interests and aspirations of younger people may be sidelined.
But this presupposes that most older people are either childless or, if they are parents, are unconcerned with or dismissive of the younger generation's interests and ambitions. I doubt, on the whole, that this is the case. But, even if I am over sanguine in supposing that there is no real clash of generations and that the late Sixties and early Seventies was a one-off aberration, I still submit that lowering the voting age to 16 would simply substitute the fire for the frying pan. Because, unless the retirement age were smartly revised upwards to, say, 68 or 70 for both men and women, there would be a danger that recipients of so-called "state" aid—I say "state" but of course the state has no money of its own; it all comes from taxpayers—students, the unemployed and the retired, would increasingly outvote the working population in matters relating to the allocation of resources. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke of no taxation without representation. One could argue that there ought not to be any representation without taxation, but I shall not go into that issue now. For these and other reasons, I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
I have one final point. The noble Lord suggests that if the Bill is read a second time it should be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. But not much can be done with the Bill; the age cannot be altered because the short Title does not permit it. The Bill extends to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to England, but I wonder whether the Scottish Parliament would be under any obligation to accept this proposal were the Bill to pass, or whether of its own accord it could decide to raise or lower the minimum voting age. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's answer when he comes to reply.
11.49 a.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble kinsman Lord Lucas for giving us the opportunity to consider this proposal. The case rests on the undoubted failure of many in society to meet their responsibilities—at the moment a responsibility to exercise their vote seriously. The voting record is lamentable. It is an indictment of our society that the number who vote is declining. So before we reject my noble kinsman's Bill we should be careful to analyse what might be required to encourage people to take their duties more seriously.
There have been any number of initiatives in this area. Four years ago, Lord Jenkins chaired an independent commission examining different voting systems in an attempt to determine what system might more accurately reflect the wish of the electorate. The present lack of interest probably stems as much from disenchantment with the whole system as anything else—a sense of lack of involvement, the feeling among people that they have no ability to influence the larger political parties.
A number of initiatives are taking place at different levels. My noble kinsman referred to citizenship education. It is a sensible and worthy initiative at key

1113
stages 3 and 4 to encourage 14 to 16 year-olds to understand better the electoral process and the party system, the role of NGOs and much else besides.
I say with great respect to my noble friend Lord Renton that I do not share his concern that the educational level of 16 year-olds is such that they are unlikely to be able to make a contribution by exercising their vote. I have rather more confidence. I have no great concern that they will be bullied by their parents, as might be suggested. I seem to hear an echo from across the years. When the vote was to be extended to women, the argument was advanced that women were bound to obey their husbands so what on earth was the point of giving them the vote. I do not know whether your Lordships have ever tried to bully a 16 year-old. I do not recommend it.
Sustainable development, geography in the news and many educational initiatives rightly encourage 15 and 16 year-olds to look at the role that society should be playing in terms of wider responsibility. I take the view—it may be simplistic but I take it nevertheless in the hope that we can improve on our present rather lamentable record—that if we can encourage people who have been inducted in a way for which there is presently an appetite to consider their responsibilities in society and at the same time cement their interest by giving them the opportunity to vote, I quietly and confidently expect that that would be appreciated and that their views would be just as valid as those of Members of this House. I should certainly not wish to be so patronising as to suggest that the views of 15 and 16 year-olds are unlikely to be valid because of their lack of experience.
I accept, however, that this is a matter of judgment. I should not want the vote to be given to those below the age of 16. But 16 has a certain symmetry to it, bearing in mind the educational attainments of 16 year-olds. In terms of my own personal record, I think that I peaked as a politician at about 16. It has been downhill ever since in terms of lack of interest. I had a great appetite in this regard at that age, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I have no difficulty therefore in assuming that 16 and 17 year-olds would make an effective contribution.
I should judge such an experiment retrospectively to see whether it had been a success—not by the complexion of the government who might have been elected as a result of widening the franchise in this way but by seeing how many people continued to exercise their right to vote in future elections.
At present, the record of the 18 to 28 year-old age group is, frankly, even worse than that of the population at large. That suggests to me disenchantment. It suggests that not having been able to participate in a system about which they were taught two or three years before they were able to exercise their vote was something of a turn-off—an opportunity lost. It takes a great deal of time to return people to an interest in the subject and to an understanding of their responsibilities.
I commend my noble kinsman on introducing the Bill. I, for one, will give it my support.
11.55 a.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to endorse what has been said in support of his proposal not only by my noble friend Lord Rennard but also by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne.
I have to confess that, originally, when the idea of reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 was mooted as policy for my party, I was somewhat sceptical about it. I have since changed my mind. The main reason for that is the seriously worrying decline in the level of voting and public interest in politics. I believe that a reduction in the voting age is part of the remedy.
The great majority of young people now stay on at school until the age of 18. If the voting age were to be reduced to 16, half of those who stay on would have the chance while at school to vote in a general election, given the four-year average length of a Parliament. Certainly, half of all students in Scotland and Wales would have the chance to vote for their national Parliament or Assembly. Almost certainly, everyone would have a chance to vote in a local election.
Students in years 12 and 13 are capable of taking an active and lively interest in politics. Anyone who has stood as a parliamentary candidate in a general election would agree that school students in their A-level years are one of the most challenging and lively audiences that one could meet. They ask difficult and perceptive questions. I remember an occasion when one of my opponents in the old Kensington constituency was "mangled" by the sixth form at Holland Park comprehensive school because he talked to them as if they were a bunch of 12 year-olds.
The fact that some people, such as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have changed their minds since they reached the age of 16 is no argument for saying that 16 year-olds should not have the vote. Indeed, some of us would say that the noble Lord's second thoughts were not as good as his original ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested in his intervention that 16 year-olds might be bullied by their parents. I note that the noble Lord has three sons, and I wonder whether he would have told them at the age of 16 how to vote, and if he had whether he thinks they would have done what he told them out of fear.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, perhaps I may answer that point. If I had done so, they might well have voted the wrong way from my point of view for the wrong reason. That is my point.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, if older school students are allowed to vote, I believe that the casting of their vote could become a kind of rite of passage. It is much more likely to happen with 16 and 17-year olds at school than with those who are 18 or older. University students, particularly if they are living away from home and therefore away from their own constituency, are likely to take a reduced interest in politics because they have lost their constituency links. 'They will take a reduced interest unless they belong to that class of

1115
student politicians who are sometimes student political nerds. If 18 year-olds are not at university, they are mostly in the workplace, where there is unlikely to be a great deal of talk about politics.
There is, however, one big "if". I believe that a reduction in the voting age will have a real effect on the political process only if it is coupled with truly effective training in citizenship. I welcome the fact that there will be such training now. Students need to be told why voting matters, and how people fought for the vote. They need to know how, and why, men of the lower, middle and working classes fought for it in the 19th century and women fought for it in the early 20th century. They need to be told that politics is the most crucial profession and that, in our country at least, the majority of politicians are honourable people trying to do their best. I wish we had a domestic television programme comparable with the American programme "The West Wing", which shows politicians as idealistic and committed people.
Students should be taught that they not only have the right to vote but a duty, although not a legal one. I would strongly oppose any proposal to make voting compulsory. All of us with the right to vote have a moral duty. If students could vote while they were being taught about the importance of voting, it would get them off to a good start. For those reasons, and on behalf of our Benches, I give wholehearted support for the Bill.
12.1 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I compliment my noble friend on his eloquence in deploying cogent arguments for his Bill. I also express my appreciation of those who criticised it. The timing of the debate is felicitous, because the Electoral Commission is currently examining the minimum voting age in some depth. Its examination will include open public consultation to enable individuals and organisations to make their views known. I also hope that its report will assess the effect of voting at 16 in countries where it has been adopted, albeit that some such as Cuba and North Korea are single-party states. None of the seven countries where there is voting at 16 is European, although there has been an experiment in one of the Lander in Germany.
The Electoral Commission has already touched on the issue in its research paper Voter engagement and young people published in July last year. That paper pursued the research finding by MORI at the time of the last election that the overall turnout of 59.4 per cent of eligible voters was the lowest since the advent of universal suffrage. My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to that in detail. Low turnout was particularly pronounced among young people, with only an estimated 39 per cent of 18 to 24 year-olds casting a vote. It is also estimated that only 60 per cent of that age group were registered to vote. I shall make no comment on that but I am sure that noble Lords will come to their own conclusions.
Low turnout at elections concerns us all if it is not explicable by a considered decision to abstain. There is considerable speculation about the causes and possible
1116
remedies. Those who have studied the matter only cursorily, as I have, realise that if Parliament lowered the voting age, we might increase the total number voting, but we would not necessarily increase the percentage turnout if the inaction that characterised 18 to 24 year-olds in the previous election were simply to be extended to the 16 to 18 age group. Of course, that is an unwarranted assumption on my part.
It could be argued—indeed, it has been—that voting at 16 might encourage the practice of voting, especially if the grant of the vote were accompanied by effective, impartial education in citizenship, its rights and responsibilities. Voting at 16 might have a salutary effect on the use of the vote in later life, not just by the newly enfranchised but by their parents and others whom they might influence positively. Of course, I respect the possibility that it could be the other way round. The obverse scenario is that an extension of the franchise is simply equated with an extension of apathy and the negative factors promoting low turnout.
Some bodies, notably the Electoral Reform Society, have already committed themselves to the principle of granting the vote to 16 year-olds. They are actively campaigning for it, with the support of a variety of youth organisations, including the British Youth Council, Children's Rights Alliance and the National Youth Agency. The ERS, in its submission on the Scottish Executive's White Paper on the future of local government, states,
"there is a far greater case for lowering the voting age than mere turnout".
It puts forward arguments that merit attention. We have heard some of them during this debate. Like my noble friend Lord Lucas, it points to the inconsistency between the voting age of 18 and the age at which a young person can leave school, work full time, pay taxes, leave home, join the Armed Forces and receive social security benefit—all at 16. Taxation without representation appears to be the lot of a substantial proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds. But even younger people pay tax, although perhaps only in VAT on sweets. Elsewhere in its documents the ERS refers to the right to marry at 16 with parental consent. My only comment in general is that there is also a thrust in society today to increase rather than lower the age in some areas, especially, for example, in education. Many noble Lords remember, as I do, when the school leaving age was 14 and many young people went to work then. Our attitude to young people is now more protective. We want them to remain children while they grow up.
The ERS also argues that,
"not letting 16 and 17 year olds express their political views through the ballot box gives the impression to them and the rest of society that their views are not valid and that they are not real citizens. This contributes to the disconnection that many young people feel from the political process and structures".
There may be some truth in that, but the electoral behaviour of 18 to 24 year-olds does not suggest that the right to vote in itself will make a real difference. I note the finding of a trial in Lower Saxony that suggests that 16 to 17 year-olds may behave differently from 18 to 24 year-olds and take a rather more active interest than the second age group.

1117
It is also argued that the denial of the vote to these young people is based on similar grounds to the denial of the vote to women before the 1920s. That is a debatable point, too, which has been referred to by a number of speakers in the course of this debate. But at the end of the day, I come back to the Prime Minister's point in his shrewd answer to a question from Matthew Green, the Member for Ludlow, on 23rd January last year. He said:
"I am not sure that we would always want 16-year-olds to do all the things they can do".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/1/02; col. 887]
He did not agree with the proposal to lower the voting age. He believed that it should remain as it is. I think that the Prime Minister was probably reflecting the protective attitude of parents who, however advanced and well informed—perhaps precocious—their children are, they wish them to have time to develop their powers of judgment and achieve a degree of political maturity before they vote. What is a proper degree of political maturity is another matter and that would be a debate in itself. But that is the ground on which arguments against a reduction in the voting age are largely based.
While the campaign for a lower voting age has many supporters, including, as we have heard, the Liberal Democrats—Liberal Democrat Peers have expressed it—the Scottish nationalists and the Welsh nationalists, I am not aware of any cross-party parliamentary body that has recommended a change in what some may regard as a totally arbitrary age line of 18. The Howarth Working Party on Electoral Procedures considered the matter, but it did not recommend a change and neither did the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into electoral law and administration. The Commission on Local Government electoral arrangements in Wales, on the other hand, has recommended a lower voting age to the National Assembly. But I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that to the best of my recollection the commission did not advance a substantive argument.
This is certainly not a proposal that is going away. We have been here before and certainly another place has. The increasing dependence of our ageing population on the young and the latter's corresponding increase in economic and political importance will ensure that the issue will remain prominent. We want young people to interest themselves in politics and we want to hear their views. We may be sure that the Electoral Commission's research will certainly fuel debate. There has already been one quite interesting debate in Westminster Hall.
My noble friend's Bill gives us all a chance to weigh the arguments, look at them again, and re-assess our own views. I am sure that we are very open minded in spite of our achieved maturity. I for one am certainly grateful to my noble friend for stimulating debate on the issue by promoting the Bill before us.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on introducing his Bill, aimed as it is at enfranchising more young people. The noble Lord encourages us to be adventurous. He has certainly provoked very lively debate
1118
which, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has said, will continue for some time. Indeed, the debate is going on inside and outside your Lordships' Chamber.
There is an irony in that we who are disenfranchised as regards general elections are taking the lead, as it were, in extending the franchise to younger people and having the debate. I should also say at this early stage that, as is usually the case as regards Private Members' Bills, the Government do not take a formal view for or against it in its progress through your Lordships' House. We will take no steps to oppose it.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would have expected me to approach this matter with some considered views. I decided at an early stage, knowing that I had to deal with the Bill, that I should form a focus group on the issue. That is very popular in Labour circles. The defining feature of this focus group had to be that all participants shared my surname Bassam and that they had to be aged seven to 14 years. In accordance with good practice in a democratic household, they were extensively consulted over this matter.
The good news from the noble Lord's perspective is that they all favoured the notion of reducing to 16 the age at which they might vote. The bad news is that were they to be able to cast their vote from that age onward I do not believe that it would greatly affect the prospects of the noble Lord's political party.
More seriously, the Government remain deeply concerned at the lack of engagement among young people in the democratic process. I know that one noble Lord at least mentioned the way in which turn out at general elections has been steadily reducing. I was recently reading an account of the 1950 general election at which 80 per cent of the population voted. It is widely understood that at the last general election just 59 per cent of the population voted.
Lowering the voting age may be seen as one way of addressing this issue although as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, reflected, extending and widening the franchise does not necessarily increase the percentage turn out at subsequent elections.
The question of the political and democratic engagement of young people goes much wider, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made very clear, than just the voting age. The Government have taken several legislative steps in recent years to modernise and simplify electoral law and processes so that they take account of, and are more relevant to, modern lifestyles and habits, including in particular those of younger people. For example, we have already introduced rolling registration, registration for those without a conventional address and postal voting on demand. Such measures make it easier both to register to vote and to cast a ballot.
We want to see in place elections that adopt a multi-channelled approach and take advantage of new technology with which young people are growing up and with which they are comfortable and familiar. To find out the best way of doing this we have enabled local authorities to carry out pilot schemes under the Representation of the People Act 2000 to test new ways of voting, such as through the Internet, telephone, SMS

1119
text messaging and so on, to ensure that they work and that they are safe and secure. We are committed to an e-enabled general election taking place, no doubt, some time after 2006. We consulted widely on e-democracy in our In the Service of Democracy consultation paper last year. That addressed the essential and vital point that engagement with the democratic process goes far beyond simply voting. It also specifically asked,
"young people, whether at school, university or work"
for their views.
We recognise that changing the voting system and lowering the age, as the noble Lord suggests, cannot of themselves address the issue of the engagement of young people including those who are perhaps uninterested in politics from the outset. But we are determined to identify—
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Although lowering the age of voting may not alone affect the engagement of young people, the Labour government of 1966 considered that it was a significant factor in reducing the voting age from 21 to 18. To further the examination and argument they appointed a Speaker's Conference in which I had the honour to serve. It recommended a reduction in the voting age. Have the Government given consideration to the appointment of a Speaker's Conference to focus on this issue at this time?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have not considered that approach. However, we established the Electoral Commission, which is actively considering all these issues. No doubt its reports and reflections on such matters will inform continued debate on the subject. I believe that that is perhaps the best way for us to address the issue.
In general, we are determined to identify other ways in which we can stimulate and encourage younger people to become involved. A number of initiatives have already been undertaken in the field. For example, through the "YVote?/YNot?" exercise, the Children and Young People's Unit explored with young people what can be done to ensure that they receive the information needed to bring issues to life for them, and thus encourage their participation. The Electoral Commission has researched,
"Voter engagement and young people",
and has carried out campaigns and competitions aimed specifically at sparking the interest of young people, such as "Votes are power" and a design competition on the importance of voting.
As a number of noble Lords observed, the concept of citizenship was introduced into the school curriculum from 2002 to interest and inform young people in the democratic process. Above all, it has to be the case that we listen to young people to find out, and implement, what they want and need in order to enable them to play their full part.
1120
I turn to the specific purpose of the Bill. As most noble Lords have noted, wider discussion of voting age and other electoral issues must be beneficial in raising the profile of electoral matters, in gauging public views, especially those of young people, and, most importantly, in informing policy-making. As has been mentioned, many bodies both within and outside government are presently examining the question of the voting age and related issues. The independent Electoral Commission is preparing to look at such issues, and we fully welcome that initiative.
Throughout the world, 18 years of age is by far the most common minimum age for voting. Some 142 countries set their voting age at 18 for at least one of their chambers of parliament: 171 chambers altogether have a franchise at 18. Only three, Korea, Indonesia, and the Sudan, set the voting age at 17, with a further three, Brazil, Cuba, and Nicaragua, permitting voting at 16, and just one, Iran, setting the age at 15.
As has been acknowledged, the age of majority in the United Kingdom was last reviewed in depth in the 1960s by the Latey commission, whose recommendation was brought into effect through the Representation of the People Act 1969. There has been no further legislative move on this subject since then, although an amendment was proposed to reduce the minimum voting age to 16 during the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill in 1999. However, that legislation had been drawn up to implement the recommendations of the Howarth working party, and was fast-tracked on the understanding that it was purely a vehicle to implement those recommendations. We took the view that amendments on other issues could have endangered its fast-track status. Therefore, the amendment was opposed and defeated at that stage.
Any decision on the major step of further reducing the voting age cannot be taken in isolation, or without widespread public debate. While the Government are not necessarily opposed to the policy that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is seeking to push forward, we argue that his Bill is premature—
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I wonder whether he could consider why extreme regimes have a higher incidence of voting at the age of 16 than other kinds of democratic regimes. Can he express a view as to why that might be the case?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting observation. No doubt the point relates to the issue he raised earlier about bullying and intimidation. Obviously, we wish to reflect on such issues. For that reason, it is also right that the Government should reflect on the results of the research currently being undertaken on the potential impact of reducing the minimum voting age.
As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, pointed out, the Electoral Commission expects to launch a number of public discussions and reviews as part of its work. There will also be extensive consultation, which we greatly welcome. The report will be followed by

1121
recommendations that the commission believes to be most appropriate resulting from its extensive consultation. We, as government, will give serious consideration to any recommendations made by the commission following its review.
We remain neutral on the issue. I should perhaps observe that the Bill is technically deficient as drafted; for example, while providing for young people to vote at the age of 16 and thereby facilitating their eligibility, it does not include provision for their registration as electors. Therefore, it would not work. However, putting that to one side, we greatly welcome the debate that the noble Lord has stimulated by bringing forward the Bill. In a sense, we hope that the debate will form part of a wider and deeper consultation on how we encourage and improve the participation of young people in the electoral and political processes of our country.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, can be reply to my question about whether the Scottish Parliament has the powers unilaterally to alter the voting age?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that it does not have that power.
12.27 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords, who have spoken, especially those who have chosen to support me. My noble kinsman came riding to my aid in that regard, and I warmly thank him for his contribution. I must also express my thanks to the Liberal Democrat Party. I have to confess that my family, too, is a Liberal family. Indeed, the previous Lord Lucas was a Minister in a Liberal government. I should perhaps therefore repay some of my treachery by being grateful for the support of noble Lords from those Benches on this occasion.
I take the strictures of my noble friend Lord Renton most seriously. I have listened to him over many years, and have thus been educated by him. However, I do not agree with him on this occasion. If we are putting someone in a position where he can take the responsibility of starting and bringing up a family, with all the difficult decisions that that involves as regards looking forward and considering such issues, and if we tell him that he is free to commit himself to fight and die for this country as a member of the Armed Forces, as well as taking other similar decisions, it is very hard then to say to him that voting involves taking a much more responsible and difficult decision. I believe that we should follow the consistency of our previous decisions and say that 16 is the age at which we grant this sort of responsibility.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy for his elegant tour d'horizon of the issues; and, indeed, if I may put it this way, for his lack of opposition. I also thank the Minister for his response. We should not allow ourselves to be too hemmed in by the practice in other countries. This is a domestic issue.
1122
In granting responsibility and rights to 16 year-olds, we have chosen to take a particular route. Therefore, we should follow that internal consistency.
Similarly, I am not put off by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on what happens in other regimes. We should be extremely grateful that 15 year-olds can vote in Iran. That has brought a measure of democracy to that country and, indeed, an interest in political radicalism. I do not believe that the 15 year-olds are the source of power for the mullahs; neither has Brazil suffered notably in its recent elections—at least from the noble Lord's point of view—from the fact that 16 year-olds are able to vote. I should be surprised if the noble Lord were to disagree with that. It does not seem to me that such parallels should be drawn in this respect.
All in all, I have learnt a great deal from today's debate. It has given me much to consider. I look forward to the further stages of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

High Hedges Bill [H.L.]
12.29 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord Skelmersdale in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Complaints to which this Act applies]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after "of" insert "natural"
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple seeming amendment but the issue is not simple. Light is of the greatest importance in the Bill, although we shall debate other issues of great importance to people's lives when we come to further amendments. Medically, light is known to have a major impact on health. Unavoidable loss of daylight during the winter is accepted as a cause of ill-health and a depressed state of mind. How much worse is it for hedge victims to suffer avoidable loss of light? The Bill is intended to deal with that issue.
I do not know whether the amendment I have tabled, using the word "natural", is the right one; natural light may be too restrictive a definition. Before I go into the detail, it is important to dispel some worries and concerns people have put to me. I have received a great deal of correspondence since Second Reading. Because of the press coverage, people still do not understand that the Bill is not intended to reduce every hedge in the country to 2 metres. We must make it clear that the decision as to the height at which the

1123
hedge is retained is flexible. Only if the hedge is 2 metres or more can there be any cause for complaint. Two metres will give ground floor to ground floor privacy. It also ties in with planning law, where a wall of more than 2 metres in height would require consent.
Other individuals are worried that treasured trees may be covered by the Bill and that their favourite tree will have to go. The Bill has nothing to do with trees. There are separate laws for trees. We must be certain that we are not dealing with individual trees. There have been legal case precedents with trees and there are other ways of resolving disputes over trees. But the law on hedges has been ineffective. It has taken 20 years to achieve success in the law courts.
Others are concerned that levels presently agreed with their neighbours might be considered no longer appropriate and they might be forced to change them. The Bill makes it clear that there will be opportunities; if levels have been agreed that is a good precedent which should be followed.
The aim is for hedges to be of reasonable, not oppressive height; it should be possible for them to be trimmed regularly; and they should be the sort of hedges that people would choose for a garden of a given size and which they would not consider too bad to impose on a neighbour. Light criteria on their own are not capable of defining such hedges. Light is not the only problem, but there is grave concern that the BRE guidelines for light would be inappropriate for hedges. For example, if you have a 5.25 metre hedge on a south boundary of a 15 metre garden, by mid-February 65 per cent of the garden will still be in full shade; by the end of March 50 per cent will still be in full shade; and at the summer solstice 20 per cent will remain in shade. In other words, 20 per cent of the garden is permanently shaded, but the degree of shade increases at different times of the year.
The Bill is intended to retain light of a degree that will make life good and liveable for the people on the dull side of the hedge—as I have said before, no one ever complains if they are on the sunny side. Under the BRE standards, a north hedge at the end of a 15 metre garden would be allowed up to 14 to 15 metres high. That is no answer for anyone. A hedge at the end of a tiny 9 metre garden could be 5 to 6 metres high. That applies to all aspects other than south, because if you get all the south sun you are on the sunny side and the situation would not apply.
If we followed the BRE guidelines on light, over one-third of people who have complained about hedges would receive no benefit at all, and two thirds would receive so little that it would not be worth their while using the Bill to seek an improvement. It is important that the question of light be determined. I hope that the Government will come forward with a more clear and positive way of determining light, not using BRE standards. I am not asking them to produce a magic answer now—there is time to consider the matter—but I would like the views of other Members of the Committee on light.
Natural light is one thing, but diffused light, sunlight and living light are others. Natural light would mean anything except artificial light. That is why I am not terribly pleased with my amendment, but I wanted to raise this important issue, which I hope will be viewed seriously. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I generally support the noble Baroness on the Bill, as she knows. I agree with her Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, although possibly Amendment No. 2 as modified by Amendment No. 3 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Will she clarify her assertion that trees are not included? Clause 2 seems to state that leylandii are trees.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Single treasured trees are not included. The Bill covers only two or more trees, which must be together. Individual trees, which are mostly the type that have tree preservation orders on them, are not included.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. It had not occurred to me until the noble Baroness tabled it that any light other than natural light might be the subject of the Bill and the proposed protection. As she said, sunlight falls within the category of natural light. Considerable angles are needed for properties to receive the benefit of sunlight at certain times of the year. It is normal not to have sunlight as much of the time as natural light. To restrict the provision further than natural light would not be appropriate, but the Bill should not extend to allowing artificial light to be accessed by cutting down trees. Natural light is the natural definition and understanding of the Bill's aims.
Baroness Trumpington: I have a question for my noble friend Lady Gardner. If you build a tennis court and need a background for it, in my experience you grow the quickest and tallest hedge. Will such a hedge be subject to the provisions of the Bill?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As always, my noble friend asks an interesting question. It depends on where the tennis court is situated. If it is next door to the window of someone's home—whether it is the ground floor or first floor—and the resident cannot see anything because the hedge is fast growing as my noble friend suggests, then yes, it would be covered. The point is the loss of light or amenity it would create for the person living in the adjoining house. If the tennis court is on the shady side, then the house on the sunny side would not be affected. If the situation were reversed and the hedge interfered with sunlight reaching the home then it would be subject to the Bill's provisions. We will come on to debate the issue of whether the word "barrier" is appropriate, but the provision would apply if the plants formed a hedge or a "barrier", as the Bill currently provides.
My noble friend highlights another issue by pointing out that people will put in the fastest-growing type of hedge. That is the practice where things have gone so wrong. I have received letters from various people who planted leylandii hedges which were small and

1125
harmless 20 or 25 years ago but which are now 80 feet high and a menace. No one is willing to undertake the cost of dealing with those hedges.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for the stimulating debate on this issue. It is an important part of the debate that we need to have. I think that she is trying to ensure that the loss of sunlight is properly taken into account in determining a complaint. She also referred to the Building Research Establishment guidelines, which are very valuable in this context. I was extremely impressed by her understanding of how those guidelines might impact on individual cases. I think that the use of "dull" and "sunny" is helpful in that context.
The next group of amendments will widen the debate in relation to grounds of complaint, and I shall comment further on Clause 1 then. For now, I simply say that we accept that the loss of sunlight is different from the loss of daylight. Both, however, could be determined as issues surrounding the issue of natural light. On reflection, therefore, I am not sure that Amendment No. 1 hits the mark, and I think that the noble Baroness herself has some doubts about, it. Nevertheless, we accept that this is the core of the issue and we have some sympathy with the point that she is making. All I can say now is that we shall consider her comments and see whether there is some way in which the terminology can be improved. We may be able to discuss the point further.
Therefore, although I cannot accept the amendment, we shall certainly reflect further on what has been said.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his comments. As I said, I shall not press the amendment now. However, I think that between now and Report— which is scheduled for 28th February—there is room for discussion of many of the issues that we shall be considering today.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, after "light" insert ";
2 (ii) loss of amenity, whether in the dwelling or in any garden or yard associated with the dwelling; or
(iii) damage to any property, including damage to plants or soil"
The noble Baroness said: I have aired these issues for many years, and experience has shown the need for a definition that goes much wider than "light". I think that it should include the loss of amenity, loss of property value and loss of comfort. Someone sent me a very interesting short poem that outlines much of the problem. I shall read a part of it but not the part at the end dealing with the legislators. It states:

"Hedge alongside our holding;

Bane of our life.

The cause of unnecessary

Neighbourly strife.

25' & towering high,

Ragged, unruly,

1126

It soars to the sky.

Blots out the sun;

Plants do not thrive!

A haven for magpies

With incessant chatter!

They drive out the black birds

Does that really matter?

Songbirds and robins—all driven away;

We're deprived of their song on a Midsummer's Day.

Hedge roots spread at an alarming pace.

Encircling underground services

All over the place.

Goodness me!

A crack in our wall?

Does that really matter at all?

Our neighbour wants privacy;

We'd like the sun!

To slip on algae on our path,

Isn't much fun!

From our side

The hedge is an utter disgrace:

It encroaches and invades

OUR private space!

We used to enjoy

Our garden

During the evenings and days.

Until we were faced with

That unruly maze!

I think that that covers the issues, of which we are all so aware, and all of which were raised on Second Reading. I do not need to go into them in detail now.
The fact is that people are intimidated when trying to reach a resolution with their neighbours. They can become depressed and financially endangered by the damage done by overgrown hedges. As I have said in your Lordships' House before, I have been sent photographs of 25 metre hedges between two semi-detached houses. Although that may be difficult to believe, we have reached the point at which no one is controlling the situation. That is another reason for this Bill. I think that the amendment is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3:
Line 2, at beginning insert "unreasonable"
The noble Baroness said: I have tabled this amendment because I believe that the loss of amenity can range from the very minor to the dramatic, or the other way round, and that the remedy could be disproportionate to the loss of amenity unless it is qualified, as I propose, as an "unreasonable loss of amenity". I think that it would also be appropriate to make this provision parallel to the "obstruction of light" provision mentioned elsewhere in the clause, which would also be qualified as an "unreasonable" obstruction of light.
I am sympathetic to the point of principle here. The loss of a very near and tall group of trees, for example, is different from the loss of light. Depending on the orientation of the properties, the trees may not cause the loss of much light, but they could make the situation uncomfortable if the complainant's garden is short and the neighbouring trees are close to the boundary. As

1127
Committee members with experience of local government will know from discussions on planning applications, it is not always easy to support an argument that an application should be refused because of the effect on a neighbour's amenity. Nevertheless, I think that it would be appropriate for the Bill's provisions to mirror as closely as possible the factors that apply in consideration of planning applications.
I have a question for the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on Amendment No. 2. The amendment refers to,
"damage to any property, including damage to plants or soil".
Are not other remedies available to deal with such damage? If so, is it appropriate to extend the remedies provided by this Bill to such damage? Might not other remedies achieve some of the Bill's objectives?
I hope that noble Baroness is sympathetic to my amendment to Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: As I indicated when speaking to Amendment No. 1, I support Amendment No. 2, but as modified by Amendment No. 3. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am also slightly concerned about paragraph (iii) of the amendment, but for rather different reasons. It is perfectly reasonable not to qualify the word "damage" as applied to property, because property damage is serious. However, I do not think that one could really justify imposing the heavy hand of the law where slight damage to plants or soil is concerned. So perhaps the noble Baroness might contemplate at the next stage inserting the word "serious" before the second "damage" in the paragraph, so that it reads "including serious damage to plants or soil".
Lord Methuen: I support both amendments. There is reference to "loss of amenity". I should like to see loss of view included. One may well have bought one's house because of its superb view of the neighbourhood. That view can be destroyed completely by high hedges. That is an important consideration.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Taking that last point first, unfortunately I do not think that anyone has an entitlement to a view. I supported the conversion of a barn with a two-metre wall opposite my small home in Oxfordshire. I was upset to find that a three-metre wall was built which shut out my view altogether. When I drew the matter to the council's attention, retrospective planning permission was given. I would not have supported the conversion in the first instance: I would have made an issue about the two metre wall. One presumed that if the greater height were not included in the planning application the wall would be only two metres high. Through that sad experience I learned that one does not have an entitlement to a view. If I am wrong, I should, of course, be happy to include "view" in the amendment. However, I am not sure that such a right comes within planning matters.
I should be prepared to accept "unreasonable" loss of amenity. It is a reasonable provision. However, what happens to the amendment to the amendment if I beg
1128
leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2? Perhaps the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Clerk at the Table will know. No one seems to know that technicality. If the noble Baroness does not press her amendment to my amendment, I shall not then press Amendment No. 2. I am willing to bring forward an amendment to include "serious" damage to plants and soil. Perhaps we should review the wording of the amendment. I accept the noble Baroness's amendment to my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Dealing with the technical issue of the amendments, the answer is that the amendment would fall.
I seek to be helpful. We have listened carefully to the views expressed in the debate. The general rule for the Bill is to keep matters as simple as possible. In so doing, it achieves most of its objectives. If we try to deal with every eventuality we may run into difficulties. There is a risk that the scope of complaints caught within it would be widened to such an extent that the legislation would become unwieldy and unworkable.
As Government, we wish principally to focus on the hedge problem. Let us not forget that we have the facility to add to grounds of complaint through regulations. I know that that does not always go down well in your Lordships' House. However, it is no bad way for us to proceed in this kind of legislation.
On property damage and the other detail in the amendment, as the noble Baroness said at Second Reading, there are well established procedures for dealing with such complaints through the courts. Intervention by the local authority under this legislation should always be seen as a last resort where no other effective remedy might exist. In addition, the complaints are not so much to do with the height of the hedge—that is the principal concern of the Bill—as about issues of liability and compensation. As well as being outside the scope of the Bill, we argue that such matters are probably best left to the courts to determine. I am not convinced that by complicating matters we shall improve the quality of the operation of the legislation. The new system envisaged through the Bill is about right.
Subject to those comments, we shall reflect carefully on the issues raised in the amendment. In a sense, the amendment to the amendment is a lawyers' amendment, introducing "reasonableness" into the debate. It is not an unfair or wrong notion to introduce but it may further complicate matters.
While we accept in principle that some extension of the grounds of complaint may be advisable, we do not want to go too far beyond the issues of obstruction of light. We shall give consideration to those extra grounds of complaint. It is to be hoped that on Report we can bring forward a more suitable amendment and in the interim have further discussion on the wording.
I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and will persuade her and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall not take up your Lordships' time by arguing whether my amendment is a lawyers' amendment or simply a commonsense amendment. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I do not think that it will make any difference whether or not I withdraw my amendment since the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is about to withdraw her amendment. However, in order to save 30 seconds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I listened to the Minister but I am not satisfied with not including damage to property. The Minister is mistaken—between now and Report the noble Lord can check the accuracy of what I say—in saying that the height of the trees bears no relation to the damage to the property. I understand from my botany studies many years ago and my constant gardening reading now that, with the rare exception of the Australian gum tree—it is very small rooted; that is why they fall down unexpectedly so disastrously killing people— most trees have a root span relevant to their height. If the tree is tall the roots are wide. I have received documented cases from people whose drains have been broken by underground roots. I read a poem about a building cracking. The roots can be as damaging as the height of the hedge. Reduction of the height of the hedge can help with regard to extra growth of roots. It is an issue we should consider.
I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government would be willing to widen the provision. The aim of the legislation is for people to have the right to enjoy their own homes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Methuen Lord Methuen moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 7, after "hedge" insert "or plantation of trees"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 15 seek to add plantations to high hedges. My reasons for this are not to prevent the proper exploitation of commercial or other nurseries but to prevent the negligent or wilful misuse of them. I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the Minister some photographs of a Christmas tree nursery adjacent to where I live where the owner has failed to harvest many of the trees. They are now of such a size as to make them unmarketable, being some 25 feet or more high. The occupants of the adjacent house, depicted in the photographs to which I refer, are now overwhelmed by the trees which are about 20 feet away from the front door of their house. They suffer an obstruction of light and loss of amenity quite as severe as if it had been caused by a high hedge. When they bought this house about five or six years ago, they had views of lakes and reservoirs which are adjacent to the property. Those are now totally obscured.
My neighbours, the occupants of the house—here I must declare an interest as, although I am not currently affected by the trees, if they continue to grow, I shall be—have endeavoured to get the owner of the
1130
trees to cut or trim them without success. That is a particular case. I am sure, however, that it is not unique and that there are many other householders in a similar predicament.
My amendments seek to rectify that situation and enable the householder to obtain an amelioration of the circumstances in a similar manner to that which applies if the problems have been caused by a high hedge, as defined in the Bill. It is not the intention to cause the wholesale destruction of the nursery.
Amendment No. 7 defines plantations and Amendment No. 15 describes the amelioration procedure required. I should point out that if these amendments are agreed to, there would be similar consequential amendments elsewhere in the Bill which, for the Committee's convenience, I have not tabled. I beg to move.
1 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I hope that my Amendment No. 9 will help to deal with this problem. If that is the case, the amendment we are discussing is unnecessary. However, I appreciate that whatever is blocking someone's light should be able to be tackled. To that extent, I understand and support the noble Lord's view.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment needs to be considered alongside the related Amendment No. 7 to Clause 2. Amendment No 7 seeks to define "plantation" as,
"a group of cultivated trees …grown for domestic or commercial purposes whose height exceeds two metres".
Unlike the situation with high trees, there would be no requirement for them to form a barrier or to comprise only evergreens. Overall, the effect of the amendments would be rather more draconian than the noble Lord may envisage. They would bring all planted trees, other than single specimens, within the scope of the complaints system. The Bill is predominantly designed to deal with high hedges.
I make the simple point that the amendments lose sight of the positive benefits that trees can bring, including those that we might plant in our own gardens. After all, the right tree planted in the right place can make a significant improvement to the quality of the local environment. For that reason, the Government actively promote tree planting in both town and countryside. These amendments, if agreed, would discourage people from planting suitable trees and add to pressures to remove existing ones.
I read the correspondence and looked at the photographs that the noble Lord provided, and I certainly appreciate that some difficulties and problems may arise. One hopes that in that specific case the difficulties can be amicably resolved. The noble Lord may want to raise some of the issues with his local authority to ascertain whether it has some powers or influence that it can bring to bear to try to reach some suitable compromise or accommodation. In general terms, bad cases, such as the one that the noble Lord mentioned, do not necessarily lead to good

1131
law being made. I always canvass care in discussing examples of that nature when considering a measure that is designed to be of general benefit.
I certainly appreciate that neighbouring groups of trees can inflict the same misery as an overgrown hedge but I do not think that the problems associated with overgrown trees are in quite the same league as those associated with high hedges adjacent to predominantly urban or suburban homes. Although complaints about tall trees are received from time to time, I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendments necessarily constitute the right solution. There is a wider danger that in seeking to bring plantations within the scope of the Bill it may well lose the widespread support that it has, not just across political parties but also among those interested organisations, particularly local authorities, that would have to administer the system.
I fear that the noble Lord's amendments risk losing that consensus. I have no doubt that local authorities would be rather concerned about the additional burdens that could be placed upon them if they had to deal with all tree-related complaints in the way envisaged in the amendments. Horticultural, landscape and other tree-related industries, including timber growers, may be concerned about the impact of the amendments on their business. I hope that the noble Lord will understand our reasons for not being able to support the amendments, however public spirited he may have been in tabling them. I trust that he will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Methuen: I thank the Minister for his comments. I am not sure that my neighbours will totally agree with all his remarks but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [High hedges]:
Lord Methuen Lord Methuen moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 11, leave out "evergreens" and insert "evergreen or deciduous trees"
The noble Lord said: The Bill currently defines a high hedge as one composed of evergreens, being primarily aimed at leylandii. Amendment No. 5 seeks to include deciduous hedges in the Bill. Deciduous hedges can grow to heights significantly greater than two metres and may be composed of beech or thorn trees among other species. There is a celebrated beech hedge at Meikleour, near Blairgowrie, that was planted in 1746 and is now 600 yards long and 110 feet high. Furthermore, copper beech retains its leaves until the new growth in the spring. However, I am not suggesting that the hedge at Meikleour is a problem. My amendment seeks to include in the Bill hedges formed of deciduous trees as well as evergreens. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord's amendment is admirably clear. It seeks to extend the definition of high hedges to include deciduous as well as evergreen trees. As I said in response to the noble Lord's earlier amendment, if the Bill is to be workable it is better to keep it simple and to focus it on the main
1132
problem of high hedges. I believe that there is common agreement that, notwithstanding the example that the noble Lord mentioned, evergreen hedges are the main cause for complaint.
The amendment could also bring traditional countryside hedgerows, which cause problems to a domestic property, within the scope of the Bill. Many of us have campaigned over many long years—particularly those of us involved with local government—to encourage the return of hedgerows in the countryside. The amendment could have an adverse effect in that regard. These hedgerows tend to comprise predominantly deciduous trees and shrubs. There was some concern at Second Reading that we should avoid this and the potential conflict with our policies to promote and protect these important features of our countryside.
Having said that, there is provision to amend the definition of a high hedge through regulation rather than primary legislation. This enables us to return to the matter if experience shows that this is necessary and that there is a problem with deciduous as well as evergreen trees. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I listened to the Minister's interesting comments. However, I believe that the amendment is more important than I had appreciated. I have received a number of letters from people who are affected by just the problem we are discussing. One correspondent wrote of his neighbour's leylandii hedge that is now 20 feet high but incorporates a young lime tree. He makes the point that all the rest of the hedge could be cut but the lime tree would be exempt. He asked his neighbour to cut down the hedge, but the neighbour had only a small amount cut off. They still have no light through their first floor windows, although the sills of the windows in that room were specifically put 4 feet 10 inches from the ground to prevent any overlooking of the neighbours. The hedge is not needed for privacy or to prevent overlooking, but it is there and it contains deciduous trees.
I had another letter from a man about a planning application for the farmland property adjoining his, which was not granted. Someone put in a line of alders, which were very small when they were planted but are now more than 25 feet high and take away all the light to the house. The farm road on the other side is hardly used, but the trees are having a very damaging effect.
We must be clear that we are referring only to domestically occupied areas. That covers the point that the Minister made about hedgerows. I had a helpful letter from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, the Minister who spoke at Second Reading. He covers the point about domestic property, saying:
"You also queried the term 'domestic property'. Under clause 3 of the Bill, this is defined as a dwelling or associated yard or garden. And dwelling means any building or part of a building occupied, or intended to be occupied, as a separate dwelling. This would exclude barns or other outbuildings that might be used for storage or purposes other than as living accommodation. It would, however, cover those cases where an affected home was temporarily unoccupied possibly because of difficulties in selling it, or in getting new tenants, because of the presence of the high neighbouring hedge".

1133
The Minister clearly defines the properties that would be covered by the Bill. Rural hedgerows that are not right on top of a domestically occupied property would not be affected at all by the Bill, and that point covers it.
This is an important point. I believe that Amendment No. 9 would cover it, too. If a hedge had the effect of preventing light or amenity for the property next door, that amendment would cover it. We should consider the matter in that way. It is a question of where to amend the Bill; we might not need the word "deciduous" if we deleted "evergreen". We might simply deal with a hedge as a hedge, whether it is evergreen or deciduous. That is another way in which to consider the matter. There are various ways in which we could deal with this, either by adding "deciduous" or taking out "evergreen". The matter requires a lot of thought. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment so that we can give the matter full consideration.
Lord Methuen: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for their comments. It is certainly not my intention to destroy rural hedgerows; I am as keen on them as everybody else. However, if we simply barred leylandii, someone of evil intent could plant a beech hedge and let it grow. The point is to rethink the wording so that it includes that and avoids the situation in which leylandii could simply be replaced by beech. I shall return to the matter on Report with the co-operation of other Members of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 12, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: Coupled with this amendment is Amendment No. 8; they both address the same issue. I realised when rereading the Bill after Second Reading that it is not clear what is meant by "a barrier" in this context. I have tabled the amendments in the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, can explain that in terms that I can follow, although other Members of the Committee may not need the explanation.
At first glance, one would expect a barrier to have something to do with restricting physical access. I doubt that that can be the case, because we are not necessarily talking about trees on a boundary. If the Bill refers to restricting a barrier to light, the point is covered by the very essence of the Bill, which is about trees that restrict light in an unreasonable fashion. The noble Baroness's amendment, Amendment No. 9, suggests that we are talking about a barrier of the nature of a fence or wall, because she uses the term,
"fence, wall or other barrier".
I am a little baffled about what is added by describing the trees in question as constituting a barrier, and whether there is some characteristic in them that I have not understood that would bring them within the scope of the Bill. I hope that I am not
1134
proving too tedious to other Members of the Committee in raising this, but I also hope that the noble Baroness can explain what she intends by the term. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: This could be a useful amendment, which might make Amendment No, 9 redundant. I declare an interest as a trustee of a charitable trust that owns and manages a row of alms houses. Many years ago, the owner of an adjacent property planted a row of leylandii to screen himself from the inhabitants of the alms houses. Because he failed at any stage to prune the trees, they have now grown to a height of 45 to 50 feet, totally cutting off the afternoon and, indeed, much of the morning light from the alms houses and causing them to become clamp and cold.
The irony is that the trees have totally failed in their original purpose to act as a barrier, because all the lower branches have simply dropped off, as does happen. The owner has planted a new hedge below two metres, parallel with the existing one. The original trees do not act as a barrier but they are still highly undesirable and antisocial. Amending the Bill through either Amendment No. 6, as moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or Amendment No. 9, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is vital to remedy the situation that I have described.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is clear that the definition would be changed by expunging references to "barrier", but it seems to us that including the idea that a hedge forms a harrier serves some useful purposes. First, it would focus attention on the dense screens that evergreens tend to create, which is the cause of complaint. Secondly, it would help to filter out complaints that have little chance of success before they reach the local authority.
The concept of what constitutes a barrier is generally understood. It is a term in common usage. People should be able to determine for themselves whether the legislation is likely to apply to the particular potentially offending hedge that is worrying them and whether they can properly take forward their complaint to the local authority. Although I indicated in discussion of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that the term "barrier" is open to interpretation, that will be mainly at the margins. Most cases will probably be fairly clear cut.
Taking out the reference to the term would also lose us some benefits. We believe that there would be some serious disadvantage if the definition were pared down, in accordance with the amendment, to two or more adjacent evergreens that are more than two metres high. Members of the public and local authorities might have difficulties in interpreting "adjacent". I can see the lawyers having some fun with that terminology. How close do the evergreens need to be in order to be judged to be adjacent? We certainly lose any idea that the evergreens are integrated together to form a single unit— the concept employed by the courts in the classic neighbourhood hedge dispute, Stanton v Jones. These amendments would move us away from the typical hedge towards encompassing individual trees, and therein lies

1135
the difficulty. Given our desire for simplicity on the issue, I would not advise at this stage that we make a major leap forward as the amendment suggests. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I was interested in the noble Baroness's amendment. I had not given the matter much thought, because I had picked up the Bill—it was John Taylor's Bill in the other House—and that was the wording in it. Therefore, I had not applied my mind to the significance of the word "barrier".
I listened to the Minister, and when he said that "barrier" was generally understood he was absolutely right. However, I received a fascinating letter that makes a number of points that we have to consider. The letter states:
"Clause 1(1)(b) makes clear reference to the mischief at which the Bill is aimed. That is 'the unreasonable obstruction of light caused by a high hedge'".
The writer of the letter supports the Bill, and goes on to say:
"I also respectfully suggest that the added requirement of there being a barrier is likely to cause confusion and reduce the effectiveness of the legislation. I ask rhetorically against what is a barrier to be?".
My correspondent also raises the most important point of all, which is that there is no definition of "barrier". Although we might believe that it is clearly understood, we apparently need to define what a barrier is, if the word is to remain in the Bill. For Amendment No. 9, it would certainly need to remain unless we found some attractive alternative. The Minister made clear all the problems that could arise if we did away with "barrier". Anyone could say, "Are these two trees close enough together?". We could get into quite a minefield. However, if we agree some satisfactory definition of "barrier" between now and Report, Amendment No. 9 might be appropriate.
The letter states:
"Further, when evergreens are allowed to grow to a sufficient height for them to cause material diminution in light, they may cease to be a barrier for people at the lower levels".
That is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out. We would have to cover not only what is a barrier, but what was a barrier. Someone might say, "Well, it is no longer a barrier because it has grown up," and sure enough there might be many spaces. One often sees that evergreens tend to lose lower branches, and all the growth is high, where it takes away light but is no longer a barrier.
We have to define "barrier" in such a way that we are sure that it would cover even such trees that had grown past the point where they actually formed a barrier. I hope that the noble Baroness is willing to give us the benefit of her advice when we all consult on the issue of a barrier. Meanwhile, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I very much take the point made by the correspondent quoted by the noble Baroness, which was that we should concentrate on the adverse
1136
effects caused, rather than being diverted into definitions that may go against the application of provisions on them.
I must be one of a small minority who still does not understand the term "barrier". The discussion about a group of trees ceasing to be a barrier because of losing the lower branches confirms that we are talking about a physical barrier. However, if that physical barrier is on the other side of a wall, within the property of the owner of the trees, what does it matter whether that is a barrier, frankly? It is not a barrier to that property owner, because he can walk round the barrier of the group of trees and the fence. The more I think about it, the more confused I get.
I was attracted to the term "a single unit", which the Minister used. That describes the notion of a number of trees comprising a single whole. Therefore, "group" or "unit" seems a less confusing way to go. I shall not pursue the point now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
"(c) a group of evergreens is to be regarded as forming a barrier, irrespective of the existence of a fence, wall or other barrier, if the siting of the group of evergreens is such as to lead to the adverse effects mentioned in section 1(1)."
The noble Baroness said: The reason for the amendment is quite important. The classic case took 20 years through the civil courts before the trees were reduced and was rather defeated by the fact that the person who then had to cut the hedge replanted, some metres in from their boundary, a hedge that could grow even taller than the original and do worse damage. It took many more years to get a second court decision in favour of that.
The amendment would also solve the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, about trees growing too close to his property. What would be important would be not where the hedge was exactly—whether on the boundary line, inside it or set back—but its effect on the light. That is the criterion to which I draw attention in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Now that Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 have been dealt with, it is all the more vital that we pay serious attention to Amendment No. 9. It is extremely necessary, if not necessarily in its present form. As I said earlier and as the noble Baroness confirmed, once the lower branches of leylandii have dropped off they cease to form a barrier, but still block off the light entirely at heights above head level. All that an unscrupulous owner has to do is erect a single-strand barbed wire fence and say, "That is my barrier. What are you complaining about?". The amendment goes a long way to addressing that problem.
Lord Methuen: I agree. The amendment goes a long way to meeting the points about my plantations. I would certainly like to give it further consideration. The particular plantation that I am thinking of is on a falling slope. The lower trees would not cause any problem, but the ones at the top would be included in the definition, so I support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry to inject a slightly less positive note but, without in any way arguing with the substance of the point, is not the amendment circular? It states that,
"a group of evergreens is …a barrier",
if it leads,
"to the adverse effects mentioned in section 1".
That just takes us round in circles. When we reconsider the whole issue, I hope that we can consider whether that is quite the way to go about it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The important thing about the Bill is that it considers the impact of the high hedge. That must be—dare one say it—the root of the issue. That is the point, rather than where the high hedge is situated. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is concerned that the Bill should apply not just to boundary hedges. That is an entirely appropriate concern, and I can give her some reassurance.
While on the issue of terminology, I accept that the term "barrier" is open to interpretation. However, it has an advantage because the local authority will have some discretion in interpretation when determining whether the Bill applies to a particular high hedge and where it is located. There will be guidance on what is a barrier. It will obviously have to reflect to some degree its location and mass. The decision in general will necessarily involve consideration of the extent to which the hedge in question acts as a barrier and its effect; its obstacle to light, access, visibility and so on.
The Bill as currently drafted already makes the link between the hedge as a barrier and the adverse effects in Clause 1. It says nothing about boundary hedges. Clause 1 of the Bill merely requires that the hedge should be situated on "neighbouring land". It does not state where. That is effectively shorthand to describe wherever the hedge is located. So the hedge does not have to be on a boundary or even next door to one's property. It could even be—I suppose one could argue—several gardens down the road. But so long as it obstructs light to one's property and impacts upon one's quiet enjoyment of the same, one will be able to make that complaint to the local authority. That is the beauty of the simplicity of the legislation. It also draws on the advantages that the term "barrier" is open to interpretation.
Therefore, in the classic case where one's neighbour attempts to grow another hedge well within his boundary the question of its impact will be covered by the legislation. I hope that offers the assurance that the noble Baroness seeks and that for those reasons she will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 9.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that reply. That is the best news today. If we can establish that it is the impact of the hedge rather than its exact siting, that is considerable progress. I shall not press the amendment today because I think it is very important that we get our wording right. However, today's Hansard will be beneficial to those affected. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I think this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until after Starred Questions. Accordingly, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.33 until 3 p.m.]

Transport for London
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
What authority they have over the operation of Transport for London.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the operation of Transport for London is the responsibility of the Mayor of London, not the Government. Parliament has given the mayor wide transport powers, including powers to require Transport for London to deliver his policies. However, Transport Ministers meet the mayor and the Commissioner of Transport for London from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I must say that he has given that reply on a number of occasions. There must come a moment at which the Government say, in reply to public opinion, that Transport for London has gone too far and that enough is enough. When is that moment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the Bellman said in The Hunting of the Snark,
"What I tell you three times is true".
If I have to tell the House 30 times, instead of three times, it is still true. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 was passed by Parliament, and it requires the mayor to produce a transport strategy outlining his policies for,
"the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London".
That is what devolution means.

1139
There are certain reserved powers, related to the strategy that the mayor produces, but they do not affect the operation of Transport for London, which is the subject of the Question.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, as someone who lives just outside the congestion zone, whether he is aware than many low-paid ancillary workers are having to leave their jobs, as they will not be able to afford the congestion charge? Most of them have to arrive before there is any public transport. Is that of concern to the Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have, of course, read those reports. Our position on congestion charging was made clear by the Secretary of State. Any proposals for congestion charging must be workable, must ensure that adequate public transport is available—the point made by my noble friend—and must achieve public acceptance. If those conditions are achieved, the Mayor of London is within his rights in introducing congestion charging.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is clear from all the evidence that, although the introduction of congestion charges might empty central London of cars, it will create a total jam in all the areas outside the small inner area of congestion charging? In view of the fact that that is bound to have a severe effect on the ability of the emergency services to respond to a crisis and in view of the threat to the capital, will the Government persuade the mayor to put off his plans for congestion charges?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the mayor's objective in introducing congestion charging is not to empty central London but to reduce traffic in central London by 15 to 20 per cent. That would not result in the kind of congestion outside central London to which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, refers.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is bizarre that a great city such as London, which has a gross domestic product equal to that of many sovereign states, should be in the hands of an inexperienced local authority? Does he also agree that, as far as London is concerned, at any rate, the experiment of devolution has not been an unqualified success?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the discontinuity in city government for London was not the responsibility of this Government but of the previous Government, who abolished the Greater London Council. If discontinuity is a disadvantage, we know where the responsibility must lie. It would be even more extraordinary if a capital city of the size and importance described by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did not have responsibility for its own affairs.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the success of the transport strategy for London will be reflected in the results of the next elections for the assembly and mayor? The House should leave it to the electorate to decide.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have been trying for months to persuade the House not to act like an urban district council for London. I agree, of course, with my noble friend.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister referred to matters of mutual interest. I hope that he will agree that one such matter, concerning London and central government, is commuter rail services. Can the Minister give us any news on how we can persuade the Strategic Rail Authority to give more attention to commuter rail services, rather than concentrating on inter-city services, as it appears to do?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is one of the issues raised at meetings between Ministers and the mayor and Transport for London. Commuter rail services go outside greater London and are, therefore, matters of ministerial responsibility.
The accusation levelled at the Strategic Rail Authority is a little unfair. It is true that, in the early days after privatisation, the Strategic Rail Authority was content to award the franchises and then sit back. The new regime at the Strategic Rail Authority is not guilty in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggests. If there is an element of that, Ministers will take the matter up with the authority.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in view of the chaos in London and the inadequacy of public transport, will the Minister itemise the reserved powers of central government to alleviate the problems? I speak as someone who travels on the Tube and, believe me, travelling on it is no pleasant experience now. There are great problems, and the Minister should tell us about the reserved powers of central government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hoped that I had done that in response to the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. Section 143 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 says:
"Where the Secretary of State considers that—
(a) the transport strategy … is inconsistent with national policies relating to transport, and
(b) the inconsistency is detrimental to an area outside Greater London,
he may direct the Mayor to make … revisions".
That does not give the Secretary of State a power of intervention over the mayor or Transport for London.

Tobacco: EU Production
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dubsasked Her Majesty's Government:
Which European Union and accession countries produce tobacco, and what is the present level of common agricultural policy support for the product.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, in the EU accession countries, tobacco is produced only by Cyprus, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. Current producer members are Italy, Greece, Spain, France, Germany, Portugal, Belgium and Austria. In the financial year ending 15th October 2002, 952 million euros were spent on EU tobacco subsidies. At current exchange rates, that is equivalent to £613 million.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is it not the height of absurdity that we should subsidise a product that damages public health and the use of which the Government sensibly try to discourage? We should use the CAP support for tobacco to help the tobacco farmers of the EU and the accession countries to produce more worthwhile products.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I entirely agree. The United Kingdom has advocated the end of the tobacco regime for many years. However, the list of existing producer member states indicates that there is no blocking minority to stop the continuation of that regime. I hope that, in the review of the common agricultural policy to be carried out over the next few years, the tobacco regime will disappear and that any support for that area will be directed towards the ends suggested by my noble friend.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is this not a perfect example of what is wrong with the EU? We spend £600 million a year subsidising tobacco and take £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone, agreeing not to ban advertising. He then gets his bribe back, and advertising is banned. That is totally crazy. It is Cloud-cuckoo-land. We have not been able to change it for 20 years.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely clear of the question. I agree with the first part of the noble Earl's comment. One of the main failings of the common agricultural policy is that it is very difficult to change in the light of developing science and developing public anxiety. Nevertheless, the position of the United Kingdom government throughout those 20 years has been to change the CAP radically and phase it out.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, would the Minister explain why the UK Government representative abstained in a vote on 19th March 2002 which has resulted in the
1142
continued subsidisation of tobacco growing in the EU? Was that voting action taken by the UK Government as a result of a trade-off in another sector of the CAP?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the proposition at that time was the extension of rates of subsidy, not continuation of the regime. The rates were voted on by the majority of that council. Whichever way the United Kingdom voted would not have ended this unfortunate regime.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that before I became—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps we may hear the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, first, immediately followed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that before I became a respectable Member of this House I was responsible, for some years, for this regime? Therefore, I know quite a lot about it. It is a clearly indefensible regime. However, is the Minister aware that we must decide the best way of correcting it? I ask the Minister whether the best way of correcting it is to differentiate between the areas where there are alternative crops, where it can be simply phased out, and those areas where there are not alternative crops where perhaps some payment of a social kind might be justified?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that I have never held him personally responsible for this regime. Unfortunately, he was lumbered with it, as the rest of us are. If we take a rational approach to this, it is certainly true that some form of social or regional subsidy could be directed at areas such as northern Greece which are dependent on tobacco. Other areas could be given over to more beneficial forms of agriculture.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware of the fact that this entire tobacco scheme presently in force has been fraudulent from the beginning? It has been fraudulent in regard to claims; fraudulent in regard to the areas covered; and fraudulent in amount. When will Her Majesty's Government really put their feet behind a move to boot out this entire fraudulent regime—the existence of which is well known, but well hidden, by the Commission itself?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the United Kingdom Government are behind any move to phase out this regime. As far as fraud is concerned, historically there has been very substantial fraud in this regime. Much of

1143
the fraud was tackled by the reforms introduced in 1992. I am not saying that fraud has been entirely eliminated but it did make a big difference to the level of fraud.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, will my noble friend say what the Government could do not just to be behind but to be in front of any move to abandon the regime? Is it not true that European taxpayers are spending £613 million a year to subsidise the product that kills half a million European Union taxpayers/ citizens every year? Is there not an opportunity, in the light of the strains that the accession countries' rural economies will put on the CAP, for using that as a way of abandoning and replacing, where necessary with social payments, a regime that does no good to anyone except producers and a lot of harm to many others?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is clearly right in much of what she says. The pressures on the CAP give us another opportunity to try to get rid of this regime. The more immediate opportunity is that there is a review of the whole regime due to report within the next few weeks. That will be the immediate period where we can do what she suggests—namely, take the lead in arguing for its total demise.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, will the Minister explain to his noble friend Lady Hayman that we have absolutely no chance? He has explained himself; it is for 20 years now that we have tried to reform the regime. We have had absolutely no success. We continue to be outvoted. What is the answer? Should we not leave the common agricultural policy altogether?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is right if this issue is regarded in isolation from all the other pressures on the CAP. There are huge budgetary pressures, WTO pressures, and public opinion pressures which will draw out some form of very radical reform of the CAP as a whole during the next few years. That is what we are currently engaged in. It is to be hoped that the tobacco regime will be eliminated as a result.

Armed Forces Communication Systems
3.16 p.m.
The Earl of Onslowasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether communication systems within the Armed Forces are operating satisfactorily.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, yes. Our current capabilities are fit for purpose—as demonstrated in recent exercises and operations. We need further to develop our communications capabilities to exploit advances in technology and to enable networked capabilities.
To this end, we have in place a comprehensive programme of investment. Bowman will enter service progressively from 2004, as the Clansman system is
1144
phased out. The Skynet 5 military satellite communication system will enter service from the middle of the decade.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Bowman system, as mounted in tanks and armoured cars at present, gets hot, burns out and needs to be changed at rear level even in English winter conditions? Therefore, how is the system not going to burn out in the Iraqi desert? Is the noble Lord aware that regiments earmarked for the Iraqi campaign are now loading up their lorry parks with more Bowmans so that when they burn out, which they inevitably will, they can change them?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl inadvertently said Bowman, but I think he means Clansman. I shall answer the question accordingly. There are, of course, problems operating any radio equipment in hot desert environments—not just for Clansman. Clansman continues to perform as required and, of course, will be replaced by the highly capable Bowman system from 2004 onwards—a programme that continues to make excellent progress.
As I mentioned to the House before the Christmas Recess, a number of urgent operational requirements are currently being procured, including communication systems. For obvious reasons, I am not prepared to help any possible adversary by going into any more detail on the specific capabilities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall the communications problems that arose in operations in former Yugoslavia which were raised in this House at the time? Does he agree that it is essential that the British Army has systems which are strong and reliable, especially when hostile transmitters are creating interference on the airwaves?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. Of course we are determined that that will be the position if and when our troops have to engage in warfare.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the new Bowman system will not only provide communications between military units but also with the other services and, in particular, aircraft?
Lord Bach: My Lords, yes, I can confirm that. The Bowman system will be an excellent system. I must say that it has had a rather long and tortuous history until now. If it had not been for my noble friend Lady Symons, when she held the position that I hold now, we might still not know when Bowman would be coming into operation.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, last Tuesday, the Secretary of State in another place gave the assurance that Her Majesty's Government are working on a process of ensuring that combat identification is dealt with satisfactorily. Will the Minister tell us what new

1145
equipment will be available in time for any potential conflict in the Gulf and confirm that these IFF systems will be fitted to all armoured vehicles?
Lord Bach: My Lords, before answering the noble Lord's question, I know that I speak for the whole House when I welcome him back to his rightful place on the Front Bench. I look forward to facing his questions over the next weeks and months. I do not want to make my welcome too effusive in case I am mistaken.
As regards his important question, we take combat identification and the risk of friendly fire extremely seriously, as does he. Lives depend on it. We believe that our combat identification procedures are effective. We have deployed successfully as a country on many operations since the tragedies in this field during the Gulf conflict. There have been no reported incidents of what is described as fratricide, or blue on blue, involving UK forces. I say that with caution because whatever technology one puts in and however sophisticated it may be, these things sometimes happen.
In the event of military action, British troops will be fully interoperable with United States troops for combat identification. That capability, including new equipment options, are currently being procured.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, how can the Government contemplate committing British troops to action with armoured vehicles which are fitted with Clansman when Clansman is, first, unreliable and, secondly and more important, insecure in two crucial respects: it lacks digital encryption and the frequency-hopping capability which prevents enemy forces from tracking and attacking vehicles? Do the Government recognise that, if our troops are committed to the Gulf and there were to be casualties as a result of the inaccuracies of Clansman, Her Majesty's Government would hear a grave responsibility?
Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord and to the House that of course we are not going to send Armed Forces, if it comes to that, anywhere in the world unless there are proper communications which are as safe as possible. Urgent operational requirements are in line and items are being procured as we speak in order to ensure that the communications system works as well as can be expected.

Cricket World Cup
3.22 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they are making to the International Cricket Council to move the forthcoming World Cup matches scheduled for Zimbabwe to South Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, Foreign and Commonwealth officials in London and Harare advised the ICC of the deteriorating humanitarian, political and economic situation in Zimbabwe. We have also made our views clear to the England and Wales Cricket Board. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my honourable friend the Sports Minister and I met officials from the ECB earlier today. We repeated our view that the final decision on whether to play the England fixture in Zimbabwe on 13th February must be taken by the ECB and the ICC but that it was the view of Ministers that the match should not go ahead in Zimbabwe.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and appreciate the effort she made today in attempting to persuade the ECB not to go ahead with the game in Zimbabwe on 13th February. I also believe that the Government are right to refuse to pay compensation to the ECB for cancellation of that match as it should never have been arranged in the first place.
Does my noble friend agree that this is a moral issue comparable to that applied in the case of sporting contact with apartheid South Africa where a boycott and international isolation substantially helped to deliver political change and human rights? Is it not wholly deplorable that the ICC should concern itself with security issues and not consider the view of informed Zimbabwe opinion, which is that cricket should not be played in the country where the President has seized power illegally and where half the population are starving as a result of his repressive policies?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that noble Lords in this House are clear about the Government's view of the Government of Zimbabwe. They are facing a humanitarian crisis; nearly half the population requires food aid; there is large-scale economic mismanagement; and there were food riots on 4th and 5th of this month. We hope that the ECB and the ICC will take that into account. Our role is to give them that information and advice, and we have done that.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a party of Zimbabwean athletes came to the Commonwealth Games in this country? What would the reaction of Her Majesty's Government be to the Zimbabwean cricket team coming to this country next year to play a series of test matches with our cricketers?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is about the situation in Zimbabwe. We would have no problem with the Zimbabwean cricket team coming to the United Kingdom.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, if the Government had expressed their views clearly more than a year ago when the conditions in Zimbabwe were almost catastrophic

1147
and almost as bad as they are now, would they not have saved many cricketers a good deal of anguish and the cricket authorities a great deal of money?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government's position has been entirely consistent. Officials met with the ECB in July last year. We gave them the information and made it clear that we thought that the situation would deteriorate. We met members of the ICC in November. Our High Commissioner in Harare met members of the ICC in Harare when they made a fact-finding visit. There has been no change in our position.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I wonder whether this morning the noble Baroness and Members of your Lordships' House heard the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, speaking on BBC Five Live. The reaction in my household—and I dare say that it was shared in other households—was that the Government, through no fault of the right honourable lady, was transmitting a lack of leadership to the country. There is no substitute for leadership in a situation such as this—certainly not a mixture of rhetoric, moralising and spin. Why cannot the Government now come out and say that they are dealing with a totally reprehensible and despotic government of an African state which does not discriminate between white and black and which is a serious threat to British interests; that therefore, all people in this country who are involved culturally, commercially and in sport should be prepared to make sacrifices in order to lessen their communications with the military regime, thus allowing the Government to "get on with it"? If the Government were to do it even-handedly like that, they would have no problem with the ECB.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that this Government have been absolutely clear on the matter and it might bear repeating in this House. We have made it clear that the imposition of wider economic sanction which would damage the ordinary person in Zimbabwe is not a route down which we would want to go. That is why, with our European Union partners, we have targeted sanctions against the elite. We have made the details of the deteriorating humanitarian, security, political and economic situation clear to the ECB and ICC. The decision is theirs. To look to the Government to make a decision which should be made by the ruling and governing bodies of cricket is reprehensible.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness ensure that a copy of the minute of the meeting of last July to which she referred is placed in the Library? I understand that only today the English and Welsh Cricketing Board received a copy of that minute. It is that minute which is now being interpreted by the Government as an indication by
1148
officials of what Government Ministers' thinking might be when they came to consider the match in Harare.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the House will be aware that notes are taken at every meeting between officials and outside organisations. The notes are confidential to those organisations and to the department. That is the basis on which the meeting went ahead and therefore I cannot make a commitment to place a copy of the minutes in the Library of the House. I am happy to go back and talk to the ECB about whether or not it is prepared to allow the minutes of the meeting to be made public.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that the Government refused to do anything until the Secretary of State for International Development, encouraged by the Foreign Secretary, spoke out against the playing of cricket in Zimbabwe as it would be seen to be supporting the Mugabe regime?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness's information is entirely inaccurate. The ICC published its report following its visit to Zimbabwe on 16th December; my honourable friend, Mike O'Brien, a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, replied to a debate in Westminster Hall on 17th December and made his view as the Minister quite clear.

High Hedges Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 3 [Domestic property]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert "but does not mean any building or part of a building in commercial use"
The noble Baroness said: The wording of the amendment is self-explanatory: it seeks to create a different situation where a building is in commercial use.
Let me outline the reason for the amendment. I received a letter on this subject from a man who bought a house in which a hedge was planted in the garden. I do not know whether or not it was a leylandii, but a typical hedge. The man who sold the house to him has since bought the pub next door. The hedge is a lifeline to the man in the domestic property because the pub is very noisy. However, the man who now owns the pub—the former owner of the house—has said, "I intend to make your life impossible. If the Bill goes through, I shall have that hedge down. That will make your property worth nothing. I shall then be able to buy it back and join it on to the pub that I now own".
It is a rather nasty story which has made me appreciate that it could make a significant difference for a neighbour to have some kind of protection from

1149
a hedge between noisy commercial premises—-which could be a bar or any other premises which have loud entertainment—and his residence. It has a certain merit. I therefore feel that there should be a distinction in the Bill between truly residential premises and a commercial business, which might be next door. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I have supported all the noble Baroness's amendments so far, but I have some reservations about this one—although those reservations may disappear if, after the next stage of the Bill, the word "exclusively" is inserted before the word commercial".
There are many residential buildings which are also commercial for part of the time. All farmhouses, for example, are partly residential and party commercial. Many people with IT skills now work from home rather than spending hours and hours a week commuting to their place of work. So there is a danger that if the amendment as it stands is agreed to, it might unintentionally affect buildings which are partly commercial and partly residential.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Having listened to the case example, I am not sure whether or not the amendment helps. It is a neat point. But it is an interesting amendment and I shall deal with the issues that it gives rise to.
Clearly the noble Baroness is concerned to ensure that a complaint can be brought under the Bill only if someone's residence, and any associated garden, is adversely affected, and not some kind of outbuilding. We certainly support her wish to limit the scope of the Bill in this way. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill as currently drafted achieves exactly what she wants.
Under Clause 1, a person can bring a complaint only if the reasonable enjoyment of his or her domestic property is affected. Clause 3 defines "domestic property" as a dwelling and any associated garden or yard. It defines "dwelling" as,
"any building or part of a building occupied, or intended to be occupied, as a separate dwelling".
So that is the definitional position.
The amendment would mean that a complaint could not be brought in respect of a property in a residential area that is wholly occupied by, say, a dental practice; nor could someone complain if a hedge was affecting their garage, barn or outbuildings that might be used for storage or for purposes other than living accommodation.
A property might contain a mix of domestic and commercial uses. In these circumstances, the Bill would apply to protect the living quarters from the effects of a neighbouring high hedge. So the Bill is intelligently enough drafted to assist someone occupying mixed accommodation. On most occasions the division between domestic and commercial elements will be clear—for example, the doctor's surgery that operates out of an extension to his or her home or the flat above a shop or a pub. In such cases,
1150
a complaint could be brought under the Bill only if the doctor's home or the flat over the shop or pub were adversely affected. It would be in those kind of circumstances that the Bill could be used.
Where the boundaries between the business and living quarters are more blurred, the local authority would need to use its good sense and consider the facts of each case to determine whether the legislation should apply. We can reasonably infer from the good practice that most local authorities adopt in enforcement cases of a similar nature that they will be able to operate the law effectively in such circumstances.
I trust that that clarification helps the noble Baroness. I hope that the case example she cited is capable of reasonable resolution. It seems that an absurd and unpleasant situation has developed. We would be very interested to see the correspondence that has ensued as a consequence.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may first apologise profusely for my inability to be here this morning owing to domestic circumstances. I apologise particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who has been stalwart in pressing these issues.
It is appropriate that I should enter the debate on this amendment. As I understand it, the Minister said not only soothing words but intimated an understanding in the department that that which the noble Baroness seeks to achieve by her amendment is already covered either by what is meant in the Bill or is intended to be meant in the Bill.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of people are reasonable and sensible, but we have to guard against the small minority of unreasonable and sometimes nasty people. There will be other stages of the Bill and opportunities for consultation. We also have parallel opportunities in another place in a Private Member's Bill. We are in the happy position of trawling for instances and happenstance so that we can have the benefit of a longer view than we might otherwise take.
I support the purport of what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, seeks. I believe that tier concerns are well founded, but I am satisfied that the Minister has been helpful.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Yes, I agree that the Minister has been most helpful. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in his place. He has long taken a great interest in the Bill. I quite understood his absence this morning. It was impossible for him to be here as he had to take a member of his family to hospital—which superseded any Bill. I welcome the noble Lord's support in this afternoon's debate.
The Minister's answer was most satisfactory. It is extremely valuable to have that statement on record as Hansard now carries a weight in its own right and can be used in legal disputes. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Procedure for dealing with complaints]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 38, after "is" insert "malicious,"
The noble Baroness said: In a way, the strange situation to which I referred in moving the previous amendment could almost be covered by this one; namely, that there is definitely some degree of malicious intent on the part of the person involved. I have received a considerable number of letters about malicious intent.
I have in front of me a typical letter. A neighbour with 26 acres of land lawfully converted her only barn into a house. She then decided that she wanted to erect another barn in the hope of gaining residential planning permission, but permission was refused. Because of the refusal, she deliberately planted a leylandii hedge along the boundary of each adjoining property of the neighbours who had opposed the conversion. This was specifically done as a pay-back for objections to the planning permission. Without doubt there was malicious intent.
I referred earlier to the case of the man who planted alder trees. The case is similar: he had applied for planning permission. I do not think that his intention was deliberately to upset the neighbours, but he planted a hedge of alders where he had hoped to obtain planning permission for the entrance to his barn. He assured the neighbours that he would not allow the trees to grow more than five feet tall. But when he did not obtain planning permission for residential occupation, he ignored the trees. I said this morning that they had grown to 25 feet; I now see that his letter states that they are 35 feet high and causing great problems. The trees merely adjoin farmland and are of no benefit to the farmer, but they are a terrible disbenefit to the owner of the residential property.
In the first case, an interesting point was made in the letter. I quote:
"Worse still I have a six feet high beautiful hawthorn hedge bordering my house and her field and we are about a hundred metres between each other so not very close, but she still planted this Leylandii hedge only £ a meter from this 200 year old hawthorn hedge. Her Leylandii hedge will eventually kill off this beautiful and irreplaceable hedge".
So there would certainly seem to be no friendly intent. I think that we should all be concerned at the loss of any hedgerows, and the 200 year-old hawthorn must surely be a hedgerow. It is a great pity.
The point is important. In reply to my remarks at Second Reading, the Minister considered that we should not use the term "malicious" in the appeals section. But I believe it appropriate to use the term in regard to the council determination. The local council would rapidly be able to assess whether a complaint was genuine or whether someone was merely out to be spiteful and difficult. For that reason, the amendment has significance. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I support the amendment. It may well appear to be the result of an oversight, but the noble Baroness reminds us that it arises out of remarks at Second Reading. In my experience, from correspondence and from speaking to many such people—who on one occasion held a lobby in this House—we may raise the question of whether an instance is malicious, frivolous or vexatious, but the sad fact is that many of the cases brought to our attention fall into the "malicious" category rather than into the other two categories.
I am satisfied that where local authority arboriculturists or environmental health officers finally face up to the neighbour who may be acting in an unfriendly manner, cases that are "vexatious" or "frivolous" can be resolved fairly quickly. But the power to deal with what is seen as "malicious"—that is, having a deliberate intent to harm—would be better placed on the face of the Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Through these amendments the noble Baroness seeks to deal with complaints that have an element of malevolence. We fully understand the reasons for bringing forward the amendments. Far-fetched though it may seem, I am sure that there have been horrific cases where people have planted hedges with the sole intention of inflicting misery on others. The noble Baroness gave a very good example.
I have in front of me an example from the programme "Neighbours from Hell". Apparently, the couple concerned and other local residents objected to a planning application by their neighbour, in consequence of which a hedge was planted only a few feet away from the windows on all three sides of their bungalow. The pattern of land ownership was somewhat unusual, but the case illustrates the lengths to which some people will go to be unpleasant to those with whom they share common boundaries. The noble Baroness raised this issue at Second Reading and gave very good examples. While these extremes are undoubtedly rare, they are very real for some people and they can cause great distress.
The vast majority of such disputes arise through nothing more sinister than ignorance of just how fast and high a hedge can grow. We wonder generally how far the amendments will be necessary or required. We also wonder whether they are workable. We should, after all, be asking local authorities to make a judgment about what stimulates people, what their actual intentions are. Given the long history attached to some hedge disputes—they can continue for many years—it will be very difficult in some circumstances to isolate the facts, particularly in the case of a hedge that may have been planted some years earlier, and to determine the intent behind its planting. That area could be extremely difficult. In that instance one would have to deal with a possible change of ownership and decide to whose intent the judgment should apply.
A further problem is that it is unlikely that most people—perhaps only in the rare cases that the noble Baroness has managed to cite—will admit to their

1153
motives, their original sin, as it were. In most cases people are hardly likely to own up to planting a hedge in order to take revenge or to force a neighbour out because of objection to a planning application. They would be more likely to say that they had planted the hedge to protect their privacy and perhaps prevent their neighbour's activities from intruding on them.
In such circumstances it would be very hard for the local authority to prove intent. Reflecting on my own local government experience where, as the local ward member, I was frequently called upon to mediate, it was always difficult to get to the bottom of disputes between neighbours, particularly over boundary matters. So, as well as the difficulties in proving malevolent intent, I am not sure that personal matters have a place in this legislation. I argued earlier for simplicity. It is certainly our belief that simplicity will make this legislation more effective.
It is intended that the Bill should take the heat out of hedge disputes by local authorities acting as independent third parties in examining issues as objectively and dispassionately as they can. Our view is that local authorities should be left to weigh the facts of each case in a fair and impartial manner, unencumbered by questions of the different and varying motivations of the parties involved.
For those reasons, although we understand the spirit and intent behind the amendment, we do not believe that it would he helpful at this stage to include a specific provision on the face of the Bill to deal with alleged vindictiveness.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his comment. He says that the amendment introduces a judgmental element, and I agree. I have considerable correspondence from people who think that the introduction of that element would be an advantage. Local authorities are used to dealing with such situations, so it is not significant.
The point about the date of the planting of the hedge, which is dealt with in my amendment, Amendment No. 14, to which I also speak now, is a two-edged sword. Some write that they do not want a hedge, but if it has been there for more than a certain amount of time, it is "set in stone" and nothing can be done. Others say that the date is significant if the hedge was planted immediately after a planning refusal, for example. That was my initial thought when tabling the amendment. The Hedgeline group says in its note that real malicious intent from the outset is rarer. It is usually a by-product of another quarrel; for example, the victim has opposed a planning application at an earlier time. So, apparently, planning applications are one of the big reasons why people take vindictive action. There is a place for a provision relating to malicious intent.
I wish to correct my statement about the Minister's letter to me. I have now checked the exact wording. He said that he thought "frivolous and vexatious" should not be added to the appeal procedure, but that we had not discussed the word "malicious" at that time. I am prepared to accept that. The word "malicious" should
1154
not be applied to appeal, but I still strongly believe that it should apply to the original council reasoning. I hope that between now and Report stage I can convince the Minister that there is some merit in that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, the Minister said that it would not be helpful to insert the word "malicious". We are trying to read the significance of this because, ultimately, we not only want the Minister to oppose, we want him tacitly to support, legislation from here. When he says that it would not be helpful, is that a coded way of saying that he would prefer that the word were not there? Although the case for it has been made, a Bill without that word is better than no Bill at all.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I shall have to ask the Minister to comment. If it is a coded message, it is not one that I understand.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I try not to speak in code. We take the view that it would not be helpful and that in some circumstances it could be counterproductive. It would probably put local authorities in a difficult position when reaching a conclusion because it would have to take into account the intent behind planning the hedge at a particular time and place. As I said, simplicity is the order of the hour in this Bill. We would prefer to have clear and simple legislation that did not force local authorities to judge the intention behind an action.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that remark. I understand exactly the point by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we would rather have a Bill than no Bill, provided that it is not so damaging to the interests of those adversely affected by hedges as to be worthless. I believe that it is the Government's honest intention to enact a worthwhile Bill. There is time for discussion on the matter between now and Report stage. Perhaps I can convince the Government that the word "malicious" is good; perhaps they can convince me that it is not desirable and would be counterproductive. We will continue from there. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
"() that the complainant has not notified the person referred to in section 1(1)(b) against whom the complaint is being made,"
The noble Baroness said: I tabled this amendment at the last moment because of letters I have received. We discussed at Second Reading the desire for mediation. It is desirable, and, if we can see that agreement is reached between neighbours, so much the better.
I received a letter from an elderly couple whose neighbour, when they approached him, told them that he intended to be a very bad neighbour. He said that he had no intention of doing anything whatever to help them and that if they came near him again—he did not say, "I'll knock your head off", but that was the tone.
The elderly couple felt intimidated. They said that at over 80 years old, they felt unable to face such a situation again.
It is important to note the law as highlighted in Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster City Council, where a judgment was made against the council because it had failed to respond to the notice served to request that the growth of the tree be controlled. I outlined at Second Reading the eventual £1 million cost incurred by contrast to the original cost of £14,000. The House of Lords ruled in that case that it was essential that one notified the neighbour of the problem.
So, it is no good if the elderly couple do not even tell their neighbour. They must have some official way of giving notification. But where people feel threatened, they should not have to attempt to meet or mediate with their neighbour unless he indicates a willingness to do so. For that reason, I considered that anyone could comply with an obligation to notify the neighbour, because it could be done by recorded delivery, registered post or in some way that did not endanger the person notifying, yet it would satisfy the council that the person being complained against was at least aware of the problem. That is the basis for Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Amendment No. 13 is in the same group. It would give the authority a clear right to postpone a decision in order to allow for mediation. The words used are,
"capable of resolution by other means";
in other words, other than through its procedures. That may be implicit, but in case it is not I wish it to be understood that there is a considerable role for mediation. Local authorities will not necessarily relish having to carry out that role. They, rightly, say that they are not resourced to undertake such measures; however, I dare say that planning departments have much experience of it. I hope that the noble Baroness can agree the principle, if not the method, of dealing with it. I wish to ensure that it is understood that mediation can be attempted before choosing the nuclear option.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: This is an interesting point because from what I have read and seen I am well aware that although people may not have been terrorised, they are nevertheless frightened. They may be timid and frail, and do not like to draw neighbours' attention to a detriment to their property. However, if we are to engage local authorities to spend money and time in dealing with the problem, they ought to realise—and ought to be able to realise—that the simple procedure of asking for the hurt to be remedied by the offending neighbour has at least been attempted.
I repeat my own illustration. I bought my house which had next to it a hedge of about 20 to 25 feet in height. I spoke to my neighbour and asked what had happened. He said that the previous person went to see
1156
the owner and came away with a flea in his ear. The matter had been left. When this debate arose two or three years ago, I said I would do exactly what the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, suggests. I went to see my neighbour and found that he was a new owner and that he was unaware that there was any feeling on my part that the height of the hedge should be reduced. As soon as I raised the matter with him he said that he was very sorry and that he did not realise the problem. He said that he bought the house and the hedge, but now that the issue had been drawn to his attention he would reduce the height of the hedge to an acceptable and satisfactory height at his own expense, which he did.
Therefore, before involving the panoply of the law, I believe that the onus should be on the complainant to prove that he has taken some steps to try to resolve the matter. He should not simply say that he had been told by somebody that it is no good visiting the neighbour. The amendments are well worth the Minister's consideration and are acceptable because they improve the true intent of the Bill.
4 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have great sympathy with the noble Baroness's point that there should be a requirement for information to be supplied to the occupier of the land where the hedge is growing before the local authority considers a complaint. In our view those seeking to make a complaint should have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute by negotiation. Under those circumstances I believe that the local authority would probably be within its rights to reject the complaint if such reasonable steps had not been taken. There should, first, have been some dialogue with the hedge owner which should have ended with the complainant saying that he was not satisfied and that he intended to use the statutory complaints procedure.
As a matter of courtesy, I also agree that the complainant should inform the hedge owner when lodging the complaint with the local authority, perhaps by sending him a copy of the complaint. At any event in these circumstances it is the Government's intention to publish a leaflet for members of the public to understand how the complaints system will work when established under the legislation. We would want to include advice within that leaflet about the notification process as regards the owners of hedges. It seems to us that putting that information into an explanatory leaflet is better for the purpose of placing a message rather than to include it on the face of the Bill. We believe that that would be a more effective way of dealing with the matter.
That brings me to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the local authority should have the facility to reject a complaint if a complainant has not, at the first instance, put the person complained about on notice. We believe that it is best that mediation and dispute resolution is tried first. It would be our expectation that that would be the normal run of events. It is our intention to publish information in the form of a leaflet initially rather than

1157
having it set out on the face of the Bill, which we do not believe is necessary. We shall be able to consult the local authorities on the content and design, which deals with the point more effectively than placing it within the body of the legislation itself.
Baroness Hamwee: I believe that we are all agreed on the best way of going about these matters. My concern was the rather more technical one of being assured that the local authority had the power to postpone taking a decision; in other words, not to be upholding or rejecting the complaint, but postponing it to allow mediation. Mine is quite a narrow point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness is right in that it is a narrower point. Under Clause 4(2)(a) local authorities already have powers not to proceed with complaints if they consider that the complainant has failed to take all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute amicably. So we believe that the provision is already there. That will enable the authority to refer the parties to mediation, which we believe works very well. Statistics tell me that there is a success rate of 85 per cent in cases where mediation is invoked. Our expectation is that that would happen first. In any event, Clause 4(2)(a) provides for that. We believe that that point is satisfied and has a bearing on the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have listened with quite a degree of interest. I understand the technical basis of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am very much in favour of mediation. I have no problem with the principle of mediation or of a council deferring a decision for the purpose of mediation.
I have tabled my amendment for a narrow reason: that in situations where mediation is absolutely impossible there should be at least a minimum requirement on the party concerned to notify the person complained against. I do not believe that that is at all unreasonable. The council would find itself in difficulty it' it approached the neighbour and said that it had received a complaint from a neighbour, and the neighbour replied to the effect that no one had told him that there had been a complaint about the hedge. Yet the reason for not telling might have been that the complainant was too frightened to approach the neighbour who had been unfriendly about other issues.
I had a very unfortunate case in the West Country. A hedge was causing great damage. The woman concerned believed that it caused her husband to die from a heart attack, but I do not know whether or not that is true. He died after a great period of worry about the hedge. When she read the Delaware Mansions case and that one had to notify the neighbour if one is unhappy in order to take legal action under the present law, she notified the neighbour. She received a letter from his solicitor to say that if she attempted to contact his client in any way whatever he would take further legal action against her for harassment. All this occurred to a woman aged over 80 years.
1158
I told her that she should take up the matter with the Law Society because I considered it scandalous for any solicitor to send a letter of that intimidatory nature. She took it up with the society but got nowhere. She was told that the solicitor was entitled to defend his client. However, the position became worse because the offending person said that he would sue the complainant for damaging the resale value of his property. It was up for sale and he had to disclose that he had a letter of complaint from a neighbour which therefore reduced the resale value.
Cases exist which are quite worrying and frightening to people. So there should be the ultimate fallback for a complainant of not having to prove that he has taken all reasonable steps, because what would those be when he has approached a neighbour and been told that he is harassing the neighbour? That puts the person attempting to mediate in an impossible position. If there is the fallback position that at the very least the complainant must have notified the neighbour of the complaint, then, as in the judgment of the court in the case to which I have referred, the neighbour could not plead that he was unaware of the problem. That is why I wanted to include that point.
The Minister should look at this and consider whether or not it would be a desirable addition to the Bill. I am sure that there are many more cases than the ones about which I have heard. In the mean time, I should like to reconsider and further discuss the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Remedial notices]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 41, at end insert—
"(9) For the avoidance of doubt, a remedial order under this Act shall override any tree preservation order or any preservation order imposed under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)."
The noble Baroness said: The main reason for bringing forward this amendment was the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Doncaster, in the Second Reading debate, in the gap. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that it can be extremely difficult for people living in conservation areas to maintain their own hedges. People living in a conservation area have to notify the council of their intention to cut a hedge. Thereafter, they have to allow a certain amount of time to elapse before they can proceed to cut their own hedge. The noble Lord is keen to have some provision that will entitle people living in conservation areas to maintain and trim their own hedges. It is quite customary in this country for people to trim, tidy, and maintain their hedges. Therefore, it is not a good idea to impose difficulties upon them in so doing.
Further, if the council makes an enforcement order that a hedge should be cut to, say., three or four metres—or whatever measurement is determined—the

1159
decision has to be made as to which process takes precedence: the preservation order that might apply to the area, or the conservation order that is applicable to a larger area. The amendment would make clear that this hedge Bill would override any of the other orders relating to the conservation of trees, or hedges. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We may well be able to offer some reassurance to the noble Baroness on the points that she has raised. Section 198(6)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that a tree preservation order does not apply,
"to the cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping of trees in compliance with any obligations imposed by or under an Act of Parliament".
That rather broad statement means that remedial notices served, or issued, under this Bill would automatically override the requirements of a tree preservation order. Consequently, there is no need to clarify that point on the face of the Bill.
A similar exemption applies where a remedial notice is issued in respect of trees in a conservation area. The relevant provision can be found in Regulation 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999. This does not mean that a local amenity is unimportant; indeed, far from it. Clause 4(4) of the Bill shows quite clearly that the local authority is required to "take into consideration" the extent to which a hedge contributes towards the amenity of a neighbourhood. The existence of a tree preservation order, or of a conservation area designation, will, therefore, he a material fact to a decision as to whether or not to issue a remediation notice.
Of itself, that provision does not address the separate point raised on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, about trees in conservation areas. I believe that the noble Lord's concern was that the requirement to notify the local planning authority before carrying out works to certain trees in conservation areas could serve to discourage owners from managing their own hedges. The noble Baroness pointed out that there was a degree of conflict between the aims of her Bill and the universal controls over trees in conservation areas in planning legislation.
However, we believe that this problem is capable of resolution. Under the tree regulations that I mentioned earlier, it is open to us to specify exemptions in the requirement to notify the planning authority of the intention to carry out works to trees in a conservation area. Therefore, it would be feasible to exempt topping or lopping of evergreen hedges as part of normal management. In our view, the issue can be best addressed in that way. The department is currently considering updating the tree regulations and implementing long-promised improvements to the tree protection regime, so we have the opportunity to introduce such an exemption. We shall consider suitable provisions in the revised regulations.
1160
In the meantime, it is my hope—-and, I am sure, that of your Lordships—that local authorities will look favourably upon applications to prune hedges. Indeed, they would be imprudent if they did not do so. In our view, tree preservation legislation should not get in the way of effective good management practice. I trust that my remarks will be of some assistance to the noble Baroness.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his response. It would be most helpful if an exemption for people who wish to control their own hedges could be introduced. I am sure that all these applications for permission to prune one's own hedges in conservation areas represent a burden to the planning departments of local authorities. The Minister's reply is most encouraging. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Variation or withdrawal of remedial notices]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 45, at end insert—
"() The Secretary of State shall after consultation with representatives of local government issue guidance to local authorities with regard to the exercise of their powers and functions pursuant to this Act."
The noble Baroness said: I noted this morning that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to the need for a degree of flexibility in the application of the Bill. I accept that necessity, but I also believe that it requires some objectivity. We certainly need the assurance that local authorities will act neutrally when administering the provisions of the Bill. At the Second Reading stage the Local Government Association told me that it wanted to avoid long-winded, philosophical discussions on each and every dispute—one person's nuisance is often another person's aesthetic choice. I well understand that concern.
It is also proper that those who are involved in a dispute should have the assurance that some common standard is being applied between different local authorities. Of course, circumstances will be different: what applies in the suburbs may not be right for the open countryside. However, while accepting that consideration, it should not be open to local authorities to take inconsistent decisions. Indeed, one would rapidly find oneself in the courts. I believe that local authorities would welcome some assistance in the broad criteria to be applied.
I recognise that I probably should have made the amendment state that the Secretary of State "may issue guidance" rather using the word "shall", but I trust that that will not be too much of a stumbling block. I suggest, therefore, that the Secretary of State should consult representatives of local government, and issue guidance to assist them. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: This is a very good amendment, one that is worthy of support and inclusion in the legislation. As a result of my experience, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and, indeed, of

1161
everyone else who has spoken in this Committee stage, we are all well aware that there needs to be some measure of consistency in interpreting what the Bill intends to achieve. We also need to try to sweep up the issues at the next stage. I take the view that the action on this matter has recently been ratcheted up significantly as regards both this Bill and the one in the House of Commons.
After the decisions taken in this House in recognition of the fact that there is a need for some legislation in this respect—and, I have to say, the enormous work sympathetically carried out within the department—it would be a pity if we were to fall at the last hurdle in ensuring that people understand exactly what is involved in this issue. This amendment deals particularly with local authorities, because they will have to carry out these functions. Therefore, when the Secretary of State, the Minister, and his colleagues consider the next step to be taken, they ought to bear in mind that there are bodies such as Hedgeline that have a vested interest in the kind of provisions that will be considered.
I must confess that while sitting here I have opened my post, which I would normally have opened first thing but I was delayed. Inside was the latest Hedgeline bulletin. It is headed,
"We have another chance for legislation Hedge Law could be passed this time around".
On the back there is a contact sheet. It is a voluntary, unaided, unpaid organisation, but it has a network of people all over the country who must have appeared out of the woodwork—but I must be careful; that is another branch of what I want to say.
There are lots of little people who are unprotected and unarticulate, looking for someone to be their champion. In the first instance that is the Government through, I hope, aiding and abetting the passing of the law, but ultimately it is the local authority. That is how it should be. When the Minister decides to consider the matter, even on another Bill, he should take care that when the guidance is produced it goes through the hands not only of local authorities but also of those who seek to represent the people at the sharp end—that is not us.
I mentioned Hedgeline. The department may have the addresses of other such organisations. It is better to take the opportunity to get the provisions right in the first instance than to find what local authorities think sensible becoming the subject of dispute among other people.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the principle behind the amendment. It is good to have guidelines and the Minister has already indicated that there will be guidelines. I support the point of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the consultation should be wider. Hedgeline has great expertise in the subject, built up over many years, so it would be one organisation to consult, but it may be wider than that. The guidance should be issued not only to local authorities but also to the general public so that the various functions suggested by the noble Baroness can be incorporated and local authorities know their rights.
1162
There is a need for general guidance on the issue, so although I agree with its principle I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment and the Minister will tell us that he plans guidance in any case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can offer the assurance that all Members of the Committee seek. Guidance will be produced to local authorities under the legislation. I give a cast-iron assurance that there will be prior consultation, not only with local government but also with a range of interested organisations including, of course, Hedgeline. The guidance will have to take into account the determination of appeals, guidance to occupiers as to the way in which they should make their complaints on such issues as giving prior notification. All those matters will need to be covered and we shall need to consult extensively to achieve that.
However, we believe it can be achieved without placing the guidance on a statutory footing. There will be consultation and effective guidance to all, which will be widely available to the public.
Baroness Hamwee: I was seeking such an assurance through this process. It cannot get better than a cast-iron assurance. I thank the Minister for that. He and I and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, used the term "guidance", while the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, used the term "guidelines". I think we are talking about guidance, which is something more—the Minister nods. I wanted to be clear as guidance has a firmer status. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No, 18:
Page 11, line 38, after "interest" insert "for a term of not less than five years"
The noble Baroness said: This is possibly the worst drawn amendment I have ever tabled. I realised that when drafting it, but it is a probing amendment. The Bill refers to an occupier being someone entitled to possession of land by virtue of an estate or interest in it. My amendment, which seeks to stimulate discussion, specifies:
"for a term of not less than five years".
At a number of points the owner or occupier is the subject or perhaps object of a provision, either as the complainant or the offending neighbour. Issues of liability are raised so that the owner or occupier may be required to take action. It raises the grounds on which an appeal may be made. Is an occupier in a different position from an owner and under what circumstances would it be reasonable for an occupier to have to undertake the cost of taking the remedial action?
The Bill seems to allow picking and choosing between owners and occupiers. I am unclear—although guidance might assist—as to the basis for deciding whether the

1163
complaint should be directed, for instance, at the owner of the land or at someone who is occupying it on a relatively short-term basis. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness admitted that this is perhaps not her best ever drawn amendment. I do not like to agree with her, but on this occasion I had better do so. It would alter the definition of an occupier if it were to require their entitlement to possess the land by virtue of an estate or interest in it for a term of not less than five years.
The term "occupier" crops up throughout the legislation and so the amendment would have far-reaching consequences. It would mean that people on shorter-term tenancies would not be able to bring a complaint under the legislation, but would have to persuade the owner to submit it instead. If the owner refused to go to that trouble, up to five years is a long time to endure the misery of a high hedge, as I am sure Hedgeline members would testify. It could of course be for longer if someone repeatedly renewed their tenancy.
Were the amendment applied, the owner would be responsible for complying with any remedial notice and could be prosecuted for failure to do so, even though the terms of the tenancy agreement might specify that responsibility for maintaining the hedge rests with the tenant. We could argue that that is hardly fair or equitable.
If the property changed hands while a local authority was considering the complaint, it would be reasonable for it to ask the new occupiers of the domestic property from which the complaint originated whether they wished to continue and proceed with the matter. There are therefore administrative solutions to any problems that might be thrown up where the parties to the complaint change over time. Local authorities have powers in Clause 4 not to proceed with a complaint they consider frivolous or vexatious. That might cover, for instance, a situation where someone makes a complaint on spurious grounds just before their tenancy is due to expire.
I am not sure that that offers any reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, I have tried to explore some of the difficulties with the amendment that I think would unnecessarily complicate the simplicity of the Bill's drafting—which, as I have said several times, is a distinct virtue.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The amendment is interesting and has made me think about the distinction between owner and occupier. I also understand the Minister's point about one's legal obligations. However, I ask him to consider before the next stage yet another scenario—when the owner or person responsible for a given piece of land cannot be found. Rutland Gardens, for example, in central London, has a central garden which was purchased some years ago by an unknown
1164
person on the basis that he could build houses on it. However, it may have been sold to him by a very smart con man because, as everyone knows, under the Open Spaces Act, there is no way in which anyone could obtain the right to build on that site. The garden has therefore been totally neglected for many years, and Westminster Council is unable to get anyone to take action on it.
There is another patch near the Royal Geographical Society. Although the owner's identity is known, there is great dispute about who is responsible for trimming the few bits of greenery on the land, which is much smaller than the patch in Rutland Gardens. There are many such instances.
I know from experience of many cases in which people's electricity supply was cut off because the landlord could not be found. That situation has changed, but many cases still revolve around the need to identify and locate individuals. If someone has a hedge and the adjoining owner cannot be found, how will the Bill work for him? Will the council cut down the trees, or will people have the right to cut them down at their own expense? What will happen if they cannot find anyone on whom to serve notice? It is an interesting point. I shall read this debate. Perhaps the Minister will think about what I said and we can discuss it again at a later stage.
Baroness Hamwee: I am quite happy to reconfirm that I know how bad my amendment is, but I do not think that that is the whole issue. Clause 1(1)(b), for example, states that a complaint can be made if the complainant,
"alleges that his reasonable enjoyment of that property is being affected by an … obstruction … caused by a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person".
Is it fair to pick and choose between the owner and occupier? The person may be both the owner and the occupier.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure why the exact wording was chosen, but the wording seems to provide that flexibility. Surely the point is to serve notice on the most relevant person; either the owner or the occupier may be the most relevant person on whom to serve any number of notices. The relevant person is the one who is causing the nuisance, which takes us back to points and issues that we covered earlier. The issue is the relevancy of those involved and we should focus on that. I think that that is why the alternative wording has been provided. I may be wrong about that, but it seems a sensible way to proceed.
Baroness Hamwee: I think that that is right, but I am not sure that the Bill allows that judgment to be made. The provision on complaints—I shall reread it—does not seem to provide that scope.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, too, will have another look at the issue. I think that we require that flexibility, and we want the provisions to be workable. We need to be certain about it.
Baroness Hamwee: We also require fairness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 20 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [H.L.]
4.35 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, whom I saw by chance yesterday, asked me to deal with his objections to the Bill when read for a second time, the first time around, on 22nd May, at cols. 871 to 873 of the Official Report. These were, I think, the four objections that the noble Lord had in mind: that 2001 had the lowest stoppage of all days lost in industrial disputes since 1920; that the facts did not bear out the claim that there is a new problem of the industrial sector; that the Employment Relations Act 1999 was working rather well; and that a review was due to start in June. As your Lordships' House is the only forum in which a debate such as this may now take place, in accordance with the courtesies of this House and in the interests of constructive debate, I propose to deal with the request now at the outset.
The points taken will be dealt with broadly in my speech. However, so that the noble Lord may respond, at this stage may it be said that 2002 had more than 1.5 million days lost in all industrial disputes, occasioned in the main by disruption of public services; that that was the highest annual figure over the past 12 years; and that the percentage of working days lost on disruption of public services, as specified in Clause 3(2) of the Bill, in 1993 and 1995, was over 70 per cent of all working days lost. As to the new review in June, nothing has been seen or heard of that. In this context, the Employment Relations Act 1999 does not appear to have been working at all.
In the debate on the Loyal Address, I took the broad point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had given no reasoned justification for government inaction or for government opposition to the principle of the Bill. As appears at Committee stage, on 26th June, certain misconceptions were removed as a result of discussion between the noble Lord and myself. The noble Lord will also know that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, took the view that pursuit of an approach entailing partnership was the way forward to try to end the need to strike. That was on 18th April. The noble Lord will also know that PPP and PFI policies were the very cause of the disruption of these public services in 2002 and that that threat remains.
There is an interest to declare. I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his place because, after his publication of A Giant's Strength, about 35 years ago I set up a committee of Conservative lawyers—several of them sit and others
1166
have sat in your Lordships' House—on reform of trade union law. The work of that committee was only much later assimilated into the excellent framework of law by the Thatcher administration., As soon as she became leader of the party, I was asked by my noble friend Lady Thatcher to advise on such affairs; and such has been my privilege.
There was then absolutely no need for provision to be made in a Bill such as this. The surge of militancy to set up a unicameral workers' state had by then abated only to return to bedevil this administration by resort to disruption of our public services, to oppose government policy on partnership and to unseat the government. Those are not my words: those are the words those people use. Such disruption has become a matter of most serious concern to the public, having now become an all but acceptable disorder of life which is wholly unacceptable.
The Government have evinced a sort of Neronic attitude of ineptitude and inaction to this challenge to their very authority. As yet no political party has either proposed any effective remedial action or any amendment to the framework of law. So, at no one's behest, this Bill was drafted, prompted by interest, as ever, as one of the boys in the back room of politics. The Bill only proscribes disruption of public services designated as such by Parliament, only at the instigation of a trade union, whether in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute, a dispute with government, an inter-union dispute or for any other reason, and only as a last resort if Professor Brown's silken thread of voluntary conciliation has either been declined or has failed.
Arbitration is ordained only as a means of resolution, only as a last resort for such disputes. Proportionate disruption may be granted by the High Court if sought. Enforcement is only by the High Court and only against trade unions by sequestration and trade union officials.
The individual entitlement of the rank and file membership to withdraw or withhold their labour under extant law is preserved. Albeit that the advisory opinion of the joint committee has not been sought, the Bill is asserted to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as a proportionate provision.
The limited concept of the Bill was not borrowed from the 1996 Green Paper, which was not confined to public services and rejected mandatory arbitration. It is not borrowed from the other countries referred to in Annex 2 of that Green Paper. There is no need for us to take lessons from abroad or from any senior fellow of a Brussels think tank writing in the newspapers.
In our country, as yet the trade unions, old Labour, have always respected the rule of law when applied by the High Court as distinct from the national industrial relations court, which they did not like—it sent; six dockers to prison, released by the Court of Appeal—and which fortunately no longer exists. There is no reason whatever to suppose that respect for law as ordained by Parliament and administered by the High Court would not be observed by the trade union movement which is, after all, an essential estate of the realm.

1167
The Bill, applicable to disruption of public services only, could serve as a requisite safeguard for any government against "militancy of confrontation" which men such as Vic Feather and most trade union leaders could not then, and cannot now, abide. It is not an attack on old Labour. It is not an attack on the trade unions, albeit a criticism of new Labour for sheer ineptitude.
The aspect of home affairs warrants the immediate attention of this Government, albeit that the overriding concern, having prepared for war, is the wisdom of the need for war and the well-being of our forces as yet on standby.
Has not an urgent approach to be made now to the trade union movement to avoid the threat of massive disruption of our public services by certain public service unions, either to support a pay claim or to oppose government policy by collective industrial action? If such an approach were to be rejected, has not some effective action to be taken by Parliament— perhaps some such action as proposed by this Bill as a last resort?
During the passage of the Bill in this form last Session—it lapsed on Prorogation—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, recognised the urgency of some such approach and the case for legislation, not as an exercise in confrontation but as an assertion of the authority of any government to govern.
About a year ago both right honourable gentlemen the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said that something had to be done to stem the resurgent tide of militancy among the leadership of the public service unions, as was later identified in the leader in The Times on St Valentine's Day. Over last year disruption of our public services had a severe effect on the economy. I refer to the record of days lost. The people suffered intolerable hardship, inconvenience and expense all to no constructive purpose.
Unless and until the dispute between the leaders of these public service unions and the Government over PPP and PFI in the public services has been resolved, the threat of such disruption remains, and the deplorable state of our public services could be devastated within this very year.
But if something has to be done, as the right honourable gentlemen say, what is to be done to safeguard these vaunted aspirations to improve our public services? What is to happen this year or next year? Are we to drift towards 2 million working days lost and to drown in yet another whirlpool of misery and discontent? Will not the people—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made this point some time ago—one day demand, as he put it, the protection of government—some effective long-stop protection—under the rule of law? Government is the business of government; it is not the legitimate aspiration or business of any trade union. Is it not for the Government to sort out their own symbiotic relationship with the trade union movement and with old and new Labour as an immediate priority?
I say a quick word, if I may—I have spoken for longer than 15 minutes and I apologise—about the FBU dispute over pay which inevitably involved conditions
1168
of work. Here the proposal of government to repeal Section 19 of the 1947 Act, to reduce overmanning and restrictive practices and to open up the closed shop imports an entirely new dimension which as a last resort may well be resolved only by mandatory arbitration. Fire brigade services could be designated as public services by Parliament under the Bill.
What about the disruption of services in the North by RMT and ASLEF over Christmas over a pay dispute? That sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. We must get past that form of industrial action. A pay claim would be covered by the Bill without designation. Those claims would fall within the Bill as drafted.
In conclusion, the purpose of this speech is to justify the Bill only in principle, not the DIY drafting. Good heavens, I am not a draftsman. The Bill is exposed on its drafting to rigorous criticism and constructive amendment—a point fairly taken by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as one of his objections with which I have not dealt. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
4.55 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, mentioned, he raised this specific topic twice last year, first in an Unstarred Question on 18th April, to which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster replied, and, secondly, on a Bill on 22nd May, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, replied.
I think it is fair to say that on both occasions the replies from the Government Benches constituted exercises in complacency. International and historical statistics were produced to demonstrate that Britain was a haven of industrial peace; that there was no need for any forward planning and no need to worry; that the Government had accepted the bulk of the Conservative industrial relations reforms and that militant trade unionism was safely in its box. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked the House,
"what is the problem being identified of industrial disputes in the public sector"?—[official Report, 22/5/102; col. 871.]
If he did not know that then, he certainly knows it now.
I support the spirit in which the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway, introduced the Bill. Whether the Government's statistics on industrial disputes, historically or internationally, are favourable or unfavourable at the present time, is really irrelevant. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, identifies—we seek some sense of recognition and urgency on the part of the Government in this regard—problems with regard to the reform of our public services, the funding of our public services and the manner of settling disputes in our public services that are not fully covered by present legislation and that require government action to be resolved.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will not be complacent tonight. The firefighters' dispute remains unresolved. The threat of militant action on the Tube remains. In trade union after trade union—the Fire Brigades Union, RMT and AMICUS—the way to

1169
guarantee election is to promise industrial militancy and hostility to new Labour. I point out to the Minister that both the General and Municipal Workers' Union and the Transport and General Workers' Union face new leadership elections.
We ask the Government to recognise that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has made some suggestions in the Bill but I am sure that if the Government want to look for friendlier fire, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, could be quickly brought into action. He could set out options for compulsory and binding arbitration, pendulum arbitration and no strike agreements tied to long-term contracts. Many ideas have been floated for 20 years and more, as well as more radical solutions such as opening up trade unions to easier civil action for damage caused to third parties.
But preferable to any programme of sanctions should be a genuine dialogue between the Government and both sides of industry to emphasise that the benefits of co-operation far outweigh old-style militancy and confrontation. It really would be a tragedy if, having come so far, some of those old confrontational ideas returned to the forefront of our trade union movement. I hope and wish the new general secretary of the TUC well, and hope that he continues to lead the whole trade union movement in building a 21st century role for trade unions, and not a backward-looking one. Neither the economy nor the public services can afford to see new resources for sharp end services swallowed up by inflationary wage demands.
Today's edition of The Sun reports on a panic in the Government that the resources put into the NUS—no, not the NUS, although that may happen next Monday—into the NHS are not going into service delivery. That is the real problem about the way in which the Government have handled the welcome pumping of public expenditure into public services. That has left an inflated expectation in the public services of the money now available for wage increases. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked Ministers before Christmas if 40 per cent was the norm in public services. He asked whether there was in fact a norm for wage settlements in the public services. Will we find out that it is nearer 16 per cent than 3 per cent?
It is part of the problem that the Government have approached the matter in a piecemeal and complacent way, which has given militancy its opportunity. There is no longer a feeling that the Government wish to engage in a broader dialogue with the TUC and the CBI on these matters. I may be a trifle old-fashioned, but I believe that there were many merits in the old NEDC—Neddy— approach of getting industry involved in these matters and contributing to the solutions.
It is even difficult to find out who in government takes responsibility for these matters. I always remember Ray Gunter describing the job of industrial relations in the old Labour Ministry as a "bed of nails". Now it is left as some minor responsibility, presumably as part of the portfolio of Mr Andrew Smith, the Secretary of State for
1170
Work and Pensions. Well, my goodness, he has enough problems on his hands with pensions without having to worry about industrial relations.
Do the Government have any coherent view of how we will deal with those issues? That is the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked when the Government review of the 1999 Act would be completed. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that in his reply. The last time he was asked, he told us that it was starting its work last June, so it has been going on for a good half year. Is it a purely internal review, or is it taking evidence from the TUC, the CBI and from elsewhere? When and how will it publish its findings?
At the heart of the matter is the concern about the Government's attitude to the industrial action that causes most damage to the public rather than to the employer. That is what the public do not understand. There is a kind of secondary picketing that was not touched by the Thatcher reforms. Tube strikes do damage not the managers of London Tube but hundreds of thousands of commuters. Teachers' strikes do damage not directors of education but children, mums and parents who are trying to manage their families. Of course, the striking firefighters do not damage the fire authorities but endanger the public at large.
Without wanting to remove the right to strike, we must get into our framework of industrial relations some way of avoiding the innocent general public being dragged into the firing line of disputes. That is something that the Government have neglected to do. On the part of new Labour, there has been none of what I would describe as post-Thatcherite thinking on industrial relations. The Government are simply willing to take the benefits of the Thatcher legislation and let sleeping dogs lie. Unfortunately, the dogs are waking up and beginning to bark. What is needed from the Government is some sense of urgency and the holistic approach that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, recommended in a debate last year.
The Government have promised the public services £40 billion of new spending but have apparently omitted to negotiate any kind of deal for improvement of service or delivery as a price for that new expenditure. In a debate on 18th April, the noble Lord, Lord MacDonald of Tradeston, set out Government aims in terms of public services. He said that they were based on four principles:
"higher national standards and accountability; greater devolution and delegation to the front line; increased flexibility in the sense of an end to demarcation; and, very importantly, more choice and contestability".—[Official Report, 18/4/02; cols. 1162–1163.]
If we are to put the kind of money that the Government have promised into health, education and transport, we want that money to get through to the sharp end. If it is used to increase pay, that pay must be justified by productivity and the rest. Surely, all that should have been taken together. The Government should not have been taken by surprise, as they undoubtedly were, by the growth of new militancy in the trade union movement.

1171
Our call tonight is a comradely piece of advice to the Government to wake up to the fact that they cannot simply wait on events and be continually surprised. Each time they are surprised, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell emphasised, the general public have to pay the price for their lack of preparedness. In the long term, rather than giving a platform to the malcontents, they should find a way in which to produce, from good industrial relations, both benefits to the workers and benefits in terms of the public service to the public at large. That is how to bring in and embrace constructive trade unionism for the country's progress.
In that sense, I feel that the Bill deserves a Second Reading. The matter needs a whole lot more constructive thought and a dialogue between the Government, the trade union movement and the CBI to ensure that the massive increase in public expenditure to which the Government are committed is not lost in inflationary and non-productive pay increases or frittered away in other ways that leave us with poorer public services and a deteriorating industrial relations situation.
This is a sideshow debate—we know that—but these issues will come back to centre stage. If Ministers show again tonight the complacency that they showed last spring, it will come to haunt them in the year ahead.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I, too, like the thrust of my noble friend's Bill and I compliment him on bringing it forward at this time. I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration. After all, its purpose is,
"to contain disruption of public services by collective industrial action".
There are few if any who would not wish to see that objective achieved at a time when there is, first, the threat of war—and an unpopular war of uncertain duration and severity at that; secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, a new, more militant leadership of trade unions; and, thirdly, the course of the country's economy, including the affordability of increased wage demands in the context of increased spending on public services, which is very uncertain.
Noble Lords will have guessed from those opening remarks that my approach to my noble friend's Bill is entirely contemporaneous and, I hope, pragmatic. In normal times, one would with very few exceptions argue for free collective bargaining across the board. I still believe that that is the best principle to follow. My memories and experience of the intransigent mood of the early 1970s leads me to abide by that principle. However, these are somewhat extraordinary times and the Bill refers specifically to "public services".
We have, as has been said, already experienced the firemen's strike, which is, I hear, now threatening to flare up again. Valuable troops have been diverted from their military duties to man Green Goddesses—they did so superbly and effectively, as it so happened. However, that occasioned an entirely proper but grim warning from the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, that the Army was being over-stretched at a critical time.
1172
It appeared to me at one point that the Government might have to resort to some such restrictive measure, as my noble friend proposed in the previous Session and proposes again now.
With all the talk of special measures to restrain the public in the event of a major terrorist attack of a chemical, biological or massively destructive nature, it is inconceivable that the principle of free collective bargaining would be allowed to operate in key public services in such circumstances. The circumstances would hardly be "free" for the public authorities concerned. The question is whether it would not be wise to anticipate such circumstances now, rather than to wait for the emergency to occur and legislate in haste. If we can judge by the media, we know that the Government are already making preparations for such emergencies. It is almost inconceivable that they are not contemplating some form of action in the sphere of employment relations. That is an inescapable question for the Government, which they should face up to and answer.
The Prime Minister warned the nation in his New Year message of difficult and dangerous times ahead. He was thinking not only of security in terms of defence but in economic terms, too. He said:
"I cannot recall a time when Britain was confronted simultaneously by such a range of difficult and, in some cases, dangerous problems".
He went on to assure us that,
"Britain is well placed to face up to them".
Those are fine words but what exactly do they mean? What action is proposed?
My noble friend's Bill is very clear. Clause 2 states:
"No public service shall be disrupted by collective industrial action at the instigation of any trade union unless and until the High Court shall have adjudged that the disruption proposed is neither excessive nor disproportionate".
The Bill goes on to define disproportionate action as,
"collective industrial action excessive to resolution of a dispute which has occasioned or would occasion … substantial hardship, expense and inconvenience to the general public, or … substantial damage to the economy".
I stress how impressed I was by what has been said about the effect of strikes in the public services on the public. They do not hit the employer, who is generally the taxpayer at the end of the line, but they do hurt the public.
The Government must agree that some action is desirable and that the sort of disruptive action anticipated here is totally undesirable. My noble friend sought a remedy in the event of such disruptive action. If the Government do not like the proposed remedy, they are bound to tell us what they favour. Will they put their trust in the trade unions not to hold them and the public to ransom? Trade union leaders may pledge moderation but they will find that difficult to deliver when they are under pressure from their members.
It may be said that there are still imperfections in the Bill, in spite of my noble friend's speech. Personally, I have never known a government Bill that did not contain imperfections that were acknowledged by the government with a host of amendments. The Minister

1173
may feel obliged to regale us with the infelicities—or at least refer to his catalogue of them—of the previous Session. We all know that the real reason for the Bill's rejection, if that is what it faces from the Government, will be the Government's belief in existing legislation, especially the Employment Relations Act 1999, and their ability to negotiate or manipulate their way to an accommodation with the trade unions. Frankly, I am not so sanguine. Some of us remember the solemn and binding agreement between a Labour government and the trade unions, which proved to be neither.
My noble friend has done a service to the House and the country in seeking to concentrate the Government's mind on the issue of excessive and disruptive action in the context of public services. Those of us who use public services know from experience what a precarious state some of them are in—for example, the railway system. It takes little deliberate disruptive action to throw such services into total confusion and chaos. Is it right to tolerate such an open-ended situation and simply wait until the next public service union takes advantage of that at a critical time? I am sure that the Government have that on their mind. A purpose of good law is surely to anticipate events. I urge the Government to give careful consideration to my noble friend's Bill.
5.19 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I start by saying, as is proper in these circumstances, that the Government do not take a view on this or any other Private Members' Bill. We shall do nothing to oppose its passage through your Lordships' House, as we did nothing to oppose it when it passed through the House in the previous Session.
Having said that, it is only right that I should express my admiration for the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, both in introducing legislation and in instigating debate in the House on an issue which he thinks is of very great importance to this country, a view with which I agree. The last thing that I want to be accused of—and the last thing that I think I could be justly accused of—is complacency about industrial relations in this country, or indeed complacency about the issues raised by the Bill.
Of course there are enormous problems. However, in the context of a Private Members' Bill, it is the duty of the Government's spokesman, first to examine the Bill and to consider whether it meets its set objectives, but, secondly, to examine whether the approach to the resolution of the problems identified by the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Roberts and Lord Campbell, is the proper general approach.
When we last considered the Bill at Second Reading in May of last year, I quoted the figures for 2001 for days lost and for stoppages. It is legitimate for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to say that the 2001 figures are no longer the most relevant ones and that we have to look at the figures for 2002, and that we must look at them in context. We do not have final figures for 2002. I cannot confirm the figure he gave. But we know that until the end of October 1.1 million days were lost in 137 stoppages for industrial disputes.
1174
That is by no means the largest for the past 12 years. There were 1.6 million days lost in 1996. But I make no particular point of that.
The point I want to make is that there is a huge difference between those figures and, the average for the 1980s of 7.2 million days lost and the average for the 1970s of 12.7 million days lost. Without making any party point about the legislation passed over the past 20 years—some by Conservative governments and some by Labour governments—it cannot be said that legislation over, for example, the past 10 years has been of particular encouragement to employment disputes.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out that the majority of recent disputes have been in the public services. If 70 per cent of trade unions membership is in public sector unions, that is fairly axiomatic. There is no doubt that that will happen. The noble Lord asked me in particular—the noble Lord, Lord McNally also asked me—about the review of the Employment Relations Act 1999. We have carried on the review, as I said we would. We have been carrying out informal consultations. We shall shortly be publishing a public consultation document. If primary or secondary legislation appears to be required as a result of that consultation process, it is our intention that such legislation should be introduced in this Parliament.
I again make the point that the Government's face is not set against legislative action which deals with problems that are raised, correctly analysed and recognised in a proper consultation process.
Having said that, it is right that I should return to the substance of the Bill because that is what we are supposed to be debating. I made four points about the Bill last May. I am afraid that I must repeat them today because they seem to be such serious defects in the Bill that the kind of amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in Committee after 22nd May really is not adequate for the purpose.
First, the Bill is not about strikes in the public services; it is about disruption to public services. It therefore includes any industrial action that might affect public services, whether in the private or public sectors. It is almost impossible to imagine any industrial action that would not in some way affect the public sector, even if it is in the private sector, as almost all industry and services in this country are involved with the public sector as a customer or a supplier. So the Bill is far too widely drawn in that respect.
Secondly, the Bill is not just about strikes; it is about strikes at the instigation of a trade union. Therefore, it is only about official strikes and not wildcat or unofficial strikes. I am sure that that issue will be recognised as being a very serious defect because that makes it not just possible but likely that the provisions of the Bill would be evaded.
Thirdly, the Bill talks about disproportionate effects on the public. That is described as action that is excessive to the needs of a resolution of a dispute. That raises huge problems of definition. Most importantly, it leaves the courts to decide what are essentially economic or political issues and not legal issues. The

1175
noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as a distinguished lawyer himself, would in other circumstances be the first to resist such pressure.
Fourthly, the Bill refers to mandatory arbitration by the Central Arbitration Committee. The whole point about the Central Arbitration Committee is that of course it protects employee's rights to strike, but it also protects an employers' right to manage. Turning the Central Arbitration Committee into the creature of a mandatory process would be a distortion of its work. There is no reference in the Bill to the work of ACAS. If any reference is made to ACAS, it will become clear that it is profoundly against compulsion.
I know that the Social Democratic Party played with a number of alternatives, such as pendulum resolution and so on, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his wide-ranging but not entirely relevant speech last year—which was just as wide-ranging and just as irrelevant as his speech this year—made those points. But really those alternatives are playing around with the resolution of industrial disputes and are not serious. Behind this issue must be the thoughts: yes, of course we must take action to improve industrial relations; and, yes, of course we must continue to take action to ensure that the public are protected. No one who has observed our response to the Fire Brigades dispute would be able to say that we have not taken effective action to protect the public. I was grateful for the tributes to those who manned the replacement services and the Green Goddesses. But the question must be: is the right approach in dealing with the undoubted problems which exist to criminalise industrial action by one part and not by another part of our workforce?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He will remember that we had an informal discussion in amity on this point. He conceded that the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Bill is not criminal but civil. I corrected that issue before. Noble Lords will find it corrected in Hansard on 26th July.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says. Of course the issue—whether criminal or civil— does not go away because in order for there to be any effect given to any civil jurisdiction there have to be some remedies. I shall not say "penalties", but there must be remedies. I ask seriously whether that is the right approach.
We recognise, of course, that, in certain circumstances, it is necessary to take action to ensure the maintenance of services. I make it entirely clear that we have never ruled out the possibility that industrial action in public services might need to be regulated further, but this Bill is not the way to achieve that.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is the occasion on which to thank everybody who has spoken. I can sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of
1176
Haringey, because something that he said was quite new and, probably, of greater importance than anything that I have said. He said that the Government would consider the matter and introduce primary or secondary legislation, if they thought that it was necessary to do so. That almost justifies all the minutes that we have spent here talking about it.
This is the occasion on which to thank noble Lords, and I thank my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I should have been in a difficult position without them. I thank them sincerely. It is not the occasion, with other business in hand, to entertain further argument about yet another misunderstanding—not wilful but total—by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, of how the Bill would work. It would take too long now, but we can explore the matter, if the Bill is given a Second Reading. We can debate it at another stage, on the basis of constructive amendments.
The House will probably know that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, had to remove her name from the list because she had to visit hospital for an operation. I am sure that we wish her well. I do not know what has happened to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who had his name down. I asked him whether he would like to speak, and he said that he would. Obviously, he has another engagement. I wish him well, too.
On Question, Bill read a second time.

Health (Wales) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Health Laboratory Service
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to preserve the expertise and quality of the Public Health Laboratory Service.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for participating in this debate. Questions about the re-organisation of the Public Health Laboratory Service have featured here and in another place in recent months. The Government's responses have been most informative. The object of the debate is to bring to the attention of the Government the serious ongoing concerns about the re-organisation of the Public Health Laboratory Service; to highlight the severe manpower crisis in the recruitment and retention of biomedical officers; to allow debate to complement the deliberations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on fighting infection, under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior; and to suggest to the Government that the time of transition in the management of the Public Health Laboratory Service may represent a time of vulnerability in the face of threats of deliberate release and bioterrorism.
The debate is about the way in which infections and the threat that they pose are detected and managed. In his report entitled Getting Ahead of the Curve, the Chief Medical Officer for England states:
"The problem of infection is never static".
The new Health Protection Agency is being established to create a modern system to prevent, detect, investigate and control the infectious diseases threat and address health protection more widely. The Public Health Laboratory Service, a key component of the Health Protection Agency, has been a singly managed entity since 1991, but, in England, it is now being split between NHS trusts and the new agency.
Recent examples of the efficacy of the Public Health Laboratory Service in surveillance, disease detection and control include bovine spongiform encephalopathy and variant CJD, meningitis and NHS winter pressures from influenza and bronchitis. Worldwide, several new pathogens and infectious diseases are identified annually. New strains of organisms emerge, such as drug-resistant TB, and we face a massive rise in sexually transmitted diseases. For example, data from Cardiff, I am ashamed to say, indicate that 12 per cent of sexually active young women have chlamydia. We also face unrelated—I hasten to add—salmonella food problems from eggs coming into the UK.
The lessons of history are vital. Some crises were not managed as effectively and rapidly as they might have been. The reports on the Lanarkshire E. coli 0157 outbreak, the Stafford legionnaires' disease outbreak, and the food poisoning at the Stanley Royd Hospital all levelled criticisms at local laboratory services. In all those major outbreaks, the local clinical microbiology laboratories did not involve themselves proactively in the control of communicable disease, and the Public Health Laboratory Service was involved late in the outbreaks in England. In Lanarkshire, the Scottish Regional Hospital Board's provision of microbiology, with its voluntary system of surveillance, was criticised because the microbiology service tended,
"to look too much to the hospital side of the NHS and the needs of the local health authorities, [did] not always get sufficient priority … The work of the Regional Laboratory Service in Scotland [was] not seen to extend beyond the walls of the [hospital] laboratories in which it operates".
As Professor Duerden, Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service, said,
"The whole point of communicable disease is that it doesn't respect boundaries so we need a system that works locally to regionally to nationally".
The creation of the Health Protection Agency may achieve this end but the transition needs careful management.
Concerns exist that the service developments in England—and in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—are becoming increasingly diverse, providing fragmented intelligence. Some specialised functions of the Public Health Laboratory Service, such as food, water and environment testing, may suffer, delaying reports on suspected outbreaks due to competing pressures from clinical work. Culture media production and equipment purchasing may suffer from loss of economy of scale and quality control.
The special techniques for food, water and environmental testing require a critical mass of personnel able to process specimens rapidly, particularly if the target of the Food Standards Agency to reduce food-bourne infection by 25 per cent is to be attained. Information from such testing must directly link to clinical cases of illness; they cannot be separated. Simply placing Health Protection Agency-employed staff in laboratories with this remit will not be enough. Professional isolation is the greatest threat to keeping up-to-date and staff need infrastructure support in cohesively managed teams.
In Wales, the surveillance laboratory network has, by contrast, grown over the past 10 years. Many NHS trusts already had handed over their microbiology laboratories to the Public Health Laboratory Service without tension. Very wide public consultation in Wales on Getting Ahead of the Curve resulted in overwhelming support from the continued existence of the communicable disease surveillance network. The National Public Health Service-Wales is the new managed clinical network which combines the public health laboratories, consultants in communicable disease control and their staff, the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre Wales and the resources of public health from the old health authorities. This unified National Public Health Service-Wales is already operational in shadow form, reporting to the Welsh National Assembly.
I must declare an interest as this managed clinical network is incorporated into Velindre NHS Trust in which I work and which, apart from cancer services, incorporates the Wales Centre for Health, Health Solutions Wales, cancer screening services, antenatal services and Welsh Blood Service.
This network provides pan-Wales multi-agency working, increased equity of provision, decreased variations in practice and wider connections for continuity from individual patients, through to disease control, within a single organisation. Links with environmental health officers are being developed through local health boards, which are coterminous with the local authorities. This provides the vital surveillance that Getting Ahead of the Curve identifies as the cornerstone to control of infectious disease in the population.
So Wales has already refocused its service, but will have to work very closely with the Health Protection Agency in England to share specialist services and ensure that epidemiological intelligence is obtained from a UK perspective.
Scotland has the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health. However, the hospital laboratory system and the co-ordination needed for public health are currently under review. The surveillance for Northern Ireland is provided by the Public Health Laboratory Service as part of the Centre for Communicable Disease Control. Its public health microbiological laboratory is located and managed in Belfast with links to the Public Health Laboratory Service in England.
Transfer of the 31 Public Health Laboratory Service laboratories in English hospitals to their host NHS trusts, with a commission from the Health Protection Agency, should ensure that all clinical microbiology laboratories are involved in public health. However, the danger in a split service is that the clinical pressures from the primary care trust and the hospital will be so great that public health readily falls behind urgent clinical priorities in these laboratories which are, by and large, under-resourced.
In the regional Health Protection Agency laboratories public health will be a major part of the service contract, providing a regional resource in medical microbiology alongside the diagnostic clinical service commissioned by the host NHS trust and the primary care trust. The reference laboratories, some of which are not sited in the designated regional laboratories, are a resource that must not be overlooked.
In England, while the consultants for communicable disease control are being brought into the Health Protection Agency to strengthen links from local to regional to national level, the local component of the microbiology service is being shed into local trusts, potentially separating it from an integrated system.
The changes will be staged with the Health Protection Agency becoming a specialist health authority from April this year and then an executive non-departmental public body a year later following legislation. What are the costs of this two-stage process? Money, instability, artificial divisions, a loss of strategic vision and a decreased ability to respond to sudden surges in demand may be the costs.
The transition requires funding. The laboratories in NHS trusts have been a Cinderella service for far too long. In the public eye, front-line clinical services, mostly nurses and doctors, have been in the spotlight. Government targets have pressurised clinical performance in some areas at the expense of others. But without sound pathology services overall, modern clinical practice fails. Accurate diagnosis is essential for correct treatment to occur. Inappropriate treatments cost thousands of pounds in drugs, in repeat investigations and longer hospital stays. Worse still, patients' lives are jeopardised.
In microbiology, the biomedical scientists are in very short supply. These honours degree holders are the backbone of the service; they have sophisticated bench-work skills and they provide information that influences life and death decisions. Too few enter training and too few stay. The downward trend in recruitment is not reversing. Government initiatives on pay and flexible work patterns face stiff competition from industry for these scientists. Medical laboratory assistants support them, but at that grade there are insufficient funded posts and job vacancies also exist.
The danger in transition is that the workforce is hesitant of change. The Trades Union Liaison Group meetings appear to be addressing the issues for existing staff and to smooth contract-of-employment transfers. Despite regular communications from the Department
1180
of Health, anxieties persist. A demoralised workforce does not work well. The service is then vulnerable to gaps in communication; when communication between parts of the service is slow or ineffective, disease control is jeopardised.
The end point is laudable. The whole of the NHS has a public health responsibility. However, the resources for clinical and public health work are inadequate and the programme is not phased with the pathology modernisation programme. In the meantime, the threat of bio-terrorism requires an iron strong network for infectious disease detection, investigation and control. The exercises in scenario planning are highlighting the intense co-ordination that needs to occur. A network in transition often has unforeseen weak points.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I want briefly to intervene in the gap to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on that stirring speech, with which I completely agree. My interest in this area is in bio-terrorism. I am sure that we all know that we should expect and plan for such an attack. It is so easy to make a pathogen which would have such an effect. I am sure that the Minister knows that we know how to make a version of smallpox which destroys the immune system. Many other potential recipes are known about. All one needs to achieve it is a supply of the raw materials and a laboratory. There are a great number of those around the world and, sadly, a large number of people have the religious-based motivation which allows them not to care for the continuation of life in this world if they can hurry us all into the next. We should expect this kind of thing to happen and we need to have the systems in place in this country to react swiftly and effectively should we be hit with an attack.
The Public Health Laboratory Service is the key to that. It is the service which will detect what has happened. The difference between detecting a disease on day five and detecting on day 15 is crucial. On day five, one may have a hope of containing it; on day 15, one has none. As we saw with the foot and mouth outbreak, if one leaves it too late, the disease is distributed all over and is beyond the capacity of the authorities.
We would then be faced with a crisis which we would probably not survive because the reaction of the outside world to us having a run-away killer infection such as smallpox would be to isolate the UK. It would be an easy thing to do: they need just stick a few boats around the outside and shoot anything that moves. In fact, we would probably be one of the few places in the world which could be so isolated and other countries would certainly do so. We know from the fuel strike exactly how long we would survive under those circumstances: the whole of civil society would start to fall apart after a couple of weeks.
We therefore need some strong systems in this country to ensure that when a bio-terrorist attack happens to us—and we must expect it to happen to us—we catch it fast and deal with it effectively. Having a Public Health

1181
Laboratory Service which is integrated, effective and able to move from the first detection straight through to the overall reaction of the system with great speed is essential. We should not at this time be risking our ability to respond to a bio-terrorist attack in this way.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for initiating the debate. She put her considerable medical knowledge at our disposal—I found her comparison with Wales extremely helpful —in very calmly and cogently putting the case against the current proposed changes set out in the Chief Medical Officer's report of last January. I hope to be as cogent —I do not promise to be as calm—about these proposals.
This month marks the anniversary of the CMO's report. Getting Ahead of the Curve. It has emerged more starkly than it did at the time that today's debate in regard to these proposals is not purely about routine response to public health issues but also about the crucial response to public health emergencies, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, emphasised, in terms of action against bio-terrorism and chemical terrorism.
The PHLS has a long and distinguished history. It was established in 1947, but it was based on the emergency PHLS which was set up in the Second World War by Winston Churchill to combat what was then described as bacteriological warfare.
Despite the long-standing nature of the PHLS, however, it is clear that a number of aspects of its reorganisation heralded by the report have some great advantages. The report rightly identifies many of the gaps in the system— particularly relating to emergencies in biological and chemical terrorism, where there has been no comprehensive surveillance system and where response has potentially been highly fragmented—and it puts forward welcome proposals to remedy the situation.
In particular, I welcome the integration within the Health Protection Agency of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR) at Porton Down with the Central Public Health Laboratory (CPHL) at Colindale. It is a crucial relationship.
In this context, when researching for this debate I came across a very interesting debate which took place in this House in 1969, at the height of the Vietnam War, on Porton Down and the dangers of the development of chemical and biological weapons. It was initiated by my late cousin, Michael Gresford-Jones, who was then the Bishop of St Albans. Pursuing a major national campaign, supported by the Church Times among others, he advocated the transfer of Porton Down to the Department of Health from the Ministry of Defence. He was insistent at the time that Porton Down should be engaged in tackling biological and chemical threats, not creating them. He would, I know, have been pleased with these proposals, which see his proposals bearing fruit after more than 30 years have elapsed.
The new Health Protection Agency will also, very usefully in my view, subsume the National Forum for Chemical Incidents, originally set up in 1996; the
1182
National Poisons Information Service; and the National Radiological Protection Board, which advises and provides emergency response on radiation incidents. It is also welcome that consultants in communicable disease control will transfer to the new HPA.
It is clear, too, following the conclusions of the Phillips report on BSE in 2000, that the communication of risk and the use of appropriate language is of key importance. A single body will be much better placed to do this.
But there is a huge hole in these plans which has been emphasised by the replies the Minister has given to my Written Questions over the past month—that is, the failure to ensure that the Health Protection Agency will retain the managed network of PHLS microbiology laboratories which has built up high standards for the benefit of public health over many years. The proposal to transfer some 31 of these to NHS trusts has been decried by every relevant stakeholder involved, including the PHLS board, UNISON and laboratory managers. The critique by the Laboratory Managers Forum—which, I dare say, nearly all of us have had the benefit of reading—is, in my view, particularly devastating.
This failure will be exacerbated by the fact that the new HPA will have no more resources, it appears, than were previously available, and it is not clear who will be financially supporting the PHLS laboratories after the transfer. The suspicion is growing that the transfer plans are a pure cost-cutting measure by the Government, and yet, paradoxically, moving these laboratories to a more fragmented arrangement may cost more.
The essence of argument of the CMO, and now of the Department of Health, is that only specialist laboratories such as Colindale and those dealing with food, water and the environment need to be brought within the ambit of the new HPA. Clinical laboratories with diagnostic functions will transfer to the NHS. But without the 31 laboratories, the ability of the HPA to engage in surveillance, diagnosis, control and investigation of microbiological public health hazards and terrorist incidents will be gravely weakened.
Effectively, the arms and legs of the HPA are being cut off. The strength of the PHLS laboratories has been the fact that they constitute a network with good inter-communication and common standards. This is appallingly short-sighted—especially when the United States wants to emulate our national network.
The intention is that the laboratories will be grafted on to NHS trusts. But as Sir John Lilleyman, the president of the Royal College of Pathologists, pointed out in November, NHS laboratory services will collapse without further investment. There is a huge shortage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, of technical staff in NHS laboratories, particularly of laboratory scientific officers.
The proposal to move the network of laboratories into the NHS was rightly described in a letter to The Times in September by a consultant microbiologist, Dr David Weldon, as an act of vandalism. The Department of

1183
Health appears to be claiming that transfer of PHLS laboratories will strengthen the NHS laboratories. But has it considered that the opposite could be the case?
The activities of those laboratories are highly interdependent—both with each other and with the specialist laboratories. A strong network of laboratories, for public health purposes in particular in terms of diagnosis of infectious diseases as well as in respect of anti-terrorism, is crucial. For instance, as the Minister confirmed to me in a Written Answer, in the recent outbreak of legionella in Barrow-in-Furness the PHLS laboratories played a key role, in processing environmental specimens and in the typification of patient-derived legionella specimens for matching to the environmental evidence.
How do we know that, once in the NHS, these laboratories will retain the same skills and the same high standards? Standard methods do not appear to have been adopted in the NHS. Indeed, very little information is available on the subject—in stark contrast to the standard methods that have been adopted within the PHLS.
The Department of Health claims that the transfers are essential to create a comprehensive, coherent surveillance and outbreak response system. Surely, again, it will provide precisely the opposite.
Has the Department of Health taken heed? Will it now rethink its proposals, so that the laboratories can go into the Health Protection Agency intact—at least for a period of time? Will it engage in further consultation on a revised model of the Health Protection Agency? Will it ensure that greater resources are allocated to the HPA? We look to the Minister for answers to all these questions.
Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will answer this crucial question. What legal authority has been granted to carry out these reforms? It seems extraordinary that the Government are setting up the agency this April and still believe that only regulations will eventually be required to bring the new body into being and to transfer the PHLS laboratories to the NHS. Surely primary legislation will be required—among other things at least to ensure the integration of the NRPB, which was set up by statute, into the new HPA, and for the integration of the PHLS, which itself was originally set up by statute, into the HPA. Again, we look to the Minister for replies to these questions.
In conclusion, far from their proposal providing a sound and welcome piece of organisational integration which will ensure that we are well equipped to combat terrorist threats, this Government, by their refusal to listen, risk ensuring that we are less prepared. All this is confirmed by the risk assessment paper written by Keith Saunders, the deputy director of the PHLS, referring to staffing meltdown and to the fact that public health laboratories may not be able to cope if there is a deliberate release of chemicals or biological weapons within the next three months.
1184
As it is, the National Audit Office produced a report in November on NHS emergency planning in England. It found that there were weaknesses in planning for post-September 11th incidents such as chemical and biological and mass casualty incidents. It is clear that these changes to the PHLS lab network, allied to the assumption of responsibility by PCTs in October for emergency planning, will only exacerbate the weaknesses.
To date, the Secretary of State and Mr Nigel Crisp appear to have taken no notice of any criticism of the proposals. Genuine consultation on the transfer of the network of laboratories has been non-existent. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his colleagues will finally have the courage to do an about-turn and that they will not leave us all at unnecessary risk in the future.
6 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on so ably introducing this timely debate on a subject that has generated great concern both in Parliament and more widely. It is not the first time that the proposed reform of the Public Health Laboratory Service has been raised in your Lordships' House. But today's chorus of agreement that this debate is now so necessary and pressing is, I am afraid, a reflection of the decidedly unsatisfactory answers given by Ministers on the matter to date. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who, I have no doubt, is sincere in backing the proposals, will be able to persuade us that they have been properly thought through and are without question in the national interest.
Examining what Ministers have said to date, it is perhaps instructive to start with what they perceive the current problem to be. The Government's analysis of the issue—in other words, the reason why, in their opinion, we need to reform the system—is not particularly controversial. In the document Getting Ahead of the Curve they refer to the need to create an integrated and comprehensive approach to health protection at national level down to regional and local levels. They also point out that, following the reorganisation of the NHS, our public health structure had to reflect the role that the different agencies should play. Microbiology laboratories, for example, are currently subject to a variety of management arrangements without the degree of security that they should properly have in current circumstances.
I have no quarrel with those observations. Indeed, the aim of bringing together the work of the PHLS, the NRPB, Porton Down and the National Focus for Chemical Incidents under the single umbrella of a new agency is not in itself a concept with which I have a difficulty. Whether it represents the best possible way forward is another question. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, remarks, many people, particularly those most closely involved in the delivery of public health, do not feel that they have been properly consulted on the issue. One must admit that the consultation period last summer was brief.
Nevertheless, establishing a new health protection agency seems a sensible way to achieve the Government's perfectly valid aims. We should not set our faces against

1185
any change whatever. But, having constructed the edifice and justified the concept, the Government promptly proceeded to undermine it by specifying that the majority of public health laboratories are not to be absorbed by the new agency, but instead consigned, individually, to the control of NHS trusts. I have said before that our antennae ought to start twitching whenever we see the word "modernisation" in a government document. Here it is again in Getting Ahead of the Curve:
"Building on the existing strengths of this public health system, the proposals in the strategy aim to modernise it".
It is a word that aims to reassure us and lull us along, but it means everything and nothing.
Quite rightly, the Government insist that good surveillance is the cornerstone of any system for the control of infectious diseases, a point emphasised cogently by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Without it, one cannot forecast threats, track diseases and disease trends, identify serious outbreaks or monitor how diseases are being brought under control.
That sort of activity has to be co-ordinated across large geographic areas, often across the whole country, and even sometimes internationally. Yet by wanting to split up the existing network of laboratories the Government appear to be travelling in precisely the opposite direction. Yes, it is certainly true that about half of the activity of PHLS laboratories is currently accounted for by analytical and diagnostic work performed on behalf of NHS trusts. One could argue—and doubtless the Minister will—that by giving most of the microbiology labs to NHS trusts we would simply be recognising that, managerially speaking, it makes sense for a laboratory to be part of the organisation on which it depends for a large slice of its day-to-day work and which therefore has a direct interest in ensuring its efficiency and effectiveness. But that argument begs the very question which needs to be analysed, which is how best disease surveillance should be achieved. I suggest that it is the argument of the management consultant; the kind of logic which is generated from behind a desk rather than from any real appreciation of what the PHLS as a whole actually does.
There are perhaps two main worries in this context, which the noble Baroness has already covered. They are the model itself and the speed of its implementation. I do not know how many of your Lordships saw a letter in The Times last September from David Weldon, the honorary consultant microbiologist at Bedford General Hospital. He is a man with considerable experience of both the NHS and of public health laboratories. He pointed out that the NHS is too stretched and too under-resourced to devote adequate time to epidemiology. Indeed, on the one hand, a hospital laboratory is answerable to an organisation which sees no direct gain in such work. On the other hand, public health laboratories are answerable to an authority that is not local and which understands and values epidemiology. That structure encourages openness and objectivity. The net result, David Weldon says, of splitting up the PHLS in the manner proposed will be the demotion of surveillance.
1186
I believe that those are issues which deserve at least some debate yet I have not seen the Government even address them neither have I seen them address the parallel concerns raised by Professor Hugh Pennington who fears that we are in danger of losing not only the expertise which has existed in the PHLS since the 1940s, but also the national network of laboratories and, crucially, the training function that the service performs. I believe that we must question the wisdom of dismantling that national network, an asset which has been regarded with envy from across the Atlantic. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly pointed out that in the United States the absence of a networked service has proved directly responsible for the unmonitored and uncontrolled outbreak of epidemics.
Of course, the Minister will tell us that core funding will be channelled to those laboratories that are transferred to the NHS to enable their public health work to continue. But what about national co-ordination? The networks so carefully built up over years will be destroyed. While it is hoped that new ones will spring up in their place, the almost inevitable discontinuity is, I suggest, an alarming prospect, lit is a large step into the unknown. As my noble friend Lord Lucas so graphically pointed out, we are living in a time when the risk of a deliberate release of biological agents into the general population is of the highest order. In addition, there are several extremely serious infectious diseases which, if not detected in a timely way, could hit large sections of the population at any time and for which the country needs to be on heightened alert. For goodness sake, now is not the time to compromise our national public health capability. Having last year reformed the structure of the NHS, the Government are going all out to shoehorn public health into the NHS structure that they have created. They are doing so against a very tight timetable for implementation by 1st April 2003. At the very least, the risks of such reform should be openly admitted. At worst, the reform is foolhardy.
One begins to appreciate the scale of the risk when one reads, as I have, the document that I have in front of me which is entitled, Report to HPA Steering Group on HPA Business Continuity: Risk Assessment. I hesitate before quoting selectively from such a document, which I believe has been prepared for departmental consumption, because I do not wish to be accused of distortion or of exaggeration. However, the executive summary has this to say:
"It seems inevitable, if the timetable of 1st April 2003 for the HPA is to be delivered, some level of risk will have to be tolerated. Were there to be a severe external challenge over the next few months such as deliberate release, the situation and expected forward timetable would need rapid reappraisal".
Those statements can only fill one with the utmost foreboding. The risk factors detailed in the paper are discussed one by one; some are not particularly significant, or else have been adequately covered. But when it comes to the PHLS, high risks are identified following potential loss of staff, leading to inadequate safeguards, poor service in routine microbiology, and a reduced commitment to public health work. There are "considerable" risks associated with destabilising the production of biological media, considered vital to

1187
ensure the correct diagnosis of disease. Reaching a solution on this issue is described as being "of the utmost urgency".
The transfer of the laboratories to the NHS puts the bulk procurement discounts of the PHLS seriously at risk, leading, obviously, to an escalation in costs. The passage in the document that deals with the fragmentation of the national network is unequivocal. The network brings,
"added value to the control of communicable disease over and above what can be provided by local authorities and the NHS … Throughout the PHLS are located individuals and units with unique specialist expertise … Integration between centre and periphery, and between microbiology and epidemiology, all within a clear policy framework, underpins the delivery of successful communicable disease control programmes. This is put at risk by separation of the laboratory network from the other functions".
Two examples, pneumococcal disease and salmonella entiriditis are then given to demonstrate the importance of the integrated network. Then follows a paragraph labelled "Action", which says:
"It is unclear how the totality of this integration could be recreated post April 2003. At least this will require complex service level agreements, professional networking meetings with dedicated resources and creative use of development funds".
The Minister has said on at least one occasion in this House that it is better to get on with the proposed reforms than to create uncertainty. This document, which, no doubt, I was not expected to see, stands as an indictment of the Government's policies on public health. I have to ask the Minister which of the following two possibilities is worse: a continuing measure of uncertainty, or the real risk of a serious gap in the country's public health provision—one serious enough to lead the board of the PHLS to insist on a ministerial direction before implementing the changes?
In Ministers' minds there should be no contest. Let us forget for a moment about whether the Government are ahead of the curve. It is crystal clear that they are way, way ahead of themselves.
6.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for allowing us to debate once again the question of the creation of the HPA, as well as some of the issues raised by other speakers. From the content of the debate, it is interesting to note that there is consensus around, first, the essential urgency of reviewing the current arrangements to ensure that we are prepared for some of the new threats that have been so graphically described this evening by noble Lords.
Secondly, I take it that the broad thrust of the Chief Medical Officer's proposals in his report of some 12 months ago is widely accepted and that the concerns held are about the speed of the transition and the laboratories that are to be transferred to the NHS. I am confident that the proposals are right. Speed is of the essence. It is important that in transferring and making the changes we make sure that the risks are minimised as far as possible.
1188
But I make no apology for the fact that a proper risk assessment has been undertaken. We would rightly be criticised if it had not been. The fact that it has taken place enables the people taking forward the changes to make sure that those risks are minimised. There is no question that we start from a general agreement that the PHLS has a significant level of expertise and quality that it is essential to preserve. But we cannot be complacent about our current arrangements.
It is clear that no matter where we live in the United Kingdom we are only hours away from any traveller or food that may have come from exotic countries; we are having to deal with new technologies that may increase the risk of infection; and we have a greater number of patients with immunodeficiencies that make them more susceptible and vulnerable to infection. On top of these natural threats, we now have the spectre of deliberate release of pathogenic organisms such as anthrax and smallpox, which has made us all look afresh at how we may be able to respond and protect our population. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the need for strong systems, but I do not accept that the proposals before the House put those systems at risk.
This country has surveillance arrangements which achieve standards to match anywhere in the world. But we cannot run away from the weaknesses identified by the Chief Medical Officer. All noble Lords who have spoken have identified some of those problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, did so in her introductory remarks. They include reportable data being incomplete and not always reported on time; datasets not including particular pieces of information that are now thought to be important, such as antimicrobial susceptibility of certain organisms; that too much of the reporting chain is paper-based; and the limited linkage between human, veterinary, food, water, environmental and clinical surveillance systems so that interrelated emerging trends or incidents are not always recognised as promptly as they might be. It is my experience of the wonderful world of the National Health Service that it will always be argued that it is never a good time to change, but I believe it is the right time to address those weaknesses.
The Chief Medical Officer's report, Getting Ahead of the Curve, and the strategy are the way forward. Anyone who knows the Chief Medical Officer knows that he has a deserved world-wide reputation. Does anyone believe that with his awesome public health responsibilities he would put forward proposals that would put at risk necessary surveillance in this country?
The strategy increases the profile of infections in the eyes of the public and the NHS. It proposes a systematic approach to preventing and controlling infectious diseases that builds on current strengths in the PHLS but also in the NHS and related non-departmental public bodies. Crucially, it seeks to align the control of infections, chemical hazards and radiation hazards in a single coherent system so that we tackle problems in a structured way, especially where the nature of the problem might not be clear at the outset. That is surely a crucial aspect of dealing

1189
with the prospect of deliberate release of dangerous agents, an issue very much to the fore since September 11th 2001.
The centrepiece of the Chief Medical Officer's strategy is the creation of the Health Protection Agency, the aim of which is to provide integrated, specialist advice and support to the NHS and other key bodies. That support is important and is one way in which the integrity of the current network will be preserved and enhanced. It will harness the epidemiological and specialist and reference facilities of the PHLS, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research—I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the debates in this House 30 or so years ago— the National Radiological Protection Board, the National Focus for Chemical Incidents, the National Poisons Information Service and regional service provider units which give advice on chemicals.
What has not been mentioned in the debate is that, at local and regional level in England, the HPA will incorporate the activities of consultants in communicable disease control and other health protection staff currently based in primary care trusts and regional health emergency planning advisers currently based in the Department of Health or the NHS. So part of the restructuring is to embrace people currently employed directly in the NHS within the HPA. It is an example of how we are pulling people together within a national strand of work and ensuring national co-ordination. Consequently, local primary health care teams, local authorities and others who undertake public health activities will be supported by specialists who are part of a regional and national agency. They can supply expertise and back-up wherever and whenever they are needed and can run programmes on their behalf.
It is a pity that that particular change has been overlooked. The result of the proposals is a single national agency capable of delivering a coherent and unified specialist health protection service for the benefit of the public. It will strengthen this country's capacity to respond effectively to a chemical, biological or radiological incident. It will enable this country to contribute in an integrated way to a range of international initiatives. I also believe that it will further enhance our current high reputation for health protection expertise in the international community.
I come now to the issue of the transfer of laboratories, a matter referred to by both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I fundamentally disagree with their comments. I absolutely and categorically refute the allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this has been done as a cost-cutting exercise. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to raise clinical microbiology standards across the NHS which is why we have proposed strengthening the public health contribution of all NHS microbiology services. Consequently, all laboratories will report infections to public health authorities, send relevant specimens to reference laboratories, assist in managing outbreaks and contribute to the development of local public health policies.
1190
The implications of that philosophy—that each NHS diagnostic laboratory has general public health functions—has led to the proposal in the strategy to transfer to NHS trusts those laboratories in the Public Health Laboratory Service that carry out predominantly routine clinical diagnostic microbiology.
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talking on a number of occasions about the need to transfer back to the NHS as much responsibility as possible, I believe that the transfer of some PHLS laboratories to the NHS should be welcomed. It gives to the NHS what it should do, but it enables the proposed new agency to concentrate on public health rather than on general clinical diagnostic services.
It also follows from the fact that over 50 per cent of current routine clinical diagnostic microbiology is already carried out within the National Heal Service. With regard to the allegation by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the arms or legs are being cut off the new agency, or that there will be professional isolation issues, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, let me make clear that the PHLS has always worked closely alongside its NHS colleagues, sometimes sharing the same laboratory facilities, and this move will build on that synergy. It will also bring general public health microbiology firmly into the mainstream of NHS activities. That surely is a great advantage when it comes to action to be taken at local level.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, if it were only noble Lords putting these points today, I would understand the absolute certainty with which the Minister puts the case. But he is aware that laboratory managers, the PHLS board, Unison and anyone else with intimate understanding of these laboratories disagrees with him. He has not addressed the points made. No doubt he will have read all the documents from groups such as the laboratory managers forum. He does not address the points they make.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall come to the detailed points raised. However, one should not underestimate the innate conservatism of people working in the National Health Service with regard to any change proposed—certainly during my years in the health service.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that includes presumably the noble Lord's colleague on the Labour Back-Benches.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not know to whom the noble Lord refers, but if he refers to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, I have had some useful discussions with him. I also know that whatever reservations the PHLS board may have hat it has pledged itself to co-operate as fully as possible with the transfer of those laboratories.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I must protest.

1191
The evidence from Wales has been that staff have transferred willingly from the NHS laboratories to the PHLS managed network. They have embraced change and the transition has been very smooth with no disruption. The staff themselves have wanted to move into a managed clinical network.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness. I am keen to ensure that in terms of arrangements and co-ordination there is no fragmentation between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I agree with her on that.
Let me pick up some specific points. On the issue of speed, my long experience of structural change in the National Health Service demonstrates that time and again we have had great problems because change has taken place too slowly. Decisions become blighted. People become uncertain about what is to happen to them. I am convinced that the key to organisational change is that once you have decided what to do, you do it decisively, of course with due regard to the interest and concerns of the staff involved and ensuring that you maintain a stable service.
I come back to the point that the noble Earl raised about risk assessment. Surely it is right that a risk assessment should be undertaken. I do not think that there is any disagreement about that. I would expect any risk assessment to be undertaken seriously and for the relevant organisation to be as confident as it could be that it had quantified all the risks so far as possible. I believe that that has happened. I welcome the work of the HPA steering group that received the report to which the noble Earl referred. It agreed the key risks but it also agreed the action to be taken to address them. It agreed especially that interim directors would be appointed to the HPA to provide clear continuity of leadership during the transitional period. That is necessary to ensure that the identified risks are kept to a minimum.
I turn to the question of whether the effective managed network of laboratories will be undermined, or, indeed, destroyed, as some noble Lords allege. That is the last thing that we would wish. We want to encourage the existing network to be maintained in the NHS environment and, indeed, to act as a catalyst for the growth of wider NHS pathology networks. The PHLS experience gained in overseeing networks activities such as standardising operating procedures and procuring media and other supplies will now become widely available to NHS trusts. The idea that the NHS is not able to run networks runs counter to the whole direction and trend in which the NHS is going, in which increasingly care is delivered across networks.
The proposed Health Protection Agency will have a public health laboratory in every public health region. The public health and training outputs will be strengthened with the introduction of the funded public health microbiology posts at local and regional levels as well as by the inspector of microbiology who will oversee standards in service and security.
1192
On the question of funding, we are taking steps to ensure that all the laboratories transferred to NHS trusts are appropriately resourced and motivated to meet their public health responsibilities. We have already said that the public health funding for existing laboratories will be protected for that purpose for at least the first two years.
As regards whether public health will figure as part of future NHS priorities, we are confident that the locally based public health microbiologists, together with the new regional public health microbiologists, and the national microbiology inspector will combine to make sure that the NHS keeps an appropriate focus on public health. I have met directors of public health in primary care trusts who are as concerned as everyone else to ensure that the new arrangements work effectively. We have ensured that directors of public health will be executive directors of primary care trusts. They will be in an excellent position to ensure that future resources will be adequate to meet the challenge that is faced.
Noble Lords mentioned the supply of media for these laboratories being endangered. That is a vitally important matter. Media will continue to be procured in the existing four PHLS media production centres. Of course, some staff have concerns. We have been involved in discussions about the HPA with them for some months. But they know that they will have a future career either in the HPA, where they can have a better career path in specialist public health services, or in the NHS where they can have a better career path in pathology networks. The PHLS management is currently in the process of discussing with individual staff the implications as they affect them.
I have spoken for considerably longer than the time I am allotted to reply to the debate, for which I apologise. However, it is important that I emphasise that I have listened to noble Lords' concerns and I understand their anxieties and motivation. We all wish there to be effective arrangements in future to enhance public protection. I am confident that what the Chief Medical Officer has proposed and the implementation programme will ensure enhanced public protection. I am absolutely confident, when a decision has been made in the National Health Service, that everyone involved will do everything that they can to minimise the risks and ensure that changes are made as swiftly as possible.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not want to delay the Minister unduly, but will he comment on the legal authority for these changes?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we intend that the agency will be established from 1st April 2003. We can establish it now as a special health authority, to be called the Health Protection Agency, which we will do. It will be responsible for functions under the NHS legislation which are to be given to the new agency.
Our eventual aim is that the agency will be fully established as a non-departmental public body from 1st April 2004. That will be subject to legislative time being available. At that stage, it would take responsibility

1193
for functions currently performed by the National Radiological Protection Board. During the period when the HPA is a special health authority, we would expect the HPA and the NRPB to work closely together to prepare the merger. As for the transfer of laboratories from the PHLS to the NHS, I am reliably informed that no legislative power is needed to do that. It has been done before.

Soap and Detergent Industry
6.37 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to promote the well-being and competitiveness of the United Kingdom's soap and detergent industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I come from the land of soap, Cheshire and the Wirral, which I was honoured to represent for a decade in the European Parliament. Cheshire contains the salt mines whose deposits spawned the British chemicals industry. The Wirral hosts, among other firms, the soap giant, Unilever. Cheshire is also the home of the United Kingdom Cleaning Products Industry Association, to which I and other parliamentary colleagues are grateful for its servicing of our all-party group.
I also come from the land of soap operas. Britain's North West is the home of "Coronation Street", "Brookside", "Hollyoaks" and north Wales's "Pobol y Cwm". The link between the soap industry and the soap operas is not accidental. The latter grew out of the playlets promoting soap products shown on TV at the dawn of commercial television. Those adverts themselves extended the established tradition of pictorial advertising promoting soap products. Indeed, the Lady Lever Art Gallery at Port Sunlight houses the wonderful picture collection of the annually chosen Pears soap girls.
Today, the soap and detergent industry generates a £3 billion turnover, employs some 16,000 people and competes successfully with rivals in France and Germany in the single European market and beyond. Indeed, in the past five years, three out of five UK CPI members have experienced export growth. Soap and detergents represent approximately one-tenth of the UK chemicals industry, so it is a strategically important industry in modern Britain.
How, then, can the Government help the industry to prosper further? First, the trade association tells us that the foam and froth of ever-growing legislation undermines firms, especially those in the SME sector. Typically, a small soap-maker in the North of England avers that implementing the integrated pollution prevention controls programme could cost £30,000 in compliance costs. The owner exclaims that it represents the difference between happiness or misery for the future of that firm. Will the Government dam that tide of legislation?
Secondly, the high-street retailers of soap and detergent products are reluctant to shoulder the costs of the legislation. Everything falls on the manufacturer or
1194
the consumer, thereby eroding valuable margins and profits. When considering the soap and detergent sector, will my noble friend bear in mind the strictures of the Prime Minister on supermarkets in the analogous case of the Government's dealings with the farming industry?
Thirdly, will the Government seek solutions with the industry to the vexed question of the differences in retail distribution structures in the United Kingdom and Europe?
Indeed, I move specifically to the single European market and how the soaps and detergent industry might be affected by the draft proposals found in the EU's 2001 chemical strategy paper. The application of that to the chemical industry as a whole was discussed on Tuesday night in this House in relation to the February 2002 report, Reducing the Risk: Regulating Industrial Chemicals. I will not rehearse the many points made then, but does my noble friend recognise that the industry, although welcoming the White Paper, retains real concerns? Will any EU-wide regulation system, for instance, be fast, efficient and workable? Are the proposed timescales truly realistic?
Will the Minister also agree that the proposed sizeable increase in testing of chemicals using invertebrate animals must be kept to a minimum, not only to satisfy animal welfare concerns, but to avoid unwanted additional costs? The UK CBI has calculated that such costs over the next 10 years could approach some 5 per cent of the industry's turnover, thereby rendering the industry less competitive.
There are genuine anxieties associated with any industry dealing with potentially dangerous chemicals. Greenpeace does the industry a service by pointing to possible vulnerabilities of the regulatory regime proposed by the European Union. Greenpeace believes that regulation should be based on chemical properties, not solely on a risk assessment of the practical application of chemicals. Similarly, it supports registration based on the assessment of chemical groups, rather than of individual substances. Its fears may be overblown and otherwise impractical, but the Government must, for instance, press for greater dispatch in identifying those chemicals that give rise to the greatest concerns, and ensure that they are assessed competently and promptly for the sake of continuing consumer confidence in the industry.
Perhaps Greenpeace has a more substantial point in calling for greater transparency from the chemical manufacturers in providing the relevant basic data on chemicals put on the market. Recourse to the claim that such transparency would trespass on commercial confidentiality is too often taken off the shelf as an easy get-out clause. That point was made forcefully by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in Tuesday's debate. The cleaning industry must come clean in all but the most clearly demonstrated commercial instances.
I congratulate the DTI—the Minister's department— on its excellent report analysing the soap and detergent industry. However, after identifying four strengths of the industry, the report lists 11 weaknesses that clearly impede the industry's competitiveness. In many instances, the Government have it in their power to help.

1195
The soap and detergent industry in the United Kingdom is characterised as being isolated from Europe and is suffering from an unfavourable sterling/ euro exchange rate. Will the Minister press for that and other manufacturing industries to feature strongly in Gordon Brown's eventual assessment of the five economic tests as to whether we go into the euro?
Secondly, early and more stringent implementation of contingent EU directives by the United Kingdom appears to disadvantage our own British firms. What is the solution? It is not the weakening or delay of sensible legislation but a rigorous, indeed combative, approach to the Commission to oblige all EU partners to implement legislation agreed in Brussels without hesitation, deviation or repetition of past backsliding.
The DTI report also alludes to an issue in the industrial and institutional product sector, which has implications not only for the well-being of the industry, but also for the cleanliness of our hospital wards and the care of NHS patients. I understand that the lack of cleaning operation standards and agreed procedures means that some hospital trusts purchase cleaning materials from the industry solely on cost grounds when efficacy should be the deciding factor. Will the Minister agree to consult his health colleagues on that particular issue?
Classically, the industry is split between big companies and small firms. The big firms can often look after themselves, but small firms experience real difficulty, according to the DTI report, in obtaining government information, advice and help, which has so visibly helped small firms in other manufacturing sectors. Can the Government redouble their efforts to help the soap and detergent industry and the small firms within it?
Another issue is energy. Its costs fall disproportionately on this sector. Natural gas premiums, for instance, have risen 60 per cent in the past 12 months and the climate change levy has yet to kick in.
Finally, I mention the report's observations on the United Kingdom educational system, which has failed to supply in sufficient numbers employees with technical and engineering skills to match the industry's needs and ambitions. Disappointingly, the soap and detergent industry is perceived as being even less attractive to the public and to graduates than almost any other manufacturing industry. The Government can help here, but the greater burden falls on the industry itself, which sometimes displays a defensiveness and a lack of confidence that conceals its attractiveness as a career to our young people. In recruitment terms, we might say that, "It's time more young people were taken to the cleaners".
However, the situation is beginning to change and the industry is striving to give a better account of itself. I note with pleasure the industry's recent "Hooray for Handwashing" initiative, which has successfully sponsored excellent classroom materials, and which is designed for four to seven-year olds as a fun and easy way to teach children good health habits. Some 2,000 primary schools have already benefited from the programme.
1196
The industry, backed by the Government, must find more imaginative and innovative ways to tell its good story as one of Britain's brightest and cleanest industries. Perhaps it is time for another soap opera to tell of the every-day life of its employees, entitled perhaps, "The Port Sunlighters".
In the meantime, let us not wash our hands of this important industry that supports Britain in a widening Europe and in a cleaner world.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, like, I suspect, a number of noble Lords, when I first saw the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper I was tempted to wonder how I was going to speak for 10 minutes without deviation, hesitation or repetition on the topic of soap and detergent. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, did not resist the temptation to make those allusions, but I shall not repeat them here. The noble Lord has raised an important issue, and he has proved to be an accurate and adequate exponent of the views of the UK Cleaning Products Industry Association and the parliamentary all-party group on the topic. The noble Lord has raised several important issues for the Government.
I shall not repeat anything that the noble Lord said, and I shall examine the industry from a slightly different perspective. The industry has several characteristics that are not entirely shared by most manufacturing industries. That is certainly true for Unilever and Procter & Gamble, which are the two main players in the industry. Primarily, it is a brand business. One of the major characteristics of a brand business is that it is driven not by scientific or technological developments but, primarily, by a perception of what the customer wants. What the customer wants is driven, to a large extent, by Procter & Gamble and Unilever through massive advertising and marketing campaigns and not necessarily by the nature of the product. As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, all of us have been brought up, through the formative years of ITV, since its creation in the early 1950s, with the massive soap powder wars between Persil and Tide, Persil and Ariel and so on. To a large extent, that has created the market, as well as fulfilling it.
The massive advertising spend of Unilever and Procter & Gamble means that a product such as Ecover, produced by a Belgian company that produces green, ecologically friendly detergent and washing machine powders, has not made the impact on the UK market that many of us would have wished. The massive drive towards expenditure on advertising also means that, when costs need to be cut, products get shelved. For example, when, two years ago, Durk Jager was replaced as chief executive of Procter & Gamble by AG Lafley, Lafley's immediate strategy was to talk about,
"big brands, big countries and big customers".
That meant that the Procter & Gamble business strategy was to have 121 billion dollar-plus brands, delivering 50 per cent of Procter & Gamble's sales and

1197
profits. Inevitably, that meant that products were eliminated from the manufacturing process in the United Kingdom. When Niall FitzGerald faced similar problems at Unilever, two or three years ago, he admitted that the policy was to target brands. He said:
"We want about 40 to 50 true global brands".
The interesting thing about both those quotations is that in neither case did the chief executive of the company say that what he wanted was more and better technological innovation for the customer. That raises serious issues for the industry and, particularly., the way in which the industry is lobbying the Government.
The industry must answer four major questions. It believes that it has answered them, but I would welcome the Minister's views on them. First, do the Government accept the industry's view that detergents do not biodegrade? Secondly, do the Government accept the industry's view that phosphate in detergent is not a major cause of pollution? Thirdly, do Her Majesty's Government accept the industry's view that cleaning products, detergents and soaps contain disrupters that produce oestrogenic effects in the environment? Fourthly, do Her Majesty's Government accept the industry's view that cleaning, hygiene and surface care products do not have a poor environmental and safety standard, with inadequate labelling? Those are four significant questions. The industry believes that it has been misrepresented on those four questions. It would be interesting if the Minister could give the view of Her Majesty's Government.
One of the problems with certainly the two major companies is that when they are faced with a perception it is dealt with not by technological development but by marketing. In my research for this debate, I was intrigued to read an article in the Independent on Sunday, in May of last year, in which Peter York described in the following way the Persil advertising programme that had just been launched:
"So there's a new Persil and they're advertising it furiously, in a most singular way. A fantasy animated way that's somewhere between Teletubbies and Yellow Submarine. It's a subconscious infantile world where everything is nice and natural. The naturalness, the greenness, comes from aloe vera, which is some sort of plant mush they put in skin creams and cosmetics. Here it's a magical green Persil that makes tropical plants sprout and causes naked sexless types with funny haircuts … to blurp and twitter".
The point, of course, is to address and give the impression to people that Persil is ecologically clean and ecologically green. The advertising is designed to do that rather than the product itself.
I believe that that is a concern about the advertising industry and a concern about Unilever and Procter & Gamble. Although I understand that this is an important industry, I think that there is a danger that they doth protest a little too much about the way in which they have been treated.
However, there is a real challenge to the detergent industry. It comes from the development of a washing machine that runs without soap and produces clean, fresh-laundered garments every time. The Sanyo corporation launched such a machine just over a year
1198
ago. That will provide a significant test for the detergent industry because even in the best case scenario where the new technology results in consumers using washing products for, let us say, half of their washing needs, that will provide a massive problem for the two major companies in particular—and the small and medium-sized enterprises which are dependent on them—as to how they deal with it. In the mean time, I shall be using Ecover.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for having given us the chance to have this debate today. I am grateful not only for the clear and thoughtful way in which he opened the debate, but it also gives the House the chance to consider the problems of a particular industry. I find that in debates in your Lordships' House we are inclined to talk about industry in a very broad-based macro sense of that term. To be sure, there are fundamental trends at work affecting industry as a whole. We have already heard about some of them from the noble Lord and I shall want to refer to some of them too.
However, we must not forget that a macro industry is made up of a whole series of micro sub-sets particular industrial sub-sectors all with their own particular challenges and opportunities. Finally, we must remember that those sub-sectors are, in turn, made up of individual companies in which real people work; people for whom contraction or consolidation is not a paper concept in some government office, but job losses causing at least disappointment and broken dreams and, at worst, genuine hardship and pain.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out, some of the issues in the debate were touched on in your Lordships' House on Tuesday; notably the dangers of cumbersome, bureaucratic procedures and the actions of some EU member states in seeking to delay the implementation of individual directives. II do not wish to take up the time of the House by repeating that. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, replying for the Government in the debate, did not seem able to offer much comfort, so I hope we shall fare better with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, today, bearing in mind that his full title is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation.
As regards this sub-sector, our discussions can be illuminated by the study referred to by the noble Lord, commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry. It is a heavy study but, in contravention of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, I did not find it convincing in part in its analysis. It seems to be contradictory. Let us take research and development and a key issue in a fast-moving industry such as soap and detergent. Despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, the SWOT analysis in the report states:
"Currently, the levels and quality of R&D in the sector are considered to be approaching world class standard".

1199
The Minister knows I am keen on world class. However, the competitive situation and analysis at Chapter 2, page 9, concludes by stating:
"The science base is strong but there are weaknesses in R&D".
That is a critical issue and I believe that a report such as this needs to be clear about whether or not the R&D within the industry is adequate.
I must say that in other areas the report would have benefited from a good editor to remove typos, some of which make the passages unintelligible; repetitions of sentences and sometimes paragraphs; and the removal of many parts of the report which, frankly, represent no more than today's glimpse of the obvious. A section in Chapter 6, page 66, states:
"Conversely, fewer new buildings in relevant sectors may result in reduced demand for cleaning chemicals".
I could have worked that out for myself: I do not need an expensive consultant to be told that.
Those defects affect one's confidence in the whole report, but undoubtedly it has illuminated two key issues to which the Government need to react and consider. The first has been touched upon already: it is the future role, if any, for the small and medium-sized enterprise in the consumer manufacturing business in an age of mass retailing.
I am sure that the Minister will have seen in yesterday's Financial Times the interview with Lee Scott, chief executive of Wal-Mart. It contained some challenging trends which are clearly the way of the future. We discussed some of those issues during our debates on the Enterprise Act earlier in the year. There is a balance to be struck between price reductions on the one hand—clearly very desirable and attractive—as against consumer choice and availability on the other. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, referred to the green issue, which is an important sub-set of the whole issue of consumer choice and availability. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what role, if any, he sees the Government having in trying to square this admittedly intractable circle.
Secondly, I turn to the impact of regulatory directives, especially where these emanate from the European Union. The report makes clear that there is widespread concern in the soap and detergent industry and it is shared by many other industrial sub-sectors. Rightly or wrongly, it is believed that the UK adopts directives faster than its EU competitors; secondly, that it improves and gold-plates them by widening, broadening and strengthening them far beyond what is required by the original directive; and, thirdly, that it enforces the provisions more stringently and effectively than its EU competitors, thus putting firms in this country at a competitive disadvantage.
To these I would add a fourth issue—that is, that while the UK is fairly quick to bring in the legislation it is often slow to bring in the detailed guidance. Three weeks ago, just before Christmas, the Minister and I had the pleasure of debating the flexible working regulations. These regulations enable parents of young or disabled children to apply for flexible working.
1200
They will affect every company, big or small, in this country. They are complex and they come into effect on 23rd April.
When I asked the Minister how companies, particularly smaller companies, would be able to interpret the regulations, he told me that I should not be at all concerned about it because clear guidance would be provided. But, on inquiry, he said that it was not yet available. I will hazard a small wager with the Minister that the guidance is still not available today.
We are now 12 weeks away from the coming into force of the regulations and we still have no practical guidance for businesses. This does not help businesses to keep down the cost of complying with regulation. Indeed, it leads to an increase in complaints about the regulatory burden as a whole.
Another area to which, in my view, the report paid insufficient attention was the impact that the decline of one sub-sector has on other sub-sectors, for these individual sub-sectors do not exist in isolation. My analysis of discussions with sources within the industry suggests that if there were to be declines in the soap and detergent industry within the UK there will be significant knock-on effects in at least five other industrial sectors—that is, the trade in fats and oils; firms that purify and process fats and oils; firms that produce soda ash and other bulking agents used in soaps and detergents; firms that produce silicates; and firms that produce perfumes and fragrances.
We need to be very clear about what are these knock-on effects and how they are impacting. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord said that they do not affect only the soap and detergent industry. That is quite true. I declare an interest as the chairman of an engineering company based in the north-west which supplies the engineering industry. Our business in the UK is in steady decline because our customers are all getting smaller—down sizing, in the ghastly modern phrase—or closing down completely.
I am afraid that the inevitable conclusion is that one is forced to accept that the Government have been extraordinarily careless about and/or indifferent to the challenges faced by manufacturing industry. I have referred already to the regulatory burden, but there is an equally heavy cost burden—for example, the climate change levy, the aggregate tax levy, the landfill tax levy. Individual firms may be able to escape these in whole or in part, but no firm can escape the proposed increase in national insurance. Far from being only an additional 1 per cent on the employee—in fact, more truthfully, it is not a 1 per cent but a 10 per cent increase in the tax collected—it is matched by an additional burden on the employer.
And, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out, no exporting firm has been able to avoid the impact of the strength of sterling.
It is no wonder that, as companies struggle to contain costs by seeking scale, they are increasingly looking to other regions, such as Eastern Europe, where wage costs are lower and where perhaps directives and regulations may be less stringently enforced. The result of all this across the UK manufacturing sector has been the loss of

1201
450,000 jobs since 1997, down from 4.1 million to 3.7 million. This represents 1,700 jobs every week since the Government took office—1,700 people whose dreams are shattered. That is why this House—and, indeed, the country—should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for introducing this important debate today.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison on initiating the debate. He spoke eloquently on behalf of the soap and detergents industry, which plays such an important part in the history of the area in which he lives and which he has so ably represented for 10 years in the European Parliament.
As my noble friend said, this sector represents an important part of our manufacturing base, not only in the north-west but at a national level. He has given the figures illustrating its importance.
I should like to add that it is a very innovative industry and is a growth sector. Over the past decade the output of the soap and detergent industry has grown in real terms by an average of 1.3 per cent per year. So this is not a declining industry, but one of growth and innovation. Beyond its economic importance, the products of the industry play a fundamental part in the general health and well-being of the nation.
First. I should make it clear that we have done a number of important studies and have taken important action which impinges on this industry. So this is not a question of coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that we are very concerned about this: we have already taken important action.
A good starting-point for looking at the future competitiveness and well-being of the industry is the report presented to government last month by the Chemicals Innovation and Growth Team. This body was set up at the beginning of 2002 to examine the main issues and challenges facing the whole of the chemicals industry and as a focus for engagement between government and the industry.
The report recommends action in a number of areas. I am pleased that the industry has taken up this challenge in a number of key areas through the establishment of a chemistry leadership council. The report sets out a number of key areas for action: first, to seek to improve the industry's reputation, self-regulation and communication with its stakeholders.
I do not propose to enter into the debate raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall; namely, whether or not the reputation of the industry reflects its performance. I merely say that we believe that the chemical industry, and indeed this particular industry, should be regulated carefully because of the issues of its impact on the environment. It is to the credit of the chemical industry in its totality that it is prepared to accept the necessity for such regulation and the necessity for it to do more to communicate both what it is already doing and the further action that it will take in terms of self-regulation.
1202
The chemical industry leadership also believes that it has to prioritise and drive research and innovation in the industry for a chemicals innovation centre; to promote the UK as a location of choice for start-ups and investors in the chemical industry; and to define the nature of the skills issues and to work with the skills providers to improve training in the industry. All these issues impact on the soap and detergent sector. I am sure that the industry will engage fully in taking forward these recommendations. For their part, the Government are pledged to work with the industry on these and other issues to help to ensure that we continue to have a thriving and sustainable chemical industry in this country.
In addition, last year the Government published their manufacturing strategy, which highlighted the fundamental importance to our economy of manufacturing and the actions that the Government were taking to support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, produced figures relating to the decline in manufacturing jobs in recent years. I am sure that he is well aware of the much faster decline in manufacturing that took place under the previous Conservative government.
I refer also to the specific SWOT analysis of the UK soap and detergent industry undertaken jointly by the DTI and the UK Cleaning Products Industry Association. I mention this as a lead-in to some specific points that were raised, but also to show that we are taking very seriously the competitive position of this industry.
I turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. My noble friend Lord Harrison and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, raised the question of the burdens of regulation on the soap and detergent industry and the effects that this is having on the competitive sector and the relative attractiveness of the UK as a manufacturing base.
The UK scores well internationally on its regulatory environment. The Government are, nevertheless, conscious of the need to maintain that advantage and to retain the right balance. We are committed to better regulation and to reducing the burden of regulation, particularly on small companies. But we think that the chemical industry should be highly regulated because of its potential impact on the environment. To achieve the right balance, the Government are stepping up their actions to promote the involvement of business and other stakeholders at an early stage. We are championing better regulation in Europe and looking to improve the way in which specific regulations are enforced to address business concerns about unfair or inconsistent enforcement.
The EU chemical strategy is enormously important. The Government support the overall aim and approach of the EU's White Paper on chemicals, on improving our knowledge about any risks associated with chemicals currently in use, and establishing authorisations on their use. We are, however, extremely concerned that the system put in place to cover the registration, evaluation and authorisation of such chemicals is streamlined, workable and focused on the chemicals of most concern.

1203
To this end, the Government have published a position statement, before the legislation comes out, outlining how we think key elements of the system might operate in a practicable way. We are sufficiently concerned that we produced that position paper to make very clear to the Commission that we think major changes must be made to what was initially put forward, if the legislation is to be practicable and, critically, if it is not to reduce the amount of innovation in the chemical industry. Innovation in the chemical industry will be critically important in the future. If we are to solve many of our environmental problems, it will be because of more innovation in the chemical industry. Therefore, it is fundamentally important that we get the EU chemical strategy right. The UK Cleaning Products Industry Association says that it,
"fully supports the Government's approach as outlined in their position paper".
So, in this case, we and the industry are working together to make certain that this is practicable.
The Government have also formed a downstream users' group to ensure that the users, as well as the manufacturers, of chemicals can input into the development of the EU regulation. The soap and detergent sector is represented on that group, and we very much welcome their contributions. In many ways I appreciate that the soap and detergent industry has paved the way for some of this work through its voluntary initiative on human and environmental risk assessment. It has started the process of analysis of the risks and hazards to both consumers and the environment of the chemical ingredients in its products. This is a very welcome and positive step. I am sure that the model it has adopted and the experience it has gained from it will be helpful in framing the mechanism under which the EU chemical strategy may operate.
The noble Lords, Lord Harrison and Lord Hodgson, raised the issue of the relative power of the retailers in this country, and the relative cost pressures this puts upon manufacturers of soap and detergents. I appreciate the point. Soap and detergent companies are not alone in this complaint. But, essentially, this must be a matter for the companies concerned and the relationship they have along all aspects of the supply chain within normal competition rules.
The Government are, however, keen to help companies to reduce their cost base in their manufacturing operations and within their supply chain. To this end, we have supported a number of industry forums to help companies to look at their internal efficiencies. There is such a body for the chemical industry: the Process Industry Centre for Manufacturing Excellence, which is doing an extremely good job. I urge soap and detergent companies to take advantage of this support.
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned hospital cleaning standards. I gather that the industry is in
1204
touch with the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency about this. I will draw the issue to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. DTI officials would also be happy to support the industry in this matter with other departments.
Finally, I shall deal with two positive aspects of this industry. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, suggested that science and innovation was not very important to this industry. In fact, science and innovation is a particular feature of the soap and detergent industry because it is an industry which needs to be fast-moving, innovative and adaptable to changing consumer demand and the needs of the environment. Consumers are looking for products giving added convenience and different effects. This is manifested in new product forms such as tablets and liquid soaps or in the move towards easy ironing and fresher smelling clothing. At the same time society demands higher standards on the effects of these soaps and detergents entering our environment, both at the manufacturing stage and after use.
I am very pleased that the soap and detergent industry of the United Kingdom has risen to these challenges. The UK hosts important centres of global R&D in some of the technologies critical to the future development of this industry. The DTI is supporting activities to bring researchers and businesses together in these key areas. In particular we have two Faraday partnerships relevant to developments on the soap and detergent industry and funded by the DTI. One is the IMPACT Faraday on the use of colloid technology to support the design and development of innovative materials and new formulated products across the chemicals industry. Clearly, that is extremely important for the soaps and detergent industry. The second is the CRYSTAL Faraday partnership to help spread the implementation of green technology and practices in the industry.
As welcome as all this is, the chemical industry's Innovation and Growth Team report has said that the chemical industry generally needs to invest more in R&D. As I have said, one of its recommendations is for the establishment of a chemicals innovation centre to act as the specialist central hub for knowledge transfer for innovation technology and product development. I am sure that the soap and detergent industry will want to play an active part in the development of these ideas.
The second area which I would like to spend a couple of minutes on is skills and training because it is obviously also something which is important to the industry in terms of contributing to higher productivity and the exploitation of investment and new ideas. Again, referring to the chemical industry's Innovation and Growth Team report, it points out that that is a particular issue for the chemical industry. I know that the quality and number of potential recruits has been highlighted as a particular concern in the soaps and detergent sector.
The Chemical Innovation Growth Team report recognises that the chemical industry needs to engage more closely with the development of the skills

1205
infrastructure in the country and to articulate more clearly what the needs may be. I therefore welcome its recommendation to establish a chemicals skills network to enable the industry to formulate more clearly and inclusively its priorities on skills issues through the sector skills councils and the learning and skills centres.
I hope that I have illustrated that the Government take seriously the future competitiveness and sustainable development of the manufacturing of soap and detergents in this country. Not only have we already done some of the important work with the chemical industry to establish what the key issues are, but we have also, as I have illustrated as regards the science and innovation side, taken some action to provide help.
1206
The industry's destiny must lie primarily in its own hands. I very much welcome what UK companies are doing, and have done, to improve their competitiveness and environmental performance. However, we recognise that the Government have a supportive role to play. We need to set a macro-economic framework for the industry's growth and development. We need to ensure that it has access to a supportive science base; we need to ensure that it has access to the qualified workforce that it needs; and we need to reflect its needs and circumstances in the development and enactment of regulation. This we will do. We will also continue to promote and champion the industry in whatever ways that we can.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
  (Second Day)
  The Committee met at a quarter before four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
  Clause 16 [Chief Constable's functions]:
  Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 9, leave out lines 36 and 37.
  The noble Lord said: This clause seeks to prioritise the policing plan over the code of practice. Is it possible to have regard to one before the other, or to give greater weight to one over the other, given that one is having regard to each of them? In any event, when the SDLP in another place sought leave for the Chief Constable to comply with the policing plan, this was properly rejected by the Government.
  One should keep in mind that the code of practice is from the Secretary of State and that the policing plan is from the board. Patten does not appear to recommend this clause. I beg to move.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): This amendment runs counter to a commitment in the discussions which led to the Implementation Plan. One finds it at page 5 of that document in relation to Patten Recommendations 10, 11 and 12. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is right; there is a adjustment of the balance of the tripartite relationship in favour of the board. I suggest that what we see in Clause 16 is perfectly workable:
  "(2) The Chief Constable shall have regard to the policing plan in discharging his functions.
  (3) The Chief Constable shall have regard to any code of practice under section 27 in discharging his functions.
  (4) The duty under subsection (3) applies only so far as consistent with the duty under subsection (2)."
  That makes plain that it is the board's policing plan that is to have primacy. I do not think there will be any significant divergence. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, mentioned, the Secretary of State will have consulted the board with a view to reaching agreement on the terms of the code of practice before the code of practice is promulgated. We look to the board as the primary vehicle for police accountability. That is the reason for the change in the Bill.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: As always in the Bill it appears that the explanation given by the Minister indicates the lack of necessity for this clause. If it is all pre-determined because of consultation which has
  GC 48
  taken place, and if the Secretary of State and the board are at one, there should be consistency—a word which came up frequently yesterday. Therefore, I believe that Clause 16 is unnecessary. In that respect, I give notice that, based on the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord, we shall oppose the entire clause.
  Lord Glentoran: I should like an explanation. I simply cannot understand what subsection (4) does here; it does not seem to do anything.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: It does what I said earlier. Subsection (2) puts certain duties upon the Chief Constable; subsection (3) puts different duties on the Chief Constable; and subsection (4) makes it plain that the duties under subsection (3) apply only so far as is consistent with the duty under subsection (2). It is, curiously—I say this with great respect—remarkably clear.
  Lord Rogan: With the assurance that I have heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Provision of information to Board]:
  Lord Shutt of Greetland moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 10, line 5, leave out "reasonably"
  The noble Lord said: The issue is whether it is reasonable to include the word "reasonably", and I submit that it is not reasonable to do so. The clause should state:
  "The Chief Constable shall supply the Board with such information as the Board may require",
  for its purpose. If the board believes that it requires information for its purpose, that should be reasonable because one assumes that we are talking about a reasonable board. It seems to me that, if we were to delete the word "reasonably" at this point, there would not be a dilemma as to whether a request was reasonable or unreasonable and there would be no need for a decision as to who should arbitrate. The situation could arise where, if a Chief Constable did not want to supply something, he could say that he did not consider it to be reasonable. I do not believe that that would be a good position between a Chief Constable and a board.
  There is a great deal in the main Act and in this Bill about ensuring that a board is responsible and reflective and so on. Therefore, surely such a board would, in any event, be reasonable. Thus, at this point it seems to be superfluous to include the word "reasonably", and we believe it should be deleted. I beg to move.
  Lord Glentoran: Once again, I shall ask a question as I am not sure whether or not to support the amendment. I would interpret the word "reasonably" according to whether or not "reasonable" is defined by other preconditions elsewhere in the Act. It is clear how the Chief Constable may apply to 'the Secretary of State not to give certain information, and there are

  GC 49
  other constraints on the Chief Constable's disbursement of information. I assume that that is what is being referred to by the word "reasonably".
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: There is a slight element of dancing on the head of a pin but that is sometimes a necessary exercise, as was elegantly performed just now. Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I wish to suggest to him that we might overcome the difficulty if the word "require" were substituted by the word "need". As presently drafted, it is correct that "reasonably" is required, because "required" equals "making of a requisition" and, as we all know, one cannot simply use a power to make a requisition or any other power, save in a reasonable manner. It may be worth considering that, if we were to use the words,
  "which the board may need for the purposes",
  the word "reasonably" could be left out. That is a tiny suggestion but I used to have to deal with these things.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Is it not the case that information could be available to the Chief Constable that the board might think it needed in order to come to a decision about something? However, the Chief Constable could convince the board that it should not have information. Although the board is supposed to be reasonable, yesterday we heard much about the doubts and tribal issues which seem to haunt every aspect of the Bill. Being the person on the ground who knows all the information, the Chief Constable might think that an issue is too sensitive for the board and that the board does not need it for what it has to do.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for that last observation. We hope—I believe this will be the outcome—that the Chief Constable and the board will work increasingly in closer harmony. Indeed, there are good auguries for that. The noble Baroness is also right because if one looks at Section 33A(2), the Chief Constable may decline to supply information if he comes to the conclusion that it should be disclosed on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 76A(1), to which we shall return. In response to the invitation by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, to the feast of unreason, I make two comments. First, a reasonable board may nevertheless make unreasonable requests, just as do reasonable peers! I understand what the noble Lord says. I am also grateful for the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. Certainly, I shall reflect on what has been said, without particular commitment, to see whether any change is needed and whether the re-nuancing could be presented in a different way. I give a commitment to think carefully about this matter. If we reach the conclusion that it can be improved, I shall come back with a government amendment.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful for those comments and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18 [Fixed-term appointments]:
  [Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
  Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 10, line 15, at end insert—
  "(1A) The Board may appoint a person of the rank of senior officer to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for a fixed term not exceeding three years."
  The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief. We suggest that the board may appoint a person of the rank of senior officer to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for a fixed term not exceeding three years. We do so because we believe that it should be not only the Chief Constable who is able to do that but also the board. The Chief Constable cannot appoint a rank of a senior officer; that is, someone of ACPO rank. That is the responsibility of the board. However, here we are speaking of the Chief Constable directly recruiting sergeants, inspectors and above to the rank of chief superintendent, perhaps using the fast-track procedure. I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister.
  There is the also the question of the board being able to undertake the responsibilities of recruiting people of non-uniformed rank, who I would call support staff. There is a range of support staff in middle management who the Chief Constable might want to recruit and, indeed, who the board might want to suggest to the Chief Constable be recruited. We believe that it would not be necessarily suitable to limit such matters to the responsibility of the Chief Constable and would ask that the question of the Board appointing people of the rank of senior officer to the service for a fixed term not exceeding three years be again considered. Amendments Nos. 44 and 46 are consequential. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wonder if I can help directly in response to the noble Baroness's request for clarification. These amendments are not required because under Section 35 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 the Policing Board is already responsible for the appointment and removal of senior officers in the police. The power to make the fixed-term appointments for senior officers, to which the noble Baroness refers, already belongs to the board under Section 25(6) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. I hope that explanation is useful. There is already statutory provision to bring about the consequences for which the noble Baroness was looking.
  4 p.m.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I understood the noble Baroness to be saying that she wished the board to be able to appoint people of below the level, albeit senior, of the rank to which it already appoints. I beg to disagree with her amendment on the basis that the board is responsible for appointing the very senior officers. Below that level one could consider that the appointments are operational. Speaking as an

  GC 51
  individual, not for the board, I believe we should not be involved in promotions and appointments down the chain of command beyond that which we already have.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I shall clarify my point. I understand that and I am sure the board would not want to interfere with the operational requirement of the Chief Constable to make sure that he or she appointed appropriate people. We are suggesting that the board can also appoint a person of senior officer rank, who might—although not necessarily—work in support of a uniformed officer. I am speaking particularly of directors of finance or directors of personnel, for example. I have been very interested to hear the Minister's response and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: This clause is particularly interesting. The Explanatory Notes we received are of little assistance in determining its purpose and we have to reach our own conclusions. It appears to be designed to avoid the 50:50 criterion for those brought in on secondment. The Government are unwise to want to avoid that sort of discrimination against others eligible for secondment in this area when they see it as perfectly appropriate to discriminate against others in recruiting in Northern Ireland. I use the term "others" because we can recruit 50 per cent from the Roman Catholic tradition and 50 per cent from others, who may represent a multiplicity of ethnic or religious or other groups. The difficulty is that if there was no definition of which group these people belonged to, it would ultimately be stacked up when they came to serve. We all know that that would be unavoidable. In reality, head counts would be carried out and the imbalance in terms of recruiting ordinary members of the Northern Ireland public would, over a longer period, result in discrimination. I am not sure that I have made myself very clear on that point.
  However, if we seconded a number of English, Scottish and Welsh policemen and they were deemed to be "others", as inevitably they would be, then, when it came to trying to level out the recruitment figures for ordinary recruits in Northern Ireland, that would simply mean that the 50:50 criterion would last longer. I hope that I have made myself clear to the noble and learned Lord and that he will be able to give us an explanation as to how that might work, other than as I envisage.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe I am right in understanding that the noble Lord was speaking to Clause 18 stand part.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Yes.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Clause 18 allows the Chief Constable the power to appoint someone to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for a fixed term of up to
  GC 52
  three years. The noble Lord is right: we are talking about seconding to that sometimes hard-pressed force of experienced officers from other jurisdictions—not simply from England, Scotland or Wales. We discussed this matter at Second Reading and a number of your Lordships said that it might well be helpful to have expertise from other jurisdictions.
  As will be seen, the Chief Constable cannot use this power to appoint anyone as a constable or as a senior officer. The 50:50 division, which the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to, relates to the recruitment of constables. Therefore, 50:50 does not apply to this category. I repeat: 50:50 applies only to the recruitment of constables. I hope that that is the explanation which the noble Lord was looking for.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful. If it is as the noble and learned Lord explains it, then there is some relief. However, I imagine that, when it comes to assessing the respective strengths of the RUC in terms of Roman Catholics and others, the headcount will apply not only to constables but that it will be a headcount throughout the PSNI. Hence, if I am right—I shall accept correction if I am not—it could extend the requirement for this indiscriminatory 50:50 criterion over a much longer period.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to respond. The 50:50 division applies only to recruitment at constable level. The people who come from other jurisdictions could be Buddhists or members of the Church in Wales, which has a long history of evangelical good.
  Viscount Brookeborough: When people join the Police Service of Northern Ireland, that is one thing, but when they are seconded to it, they are still members of their parent organisation to which they will return. I suspect that, when one talks about total numbers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland being one balance or the other, that would not reflect those from outside the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Therefore, the clause applies to secondments and not to transferees.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass moved Amendment No. 47:
  After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
  "REMOVAL OF DISCRIMINATION FROM RECRUITMENT
  (1) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) for section 46 substitute—
  "46 UNDER-REPRESENTATION
  (1) In making appointments under section 39 the Chief Constable may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police service.
  (2) In making appointments to the police support staff under section 4(3) the Chief Constable (acting by virtue of subsection (5) of that section) may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police support staff.

  GC 53
  (3) For the purposes of this section "persons currently under-represented" means persons forming part of a social group by virtue of their sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation who at the time of consideration by the Chief Constable are under-represented."
  (2) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) leave out section 47."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to remove discrimination from recruitment. Whatever the good intentions of Patten in suggesting a 50:50 resolution to the current imbalance which we all recognise, it is simply not working. At present there are not enough recruits becoming available from within the Roman Catholic tradition. Sadly, that worries us all. We should like to see a much higher level of application from the Roman Catholic tradition. During the Patten inquiry I was one person who suggested that. If there were adequate recruits coming forward from all traditions, particularly Roman Catholic, there would be a natural opportunity over a period to recruit on roughly a 50:50 basis. That would not be hugely out of proportion to the balance of the community overall in Northern Ireland.
  That was my opinion and not one which was generally approved or sanctioned by the Ulster Unionist Party. I would need to admit to getting into some hot water for my liberalism on that point. However, I emphasise that my point was made on the basis of a large number of potential recruits coming forward from both traditions. That has not happened.
  There is still a huge discrimination by Sinn Fein/IRA against members of the Roman Catholic tradition who would like to join the police. They are openly told by the leaders of Sinn Fein that the PSNI is simply the RUC as was. Hence, many of those who would like to join the RUC and who decide to pursue their policing ambitions as a career move across to this side of the water rather than run the risk of endangering their families, or of having younger brothers and sisters subjected to abuse within their own communities.
  There have been a number of occasions on which constables who have joined from the Roman Catholic tradition have been specifically earmarked for attack. I believe that there is now the opportunity to make the Chief Constable more responsible for finding an informal rather than a formal way of encouraging applications from persons or groups who are currently unrepresented. There is no reason why that would not be a more successful way to proceed.
  The current system highlights how many Roman Catholic recruits and how many others there are in an intake, how many are recruited and what the balance is. If one or two of the potential recruits drop out, there has to be a similar reduction on the other side. Gradually RUC numbers—sorry, PSNI; I have lived too long with the old terminology—have fallen below the level that was intended by Patten. Many of us believed that, given the huge pressures in Northern Ireland society and the predisposition for organised crime to fill the void left by terrorism, the figures envisaged by Patten were hugely over-optimistic.
  Now that has failed to be achieved, the police are over-stretched. The most awful decisions are being taken to try to make the number of police do a job that requires many more.
  One of the saddest things for the community in Northern Ireland of late has been the arbitrary decision made by the new Chief Constable to disband the police band, which was made up of 31 full-time musicians. I have not often criticised the Policing Board, but on this occasion it has been far too amenable to an arbitrary decision made by the Chief Constable.
  4.15 p.m.
  Viscount Brookeborough: That is an operational decision of the Chief Constable on redeploying policemen. It was not and could not be taken by the board.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am relieved to have that assurance from my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. The information coming to me from the police division was that the board had reluctantly accepted the Chief Constable's decision.
  There was a tradition, particularly in Northern Ireland at a time when it is important to interface with society right across the board, of the police band making itself available to play at charity concerts and church services. It was a wonderful asset. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, nodding in agreement.
  I am straying from the amendment, but it is an appropriate time to make this point. The disbandment of the band, which may save £1 million in a year, is almost a punishment on the police. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, indicated yesterday that the Northern Ireland Office is dishing out money to that rogue, Kevin Fulton, in order to keep his mouth closed. There appears to be discrimination at every level. The disbandment of the RUC band will not put one extra policeman on the beat. I may exaggerate, but it will not put 31 nor 21; it may put half a dozen. That is to do with the age and the length of service of these people and so on. They will not now volunteer to go out on the beat and relearn the policing skills that they require. That is an aside but it is an important one. I would have hoped that someone could reassure me that the money will be found to sustain the band and to have it reformed.
  I return to Amendment No. 47. The other point that I want to make is that something must be done to ensure that recruitment can be carried out in a way that puts policemen on the ground. The responsibility should rest with the Chief Constable, and that is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord because he has made it plain that he wants to replace the 50:50 recruitment arrangements. It is fair to say that similar amendments were introduced and debated quite frequently during the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and we have not shifted our position on that.

  GC 55
  The important point that might strike Members of the Committee is that Section 47 of the 2000 Act provides for a triennial review by Parliament of the 50:50 recruitment arrangements. That is not an unreasonable time if, for example, one takes a management view to see how things are working. The first review will take place early next year.
  Perhaps I may offer a few facts and figures. The level of response from the Roman Catholic community since the implementation of the recruitment notice has been unprecedented at 36 per cent. That is a remarkable achievement. Prior to Patten, the most achieved was 22 per cent. The proportion of Roman Catholics in the PSNI has already risen from 8 to 11.69 per cent—another remarkable achievement. I compare that with an increase of just over 1 per cent in the 10 years prior to Patten. The 50:50 arrangements apply to police support staff, and the measures are having some effect. The figure of 12 per cent has increased to 13.3 per cent.
  It seems that, when we have a triennial review in the 2000 Act, we should let things work in order to see how they develop. The 2000 Act also provided that Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies to the police. That places a duty on the police to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. Under-representation of Roman Catholics remains the current priority.
  Perhaps I may give one last figure. In the first year post-Patten, 530 recruits entered training. That is well in excess of the Patten figure of 370. I do not believe that the picture is as gloomy as the noble Lord suggests. If it turns out that I am wrong and he is right, which, other things being equal, is always possible, then we shall have the answer at the triennial review.
  Viscount Brookeborough: Although I do not support the amendment, I ask the noble and learned Lord to give us a precise figure for the police support staff. I believe there is a big problem with that in that we require X number of civilians and the number is way below it. If the Minister has the figure, I should be interested to know it.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: Although we do not support the amendment in its entirety, we believe that proposed subsection (3) has much merit. If it were accepted, it would at least put the issues of gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity on the same footing as religion. Although I should like to be assured that this is not the case, I believe that there has not been the same effort to increase the proportion of women entering the police force and that there is—understandably in some ways—a concentration on religious imbalance, but we should not lose sight of those other under-represented groups.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree with what the noble Lord said. We must not lose sight of them but I repeat that in our present circumstances, given the historic background, our priority must remain the 50:50.
  GC 56
  The noble Viscount asked for figures. I have already given the percentage. If the figures that I have before me are correct, combined direct recruit civil servant figures for the PSNI at the end of December 2002 were: Protestant, 2,893, or 82.7 per cent; Roman Catholic, the percentage that I gave of 13.3, which is 466; and other 4 per cent, which is 139. I think that those are the figures for which the noble Viscount asked.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I thank the noble and learned Lord. I intended to highlight the fact that I understand the Chief Constable made a statement to the press fairly recently, before Christmas, in which he said that he was unable to civilianise jobs—that is, to enable police support staff to take up jobs to release policemen for other duty—purely because he could not recruit sufficient Catholics into that side of the service. That situation may obtain at present.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, for highlighting that point about the inability of the Chief Constable to release members of the PSNI because civilian staff cannot, as yet, be recruited. The noble and learned Lord has been helpful and has presented us with some figures that give me heart and will be welcomed in the movement towards balancing the makeup of the PSNI. Therefore, when I use the cliché "lies, damned lies and statistics", I do not in any way reflect on his helpful reply, but I believe that inadvertently he has missed the point that I sought to make.
  Whatever Patten sought to achieve, Patten got a number of things wrong. Whatever the Government were trying to achieve, they got a number of things wrong. One was the exodus of experienced policemen from the force under the scheme that was put in place. Far more senior and experienced officers left the force than was originally envisaged. That resulted in Patten's ceiling for the number of policemen not being achieved. Whatever statistics do, they do not illustrate that.
  Perhaps I may I pick up on the helpful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and mention the recruitment of women to the PSNI. I know of one case—involving someone whose family is fairly close to mine—of a serving full-time reserve officer, who has already passed the level of requirements for entry into the regular police. She is now going through the process for the third time—it is a constant process. You can hit the standard, but on both previous occasions she has not been accepted because insufficient Catholics were entering the depot. The noble Lord mentioned the level of applications, but that does not necessarily reflect the level of recruitment. There is a sifting process—a rather strange one, but a sifting process none the less. There is then a period during which people who are accepted may decide that they would like to join the police, but not yet.
  On the "others" side, there are those who are already—perhaps as in the case of this young lady—in the full-time reserve, who want to continue a career but

  GC 57
  who are being rejected. The Chief Constable, despite the fact that he has a deficit, is unable to make a considered judgment because that falls outwith the strict guidelines.
  The same applies to civilian staff. I think that I am right in saying that we have about 60 policemen currently sitting and watching closed-circuit television pictures—a job that could adequately be done by civilian staff, but that cannot be because the recruiting criteria are such that they inhibit what the Chief Constable needs. If the noble and learned Lord wants to respond to those specific points, I shall give him the opportunity to do so, but I accept what he said and am content to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 48:
  After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
  "DISCRIMINATION IN APPOINTMENTS: EXPIRY, RENEWAL AND REPEAL OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
  In section 47(3) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32), for "three years" substitute "one year."
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 48 is to provide for Parliament, once every 12 months, to discuss and debate how successful or otherwise the provisions have been in terms of recruitment and the balance between the two traditions. It would be useful for Parliament to consider that more regularly than once every three years. When speaking to the previous amendment, the Minister said he thought that three years was a sensible period from a management point of view, but we are not just concerned with management in the issue of Northern Ireland. A more regular review would be more appropriate at this stage.
  That said, our second amendment, Amendment No. 49, states that there should be a finite end to this 50:50 thing. Patten suggested that it should come to an end after 10 years; we are simply trying to reinforce that element in Patten by stating that we should now provide for the 50:50 thing—which we support at present—to be brought to an end. Otherwise, knowing Northern Ireland, it will drag on. It is just as well that we now say: "Concentrate your minds. This will run for a decade and that is long enough. If you then have to extend it for some reason, fair enough, that can be considered". However, at present, we think that there is merit in indicating to those responsible that the provisions should have a sunset clause. I beg to move.
  Lord Fitt: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Smith. Indeed, in a limited way I would have supported the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
  Noble Lords will be aware of the reservations I expressed throughout debates we have had on the police in relation to the criterion of one religion being used before they could be recruited to the new force. I still believe there will be great difficulty in ascertaining
  GC 58
  the exact religious qualification of potential recruits. To recruit a person to the PSNI means that one is asking that person to give his support to the state of Northern Ireland. That is what this is about. The recruitment to a force in Yorkshire or to any other part of the kingdom does not bring in any constitutional question but it does in Northern Ireland. That is why the IRA are bitterly opposed to any person of the Catholic religion joining the PSNI or its predecessor, the RUC. That would be tantamount to saying that those people were giving support to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, which is in total opposition to the idealistic approach by the IRA who want to do away with the constitution. Therefore, there will be great difficulty.
  As regards recruits, the Lord Privy Seal has given the number of Catholic applications to join the PSNI. I should like to ask him a question to which I know he will not be able to give me an answer. If he were to give me an answer that would possibly put in danger the lives of potential recruits. Knowing Northern Ireland, I am certain that the persons who have applied to join the PSNI do not live in Ballymurphy, Turf Lodge, New Barnsley, New Lodge Road, South Armagh, the Creggan in Derry or the Bogside in Derry. All those areas are in the control and grip of the IRA in Northern Ireland. Any young man, no matter how he may feel he could contribute to society in Northern Ireland by joining the PSNI, cannot put on the PSNI uniform and go home to his mother, father, wife, brothers and sisters in any of the areas I mentioned.
  There was, still is and, so far as I can see, will be for the foreseeable future massive intimidation. I have friends in Northern Ireland who are Catholic who joined the RUC two or three years ago but cannot serve in any of those districts. They are made to serve in a Protestant district. They live in daily fear of their lives that someone from the district where they live will see that they are wearing a police uniform in another part of Northern Ireland.
  Patten's ideas may be totally acceptable. However, he was trying to foresee Northern Ireland not in a state of political unrest or political violence, but where it would become accepted and where there would be a normalisation of society with a normal police force. I wish I could have that vision and be that optimistic. However, we are living with reality. The police of Northern Ireland are not accepted in those republican areas.
  There is another point I make to noble Lords of a unionist tradition. One can remember the great Troubles that took place at the parades at Drumcree on 12th July when the Orange Order insisted on marching on the Garvaghy Road. The police, the RUC as it then was, and even last year the PSNI, prevented what they regarded as an illegal march. One could see and hear on our television screens the rioters pointing at the Protestant policemen, saying, "We know where you live". They were threatening the Protestant policemen; indeed, many Protestant policeman had to shift from their homes, particularly in North Antrim and the Carrickfergus area. That shows the unstable way the police have to live.

  GC 59
  Unfortunately 302 of them had to die in trying to carry out their duties that were so envisaged by the Lord Privy Seal yesterday.
  Once again, I would like to know—perhaps I could not be trusted with the information, but if someone wrote to me it would help me to make up my own mind—how many of the recruits come from those very troubled areas I have mentioned. Has any of them donned the police uniform of the PSNI and gone into Turf Lodge or Ballymurphy or South Armagh? Until people from those communities are able to stand up and be counted and throw off the yoke of oppression and dictatorship that is mounted on them daily by the IRA, we will never have the required number of police and we will never have the police force that we dearly want to see in Northern Ireland.
  Viscount Brookeborough: The noble Lord, Lord Smith, will be delighted to hear that I support his amendment, for two reasons. First, I do not think it is unreasonable that we should be able to monitor year by year how this is going on. If it is a good story, as the Government and the rest of us in Northern Ireland hope, we should let the public know. The second reason I would like it to be monitored every year is that I believe that under the noble and learned Lord's plans I might not be here in three years' time and I would like to be here to see it monitored.
  Lord Glentoran: Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has brought reality to the Committee. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for several reasons, but most importantly because of the desperate problem, so well outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, facing the Chief Constable and, to some extent, the Policing Board. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal has given us some encouraging numbers, but it is not going to get any easier to recruit Roman Catholic policemen and women; it is going to get more difficult until we have normalisation.
  I believe it is an extremely good idea, now that the Province is so disturbed again and everything is so uncertain, that we should have the opportunity to review the recruitment situation, as suggested in the amendment. There was a time when we had two or three Acts of Parliament that we reviewed annually. Those have gone away now as a result of devolution, so we do not have a fixed monitoring debate perhaps once every six months on what is happening in Northern Ireland. This would be a very good way of focusing in on what I believe is the most serious problem left. The day we can get the police force up to strength and accessing and walking in the streets as part of the communities mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, we will not be sitting here worrying about Northern Ireland.
  I also support the second part of the amendment. There is nothing like a straightforward target and this Government, more than any other, have been very fond of setting themselves targets. I am sure they have the same reason for setting targets as I used to have; you set a target to motivate people so that they will do
  GC 60
  everything they can to achieve that target. You may not achieve it, but at least you have something to aim for. I strongly believe that it is an exceptionally good idea to have a target in this context. I support the amendment.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand, as best I can, the very serious points that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is making and I cannot disagree with his comments on the level of intimidation. The noble Lord will not be surprised that I do not have precise figures to hand, I understand from the advice I have had that there have been some recruits from the areas to which he refers. They must be exceptionally brave human beings to take that step.
  I hope I do not gloss over the difficulties. When one sets up new Northern Ireland institutions in the Westminster context there is a serious danger of constant interference. This then means a lack of trust in the ability of new institutions, organisations, and structures to develop a life, validity and worth of their own.
  I do not discard the general approach of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. He asked for a sunset clause and spoke of review. In Section 47(2), on page 24 of the 2000 Act, there is a sunset clause. It says:
  "The temporary provisions shall, subject to subsection (3), expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date."
  The review is in March next year and the expiry of the temporary provisions is on the third anniversary.
  In Section 47(3), the Secretary of State may order the continuance of the temporary provisions for a maximum of three years—not for a further three years, but for a period not exceeding three years. There is the target, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, or the sunset clause, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, but also the necessary flexibility.
  It is important to bear in mind Section 47(4). In deciding how to exercise his powers or whether to exercise them at all, the Secretary of State has to have regard to the progress that is being made, and, importantly I hope from the noble Viscount's point of view,
  "Consult the Board and take into account any recommendations made to him by the Board."
  Therefore, if things go well, as we all hope, 10 years will not be a relevant figure. We have flexibility here and a degree of autonomy which the board and the Chief Constable need. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that the scheme in Section 47 requires no such amendment, and indeed, any such amendment if ultimately carried on Report would damage the present system.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: I am grateful for the support that has been shown, particularly on Amendment No. 48. I have heard what the noble and learned Lord said about Amendment No. 49, and am grateful for his explanation.

  GC 61
  I believe that we will want to return to Amendment No. 48 on Report, particularly bearing in mind the widespread support it has received in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
  Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 49A:
  After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
  "DISCRIMINATION IN APPOINTMENTS
  (1) In section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (discrimination in appointments), for subsection (3) substitute—
  "(3) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (2) in relation to the making of appointments under section 39 if he is satisfied that—

  (a) were those appointments to be made in compliance with subsection (1) (as originally enacted) the number of police trainees which the Chief Constable requires to be appointed on that occasion could not be appointed; or

  (b) the number of serving officers is below that intended at the time of consideration."

  (2) In section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, for subsection (7) substitute—
  "(7) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (6) in relation to the making of appointments under section 4 if he is satisfied that—

  (a) were those appointments to be made in compliance with subsection (5) (as originally enacted) the number of police support staff which the Chief Constable requires to be appointed on that occasion could not be appointed; or

  (b) the number of police support staff employed is below that intended at the time of consideration.""

  The noble Lord said: We are all familiar with the issue of 50:50 recruitment. I am sorry if yet again I labour the point, but it will not simply go away. In fact, it will get worse over time.
  I was reassured by the figures given to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, but I am more pessimistic than he is. Obviously, if I am right in suggesting that the potential recruits from the Roman Catholic community are slowing down—and at an alarming rate—that will have a dramatic effect on the overall recruitment figures to the police service of Northern Ireland.
  The principle of equality of opportunity is central to the Belfast agreement, yet it is constantly being denied to recruits to the police service. This was one of the most contentious issues in the passage through the Lords of the 2000 Act. The result of the vote on the amendment on 15th November 2000 was 175 in favour of scrapping 50:50 and 185 against.
  It has previously been alluded to by several speakers that the people of Northern Ireland are not simply Catholic or Protestant or Catholic and non-Catholic. Although young Protestants will be, and are being, discriminated against if they apply to serve in the police force, the same will happen to young Muslims, Jews, Turks, Hindus and, indeed, even young Welsh Methodists who do not attend Catholic schools.
  It is apparent that discrimination and recruitment is immoral. It is unfortunate that a measure which has been illegal elsewhere in Europe since 1st January 2003 is still legal in Northern Ireland because, I suggest, of the disgracefully expressed exception from the equal treatment directive that the Government appear to have negotiated for Northern Ireland policing recruitment. I beg to move.
  Lord Glentoran: I support the amendment to some extent on the basis that I referred to earlier. There is a crisis in police recruitment. Young policemen are locked into barracks doing clerical jobs that could be done by civilians and there is a serious shortage of policemen to go on the beat.
  By no means do I wish to do away with the 50:50 arrangement, but I believe that the amendment is well drafted. It can cover an emergency in recruitment of either uniformed trainees or civilian support staff. It does not seem to go against anything that is currently in the Bill but appears to be helpful, should the crisis in recruitment not improve or become worse. I support the amendment.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may infringe the general rule that it is a great mistake for people who have held responsibility to take trips down memory lane at the expense of their colleagues' time. I want to say something which is relevant to this matter and to what was said recently about what happens when police are overstretched.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to Drumcree. What is called "second Drumcree" was not the most glorious episode of my five years in Northern Ireland. The reason was simply that, as has been pointed out, the police force was in danger of being overwhelmed by civil disorder at the hands of Protestants, not Catholics, and of loyalists, not republicans. They were attacked throughout the Province and in the middle of the week the time came when, as was made clear to the Chief Constable and subsequently by him, it was impossible for the RUC to hold its extended line. The consequences of that obliged me to come to the House of Commons and say that we had sustained a defeat for the rule of law. That is what happened.
  To pick up the reference to Drumcree, which had not occurred to me before I entered the Committee this afternoon, I mention that simply in order to point out—if it needs to be pointed out—the abominable consequences that ensue to the rule of law if those whom we seek to employ in the police service are insufficient in numbers for the extremely dangerous and arduous duties that we impose upon them.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I am not out of sympathy with the purposes that are desired by the amendments in this group. However, I remind the Committee that the 2000 Act and Section 46(3) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 gives the Secretary of State the discretion to make an order adjusting the 50:50 quota if the required number of police trainees could not otherwise be appointed. The important point is that before making any such order he is

  GC 63
  required to consult both the board and the Chief Constable. Section 46(7) gives the same discretionary power in respect of support staff appointments.
  The power under the Act to set aside the quota has never been used. The response to all four police recruitment drives has been very good. It has produced enough qualified candidates from each community background to fill the police training college to capacity from the first year of the policy's operation. Grafton Recruitment, which deals with civiliarts—in other words, police support staff—has only recently been appointed since—I hope I recollect correctly—the Chief Constable's comment made earlier. It has produced sufficient Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic applicants to fully meet requirements.
  I do not pretend —it would be foolish to do so—that police numbers have not reduced. There are shortages, to which noble Lords have referred, in some areas of skill and experience. Those are not difficulties which would be alleviated if the amendment were passed, because this deals with new recruits. The PSNI and the board have a strategy to consider current manpower difficulties. They are carefully considering civilianisation of parts of the police service.
  In our discussion on Clause 18 I referred to the possibility of seconding experienced officers. I give the undertaking that if the Policing Board, in the context of the current skills shortage, want to agree on some limited change to the 50:50 provisions in respect of experienced officers at constable level, which is what we are discussing, the Government are prepared to give that serious consideration. It seems to me that that is the way forward. I hope that Members of the Committee will think that a decent response to the point of the amendment.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that the community from which I come would appreciate learning what the noble and learned Lord suggests may be possible. However, perhaps I may take up one or two points in his reply. I suggest that things are not always as they seem. The noble and learned Lord said that up until now training facilities for the PSNI have been fully subscribed by the number of recruits. That may be the case but will he admit that both the HMI (Her Majesty's Inspectorate) and Tom Constantine, the overseer of Patten, have criticised the fact that the Government have been tardy in providing the appropriate training accommodation required? What is available is currently considered to be totally and utterly inadequate. I raise that point simply for clarification and not to diminish in any way what has been said by the noble and learned Lord. I suggest that things are not always what they seem.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am bound to accept that as a proposition. However, given the undoubted difficulties, not least those referred to by my noble friend Lord Fitt, progress is being made. It is extraordinary that one has people of the fortitude and courage, as my noble friend Lord Fitt describes, to go into public service of a very difficult kind. I want personally to endorse, with great respect, what the
  GC 64
  noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said. We are asking quite young people to take on extraordinary responsibilities, as we did with quite young private soldiers serving in the Army.
  Lord Rogan: I very much welcome the encouraging words of the Lord Privy Seal. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 19 [Disclosure of information and holding of inquiries]:
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): Before calling Amendment No. 50, I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 51 to 56.
  Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 10, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 11.
  The noble Lord said: We now take a little leap back into the past, because this amendment and Clause 19 encompass the short debates that we had yesterday on Clauses 8 and 9. The amendment concerns the rules governing the Chief Constable's ability to withhold information or an inquiry. It concerns disclosure of information on holding inquiries.
  By and large, there is not a great deal to say, except to point out one massive omission. I ask the Government: why? What was the motivation for removing Section 60(3)(d) of the 2000 Act, under which the Chief Constable could ask for an inquiry not to take place,
  "because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders"?
  If that is not a jolly good reason for withholding an inquiry, whether temporarily or permanently. I cannot think what is. For goodness sake, what is the Government's motivation for wanting to leave that out? I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am afraid that this is an example of the technique of doing everything by stealth. If this change to the relevant provision of the 2000 Act were to find its way into law, it would do ill, for the reasons touched on in shorthand by my noble friend Lord Glentoran.
  The reason why I say that it is sought to be achieved by stealth is that by some tortuous drafting, it is tucked away into a new Section 76A to the borrowed and much abused 2000 Act, so that it will fall under the heading "Supplementary", after,
  "Expenses of Secretary of State",
  and before "Orders and regulations". It has a remarkable effect. It is unnecessary to go at length through the scheme of the Bill, but it is worth reminding ourselves what Sections 58 and 59 of the 2000 Act achieve. We find those on page 31.

  GC 65
  The general heading for Part VII of that Act is "Reports and inquiries". Section 58 requires the Chief Constable to submit an annual report to the board, but it is followed by Section 59. That imposes a general duty on the Chief Constable to report but, in subsection (3) includes what has always seemed to me a sensible balancing provision. It states:
  "If it appears to the Chief Constable that a report in compliance with a requirement",
  from the board,
  "would contain information which ought not to be disclosed".
  Then follow four headings. The first states:
  "in the interests of national security"
  which is very sensible. The second states:
  "because it relates to an individual and is of a sensitive personal character"—
  which is also very sensible—there is a government amendment tabled to that with which we will deal later. The third heading states:
  "because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice proceedings which have been commenced in a court of law, or".
  Lastly, paragraph (d) states:
  "because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
  In those circumstances, Section 59 states, the Chief Constable may refer the requirement to submit the report to the Secretary of State. That seems sensible. The section goes on to state that the Secretary of State can, if so minded:
  "modify or set aside the requirement, as necessary, in order to exempt the Chief Constable from the obligation"—
  and so forth.
  The scheme of the clause is to operate on two of those four headings. It is only the last with which I want to deal: that which relates to an opinion that the report would be likely to,
  "prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
  Perhaps from a slightly different viewpoint from that advanced by my noble friend Lord Glentoran, I wholly endorse his question and share his inability to understand why the Government should want to withdraw paragraph (d). What can be the reason? What has happened in the short period since the enactment of the 2000 Act? What is the motivation? What end is sought to be served? That is the critical question.
  However, I want to go a wee bit further, because I hold that those matters—the question of who is to be prosecuted, in the first instance, although of course not ultimately, "the apprehension or prosecution of offenders" and not less "the prevention or detection of crime"—are essentially operational matters. I should be grateful if the Lord Privy Seal would address that. Under our constitutional arrangements, as much in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, they are for the Chief Constable's operational independence.
  GC 66
  We have set our faces sternly against executive interference in those matters. It is most important for the maintenance of our democracy and for the rule of law that that should be maintained. Reference has already been made to Drumcree. I must say that principle was absolutely, explicitly and meticulously upheld by me in that circumstance—melancholy though the whole week proved to be—because it was an operational matter for the Chief Constable whether or not that march proceeded, in my view.
  How will that principle suffer if the clause is enacted? It will suffers in this way, I suggest. Let us consider the question of the apprehension of an offender—I shall come to the prosecution of an offender in a moment. I repeat that that is entirely a matter for the operational discretion of the Chief Constable. If the Chief Constable's objection, on the grounds that to provide the required report would prejudice the apprehension of an offender, can be overridden without recourse to the Secretary of State, that provides a covert way to secure that a particular offender is not prosecuted because the whole trail will have been obfuscated. Similarly, in relation to the question of prosecution of an offender, the point is the same and does not need to be repeated.
  The prevention and detection of crime are perhaps more straightforward issues. In my view, they should not be interfered with in this way without the ability of the Chief Constable to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. He would say, "This is what the board is doing. This, in my professional opinion, is what the consequence will be. Over to you, Secretary of State".
  The matter that I have tried to describe is a rather serious constitutional as well as practical one. I believe I know enough about the noble and learned Lord to say that he would not wish knowingly to undermine or in any way make more difficult the maintenance of the operational independence of the Chief Constable. I know that he recognises how important it is for the rule of law, for the reasons that I have given.
  It is rather disappointing to find on page 9 of the Explanatory Notes that:
  "The current fourth ground of referral (where disclosure would affect the prevention or detection of crime, or apprehension or prosecution of offenders) has been dropped".
  There is not much of an explanation in the Explanatory Notes.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendment. I shall not talk at length about it but I should like to know who applied the pressure for this provision to be dropped. It is as simple as that. I ask that from a personal and not from a board's point of view. I do not know who within or outside the political system in Northern Ireland would have done it. However, especially from what the noble and learned Lord said, it does not appear that it would have been from a judicial point of view or from the point of view of preserving law and order.
  Therefore, my question is: who asked for it to be done? The noble and learned Lord may say that the provision is partly covered elsewhere in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, but I do not accept that

  GC 67
  that is a reason for taking it out of this clause. This clause specifically gives reasons why such inquiries for information might not take place. We all agree that a Policing Board of the future may be amenable to a Chief Constable, but the provision gives protection against the Policing Board over-reaching its powers and entering operational areas.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I, too, support the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgman. I shall accept guidance from the Chairman on this point but it has been intimated that it may not be possible to take Amendments Nos. 51 to 56 if this amendment is accepted. However, as it will not be accepted in this Committee, and my intention is to assist the Committee, in supporting Amendment No. 50 I want to refer to the other amendments because that will help to speed up the proceedings. I hope that that is acceptable.
  I cannot pose the question any more cogently or positively than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has done. Why on earth are we faced here with a series of changes which appear to be of no benefit to society or to individual policemen and women or policemen and women in general? The idea that somehow the Chief Constable could not take into consideration an ongoing inquiry and its significance and knock-on effect in terms of serious crime is, bluntly, ludicrous.
  It is no secret that, for example, burglary—a topic current throughout the United Kingdom—certainly in my district of Northern Ireland, is up by 32 per cent. If there is that amount of burglary, there must be a degree of organisation which, to investigate, would involve a huge amount of resources. Can one imagine a question being asked and the Chief Constable not having the ability to withhold that information, the publishing or publicising of which would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders?
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 51 to 56. It is not just here that it appears that the interests of the individual are being sacrificed in the Bill. For example, we see the word "personal" substituted by the word "personnel". To many that would seem an academic point, but it is more than that. Where one has responsibility for the welfare of individual policemen, any good leader will look to the interests of the individual within the group which he leads as well as to the interests of the group overall. To decide whether something is in the interests or against the interests of personnel is so generic as to risk the interests of one individual who may be endangered. That is why we tabled Amendments Nos. 51, 54 and 57 to 59. All those amendments are concerned with whether it is the general or specific interest in the safety of police, and indeed others in society, that should be taken into account.
  GC 68
  Again, we see this as removing incrementally the specific interests of people. One sees on page 11, line 2, that the qualification is,
  "the information is sensitive personnel information or information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger;"
  For something to be deemed likely there has to be specific information as to the threat. One cannot say that something is likely if it is a general threat. Here again, instead of "would be likely", we propose "may". If there is any danger whatsoever, in other words, then the information should be properly guarded. That is relevant in Amendment No. 55. There again, if an onus of proof is required and that proof is not there specifically, can the Chief Constable willy-nilly ignore the possible or probable danger to an individual or group of individuals?
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has intimated that this is incremental. Nothing in itself could be deemed to be of the utmost importance, but cumulatively there is an undermining of the interests and the safety of members of the police in carrying out their duties.
  The points we have raised in Amendments Nos. 53 and 56 are covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I beseech—if that is not too strong a word—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal to look to the interests of individual policemen and individual members of the law-abiding community so that none is endangered by the interest being swept away in generic terms or by omission.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a topic of great seriousness. It may be the most important aspect of our discussions at this stage. The debate has addressed all the issues relating to Clause 19. I do not say that in a chiding way, because the debate has been helpful. I hope the Committee will find it helpful—if not ultimately persuasive—if I address all the issues contained in these amendments.
  We need to see what the present state of the law is, what it would be if the amendment was passed, and what is the genesis of these changes. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, not being a lawyer, had the benefit of great economy because he simply asked the question why, which is always the cruellest question. I will try and deal with that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, developed the constitutional approach. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, then stressed the importance of reflecting on the possible dangers to individuals, whether in the Police Service of Northern Ireland or as he said at the end, law-abiding or non-law-abiding members of the community.
  If we begin at the beginning, the present power of the board and the present duty of the Chief Constable is to be found in Section 59, page 31, of the 2000 Act. What we see at the moment is that,
  "(1) The Chief Constable shall, whenever so required by the Board, submit to the Board a report on any such matter connected with the policing of Northern Ireland as may be specified in the requirement."

  GC 69
  Subsection (2)(a) is not to the point; subsection (2)(b) is, and has been overlooked.
  "A report under this section shall be made—
  (b) within the period of one month from the date on which that requirement is made or within such longer period as may be agreed between the Chief Constable and the Board."
  There is that margin of flexibility for the board to require the report to be made but for agreement then to follow between the Chief Constable and the board that perhaps three or six months might be a more appropriate period, rather than one month. It is very important to bear in mind that margin of flexibility which is allowed in Section 59.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Section 59 says "agreed" between the Chief Constable and the board. As an individual I am quite happy that if the board and the Chief Constable agree, then the Act does not have to be used to produce the information that may have been asked for. This is quite clear because the board has had instances of the police service not refusing to give information, but being slightly slow about doing so. We have discussed, for the future, how we would force them to do so if they ever refused. The answer is that we would cite the Act and that is when it would be cited. If we ask how many car accidents there have been in the last week, we do not say, "Under Clause 59 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 you will do this or we will take you to court". We ask for the information and it is given.
  We are talking about more sensitive information but let us say that the board is, in the Chief Constable's terms, not as reasonable as it is at the moment and asks him for information that he says it should not have. The board can go to the law and say, "You have to give it" and, under the terms of this, there must be agreement. However, there is no agreement and the statute is on the side of the board to interfere with an operational matter within the one-month period, regardless of whether it is deemed that that information would be detrimental in terms of solving a crime or carrying out the law. Therefore, this is important because the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 will only be brought in behind it if there is not an agreement. I accept completely and we really do agree with the Chief Constable over virtually everything, but this is brought out in case we do not. That is the point.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the noble Viscount has said reinforces the theme that I was about to develop. There is that flexibility in subsection (2)(b). He has already said, from his individual experience, that he was not speaking for the board, but there are accommodations between the Chief Constable and the board at the moment. That is the flexibility to which I am drawing attention. I will go on, if I may, immediately to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. The current exclusions in Section 59(3) are, "national security", because it "relates to an individual" and is of a "sensitive personal nature",
  GC 70
  because it "would prejudice proceedings", or because it would prejudice the "prevention or detection of crime", among other words.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that there is nothing there for the protection of the individual. However, he will find precisely that in our new formulation on page 11 of the new Bill. We have met his concerns, I hope. We all know that "national security" is a consideration. Another ground is,
  "the information is sensitive personnel information".
  That is a citation from Patten, in effect. Then there is the Maginnis point, which I put respectfully because it is a very good one:
  "or information the disclosure of which would be likely to put an individual in danger".
  We have improved the 2000 Act protection, which did not exist for an individual—the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis is quite right—and have specified the disclosure of information,
  "which would be likely to put an individual in danger".
  Thus, we have met the noble Lord's point for policemen or Army officers, for the law-abiding or not.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Will he just develop my point a little further and indicate whether "may" would not in fact give the level of individual safety that "would be likely" does not give? "Would be likely" requires a level of proof, at present undefined, as distinct from an instinct, a professional training or a professional opinion, which should be what governs that issue.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall address that point and am grateful for the noble Lord's courtesy. This is a judgment to be made by the Chief Constable, which does not require admissible evidence. It is the sort of judgment that every experienced police officer has to make day in and day out. It may be on unattributable intelligence or second-hand hearsay. It may be that the individual is in a category of those who might be liable to be attacked. It does not have to be specific to an individual; it may be general information. The Chief Constable has to decide on a professional basis, "I think that the disclosure of this is likely to put an individual in danger". I agree with the noble Lord that those are slightly different thresholds but it seems to me that this is about right, particularly as the Chief Constable then goes to the Secretary of State who has the final view.
  The question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is not dissimilar to the constitutionalist approach adopted by the noble and learned Lord. The answer to the question "Why?" is twofold: first, Patten; secondly, implementation. The answer to Patten is "Patten preceded the 2000 Act", which it did. However, my answer to that is that it was always the policy and, indeed, has been put into effect, that we would have a review and an updated Implementation Plan. That Implementation Plan, as I reminded noble

  GC 71
  Lords yesterday, was 2001. What do we find in Patten and what do we see in the Implementation Plan? We see in Patten at paragraph 6.22 on page 33:
  "We recommend that the Policing Board should have the power to require the Chief Constable to report on any issue pertaining to the performance of his functions or those of the police service".
  I shall read the next sentence reasonably slowly because it goes to the constitutional question,
  "The obligation to report should extend to explaining operational decisions".
  Those are not my words, they are not even the words of the Apocrypha; they are the words in paragraph 6.22 of Patten. I continue,
  "The grounds on which the Chief Constable might question this requirement should be strictly limited to issues such as those involving national security, sensitive personnel matters",
  I explained that earlier,
  "and cases before the courts".
  I pause to interrupt myself. When we deal with "personnel" rather than "personal", which I agree is somewhat arcane, we have also introduced the Maginnis protection for the individual. I shall not return to that as I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. Paragraph 6.22 continues,
  "We recommend that, if there is a disagreement between the Board and the Chief Constable over whether it is appropriate for a report to be provided … it should be for the Chief Constable to refer the question to the Secretary of State for a decision".
  That is paragraph 6.22 of Patten. I readily concede that it is not what was in the 2000 Act. However, the Implementation Plan is August 2001. We find there in the second paragraph on page 10, Recommendations 25 and 26. I do not omit anything wilfully or wrongly; noble Lords have it before them. It states:
  "The Policing Board should have the power, subject only to the same limitation set out in paragraph 6.22,
  the one I have just read,
  "to follow up any report from the Chief Constable by initiating an inquiry",
  and so forth. The two questions, "Why?" or, "Is this a constitutional aberration?" bring the answer from me that it is to be found in the Implementation Plan, half-way down page 10 in the bold type,
  "The Government intends, after the planned review, to remove the ground of appeal in Sections 59(3)(d) and 60(3)(d) and to substitute 'sensitive personnel' for 'sensitive personal' in Sections 59(3)(b) and 60(3)(b)".
  Then, turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, the Implementation Plan states specifically,
  "while adding a new definition which covers potentially vulnerable individuals whether police personnel or members of the public".
  I do not think that it could be plainer than that.
  Viscount Brookeborough: Will the noble and learned Lord give way?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Without being discourteous, it may be wiser if I finish what I have to say because I want to give as full an explanation as the importance of this issue requires.
  GC 72
  That is the genesis of this matter. The question of operational scrutiny is specifically dealt with in the Patten report:
  "The obligation to report should extend to explaining operational decisions".
  We have followed Patten but, in particular, post the 2000 Act and following the plan of August 2001, we have delivered in the Bill what we have accepted specifically as the Government's reply to recommendations 25 and 26. That is all I intended to say.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: We are all grateful for the care that the noble and learned Lord has taken. But he rests the justification upon Patten and upon the Implementation Plan, of which he has reminded us. Patten said at paragraph 6.22 on page 33:
  "The obligation to report should extend to explaining operational decisions".
  However, what is now being sought goes wider than that. The board is not limited to seeking a report that explains an operational decision; it is to be empowered to require a report, without the ability to refer to the Secretary of State, in circumstances where the Chief Constable believes that the report should not be made—we then turn to the language of paragraph (d) of Section 59(3) of the Act—
  "because it … would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
  At present, the law gives power to the Chief Constable to refer this issue or dispute to the Secretary of State in circumstances where he believes that the report should not be made or the inquiry should not be held, if we are going to take the second application of this, or, if it comes to it, when the ombudsman requires information. I believe I am correct in saying that the same principle applies on all three heads. At present, the law states that he can do that and refer the matter, but not impose a veto or refusal, because in his view it ought not to be made,
  "because it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders".
  That is far wider than the ambit of the wording referred to by the Secretary of State regarding the giving of an explanation of an operational decision. That was not only at the head and forefront of the issue, it was the whole guts of the justification put forward by the noble and learned Lord. I venture to say that, for once, it is intellectually flawed.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: No one wants to be guilty of selective quotations. Therefore, I read on in paragraph 6.22:
  "The grounds on which the Chief Constable might question this requirement"—
  in other words, the requirement to report on any issue pertaining to the performance of his functions—
  "should be strictly limited to issues such as those involving national security, sensitive personnel matters and cases before the courts".

  GC 73
  That is exactly the limitation in the Bill—cases before the courts, national security and sensitive personnel matters.
  That was in Patten before the 2000 Act. I do not want to be unduly repetitive to such a patient audience, but the Government said, after the updated Implementation Plan, that we were going to remove the ground of appeal and substitute "sensitive personnel" for "sensitive personal" and then cover the vulnerable individuals. There has been no secrecy here. It has been said that these are incremental changes—of course they are—and I would suggest that incremental changes are the wisest in the context of Northern Ireland because it is step by painful step and sometimes step by slow step. That is the justification.
  In the end, it comes to whether the board will be trusted to come to an agreement with the Chief Constable of the kind I described earlier. They could put it off for a period, by agreement, perhaps even up to a year, if they thought that was appropriate. Or, will the Chief Constable have this preliminary veto? The judgment has been made, but it certainly has not been made in a hole-in-the-corner way, because it has been published since August 2001. I recognise, as I implied earlier, that the noble and learned Lord's concerns may not be mollified and they may not be met. However, that is the stance that the Government have adopted and that is what we have delivered in this Bill.
  Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may put on record my feelings about this. First, we are all agreed—and even once or twice the Government in the Chamber have admitted—that Patten is not always right. I am not suggesting that what the noble and learned Lord has said is not correct. However, if you look at that in practical terms, as opposed to intellectual terms, the way that it goes is that a crime is committed. We are talking about an inquiry into an operation that is going on. A crime is committed and it is being investigated.
  The clauses restrict the board or allow the Chief Constable to refer it to the Secretary of State if the board wishes to inquire into that, while it is in the courts. That is subsection (2)(c) of the present Bill—in the courts. However, there is a period between the crime being committed and it being in the courts and that period is not excluded. All I would like to point out is that I do not believe that Patten wanted us, in the board, to be able to make inquiries that could prejudice the inquiry into a crime. Quite rightly, he says that we should not be allowed to make inquiries that might prejudice a case that is already in the courts. It is that simple fact. It is that hole and that gap in the practical process that would possibly, conceivably, permit a board to inquire at the wrong time. This could be prejudicial to the prevention or deterrence of crime.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept that description but, if one has a board with the powers and authority, which is intended to work with the Chief Constable, there is the opportunity for the Chief Constable to say,
  GC 74
  "Do not press me on the month—give me three or six months." He can then give the reasons privately. There is a gap here, which we are unlikely to bridge.
  Lord Glentoran: I must agree with the last words of the noble and learned Lord. I would like to make a few points here. First, the implementation paper, which I read some time ago, and Patten are not directly a part of the Belfast agreement. Although Patten was accepted in principle, it was not accepted verbatim—largely probably because, as I said yesterday, the context in which it was written does not pertain in Northern Ireland today and is not foreseeable today. So although I hear what the noble and learned Lord said about Patten and, some time back, read what is in the Implementation Plan—which was clearly a political document produced by the Government in an attempt to follow the demands of Sinn Fein/IRA to implement Patten more literally—I do not accept either of those as especially good reasons for accepting Patten word for word today.
  The Lord Privy Seal dwelt on relations between the Chief Constable and the board. If relations are good and free-flowing—as we hope that they always will be—it will almost always be unnecessary for either party to refer to the 2000 Act. The Bill should be written in the light of situations arising where harmony may not exist.
  Those are some philosophical points that I wanted to make. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has in his advocacy dealt far better than I could ever start to with constitutional issues and interference with operational capabilities of the Chief Constable. The Lord Privy Seal suggested that the amendment would give the Chief Constable a veto on producing a certain report or certain information. Indeed it would not.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that I said a veto at that stage.
  Lord Glentoran: I accept that. However, the point stands, that, albeit at that stage, it is still the Secretary of State whom we want to be able to make decisions on the issue.
  Finally, of course, it is incongruous in the United Kingdom that we should want to include in an Act of Parliament—or rather, leave out of an Act of Parliament in Westminster—a clause that would prevent operational interference on matters concerning the detection of crime, apprehension of criminals and the prosecution of offenders. That simply does not make sense, especially in Northern Ireland, but also elsewhere.
  I am not sure where we are in this debate technically. I know that I cannot divide the Committee. All that I can do at this stage is to thank the noble and learned Lord for the care that he has taken to argue the Government's case, but I cannot accept those arguments at this stage.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may respond in only a sentence. I tried to cover all the amendments to which Members of the Committee have spoken, including giving my response to clause stand part. I entirely anticipate that we shall return to the issue with some vim and vigour at our next meeting.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I had taken it that there might be an opportunity to say something on clause stand part, notwithstanding that we have very properly had a thorough go round the debate. I have read closely page 10 of the Implementation Plan. In parenthesis, we need to be careful not to elevate it into some holy script, any more than Patten. It is rather like govern ments—every government do it—saying, "Oh, well, it was in our manifesto". Time moves on and just occasionally there is some accretion of wisdom as the years roll by.
  Since I have referred to it, I want to read what I see at the top of page 10:
  "The Policing Board should have the power to require the Chief Constable to report on any issue pertaining to the performance of his functions or those of the police service. The obligation to report should extend to explaining operational decisions. If there is a disagreement between the Board and the Chief Constable over whether it is appropriate for a report to be provided on a particular matter, it should be for the Chief Constable to refer the question,"
  and so forth.
  I was stung by the implication that I had quoted selectively. I was referred to the Patten report, which, not surprisingly, precedes the implementation of Patten. The 2000 Act came after Patten. It is interesting that it should say,
  "The obligation to report should extend to explaining operational decisions",
  not to "inviting" an explanation for why a line of inquiry is being made against a particular suspect, not for going into the reasons for things which are happening at the present. That is the burden to which we shall return on Report.
  I notice that the noble and learned Lord has not alluded to the constitutional approach to this issue, save to mention the fact that I gave it that categorisation. Because the noble and learned Lord is considerate for our time and our patience, he has not alluded to the illustration that I gave that it provides a covert means of overturning the operational independence of the Chief Constable in those two particular respects.
  I hope the noble and learned Lord will take an early opportunity to reflect on that. I know as well as he does how important it is that that constitutional position should not be infringed.
  Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 51 to 59 not moved.]
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Disclosure of information and holding of inquiries]:
  Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 60:
  Page 12, line 2, leave out "adequate" and insert "full"
  The noble Baroness said: We have moved to Part 2 of the Bill, which is about police powers and specifically police support staff.
  The roles of the police support staff are important, particularly in such a sensitive area as policing in Northern Ireland. It is crucial that support staff continue to get the best support and training. This is one of the areas where policing suffered in the past.
  Training has always been the first area to be cut when budgets are under pressure. I would be most grateful for a full assurance that training will take on a much enhanced and central role in policing activities.
  The amendment is designed to get out of the Government what is meant by "adequate training" and how it compares to the training received by someone who will become a full constable. We need to know how long the training will be, how these people will be trained and what they will be trained in, and so forth. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the question behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris.
  We want to provide an assurance that a Chief Constable, on designating any person, has to ensure that that person has received the appropriate training fit for that purpose. The training will vary, of course, according to the particular function being carried out.
  In practice the Chief Constable will have to determine the level of training that is adequate to enable the person to undertake the duties and powers conferred on him. I believe that the Chief Constable is the best person to come to that conclusion. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, circumstances change and retraining may be necessary. It may be of comfort to the noble Baroness and to the Committee to be assured that the term "adequate training" is that which is found in Section 39(4)(c) of the Police Reform Act 2002.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I am grateful for that reassurance. However, as I stated, it is and has been the first thing to go when budgets are stretched. It is crucial that support staff are viewed in the same way as police officers and that their training is considered in the same way. I understand what the Minister said. I shall reflect on that and may come back later on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Powers exercisable by designated police support staff]:
  Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 61A:
  Page 21, line 33, leave out paragraph 13.
  The noble Baroness said: Given the police shortages on the streets and the public disorder problems that Northern Ireland has faced over the past months, we agree with the Government's plans to increase civilian staff where possible. Indeed, it is one of the criticisms in the latest report of the Oversight Commissioner that that has not yet been sufficiently implemented. We have heard of the severe difficulties surrounding this matter.
  The concerns we have relate to the powers that these officers will have. Article 56(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 states that unless someone of the rank of superintendent considers that it is not practicable, an intimate search shall be carried out by "a suitably qualified person". I assume that that relates to someone with some sort of medical qualification. If that is not practicable, the search shall be carried out by a constable.
  I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his letter of clarification on that point. However, Schedule 1(13) confers that power to a detention officer. That is different from what is proposed in Clause 24 of the Bill, which relates to people with suitable medical qualifications taking intimate samples. It is suggested that detention officers would have medical qualifications, and that the Bill simply gives them the powers of a constable. We can assume only that this is a presumption, as it is not on the face of the Bill nor in the 1989 order that under those circumstances a detention officer or constable would have medical qualifications. I need to be clear on whether or not detention officers will have medical qualifications. I would be grateful for the Minister's assurance on that point. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: In reply to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may go through the statutory scheme and give her an undertaking just before I conclude. Article 56(5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 sets out that an intimate search (other than one which is only a drug offence search) must be carried out either by a medical practitioner or a nurse registered as such under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997 unless an officer of at least the rank of superintendent concludes that that is not practicable.
  Article 56(6) states that if it is not practicable it shall be carried out by a constable. In either case the search has to be carried out by a person of the same sex as the person being searched. It is not the intention of the Bill to change those roles but to increase the powers of the nurses and doctors concerned. Nurses and doctors at the moment cannot call on constabulary powers where the use of reasonable force would be appropriate. Therefore, they are vulnerable to accusations of assault if carrying out an intimate search.
  GC 78
  The effect of allowing designated civilian detention officers to carry out such searches would be to allow a designated nurse or doctor to draw on constabulary powers when carrying out such a search. I give the undertaking that the noble Baroness was looking for: it is not the intention of the Bill that civilians other than doctors or nurses should be involved in this work. However, I concede that there is a proper case for re-examining the issue.
  I can tell the Committee that my officials are urgently considering with legal advisors whether there is a better way of expressing the matter. I know that the noble Baroness does not dissent from the conclusion that only nurses and doctors should be involved, and I am actively engaged in having the matter researched. I hope to be able to report further when we come to the next stage of the Bill in the Chamber.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reassurance and I look forward to seeing his report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 23, line 39, at end insert "whom he reasonably suspects to be in possession of an object that is likely to cause harm or injury"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendments in this group are similar to ones that we tabled in the Police Reform Act last year. Again, in principle, we have no objections to escort officers, but we are concerned that they should have a power of search. Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 would limit the power to the circumstances that we describe in the amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I recognise that concern. Schedule 1 relates to provisions in Clause 20. As I said, the powers are similar to those made available in England and Wales through the Police Reform Act 2002. The schedule allows escort officers to have the same powers as a constable under paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 55 of the 1989 order. They allow a non-intimate search to be undertaken where the person has with him anything that he could use to interfere with evidence or to assist him to escape.
  The carrying out of such a search under the provisions of the 1989 order is not subject to any requirement for reasonable suspicion that such an object is in the detained person's possession. The restriction is not appropriate because it may be necessary to search detainees in order to ensure the protection of the individual and to prevent any of the items listed in Article 55 from being retained. It is the case that reasonable specific suspicion will not necessarily exist in individual cases.
  I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness. If it does not, I am perfectly content, should it be helpful, to arrange a meeting between officials and the noble

  GC 79
  Baroness and any Member of the Committee who might be interested. I believe that the explanations are clear and they are justified. But I realise that they are rather technical and I am perfectly happy to offer that meeting.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: Again, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for his offer of a meeting, which I readily accept. In the meantime, because of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 27, leave out lines 15 and 16.
  The noble and learned Lord said: I promise not to tease officials, who are extraordinarily patient. This amendment is in my name and the instruction that I have is to resist my own amendment. I did give them warning. The amendment would simply make a minor change to correct an error in the original drafting. The same point arose in relation to Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at four minutes past six o'clock.

  Prisoners: Mental Health Care
  Prisoners: Mental Health Care
  Custody Plus Scheme
  Custody Plus Scheme
  Prison Service Rules and Regulations
  Prison Service Rules and Regulations
  Firearms Register
  Firearms Register
  Crimes of Violence in the West End
  Crimes of Violence in the West End
  Immigration Detainees
  Immigration Detainees
  Deer Management on Exmoor
  Deer Management on Exmoor
  Hunting Bill: Background Research
  Hunting Bill: Background Research
  Hunting Bill: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
  Hunting Bill: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
  St Andrews Golf Club
  St Andrews Golf Club
  NHS: Delayed Discharge and Emergency Re-admission
  NHS: Delayed Discharge and Emergency Re-admission
  Diabetes National Service Framework Delivery Strategy
  Diabetes National Service Framework Delivery Strategy
  Free Prescriptions and Tax Credits
  Free Prescriptions and Tax Credits
  Irish Government: Respect for Traditions
  Irish Government: Respect for Traditions
  Belfast Agreement
  Belfast Agreement
  Irish Government: Human Rights Commission
  Irish Government: Human Rights Commission
  Ireland: Reference to the Two States
  Ireland: Reference to the Two States
  Northern Ireland: Learning Disabilities
  Northern Ireland: Learning Disabilities
  North/South Ministerial Council: Equality Scheme
  North/South Ministerial Council: Equality Scheme
  Use of Irish in Official Business Guidance
  Use of Irish in Official Business Guidance
  Northern Ireland: Weston Park Discussions
  Northern Ireland: Weston Park Discussions
  Northern Ireland: Post-primary Arrangements
  Northern Ireland: Post-primary Arrangements
  Belfast Agreement: Cross-Border Bodies
  Belfast Agreement: Cross-Border Bodies
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Belfast Agreement: Implementation Bodies
  Belfast Agreement: Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland: Linguistic Diversity
  Northern Ireland: Linguistic Diversity
  North/South Ministerial Council: Reports and Statements
  North/South Ministerial Council: Reports and Statements
  Northern Ireland: Language Implementation Body
  Northern Ireland: Language Implementation Body
  North/South Ministerial Council: Terminology
  North/South Ministerial Council: Terminology
  North/South Ministerial Council: Suspension of Assembly
  North/South Ministerial Council: Suspension of Assembly
  Government Policy Statements 1997–2001
  Government Policy Statements 1997–2001
  Ulster-Scots Agency Interim Chief Executive
  Ulster-Scots Agency Interim Chief Executive
  Northern Ireland: Digital Hearing Aids
  Northern Ireland: Digital Hearing Aids
  Waterways Ireland: Canal Development
  Waterways Ireland: Canal Development
  Saints and Scholars Integrated Primary School
  Saints and Scholars Integrated Primary School
  Waterways Ireland: Date of Establishment
  Waterways Ireland: Date of Establishment
  Central African Republic: Assistance to HIV Sufferers
  Central African Republic: Assistance to HIV Sufferers
  Belfast Agreement: Letter from Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Committee
  Belfast Agreement: Letter from Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Committee
  Management of Private Office Papers
  Management of Private Office Papers