Sitting of 20 January 2003

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

  Court-Based Drug Workers
  Linda Perham: What support his Department provides for court-based drug workers.[91422]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): All police forces in England and Wales have arrest referral schemes, some of which include court-based schemes. We are providing up to £6 million in matched funding for the police towards the costs.
  The Government's new comprehensive programme of criminal justice interventions, which was outlined in the updated drug strategy, includes the enhancement of existing arrest referral schemes. Police forces and drug
  2
  action teams will be encouraged to extend coverage to the courts as well as to custody suites. Funding to support that will be announced shortly.
  Linda Perham: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that Redbridge magistrates court was the first London court to appoint a court-based drug worker? He has engaged with 150 offenders in each of the last three years and has seen more than half of them move into detox, rehab or treatment. Funding for the scheme also comes from the Redbridge drug action team. Can my hon. Friend assure us that such initiatives will be continued to help break the link between drugs and crime?
  Mr. Ainsworth: We intend not only to continue but to enhance such schemes and improve their ability to get offenders into drug treatment. That approach is in marked contrast to that of the Conservatives, who would not go ahead with those enhancements but would instead spend the money on residential rehabilitation, whether or not it was appropriate.
  Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware of the strong link between drugs and the use of alcohol on the streets by under-age persons? Why, therefore, did the Government last year remove the power of the police to take unopened bottles and cans of alcohol away from young people on the streets? When will the Government perform a humiliating climbdown and reverse that change so that the police can once again have that power?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide of the question before us.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend the Minister made a positive statement, but where drug action teams are in place, could we remove frustration by ensuring that there will be more detox centres and

  3
  that when people appear before the courts they go straight into such centres? There would thus be less crime on the streets.
  Mr. Ainsworth: Dealing with drug addiction is not straightforward. Different treatments are provided for different people in different circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that should continue. Detox is appropriate immediately for some people, but only after a period of time for others. One needs to establish contact with people and to settle them, if they are especially chaotic, before even moving towards detoxification. Getting people into treatment in the first place has a dramatic effect on the rates of crime committed by drug addicts.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: But does the Minister not recognise that there is a huge difference between Ministers' rhetoric about this matter and the reality of what happens on the ground? As his hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and others, including the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) in his earlier question, have stressed, there needs to be not only contact between addicts and drug workers or treatment centres but intensive rehabilitation.
  The Government's problem is that they are sending all the wrong signals. Drug-addicted burglars are being told that they will not be sent to prison, and drug addicts with a serious problem who are responsible for such crimes are not being given the rehabilitation that they need. The Government's policy is failing, yet all the Minister has said today is "jam tomorrow"—too little, too late.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will challenge the fact that drug treatment has been growing at about 8 per cent. a year. It is not merely a case of throwing money at the problem; we have to train people and give them skills because they simply do not exist. Why not? I suggest that it is, to some extent, because the Conservatives wholly ignored the problem for so long. We had to bring in the first drug strategy—in 1998. Our enhancements will improve it. We are building on the work that has already been done in order to tackle a very real problem. There are no simplistic solutions, such as getting a few people into residential rehabilitation and abandoning the rest, as the Conservatives, in effect, suggest.

  Police (Sussex)
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: What proposals he has to increase police numbers in Sussex.[91423]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): The Sussex police force was allocated 206 recruits from the crime fighting fund for the three years to March 2003.
  4
  The provisional grant settlement for 2003–04 provides Sussex with an additional £90,000 from the crime fighting fund for further additional officers. We estimate that that will allow an increase of up to a further 16 officers by the end of 2003–04.
  Mr. Waterson: Is the Minister aware that those figures are dwarfed by the £9.6 million loss that the Sussex police authority calculates will arise from the grant distribution changes? Is he also aware that the chief constable of Sussex has made it clear that even the modest of target of getting back to the number of police officers in Sussex in 1997 is being jeopardised by the Government's policies? Why are the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other?
  Hilary Benn: I do not accept that that is the case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that the total force strength in Sussex is 4,400 officers and support staff, compared with 3,935 in 1992—the year in which the hon. Gentleman was first elected to the House. That is an increase of 12 per cent. This year, in line with all authorities, the force is getting a budget increase of 3 per cent. plus an additional £5.86 million from the crimefighting fund, £90,000 for new recruits, £550,000 for policing rural areas, £180,000 for community support officers and £735,000 to help with the cost of recruitment.
  Mr. Waterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That answer was so unsatisfactory that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Because of that point of order, I must go on to the next Question.

  Refugee Resettlement
  Laura Moffatt: If he will make a statement on his plans to develop a refugee resettlement programme with the UNHCR. [91424]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): From the spring, we will begin a new programme, organised with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which will screen applicants for asylum in regions of the world where people are experiencing the threat of death or torture. We will initially take 500 refugees, rising to a larger number as we develop the programme—thereby preventing people having to present through the use of smugglers, traffickers and organised criminals.
  Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system allows those with some money in refugee camps to take advantage of smugglers and ignores the fact that people with no money are left in desperate situations? Does he further agree that it is wrong to cause disturbances in our communities and constituencies by linking terrorism with such

  5
  programmes, attacking the Government and jumping on the bandwagon—which creates an enormous problem in all our communities?
  Mr. Blunkett: I well understand the genuine worries and concerns that exist in many communities with regard to the terrorist threat, together with the concerns raised in the media about whether our screening process for persons entering his country— whether or not they are asylum seekers—is adequate. Screening people outside this country through the new UN programme and the moving of border controls from the Kent coast to France—and to Belgium and Holland in future—will secure our borders, protect our population and, I hope, assist in meeting genuine concerns while damping down the danger of the asylum issue being whipped up—which can do no good to race relations in this country.
  Simon Hughes: Does the Home Secretary agree that as we honour our international obligations to accept and deal with asylum seekers, paradoxically it is easier to deal with any who might be concerned with terrorism because of our right to refuse people with that background entry into this country—and to send them out of the country if they are a threat to national security under the Geneva convention and the treaties? To make sure that we continue to generate more light than heat, as I know the Home Secretary wants to do, will he look again at the proposal that I and others have made for a European refugee agency, to take decisions independently of government but most importantly, to make sure that responsibility is shared across the European Union in a proportionately fair manner for the refugees that come to us?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am concerned to have a system that works, and the establishment of a European agency may not be the right way of achieving one. However, I am totally committed to European co-operation, burden sharing and a system that makes like-for-like comparisons. I am particularly keen to develop, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, a system outside this country—such as the new UN programme and border and security controls on the French, Belgian and Dutch coasts—that prevents traffickers getting people into this country and precludes persons from claiming asylum once they have reached our shores. However, it behoves us all to remember the difficulty that both Houses encountered in getting through new measures that allow us to turn around and remove from the country persons with a clearly unfounded claim. I hope that anyone who raised objections in whatever form to sending people back to their country of origin will not in this House or in what they write and speak about publicly commit the sin of having said one thing when we were legislating and quite another on the back of media campaigns.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: On refugees, will my right hon. Friend undertake a root and branch investigation into how the Coniston hotel in my constituency was selected by the National Asylum
  6
  Support Service as a reception centre, not least given that it was only acquired today but is due to open next Monday?
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has made it clear today that the procedure and process by which this matter was handled was unsatisfactory and that she has undertaken immediately to put in place a review. She is examining the contractual arrangements and why the letter sent by the local authority chief executive on 3 October last was not replied to. All those matters display an incompetence about which our Administration are doing something, as I have explained in the House before, but, with the new director general of the immigration and nationality directorate, we require a step change in the way that that directorate relates to local communities, responds to local Members of Parliament and displays its competence in dealing with these sensitive issues.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: As the Government are to admit refugees under the new United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gateway system—I have absolutely no objection to that—will the Home Secretary ensure that no refugee should come from any of the 44 countries of the Council of Europe? I say that for the simple reason that those countries subscribe to the European Court of Human Rights and, if they transgress any human right, the Government ought to take that up, through the ECHR, with the country concerned.
  Mr. Blunkett: We took the power in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to ensure that we could list the countries that we believe to be safe. Initially, for those seeking access to the European Union from next year, I am prepared to widen that list, and I hope that I will have the support of whole House in doing so. I am deeply mindful of those who have signed up to the European convention on human rights being committed to human rights and being prepared to display their own commitment to them. I want to make it clear, however, that no EU country has derogated or withdrawn from article 3, because none could, nor has any country denounced the ECHR by leaving it altogether, and those newspapers and those reporters and commentators who have suggested otherwise are simply wrong.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: The whole House hears what the Home Secretary has to say about refugees and asylum seekers—many of us would share those sentiments—but what hope can he give to those asylum seekers in this country who will now find themselves destitute as a consequence of the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002?
  Mr. Blunkett: My suggestion would be that people in those circumstances have completely failed in their claim, or failed to claim when they first entered the country. In both cases, they have a choice of leaving the country and going back home. If they had been refugees with an immediate and overriding asylum claim, if they had not got an income or other support or if they had

  7
  not entered the country on an alternative visa or visitor pass, of course they would be dealt with entirely differently, but those who have sustained themselves in another fashion and treated the asylum process as a social security benefits system will get short shrift.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: In the light of the Home Secretary's important and rational responses this afternoon, does he now accept what he seemed reluctant to accept a few days ago—that it is legitimate to raise the links between the terrorist threat and the deficiencies in our immigration and asylum system?
  Mr. Blunkett: It is legitimate for people to raise the issue of the screening of those who come into this country and are resident in this country. Therefore, it is right to ensure that the warning index, which flags up the dangers in relation to particular individuals coming in, is strengthened. The other measures—the co-ordinator who started work last Monday on the range of border control services, the shifting of the border to France for immigration and security, and the introduction of technology both at those new borders and at our ports and airports to enable us to screen those coming in—are also right. What is not right is for people constantly to imply, sometimes behind their hands, that there is a major problem with asylum seekers as opposed to a major problem with those who threaten life and limb. Screening all those who pose a potential danger is therefore the issue with which we are dealing. Anyone who pretends that we can find a simple and easy answer, any more than other countries have done, not only deludes themselves and those around them but unnecessarily whips up scares that can do no good in terms of our security measures and every harm to our community and race relations, which are often fragile and could easily tip over into a situation that we could not control.
  Mr. Letwin: I think I take that as a modified yes. Does the Home Secretary therefore also accept that it may be time to consider in a calm and rational fashion whether the UK should build on his idea of a UNHCR resettlement programme, which we welcome, and adopt a radically different approach to the handling of the whole refugee question?
  Mr. Blunkett: The purpose of the whole Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was fought through with considerable difficulty here and in another place, demonstrated that we wanted an end-to-end change in our approach. That is the reason for the change to the French, Belgian and Dutch borders, the setting up of induction and screening centres, the reporting facility, the new ID cards for asylum seekers, the change to the work permit visa system to allow people to come here to work legitimately and to be welcomed in doing so, and the increased screening to which I have referred for all those coming into the country. Until we have an entitlement or ID card for all those in our country we will not have a robust way of determining true identity or right to work. I hope that the House and my colleagues will be prepared to debate that in the months ahead.
  Ms Karen Buck: My right hon. Friend is aware that refugees
  8
  from Iraq form the largest proportion of asylum seekers in this country. As someone whose constituency has a large Iraqi population, I can tell him that security checks on a number of those applicants take at least a year and are extremely rigorous. Will he assure me that at the same time as cracking down on the minority who abuse the asylum system, he will send a strong message to the community that the vast majority of asylum seekers from Iraq are fleeing terror, not seeking to propagate it?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I will. I hope that it takes much less than a year to conduct screening, particularly of those who are on the warning index, which should he done immediately. I take the point in terms of thorough vetting, which is a prolonged and time-consuming process, and cannot just be dismissed by easy, glib headlines about what should and should not be done. I appeal to people—including those who write in our newspapers whose family arrived in this country fleeing persecution because of the open door that we had available at the time, and who have their well-being and freedom as a result—to pause before denying that right to others today.

  Rural Policing Fund
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: How many representations he has received on the allocation of rural funding to police forces in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.[91425]
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): We received many responses to our consultation on the police funding formula last summer. As a result of that consultation, we decided to retain the rural policing fund, from which police authorities in sparsely populated areas will share £30 million. I have received three representations since we announced that decision.
  Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does not the standstill budget allocated to semi-rural police forces such as that in north Wales ignore the current inflation rate and the fact that there is likely to be a huge increase in fuel costs before long? Along with the hike in insurance premiums recently, that means a real cut in funding. Will he reconsider the budget as it is creating difficulties for semi-rural police forces?
  Mr. Denham: There is not a standstill budget in north Wales or anywhere else. There was a 4.6 per cent. increase in funding in north Wales through the police grant, and that is well ahead of inflation and ahead of the average for England and Wales as a whole. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has 137 more police officers today than it did in 1997.
  Mr. Graham Allen: In the context of the Nottinghamshire police force, will my right hon. Friend take this first opportunity to associate himself with the views of Nottinghamshire Members of Parliament from all parties who have expressed their grief and, indeed, anger at the death on duty of a serving officer, PC Ged Walker, last week? It is a matter of great concern to members of the public and to people of all

  9
  political persuasions in Nottinghamshire that this should be the last incident of this sort. I hope thatmy right hon. Friend will take this opportunity to put his views on the record.
  Mr. Denham: I am very pleased to join my hon. Friend and all Nottinghamshire Members of Parliament in paying tribute to PC Ged Walker, who was killed as a result of the serious head injuries sustained while being dragged along by a stolen car. His death underlines yet again the difficult and dangerous job that we ask our police officers to do for us. Our thoughts go to his family and to his friends.
  Mr. James Paice: I associate the Opposition with the Minister's remarks.
  Many forces who apply for, and some who receive, special rural funding moneys are not in the extremities of the British Isles but in the south-east. Is the Minister aware—I know that he is—of the serious problems facing many forces, including rural ones, as a result of their losing qualified and trained officers to the Metropolitan police force because of the higher salaries, travel allowances and so on that it can pay? Is it true that the Minister has recommended to some chief officers that they should use the special priority payments figure of 1 per cent. of payroll to pay some sort of allowance so as to retain officers? If that is the case, will he tell the House whether he has abandoned the idea of special priority payments? If it is not the case, can he tell the House what proposals he has to help to narrow the gap between the terms of employment offered by the Metropolitan police and by the other forces in the south-east who are suffering seriously from officers transferring to the Metropolitan police?
  Mr. Denham: The House will understand why officers are being attracted to the Metropolitan police. In the past year and for the first time in many years, the Metropolitan police has been a net importer of police officers. Traditionally, the Met has recruited and exported police officers. One of the major reasons why the expansion in numbers in the Metropolitan police has taken place is its recruitment of additional officers, not least to strengthen its counter-terrorism service, which in practice provides a service across the country as a whole.
  There are issues with a number of the south-east forces. I met chief constables and their representatives before Christmas and I am due to meet them again in the next couple of weeks when I expect to receive further proposals from them. There is nothing wrong with using special priority payments to assist with the retention of police officers, and the guidance and criteria published by the Police Negotiating Board made it clear that that was one of the factors to be taken into account.

  Heroin-Misusing Offenders
  John Mann: What assessment he has made of the likely impact of custody plus and custody minus sentences upon the reoffending levels of heroin-misusing offenders.[91426]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): The new sentences of
  10
  custody plus and custody minus have been designed to enable courts to tailor sentencing decisions to the needs of the offender, including applying drugs treatment and rehabilitation requirements as appropriate.
  John Mann: Does the Minister agree that a more detailed evaluation of success is possible if carried out on a geographically stable population of drug misusers?
  Hilary Benn: I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on this issue, which I know is greatly admired by Members on both sides of the House. I agree that if we are to assess the effectiveness of the vastly increased resources that we are going to put into drug treatment, about which we had a good debate a week ago today, it is important that we do so in all kinds of communities, including those such as my hon. Friend's, whose particular characteristics have given rise to his understandable concern.
  Angela Watkinson: Given the escalating number of heroin-using offenders, escalating demand for heroin treatment and the fact that the vast majority of heroin addicts started on cannabis, will the Home Secretary reconsider the relaxation of the law on cannabis?
  Hilary Benn: No is what I would tell the hon. Lady, for the simple reason that that change has flowed from police practice over many years. Police officers say clearly in their advice to us that they wish to be able to concentrate on dealing with the most dangerous drugs, including heroin, to which she referred.
  Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend concur with the proposition that effective probation services can help to reduce the reoffending rate of heroin users? Will he therefore undertake to investigate the proposed closure of the Lewis road probation service workshops in my constituency, as that service is valued locally?
  Hilary Benn: I will gladly look into the details of the case that my hon. Friend has raised. On his general point, he is entirely right that the probation service has an important role to play, and is making a major contribution to the drug treatment and testing orders, which are proving to be successful.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Minister will agree that many heroin users commit burglary to fund their addiction. In that context, the Home Secretary said in response to the further final clarification by the Lord Chief Justice on burglary sentences:
  "I am pleased he has clarified that, not least that those who have committed a multiplicity of crimes, including other crimes than burglary, will not simply be let off, nor will they in terms of second or subsequent offences, expect to get, albeit a tough community sentence, but instead to get custody, I think that is the right signal, and I'm very glad to have clarified that."
  What did he mean?
  Hilary Benn: The Home Secretary meant precisely what the hon. Gentleman has read out. If he is having difficulty understanding my right hon. Friend's words, the position is simply this—my right hon. Friend, the

  11
  Lord Chief Justice in his clarification and others have said that repeat offenders who burgle for the first time should expect custody, because the public rightly will not understand or accept that repeat offenders who turn to burglary should expect to be treated in any other way.

  Travellers
  Colin Burgon: What measures he will take to simplify the procedure for the removal of travellers from unauthorised sites.[91427]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): We are introducing new powers of eviction to allow the police to take firm action against unauthorised encampments where local authorities have made adequate site provision without the preconditions in current legislation.
  Colin Burgon: I thank the Minister for his reply. My question arose directly from my experiences of three visits by travellers to Allerton Bywater in my constituency, which caused great concern among local people. When the travellers finally departed, they left the place a tip. Will my hon. Friend make sure that the various organisations responsible for implementing the law are fully aware of their powers and use them effectively?
  Mr. Wills: I am aware of the problems that my hon. Friend has had in his constituency, which are shared by many Members on both sides of the House and are precisely why we are introducing those new powers. We will make sure that they are widely publicised and used, because that sort of behaviour is intolerable and it will not be tolerated.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for his Department's willingness to meet the town clerk of Totton and Eling town council in my constituency who has been co-ordinating efforts to improve procedures for dealing with travellers in our part of Hampshire. As I understand it, the new powers that will be granted to make removal easier are contingent on the provision of sites for travellers by town councils. Will the Minister issue planning guidelines to adjust current restrictions on planning that make it difficult for town and parish councils to supply those sites, given normal restrictions on planning procedures; otherwise, with the best will in the world, councils may want to supply the sites, but be prevented from doing so by the restrictions on planning?
  Mr. Wills: We will look at all those aspects, including the planning guidelines, in the light of experience. There are existing powers to deal with such encampments; the problem is that it is difficult to deal with them quickly enough. That is what the new powers will do. We need to provide somewhere for the unauthorised encampments to go; otherwise they will simply take the
  12
  problem somewhere else. That is why there is the link with local sites. We are providing extra funding. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minster is trying to find—
  Dr. Lewis: Planning guidance?
  Mr. Wills: I am coming to that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman should be a little patient. We need to provide extra funding. The ODPM, which has responsibility for the matter, is doing that. We are determined to make the problem go away, and we will not rest until it does. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.

  Street Wardens
  Martin Linton: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of street wardens.[91428]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): As my hon. Friend is aware, there are three centrally funded warden schemes. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister retains overall responsibility for them, although many of the issues surrounding them fall to the Home Office as the lead Department. All the schemes are relatively new, so robust evaluations are not yet available. However, the preliminary work that has been done suggests that such schemes can contribute significantly to bringing down levels of crime, reducing antisocial behaviour and reducing fear of crime.
  Martin Linton: Is the Minister aware that a Government-funded street warden scheme has already had a dramatic effect on reducing crime in Clapham junction—reducing crime overall by 13 per cent., compared with 4 per cent. borough-wide; reducing street crime by 32 per cent., compared with 20 per cent. borough-wide; reducing car crime by 40 per cent., compared with 7 per cent. borough-wide; and reducing the fear of crime by 60 per cent., according to a Wandsworth council survey, compared with the target given to the scheme of reducing fear of crime by 10 per cent? Given the success of these initial schemes, will the Minister do all he can to increase the number of community support schemes in areas like the London borough of Wandsworth?
  Mr. Wills: Yes, I am well aware of the success of the scheme in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am also aware of how hard he has campaigned and lobbied to make sure not only that the scheme is implemented, but that it is adequately funded. As a result, even Wandsworth borough council, which is no political friend of the Government, as the House is aware, recognises how successful the scheme has been. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can to make sure that those successes are replicated throughout the country.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Minister make sure that such schemes are extended much more widely in the outer London boroughs, which have a serious problem with vandalism and unruly behaviour on the part of young people? Has he received

  13
  any report yet from the Metropolitan Commissioner about the success of police community support officers in the central zone?
  Mr. Wills: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be replicating the schemes. Their success is evident and we will make sure that both they and the community support officers to whom he refers do the job that they are intended to do—to reduce crime, to reduce fear of crime and to reduce antisocial behaviour.

  Youth Offending
  Dr. Hywel Francis: What measures he is taking to tackle persistent youth offending.[91429]
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): We have introduced a range of measures, which have cut reconviction rates for young offenders by 14.6 per cent. compared with those for 1997.
  Dr. Francis: The Minister will know of the success of Neath and Port Talbot crime and disorder partnership in achieving the first interim antisocial behaviour orders in the whole of Wales. Will he join me in congratulating the partnership on its proactive approach, particularly the local police and the local authority? Will he also consider providing additional funding for youth offending teams, and explore ways in which magistrates can be given all the information that they require as to why antisocial behaviour orders are being applied for, by considering evidence over a 12-month period, rather than over six months, as at present?
  Mr. Denham: I certainly congratulate the Neath and Port Talbot crime reduction partnership on making such early use of the new measures that were introduced last summer in the Police Reform Act 2002. There is already clear evidence to show that interim antisocial behaviour orders are enabling people to respond very quickly to problems in local communities.
  The six-month rule arises from underlying magistrates legislation rather than the antisocial behaviour order legislation. Let me make two points: first, we have changed the guidance, which should now make it easier and faster to bring ASBO cases to court; and secondly, it is possible to use evidence collected before the six-month period as background information when an ASBO is sought. With those things in mind, I think that antisocial behaviour orders are now much quicker and more flexible and adaptable than before.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that one persistent nuisance from persistent young offenders is graffiti? Why do the courts appear to be making so little use of the powers that Parliament has given them to require offenders to clear up graffiti? Does that reflect the low priority that they and perhaps the Government accord to the problem?
  Mr. Denham: That certainly does not take anything away from the priority that the Government accord the problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will publish
  14
  a White Paper on antisocial behaviour in the very near future, with a view to introducing legislation in this Session.
  The response made in the courts varies from one part of the country to another. There is no doubt that where good efforts have been made to involve magistrates and magistrates' clerks in understanding local priorities for tackling antisocial behaviour, we have had much better support from the courts. I urge every crime reduction partnership to ensure that it has included the Court Service fully in understanding the nature of local problems and the measures that are being taken to tackle them.

  Lunar House
  Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on measures he proposes to improve the administration of Lunar House in Croydon.[91430]
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): Substantial progress has been made in some areas, and as the Home Secretary said earlier, we expect to see a radical transformation this year in the operation and efficiency of the immigration and nationality directorate. We are pursuing a range of measures including the provision of additional resources and implementation of new processes to tackle backlogs and improve the handling of immigration and asylum applications, as well as correspondence.
  Andrew Mackinlay: We are agreed about one thing: it can only get better. Why has it taken so long to address this problem? I have been in the House for 10 years and I know that the experience of all Members of Parliament is that documents are lost, letters are not replied to and decisions are sent to the wrong people. I give the Minister notice that, in six months' time, I shall try to raise the same question again—and there had better be improvements or there will be one hell of a bloody row.
  Beverley Hughes: I can tell my hon. Friend that there has been progress. I share his frustration about the time that it is taking to sort out a situation that was in almost catastrophic meltdown when we took over in 1997. I should like to give him some examples, as I am not being complacent about the issue. The time taken to make an initial decision in asylum cases in 1997 was nearly two years. In 75 per cent. of cases, that time is now down to two months. Some 4,800 people were removed having failed in their applications in 1997. The number will be 13,000 this year. There is progress and it is steady. We would like it to be faster, but we clearly have a much more orderly and effective system that we ever had in 1997. I assure him that further measures are in place to improve on that situation and bring about the well managed, routinely organised and administratively efficient system that we undoubtedly need, and I will welcome the opportunity to report to him in future.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I apologise for using the vernacular, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. James Clappison: The Minister has just told us that 13,000 people were removed last year because they had made unfounded asylum claims. How many asylum applicants had their applications refused last year and were therefore liable to be removed?
  Beverley Hughes: I have not got that figure in my head, but many thousands were refused last year. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the figure that I cited earlier: fewer than 5,000 people were removed in 1997. We have put in place the resources to tackle the undoubted difficulty of removing people. As someone who has been involved with the Home Office and now serves on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Gentleman should know the difficulties. We are dealing with them robustly; we have increased the number of removals year by year, and we will continue to do that.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am sure that the Minister knows that all too frequently people receive letters from the Home Office that state that they will receive permission to stay in the United Kingdom, or win an asylum appeal, but they are still waiting for the official status letter six months later. In the meantime, they have to survive on no income and are unable to get a job. Why is it impossible to send the official status letter as soon as the decision is made, instead of a letter that states, "You will be getting the official letter"?
  Beverley Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a matter not simply of the official letter but of ensuring that, at the point of final refusal, people are encouraged and helped to leave; and that if they do not leave, they are forced to do so. We are pursuing all the means that we can to maximise the potential for voluntary removals. When people will not go voluntarily, we must enforce their removal.

  Police (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the financial settlement to Gloucestershire constabulary for the forthcoming financial year.[91432]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): My right hon. Friend the Police Minister announced the provisional police funding settlement for English police authorities on 5 December 2002. Gloucestershire police authority is provisionally set to receive a general grant of £57 million—an increase of 3 per cent. Gloucestershire is also provisionally set to receive up to £2.33 million through the crimefighting fund, £780,000 in rural grant, and £190,000 towards the cost of the airwave communications system. Gloucestershire is therefore
  16
  provisionally set to receive an increase of 3.5 per cent. We expect to announce the final funding settlement on 5 February.
  Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed response. However, I had a one-and-a-half hour meeting with the chief constable on Friday and he said that the money for Gloucestershire is sufficient to cover only the increase in pay that has been awarded and the increase in national insurance that the Government have forced on the authority. The chief constable asked me to ask the Minister how on earth he can be expected to finance the extra work in the national policing plan.
  Why did the Minister state in a written answer to me on 30 October that he intended
  "to provide sufficient resources to support Gloucestershire … in maintaining stable levels of service", [Official Report, 30 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 845W.]
  when cuts will have to made in the force unless there is a 55 per cent. increase in the local precept?
  Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman has missed out a statistic in his full and detailed question. Gloucestershire police are at record numbers. I remind him that in the last five years of Conservative Government, the number of police officers in Gloucestershire declined by 41. Under this Government, there are 50 more police officers than in 1997. The extra money is being spent on more police officers to fight and reduce the fear of crime. The Conservative Government signally failed to do that.
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: May I reassure my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) omitted more than one statistic? On 23 December, £180,000 was announced for providing video interview and rape examination suites in Gloucestershire. Our current police force comprises 1,183 officers, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. That is far more police than we ever had in Gloucestershire previously. When the Conservative party was in power—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for the Minister to reply to such matters.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Chris Bryant: How much (a) crack cocaine and (b) heroin have been seized by the police each year since 1997.[91433]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth):: The most recent data available show that the amount of heroin seized increased threefold and that that of cocaine increased nearly fivefold between 1997 and 2000. In the same period, the amount of crack cocaine seized fell. The updated drug strategy contains specific measures for high crime areas where crack is often a significant part of the problem.
  Mr. Bryant: I know that my hon. Friend will be aware of the terrible scourge that heroin represents in constituencies such as my own, in which 28 deaths have been caused by heroin overdoses in the last 18 months.

  17
  I know that he will also want to congratulate all the officers involved in Operation Tarian, which has been particularly successful in seizing heroin and crack cocaine in the south Wales valleys over the last six months. Is he aware, however, of the concern being expressed by many local police officers that there is not strong co-operation between the different police forces in south Wales or with the Avon and Somerset police force? Does he agree that co-operation is essential if we are to ensure that drugs do not sweep through from Bristol into the south Wales valleys?
  Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right to flag up that difficulty. Operation Tarian was funded partly by the Home Office to the tune of £500,000 a year, to provide exactly the cross-border co-operation that is needed between the three police forces in question. When providing that money, we said that it would be essential that those forces should not only co-operate with one another to deal with the very real problem that exists in south and mid-Wales but work closely with police in Avon and Somerset and the west midlands. The middle market, as we call it, into south Wales is often routed through Birmingham or Bristol, and the problem cannot be dealt with in isolation.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: As a matter of interest, has the Minister considered how much money the Treasury would have made out of charging VAT on the heroin and crack cocaine that has been seized, and what value that money could have provided in terms of the treatment of addicts and the reduction of crime?
  Mr. Ainsworth: That is not a calculation that I have immediately in my head. The hon. Lady should consider, also as a matter of interest, the size of the public health problem that we might have if we went down the road that she is suggesting. The prevalence of the use of class A drugs is nothing like what it could be if we implemented the policies that she is, in effect, expounding.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that concentrating on cutting off the demand for illicit drugs is far more important than concentrating on their seizure, and that concentrating too much on seizure might have the perverse effect of raising street prices and, consequently, of increasing crime?
  Mr. Ainsworth: Both are important. I think that my hon. Friend would recognise that we have tried, in the updated drugs strategy, to rebalance our spending towards harm minimisation and treatment and, therefore, towards demand reduction. We cannot, however, abandon the attack on availability or the attempts to dismantle the groups that bring these substances into the country. Lower prices and more ready availability would surely only lead to a bigger problem. The two issues must go hand in hand: we must attack both availability and demand. The most effective way to do that, as I think my hon. Friend knows, is to get addicts into good treatment, which is why we are emphasising that provision at the moment.

  Gun Crime
  Mr. George Osborne: What plans he has to introduce targets to reduce gun crime.[91434]
  Mr. Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement on gun crime.[91439]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): The immediate target has to be to reduce the year-on-year increase in gun crime associated with organised gang criminality. That is why we have already made changes to the law on minimum penalties for those illegally carrying guns, banned the import of guns that can be converted, changed the law relating to replica guns and the carrying of guns in a public place, and introduced measures relating to the age limit for the purchase and ownership of air weapons. All those measures form part of a jigsaw to tackle the unacceptably high level of organised gun crime in this country.
  Mr. Osborne: What the Home Secretary did not say, of course, is that gun crime is already up 90 per cent. under this Government. Does he really think that his jigsaw, which includes yet another departmental taskforce, yet another amnesty and more headline-grabbing attacks on the rap music industry, will seriously trouble hardened criminal gangs that use guns and feed off the crack cocaine trade? If he thinks that his strategy will work, why does he not set a specific target, as he has done in many areas of Home Office policy, on reducing gun crime?
  Mr. Blunkett: I have just indicated that the task ahead of us is to reduce the exponential rise, and we have made no bones about the danger and the difficulty that that poses, but the measures that the hon. Gentleman has just attacked were all put forward either by the police or by those deeply associated with the job of reducing gun crime. We have responded, as any sensible Government would, to the suggestions made, including at the round table meeting that I held on 10 January, which was extremely productive and engaged a range of agencies, enterprises and community groups, all of which have a part to play.
  Mr. Bacon: Most people will be very dissatisfied with the Home Secretary's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when the Government came to power there were about 12,000 firearms offences, that the number is about 22,000 today and that in the past five years the number of offences involving handguns has more than doubled? When is he going to take the problem seriously and stop offering the House of Commons no more than a reduction in the increase in gun offences? We need a decrease for the people of this country.
  Mr. Blunkett: Reducing does mean decreasing—at least it does in my dictionary—and I have every intention of ensuring that we do that together, but action on air weapons, conversions and the import of Brocock and similar weapons are all a critical part of the process. The Metropolitan police revealed at the round

  19
  table meeting that 75 per cent. of the guns that they picked up were conversions, so the measures that we are taking are directly related to the problem, linked as they are to changing the culture in the communities most affected. Sometimes we get the blame for what others do; sometimes others get the blame for what I do. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Tatton is wrong in his presumption that I have blamed rap—although gangs using rap are an entirely different matter.
  Vernon Coaker: I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has taken to toughen some gun laws. All of us want guns off our streets, and one way to do that is to enforce those laws and ensure that people who use guns face the full weight of the law. Does he recognise that to prosecute people in the courts we need witnesses to come forward? Will he consider ways to encourage community members to come forward with information and to protect witnesses from the intimidation that they feel, which prevents many from giving the police information that would lead to prosecution?
  Mr. Blunkett: That is a critical point, and it was raised at the round table meeting. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will take the necessary steps suggested by community groups, in terms of a substantial strengthening of the protection of victims, the availability of that protection, and encouraging the communities from which people are giving such evidence to be part of the process. That should include the ability to provide information confidentially, providing a hotline that is trusted and understood by those who can give such information, and getting the message across—this has been done in individual instances—that in extremis we can give people a new identity until the issue has been properly dealt with.

  Police Community Support Officers
  Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the funding of police community support officers.[91435]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): In the current financial year, we
  have allocated £19 million to the development—the pump priming—of community support officers. In the coming year, that will more than double to about £40 million, £3.6 million of which will be allocated to the Greater Manchester police area.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, but he knows that his Department will meet only 50 per cent. of the cost of community support officers in Greater Manchester from 2004. From 2006, none of the cost will be met. Does he expect Greater Manchester police to cut the number of community support officers or the number of regular police officers?
  Mr. Blunkett: Just for a moment, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to welcome the fact that the first community support officer started work in his constituency this morning. Along with the 160 who will be available next year, that officer will be doing a damn good job in protecting the people of the area. I can announce today that there will be 100 per cent. funding through to April 2004. There will be 75 per cent. funding for 2004–05, and 50 per cent. from 2005–06 for that final year of the spending review. We have made it clear all along—the Opposition have asked us to do so—that we will not have constant and permanent ring-fenced funds, but that we will give kick-start initial funding and then freedom and power to the chief constable and the police authority to do the job at local level. So going local has to involve local decision making.

Firefighters' Dispute
3.30 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): On 16 December, I announced to the House the publication of Sir George Bain's independent report on the future of the fire service. In my statement, I set out the Government's commitment to taking forward the review's recommendations. I also undertook to keep the House informed of further developments.
The House will recall that at the beginning of December, at the Fire Brigades Union's request, both sides in the dispute agreed to return to the negotiating table and enter into a programme of talks at ACAS. On 2 December, the FBU general secretary said:
"we welcome the intervention of ACAS at this stage of the dispute and hope that all parties involved will grasp this opportunity to find a settlement agreeable to all parties concerned".
He also said that the union would enter into the process constructively and positively. Despite that, and despite the fact that the FBU had asked for the talks at ACAS and those talks had hardly got under way, on 10 January the union announced an additional 24-hour strike, which will start tomorrow at 9 am. That will be followed by two 48-hour strikes starting on 28 January and 1 February, so the story so far this year is one day of talks and a threat of five days of strikes.
Based on the recommendations on pay and modernisation in the Bain report, the fire service employers have offered an 11.3 per cent. pay increase over two years, linked to modernisation. That is a good offer by any standards. The 4 per cent. offered for this year is more than the firefighters would have got under the old formula, and that formula was defended as recently as July 2000, when the FBU general secretary told his members:
"Our wages remain ahead of other essential public sector workers precisely because we have maintained the formula".
The 4 per cent. on offer is also almost twice the rate of inflation, and is well above the average level of public sector pay settlements.
Given that background, and in the light of the Bain review, I must repeat to the FBU and its members that further strike action will achieve nothing. It will only make it more difficult to settle this dispute. It is damaging and it poses a danger to public safety.
As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I have said again and again, pay and modernisation must go hand in hand. The two sides in this dispute must negotiate on that basis. Bain provides the framework for a deal. It is that simple. That will remain the Government's position regardless of further strike action.
I urge the FBU and its members to join us in building the modernised fire service that the people of this country need and deserve. Firefighters themselves have called for change to improve the service. I say to them, "Let us now get on with the job."
The Government are already implementing the modernisation agenda set out in the Bain review. Since Bain reported, we have made good progress in moving ahead with his recommendations for a better, safer fire service. For example, with the agreement of the House,
22
the Government will repeal section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 via the Local Government Bill. That will allow local decisions to be made on the level of fire cover required to ensure the safety of local communities. Later this month, we will issue for consultation revised guidance on a new approach to fire cover, drawn up by Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services. That will ensure that fire brigades have the right people in the right place at the right time to deal with the real risks posed by fire and other emergencies in today's world.
Next, the fire service inspectorate is being modernised and restructured to fulfil its new responsibilities, as recommended by the Bain report. Its key roles from now on will be to support delivery and to help develop the new generation of fire service professional managers who will run the modernised fire and rescue service.
Finally, Bain recommended a new forum of fire and other emergency service leaders to help us to drive forward the modernisation agenda. As a first step, a meeting with all the UK's chief fire officers will be held later this week.
I will give the House further information in the White Paper, which we will publish later this year. I will also include our detailed response to the recommendations in Bain.
Given the concerns raised by Members about the importance of local consultation when fire service modernisation is being dealt with, let me assure them that nothing proposed in Bain will undermine consultation arrangements with local communities. The Government and employers are getting on with implementing Bain; unfortunately, by contrast, the FBU has continued to oppose Bain's recommendations. It has made exaggerated and misleading statements about the number of job cuts and fire station closures implied by Bain, without engaging seriously in negotiation with the employers.
I met the general secretary of the FBU on 9 January and again this morning. On 9 January, we discussed the Government's plans for modernisation of the fire service. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has now written to the general secretary setting out a range of issues that will be covered in the forthcoming White Paper. I hope that the FBU will take advantage of this opportunity to contribute to the modernisation agenda. Whether it contributes or not, however, let me say again to the FBU and its members that, if they persist in their programme of industrial action, the Government will fully discharge their own responsibilities.
Our primary responsibility, especially at a time of heightened public concern about terrorism, is to do everything possible to provide the public with the highest level of protection. We have robust and tested contingency plans to provide that emergency cover. We have built on what we have learnt from previous strikes. We now have 177 red appliances to add to the capacity of the green goddesses and the specialist rescue teams, over 90 more than during the last strike.
This morning, the civil contingencies committee met and ran through the military, police and other arrangements for maintaining fire and rescue cover during tomorrow's strike. As I told the House before, however, the military can provide only an emergency service, not a replacement service. During the strike, it is

23
vital for people to take all necessary precautions to protect themselves and their families. To underline that, we are launching a further advertising campaign today to remind people of the increased dangers posed by fires during the strike.
The House will recall that before the last strike the FBU leadership signed a UK-wide gold command agreement in which it undertook to ensure that its members were available during the strike to deal with large-scale incidents such as terrorist attacks. To be fully effective, those arrangements had to be confirmed by local agreements at brigade level. During the last strike, local agreements were confirmed by the FBU in only 33 of the 58 fire brigades. Since then the situation has improved—agreements are in place in 53 brigades, and I hope that by tomorrow morning we will have 56 agreements—but even one area without an agreement is one too many.
I raised that again with the FBU general secretary when I met him this morning. He assured me that he was still working to ensure that the arrangements were in place in every fire brigade. Dealing with the consequences of strikes is one thing, but, as I said to the general secretary this morning, there is no need for these strikes at all. The FBU should be at ACAS, in talks with the local authority employers: that is the right way ahead.
I urge the FBU to take the only realistic and responsible approach, and call off the strike. These strikes cannot and will not achieve anything. Get back to the talks at ACAS. Do not put the public at unnecessary risk.
I will keep the House informed of developments.
David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for making his statement, and for giving me prior sight of it. I add our support to his calls for the Fire Brigades Union to call off its irresponsible strike action. I also welcome much of what he had to say about the modernisation of the fire service. I shall return to that in a moment.
Subject to proper scrutiny, we will support the right hon. Gentleman's repeal of section 19 of the 1947 Act. It is also good news that the Government have at last mobilised 177 red fire engines, as we have asked them to on many occasions. That can only be for the greater safety of the public and, of course, that of the armed forces when they are fulfilling their firefighting task. Better late than never.
Nevertheless, given today's reports that the unions are preparing for a dispute that will last at least until the summer, the British people could be excused for feeling that an added sense of urgency is still needed from the Government to ensure that their safety is protected.
Our military are now under extreme pressure, with advance deployments to the Gulf region under way, and a war on terror on our doorsteps. As a result, there are worries about the level of firefighting cover that the military can provide. For example, last week we heard that 16 Air Assault Brigade, including units covering Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Dumfries and Galloway, were removed from firefighting cover to be redeployed to the Gulf. When my hon. Friend the
24
shadow defence spokesman asked the Ministry of Defence who was going to take over their firefighting role, it was clear that adequate replacements had not been found, and 16 Air Assault was promptly returned to firefighting duties. Today, we hear from the news media that it will after all be deployed abroad. Therefore, in less than two weeks, 16 Air Assault appears to have been on fire duty, off fire duty, on duty again, and off again, if the news is to be believed. It would have put the grand old Duke of York to shame. Let us have a straight answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. Who will cover for 16 Air Assault at home? Does he have a grip on that critical aspect of protecting public safety?
In November, the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces told the House that it would take
"five weeks to train crews to the standard of retained firefighters and 12 weeks to that of full-time firefighters"—[Official Report, 21 November 2002, Vol. 394, c. 220W.]
Yet, on 11 January, an MOD spokesman said that most troops only needed "about ten hours' training". Who is right and what training regime is the military cover now on—12 weeks, five weeks or 10 hours? Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that there will be enough fully trained troops on call to cover for striking firefighters?
With the strike starting tomorrow at 9 am, there is a real concern that Government are trying to do too much with too little. At present, with our troops needed
overseas, various expert personnel—the Deputy Prime Minister referred to them—from the Navy and Air Force trained in the use of rescue equipment and breathing apparatus will be needed both at home and abroad. Will he confirm whether that is the case? Will our armed forces operating abroad be expected to risk their lives without those important rescue teams because they are committed to defending the public at home?
It is also clear now that there is an unprecedented level of terrorist threat at home, while it is extremely likely that our military will be deployed to fight a war abroad. Surely, given those very particular circumstances, it is in the public interest for the Government to seek the necessary legal action to ensure that the public are protected against further fire strikes. Under section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—introduced by a Conservative Government, in case the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has forgotten—the Deputy Prime Minister has the power to ask the Attorney-General to seek an injunction to stop any action that "wilfully and maliciously" endangers lives. Clearly, lives are now being put at risk. When asked about this before, both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have ducked the question, claiming that it is a matter for the courts. That, of course, is the last stage of the process. The first step is for them to ask the Attorney-General to seek an injunction to stop the strikes, thus ensuring that the decision is put in the hands of a judge. The public interest now requires the Government to act.
In the present circumstances, I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister understands why the public are concerned about their safety in the event of extended strike action, but beyond that action and the added pressure on our military, there are still questions about how a modernised fire service will look. As I said earlier, we support the reforms proposed by Bain to the fire service but that support is not a blank cheque and one

25
would expect some performance for it. Will the Deputy Prime Minister now tell the House whether he expects the reforms to deliver a halving in death rates, as modernisation brought in New Zealand from similar death rates, or, closer to home, after improvements by Conservative-controlled Kent county council? That is another question that he failed to answer last time when I put it to him.
The Deputy Prime Minister's actions over the coming days will set out his true approach to government. These strikes have already gone on for too long. The FBU should never be allowed to take such action when British citizens face threats, both at home and abroad. The Deputy Prime Minister has a choice: he can either put the people of this country first and seek an injunction to stop this utterly irresponsible strike action, or he can yet again duck the issue and allow this irresponsible union leadership to continue with its dangerous action.
It is now time for the Deputy Prime Minister to get a grip and seek an injunction. It is now time to put the public first and politics last.
The Deputy Prime Minister: If there were ever an example of putting politics first, it is the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman, which has more to do with the leadership of the Conservative party than with the safety of the public. Anyway, let me officially thank him for his few words of support at the beginning. In the light of all the points that he made, I should point out that the concern of the Government—and, hopefully, of the Opposition—is to maximise the protection of public safety, and to avoid as many days of dispute as possible. Although the armed services have done an excellent job, in general, the House has accepted that its alternative service is not as good as that provided by the regular fire service.
When this dispute began last year, there was the threat of 36 days of dispute, but patient negotiation has reduced that to 10 days. In other words, 26 days have been taken off the strike threat, and I think that the public are grateful for that. It is such judgments about the best way to proceed that we in government have to make.
It is interesting to note that the shadow Attorney-General is not here. He would undoubtedly have assured the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the judgment of Governments as to whether an action is sought in the courts; it is the Attorney-General's judgment. The Attorney-General has the independence to make that judgment, and Governments cannot interfere with that decision. He is required to talk in person to me, in this case, and to make some assessment of the threat to public safety, and of the course that the dispute is taking. That has happened regularly—even in the past few days. At the end of the day, it is the Attorney-General's judgment as to whether he should take an action. That has always been the case: it was true when the Conservatives were in government, and it is true for us. The right hon. Gentleman should consult the shadow Attorney-General, who would give him that assurance, but to be honest, I think that he is already aware of that point. However, it sounds good to be thumping away at the Dispatch Box, saying that legal action is the best way to deal with this issue. A matter of judgment is involved here, and I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman.
26
On the availability of the armed forces to provide the excellent service that they have already provided, I should point out that most of the quotes that the right hon. Gentleman gave came from the press. I am not as confident as he is about press reports on these matters, but I am quite prepared to take the advice of the armed services, which tell me that the same number of people will be available— experienced and qualified people—to provide this alternative fire service. I accept their judgment and it is proper for me to do so, rather than relying on the evidence of a number of reports in the Daily Mail. To that extent, that is absolutely the right thing to do, and it would be irresponsible of me to do otherwise.
I have made it clear in public statements and in statements in this House that there undoubtedly must be a connection between modernisation and pay. There also has to be a review of the fire service's current risk assessment. We have suggested all manner of changes and Bain has made recommendations, some of which we are dealing with. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Kent county council, to which I pay proper tribute. I also pay tribute to the council's Tory leader, who first brought it to my attention that the training and other actions taken by it—which have more to do with intervention, rather than prevention—have provided a better means of reducing the number of incidents. Bain is all about putting greater emphasis on intervention, rather than prevention, and the Government's modernisation proposals are geared towards achieving that.
Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and I agree that the latest strikes are unnecessary. The FBU leadership should be back talking with the employers at ACAS, rather than striking. However, can he clear up one confusion as to his own position? He talks about the publication of a White Paper for the fire services—in which Ministers will set out their detailed reactions to Bain—some time before Easter, yet Ministers are asking employers and the FBU leadership to make up their minds on the details of Bain even before the White Paper's publication. Is there not some inconsistency in this regard? Can he tell the House exactly when the Government's detailed position on Bain will be known? Surely that would be helpful for the talks at ACAS.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister say more about the fire cover arrangements for the strikes, particularly, as the Conservative spokesman said, in the context of the latest deployment of armed forces to the Gulf? Will he confirm that some of the troops covering the strike, including the 3rd Parachute Regiment, are currently on training before deployment, and that they must break that training to cover the strikes and will then be sent out to Kuwait immediately after the strike on 28 January? Is that a sensible way either to train our forces before deployment or to cover the fire strikes? Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that some of the specialists trained for the breathing apparatus rescue teams and rescue equipment support teams are among those being deployed? Is that gap to be filled by other specialists?
As regards future talks, will the Deputy Prime Minister make it clear again that the Government are willing to provide sufficient transitional funding to assist any settlement that is agreed? Will he ensure that those

27
fire authorities that have already modernised, and therefore cannot make the savings available to others, will not be penalised by the way in which that funding is provided? Will he further reassure fire authorities that they will not be left by themselves to negotiate every aspect of Bain modernisation with their local FBU branch? If and when the FBU decides to return to the negotiating table, will the Deputy Prime Minister support the new local employer negotiating team in providing clear guidelines for fire authorities about agreements reached on Bain modernisation?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that the firefighters to whom I have talked accept the need for modernisation and understand that better fire prevention is the surest way to save lives, particularly at night'? Will he urgently look into Bain's proposals for greater use of local and even regional pay settlements? Does he agree that those may be one way out of the present cul-de-sac?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. I assure him that the Government accept the broad thrust of the Bain report, as I have stated in the House. We will provide more details about the White Paper, and we will enter into discussions with many of those who will be directly affected by the Bain report. I told the general secretary of the FBU and the employers about the broad framework, and the Government will discuss the Bain proposals with all those who have an active interest in them. It is clear that the broad thrust of that report is accepted. I accept that there are difficulties concerning the implications for different areas, and we will take those into account. We do not want to see areas penalised because of their geography.
Whatever agreement is arrived at, the package has to be self-financing. We have made that clear, and Bain made it clear. The period for the introduction of the pay proposals will be longer than the two years that have been discussed; Bain suggests that three years will be necessary. We recognise that we may have to find more resources in the early stages of the agreement, and I have agreed to that, but the terms and conditions will have to fit into the overall policy that the package is self-financing, albeit over three years.
On the provision of troops, as I said earlier, there may be some change in the deployment, and specialist units may be removed because of the situation regarding Iraq. There is to be a statement about that later, and detailed matters can be pursued then, but I am assured that we have the same number of people with the same amount of specialist training to carry out the fire service obligations.
Mr. Russell Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for reassuring me that Dumfries and Galloway will be covered during tomorrow's strike. Like him, I do not necessarily always respond to what the national press says. I urge him not to listen to the main Opposition party: the solution to the dispute lies not in the courts but at ACAS, with negotiations involving all sides.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Bain inquiry and the recommendation for a salary increase of 11.3 per cent. over time. I recently met an FBU officer from my
28
local branch who told me that a 4 per cent. increase will be funded, but there is no guarantee of a 7.3 per cent. rise beyond that because of difficulties concerning the amount that would have to be paid to retained firefighters. Is my right hon. Friend in a position to clarify that point?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his support.
As regards solutions, I agree with my hon. Friend that, when negotiations are going on, it is best not to inflame the situation by advocating all sorts of legal action. However, we all understand the position of the Opposition: they are not interested in a solution, but only in making political capital out of it. The general feeling of the House is that people should be talking and reaching agreement through ACAS. That is the overwhelming view of the House.
The employers offered a 4 per cent. wage increase for the first year, which was referred to in the Bain inquiry. The figure of 11.3 per cent. was made up of the 7.3 per cent. to which my hon. Friend referred and that 4 per cent. increase, and is part of the modernisation proposals on which the firefighters have to enter negotiations. As he pointed out, the 7.3 per cent. is part of the overall pay bill. As he knows, there was considerable discussion in the earlier negotiations about the full-time workers, the retained workers and the whole range of workers who are involved in the fire service. Those matters are for negotiation between the employers and the employees. The funding of the package has now been decided. It was recommended by Bain and accepted by the Government, and the firefighters should now sit down and negotiate.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the Deputy Prime Minister formed a view on whether it would be advisable to lock striking firemen out of their fire stations, for example, to enable the Army to use the red engines?
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is another helpful and constructive view from the Opposition. I have already given the House the Government's point of view.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the past two or three weeks, I have detected in meetings with some FBU people that the argument has shifted just a little towards jobs and is no longer so much on the pay front? Some of my colleagues have been present at meetings where such matters were discussed.
In view of the fact that, over the years, both my right hon. Friend and I have fought to save jobs in our respective industries, does he agree that people should be prepared to discuss and deal with some aspects of Bain, but that we should be very careful over the question of job losses? One of the Government's proudest claims is that we have managed to get more than 1 million people back into work, so it sits uneasily to tell a union, "You'll have to lose some jobs." I hope that we can have a modernisation that is not dissimilar

29
to the one in the House of Commons, where we have modernised everything, there is no night shift and nobody has lost their job.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend, especially that the Government have a tremendous record in increasing the level of employment.
An awful lot has been said about job cuts, but I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, overall, we have to take the safety of the public into account when providing the service. That is our first requirement. However, the process does not require job cuts. The controversy about job cuts was addressed by Bain, who said that there was no need for enforced redundancies in the industry. He pointed out that changes to the pension scheme would bring about a considerable amount of retirement by choice as people reached 50 to 53 years of age. That means that change could be brought about without enforced redundancies.
My hon. Friend will know that often in negotiations, the position on redundancy is strict—"You're out"—and that is what people have to accept. In this case, there would be no enforced redundancy, simply negotiations and readjustment. That is unlike the position in my hon. Friend's industry, which faced the threat that thousands would be out of work; indeed, 100,000 workers lost their jobs and 100 pits were closed. There was no choice—they were out. That is not the situation that faces the fire workers.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to Alex Kent, a 25-year-old firefighter in Crowborough in my constituency, who lost his life a week ago trying to save the life of his younger brother? None of us can understand the grief of his parents who lost everything—their children and their home—in a few devastating hours.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one unfortunate aspect of this dispute is that, by forcing people to take entrenched positions, we have lost sight of the fact that firefighters daily put their lives on the line to save the lives of others?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House joins the hon. Gentleman in extending sympathy in the tragic circumstances in which that fire worker died and in acknowledging the risks that firemen face every day. Members of the armed forces face similar risks in such situations. We must not only offer our sympathy but reduce the risk of such tragedies happening in what we all agree is a dangerous profession. The best way of achieving that is to get to a new service, deal with the changes necessary for a modernised service and return to providing one—rather than being in dispute.
Alan Simpson: Is there is not a fundamental problem with getting ACAS to work when a precondition appears to be signing up to the Bain report—which includes terms that the Deputy Prime Minister would never have accepted as a trade union negotiator? It would appear that the employers and the FBU agree on the need for change to the risk-based assessments upon which shifts, hours and staffing
30
depend, but the shift from property-based to life-based risk has yet to be made. Would it not make more sense for that to be done first, before asking firefighters to sign up to the consequences? The second matter, which is connected, is that before the dispute—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like more than one question to me.
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks me to consider whether I would have accepted preconditions in respect of ACAS discussions. Anyone who is familiar with ACAS procedures knows that the employer states his position and the employees state their position. They do not agree. They go into two different rooms and ACAS shuffles between them. They are at ACAS because they do not agree. Lots of conditions are often laid down by both parties. The FBU's wish not to talk about Bain or reorganisation is a condition. ACAS gets the two parties in different rooms in the hope of finding some way forward and I am sure that the House agrees with that objective.
My hon. Friend is right about risk assessment. In the present circumstances, more importance is placed on property than human life. That approach existed under the old system but we are proposing change. That is called modernisation and I hope that everybody will accept it.
Mr. David Curry: Will the right hon. Gentleman help me to understand the Prime Minister's comment in Prime Minister's questions last week that
"the decision whether to seek an injunction is taken by the Attorney-General, on the basis of whether such an injunction would succeed or not. It is a decision for him, and not one that I can or should take."—[Official Report. 15 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 680.]
Does that mean that the decision whether or not to seek an injunction will be based on public safety or the likelihood of success? At a time when the Prime Minister is sending our armed forces abroad, possibly to fight a war, are we to believe that the Prime Minister will play no part in deciding whether to seek an injunction to halt the firefighters' strike?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has made a number of comments and does not solely rest his case on the Attorney-General and whether or not an injunction might succeed. However, the right hon. Gentleman may agree that the Attorney-General might take that matter into account. He must take into account the threat to public safety and order—which he does by making an assessment of the situation, talking to the Ministers involved, then making a judgment. The Prime Minister made it clear that that matter is for the Attorney-General's judgment—not for him or Ministers.
John Cryer: Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), when firefighters retire, will they be replaced by new recruits or not? On the back of the loss of hundreds of firefighters' jobs and scores of pumps; station closures over the past 20 years; the Audit Commission's report; and the White Paper published

31
three or four years ago, which recommended expanding the service and moving to risk-based assessment, will my right hon. Friend look at expanding the fire service, not cutting it?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Under the present system, retired firefighters have not necessarily been replaced. The FBU makes that precise point to us from time to time. The union is not saying that should not happen but that there should be effective deployment of people in the fire services—and the FBU has been prepared to consider that as part of modernisation. Bain has said that is proper—and that there should be proper risk assessment before arriving at judgments locally on what changes should be made. It is not up to me to make such judgments in local areas but for local authorities to decide the provision of public services. We have endorsed and adopted the Bain proposals and hope that the FBU will now starting talking about them.
Mr. Michael Weir: The Deputy Prime Minister has made very clear this afternoon the Government's commitment to Bain, but is he aware that it is being reported that local authority leaders have written to the FBU and are said to have withdrawn a demand that the union commit itself to the Bain review's recommendations? Can he tell us whether that is indeed the case and, if so, will he allow the employers and unions to negotiate outwith the constraints of Bain, or will he step in to scupper such negotiations?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The local authorities have made it clear, since the Bain inquiry reported, that they expect the negotiations to take place on the basis of the Bain proposals. That is precisely the Government's position; it is the local authorities' position, and it is now being discussed in ACAS.
Jim Sheridan: I share my right hon. Friend's concern that any further strike by firefighters will be extremely damaging, but may I remind him that there was a period of good will during the festive period when disputes were suspended? That suggests that a feeling of good will and maturity is creeping into the dispute, but does he agree that any progress will be undermined by the terrible attacks by some in the national press of the firefighters' leaders and, equally, by the personal attacks by local firefighters on politicians at all levels, but particularly those at local level who have little or no influence in this dispute?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I certainly agree that good will is important—an awful lot of it exists—but it is sometimes undermined by some outrageous statements made by all parties in the dispute, which are often exploited by the press. At the end of the day, though, people should focus their attention on the real issue: providing a good and safe fire service—a modernised fire service—involving all the members of the FBU, who need to sit down and discuss the proposals. The inquiry has produced what I think is a very good solution; we now need to work out exactly how we will implement it.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that the Government have now got
32
themselves into the absurd position of calling up striking firemen as reservists for service in the Gulf, while regular servicemen remain on stand-by here to cover for striking firemen? Has he explained to the Attorney-General that that does not appear to be in the public interest? If he has not done so, will he do so?
The Deputy Prime Minister: To be honest, that could only come from a military mind. That is an anomaly, as the hon. Gentleman properly points out. If it is true—[Interruption.] Well, it is a concern, but it is not a matter of great consideration. There may be one or two individuals in the fire brigade who presumably offer to stand by to play a part in such emergencies, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman condones that and believes that it is proper for them to do so. Where there are anomalies like that, I am sure that those firefighters' places will be covered by other available people. That arrangement creates a certain anomaly, but it is certainly not on any scale that would require a major policy to deal with it.
Mr. David Heath: When the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement on this subject back in November does he remember saying, quite rightly, that hoax calls were utterly unacceptable, that they would be dealt with very severely and that there would be exemplary sentences? Is he aware that the Solicitor-General revealed in a written answer to me published on Tuesday 17 December in column 661W of Hansard that the number of individuals who were actually charged during the first firemen's strike was just two? What happened?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am advised that there have been more than that and that the sentences have been severe. There have been some exemplary sentences—they have been referred to in debates—but I am prepared to look at that matter again, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
Mr. Christopher Chope: The Deputy Prime Minister has been rightly critical of the FBU. Will he today publicly encourage firefighers who are members of that union but share his dissatisfaction with it to resign from the union?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Those are matters for individuals to make decisions about. I have made it clear to the FBU and its members that it is not worth pursuing any further strike, and they must make their judgment on whether they remain in the FBU. It is their right to do that. I am sure that there are different voices and opinions in the FBU itself about the course of action, but it is for the union to make its own decision. That is called a human rights consideration, which I support.
Dr. Vincent Cable: It is not just working practices, but Government fire regulations that are seriously antiquated. Beyond the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, do the Government have any plan to accelerate their leisurely timetable to introduce a new fire services Act?
Mr. Prescott: These matters will be addressed in the White Paper, but we have made it clear that we are

33
prepared to act quickly on them. I have tried to indicate to the House the sort of things that we have been doing since the Bain report, which was made less than four weeks ago, and there has been a holiday period, too. The White Paper will make it clear that we intend to act quickly, which is necessary. As I made clear in my statement, whether the FBU agrees to the modernisation or not, it is our job to get on with implementing modernisation, for which the Government have some responsibility, and I encourage the FBU to do the same.

Iraq: Further Contingency Preparations
4.10 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I should like to make a statement on further contingency preparations in relation to Iraq.
It may be helpful to remind the House of the preparations announced previously. On 25 November and 18 December, I described the measures that we were taking to ensure that our forces were prepared and had the training, equipment and support they might need, as well as the consideration that we were giving to the potential requirements for reservists and additional maritime deployments.
In a statement on 7 January, I announced the making of an order enabling the call-out of reservists, and the deployment of maritime forces including 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. I explained that it was likely that we would want to make further deployments in the coming weeks to be able to keep military options open, and that we were taking steps to ensure the readiness of units and equipment, and the availability of appropriate chartered shipping and air transport. In a written statement on 14 January, I described the details of continuing preparatory activity, involving the movement and deployment of enabling equipment, including tracked vehicles, exploratory visits and liaison with other military staffs in the region.
When I made a statement on 7 January, a number of hon. Members pressed me to say what other forces the Government intend to make available. In particular, I was invited to set out the nature of any land force that might be deployed. I explained at that time that I could not do so, for the simple reason that no decision had by then been taken.
I am now in a position to be able to tell the House that we have reached a view on the composition and deployment of a land force package to provide military capabilities for potential operations against Iraq. That force will include the headquarters of 1 UK Armoured Division with support from 7 Armoured Brigade, 16 Air Assault Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade. Its equipment will include 120 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, 150 Warrior armoured personnel carriers, 32 AS 90 self-propelled guns, 18 light guns, and a number of reconnaissance and other vehicles. The total number of personnel involved in this land force will be approximately 26,000. In addition, we are already deploying 3 Commando Brigade, with around 4,000 personnel including their supporting elements.
The House will not expect me to discuss the specific tasks that might be undertaken by our forces in the event of military operations. This is, however, a high-readiness, balanced and flexible force package, bringing together a wide range of capabilities. The chiefs of staff and I are confident that this is the right group of forces for the sort of tasks that may be necessary.
The House will recognise that a force package of this size cannot be deployed without notice. As the written statement on 14 January explained, to keep this option open, we have already started the movement and deployment of enabling assets, including logistics, engineering, signals and command vehicles and equipment. We will now begin to deploy the combat

35
equipment and personnel of the formations comprising the land force package. That will involve significant movements from units in both the United Kingdom and Germany before their deployment by sea and air over the days and weeks ahead Headquarters and support staffs will also deploy to liaise with other military staffs in the region and to take forward planning and preparatory activity.
In the coming weeks, we will also need to call out additional reservists in support of these land forces. The details of our overall reservist requirement are continuing to evolve, and I expect to be able to provide further information on that in due course.
None of the steps that we are taking represents a commitment of British forces to specific military action. These are measures necessary to provide a range of military options that we may require. A decision to employ force has not been taken, nor is such a decision imminent or inevitable. I must also emphasise, however, as all Members will recognise, that the deployment of forces on this scale is no ordinary measure.
While we want Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily, it is evident that we will not achieve that unless we continue to present him with a clear and credible threat of force. That is why I have announced these deployments, in support of the diplomatic process to which we remain fully committed. It is not too late for Saddam Hussein to recognise the will of the international community and respect United Nations resolutions. Let us all hope that he does so.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for making a copy of it available in advance.
This is an important moment. When a quarter of the British Army is deployed on a single operation in addition to the 4,000 already deployed in the amphibious taskforce, it is a huge commitment. The Opposition have consistently supported the broad thrust of the Government's policy of diplomacy backed by force against Iraq ever since the Prime Minister first made his position known in the summer. Therefore, the House need be in no doubt that we support this decision.
I spent a week last year with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment in Germany. Almost a year ago, it was preparing its men and equipment for just such an eventuality. Let there be no doubt about the determination and professionalism of the whole of the British armed forces to carry out whatever tasks are asked of them.
Inevitably, this statement raises a huge number of questions, but I would like the Secretary of State to address just three broad issues concerning preparedness, military planning and the political backing that our troops deserve. First, can he assure the House that he believes that our troops are fully trained and fully equipped for whatever they may be asked to do? For example, how will they be protected from chemical and biological threats? What inoculations are being administered to British troops and what reassurances can we give them that there will be no recurrence of the problem known as Gulf war syndrome?
36
What protection will our troops have from the missiles that we suspect Saddam still has given that the United Kingdom has no theatre missile defence capability of our own? Are our troops fully equipped to operate with the United States forces, and particularly with US strike aircraft? Electronic identification friend-or-foe equipment is already fitted to US tanks and armour to prevent so-called friendly-fire accidents. Will the Secretary of State consider buying the same off the shelf so that it can be bolted on to British fighting vehicles? Given the problems with the Clansman radio system, will our fighting vehicles have reliable communications?
On training, have any of the troops now being deployed had their front-line training interrupted by the fire dispute and have all units, such as 16 Air Assault Brigade, now been relieved of any firefighting duties so that they can concentrate on their front-line training? In passing, may I support the Secretary of State's view, as reported in the Sunday newspapers, that the additional burden of the fire dispute is simply becoming unacceptable?
Secondly, is there now a clear plan for possible military action? In that plan, who will be the overall British force commander for British land, sea and air forces? Will he be given the same discretion to operate under US command as was given to the British commander in the last Gulf war and to the British commander for combat operations in Afghanistan last year? If there are differences, can the Secretary of State say what they are?
Although the overall objective remains the disarmament of Saddam Hussein, can the Secretary of State clarify what that means in military terms? In particular, if Saddam's regime collapses or if he flees Iraq, what sort of Government does the Secretary of State envisage taking its place? What role will UK forces play in support of that Government? That raises the question of how long he envisages that the UK could maintain this very substantial commitment that he has now announced, particularly if military action is protracted or delayed. Is he satisfied that UK forces have sustainable logistical and medical support?
In formulating any plans, has the Secretary of State had full discussion with his counterpart at the Department for International Development about the eventuality of war, so that there are also plans in place for humanitarian relief and refugee support? When can we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development?
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State agree that those of us who believe in the justness of this cause must continue to make the case for the disarmament of Saddam? War is by no means inevitable but, if we are to ask our troops possibly to risk their lives, they need to be certain that the nation is behind them. I am sure that the House will keep them and their families in our thoughts in the weeks ahead.
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his unqualified support. I shall try to deal with his specific questions in turn. If I fail to address one, I am sure that I can deal with it in subsequent correspondence, which I will place in the Library of the House.
As for preparations, I do not doubt that our forces are fully and thoroughly prepared to face this kind of operation. Indeed, the training exercise conducted in

37
similar conditions in Oman just over a year ago was obvious preparation for this kind of deployment. A good number of lessons have been learned from that training exercise and are now to be implemented. Without getting into arguments about Gulf war syndrome, may I tell the House again that a key lesson learned about inoculations is that it is not sensible to inflict on our forces a large number of inoculations simultaneously? Preparation in that respect is much better than it was before the Gulf war, and many of the required injections have already been administered.
As for the missile threat, another question that I have dealt with before, we do not judge that there is an immediate threat to our deployed forces from Saddam Hussein's missiles, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that appropriate action will be taken to deal with the threat as it exists. As for US forces and friendly fire, again a question that I dealt with when I made my last statement, action is in hand to procure the necessary equipment to ensure that the equipment used by our forces is in every way compatible with the equipment that the United States is using. I make exactly the same observation in relation to communications.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second set of questions, I can assure the House that operational planning continues to evolve. It would not be appropriate to deal with his first two questions, but those matters will be dealt with in due course. As for the length of any commitment, I can assure the House that our forces are well prepared for a substantial commitment should that be required, but equally they can be replaced in position should that be necessary in due course, which is why sustainable logistical and medical support is available for them, bearing in mind the fact that it will be a multinational operation. Inevitably, forces deployed from different countries will provide a degree of mutual assistance in areas in which there are operational shortfalls. Certainly, consideration is being given to aftermath issues and the question of humanitarian relief. Obviously, we will design force packages to ensure that we have soldiers in place who can deal with those issues as and when they arise.
As for the third issue raised by the hon. Gentleman—political support from the House—our forces will already be aware of the overwhelming support that they have received from right hon. and hon. Members. The Government have indicated their determination that there should be a further debate and, indeed, ultimately a vote at the right time, but I do not intend to say any more about that than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already said.
Mr. Colin Breed: May I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is currently in Kuwait visiting the British troops, and thank the Secretary of State for his usual courtesy in providing an advance copy of his statement?
When men and women of our armed forces are deployed overseas, we have a duty to support them, and we send them our best wishes for their swift and safe return. As the Secretary of State said, substantial planning is needed to keep a force of this size properly supplied and in position for quite some time. I welcome his assurance that that will be the case. To ensure that
38
the inspectors have all the time necessary to do their work, that force should be in place and, if necessary, replaced. However, can the Secretary of State provide assurance about the command structure for British troops? Could we realistically opt out in the event that the Government chose not to support a US-led invasion? Are our troops significant and operationally necessary for any operation that takes place on a US-led basis? If the Government decided to opt out, would that cause significant problems for any military invasion?
Lastly, as we have heard plans concerning the Navy and the Army, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what plans there are in respect of RAF squadrons already in the area? What plans exist to retask the RAF for any offensive operations?
Mr. Hoon: Clearly, it is always a matter for a British Prime Minister, the British Cabinet and ultimately, as I have indicated already, Britain's House of Commons to determine when and if British forces are sent into battle. That is not affected by any announcement that I have made today or any arrangement into which the Government may enter from time to time with any ally or any other multinational force. It is always a matter for a British Prime Minister to decide when a British force engages an enemy. Nevertheless, Britain's contribution to any operations is operationally necessary and I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the significant contribution that British forces made in and around Afghanistan in the course of operations there. That was a substantial contribution and one which, if military action is necessary, will be repeated in relation to Iraq.
With regard to the Royal Air Force, I have not yet dealt in any detail with its tasking. Those matters are still subject to further discussion, and I will certainly inform the House when and if those decisions have been taken.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am deeply concerned that even more of our troops are being deployed. Whenever the Government say that no decision has been taken to join Bush in his war against Iraq, many of us remain deeply sceptical. Given the demonstrations all over the world this weekend, I think that the people of this country do, also. Does the Secretary of State accept that the UN charter as it is currently constituted does not allow for a pre-emptive or offensive strike against another United Nations country that is not threatening anybody? No matter how many resolutions the US bullies and intimidates other countries into supporting, that remains the case. Will the Secretary of State accept that his Government have not made the case for a war against Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept my hon. Friend's assertion in conclusion. I assure her that no decision has been taken here, in the United States or anywhere else to use military force against Iraq, but as I indicated, it has been our experience that the credible threat of the use of military force is necessary to coerce Saddam Hussein into accepting the will of the international community.
Since the United Kingdom and other nations have accepted the need for a United Nations process, that process continues. The issue that my hon. Friend raises in relation to the United Nations charter does not arise
39
at this stage, although I remind her that the UN charter does allow for self-defence, and pre-emptive action is no more than modern jargon to deal with the ancient right of self-defence. There are other circumstances recognised in international law—for example, the humanitarian action that was taken in Kosovo—that are justified in international law. I do not accept what my hon. Friend said, but I emphasise to right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are determined that there should be a process that rests on international law and carries with it the great support of the British people.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should be careful not to invest the Security Council with undue moral authority? The Security Council is but a political institution, and resolutions of the Security Council are but political statements by a political institution. While it is perfectly true that such resolutions are a necessary precondition to war, they cannot make just or moral a war which otherwise is not.
Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that the Security Council would take a decision in relation to the use of military force that was neither just nor moral. As I have indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before, nor do I accept that it would take a decision that was contrary to international law. I believe that it is important that we give the current process the opportunity of reaching its conclusion. I hope that that would be a peaceful conclusion, but it is necessary that we support that process with a credible use of the threat of force.
Mr. John Smith: This is a formidable force package. If it is to be used in a war, it will be an allied war. Is my right hon. Friend aware whether similar force packages have been announced or are about to be announced by other allied countries?
Mr. Hoon: As I told the House the week before last, the United States has made a request to some 50 countries for a military contribution. I know that a number of countries have already responded positively. Clearly, the United States has already deployed a very considerable force to the Gulf region, and I anticipate that other countries will follow suit in due course.
Patrick Mercer: The Secretary of State has already indicated that about a quarter of the Army's strength will be in the Gulf and that, for very understandable reasons, its commitment there will be open-ended. He has also commented on the fact that, if necessary, those personnel will be replaced in order to sustain that presence. In that case, will he be kind enough to comment on the wisdom of a suspension of a large part of the Army's recruitment effort this year?
Mr. Hoon: The "suspension", as the hon. Gentleman describes it, is a short-term postponement of a number of young men and women's opportunities to start training. The reason for that is an excellent one, as I am sure he is well aware: recruitment this year has been so successful that it has filled up all the available places,
40
so those who applied rather later in the day will have to wait a short time before their training can begin. That is excellent news for the Army, as the numbers are increasing.
Huw Irranca-Davies: May I welcome the continued and steady build-up of troops, which sends what we recognise to be the only message that Saddam Hussein understands? On the basis that alternative end games that can avoid war may be played out, how feasible is it to hold those troops in position in readiness and to redeploy them outside the area, should an alternative solution beyond war be found?
Mr. Hoon: I described the package as balanced and flexible; it will be sufficiently so to allow for perfectly reasonable scenarios that might not, as we would hope, involve the use of military force in the way in which all of us fear may be necessary. We are certainly alive to the results that might occur other than the use of force.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State has now announced the deployment of 29,000 soldiers and commandos, plus the naval element and whatever the Air Force element is. In addition to ongoing operational deployments in Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Bosnia, it cannot possibly be in the public interest that 20,000 further servicemen be kept on stand-by to cover for potentially striking firemen. Has he informed the Attorney-General—and if not, will he do so—that it is not in the public interest that that should remain the case?
Mr. Hoon: I can think of nothing that is more in the public interest than that about 19,000 members of the armed forces should be available to fight fires in the event of a strike.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In reply to the Opposition spokesman, the Defence Secretary used the phrase "the right time" for a parliamentary debate. Is the right time before or after a commitment of forces? As one who wore the epaulettes of 7 Armoured Brigade for two years, may I ask how he replies to General Cordingley, who is now very critical of what the Government are doing and who commanded in the Gulf last time, and the many others who have asked what the military objective of the operation is?
Finally, given that the American imperative is to keep down the number of bodybags, which means massive bombing before any ground operations, what is the British Government's attitude to massive bombing that will lead to collateral damage, by which we mean thousands of innocent deaths?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with the question about the right time for a parliamentary debate. He said that it was obviously before the commitment of any forces, if possible. However, he also said that it was crucial not to signal in advance the timing of any military operation. He therefore accepted the need for some caution on timing. That remains the Government's position.
The military objective is also clear: to uphold the will of the international community, as expressed in a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

41
I emphasise the point in my statement about the need to support the political and diplomatic process with a credible threat of the use of force. That remains the Government's position.
I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that no decisions have been made about any sort of military force. However, any bombing campaign would remain firmly within the bounds of international law.
Hugh Robertson: May I add my support for the deployment? I am sure that all hon. Members hope that war will be avoided, but it is surely sensible to apply the maximum strategic coercion in support of the United Nations resolution. Can the Secretary of State confirm today to which country or countries the force will deploy? What assessment has been made of the terrorist threat during the deployment phase?
Mr. Hoon: It would not be sensible for me to be as specific as the hon. Gentleman might like on the destination of any part of the force package. However, I assure him that proper steps will be taken to assess the terrorist threat and the appropriate action to deal with it.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Could my right hon. Friend hazard a guess about the number of weapons of mass destruction that would have to be found before a clear and credible threat of force becomes a force to kill?
Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I believe that she has the issue the wrong way around. It is a not question of identifying the number of weapons of mass destruction that would have to be found, but of upholding the clear terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1441. That gave Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq the final opportunity to comply with the international community's wishes. I know that my hon. Friend strongly supports that.
The resolution also gave Saddam Hussein an opportunity to declare existing holdings of weapons of mass destruction. He purported to do that in some 11,000 pages of documentation, which were issued shortly before Christmas. It is unfortunate for the international community that the document did not disclose several significant items, some of which are now being revealed.
Bob Russell: May I advise the Secretary of State that I have detected no enthusiasm among Colchester's civilian population for the Government's proposed action in Iraq? There is hardly dancing in the streets. However, if 16 Air Assault Brigade is called upon to go to war, I have every confidence that the population will give its total support.
Have 16 Air Assault Brigade's preparations been diluted and interrupted by participation in firefighting measures?
Mr. Hoon: No one, least of all anyone in the Ministry of Defence, is enthusiastic about the need for military action. I assure all hon. Members that it is a last resort, which must be used only when all other political and diplomatic routes are exhausted. In contrast to the hon.
42
Gentleman, I find strong support for the Government's position. The population of the United Kingdom backs the need to uphold the international community's decisions as expressed in United Nations Security Council resolutions. They recognise that we must deal with the threat that Iraq poses. On the preparatory measures, I am not aware that they have been in any way affected by the need to deploy on Operation Fresco to fight fires. Indeed, we took a decision to allow 16 Air Assault Brigade to withdraw from that operation in stages so that it would have the time fully to prepare for any contingencies in relation to military operations in Iraq.
Glenda Jackson: As no material breach of resolution 1441 has been presented to the United Nations by the weapons inspectors, does not my right hon. Friend's statement today that the movement of British troops is a contingency and not a commitment ring very hollow indeed? Is not the movement of troops taking place because ground troops will not be able to engage in military action after the end of February or the beginning of March because the weather will become too inclement? Has not a decision to engage in military action indeed been taken?
Mr. Hoon: As the resolution itself makes clear, the question of what is or is not a material breach is a matter for the weapons inspectors, following their report to the Security Council and the discussion in the Security Council that will be required thereafter. That is all set out clearly in resolution 1441. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend, as I assure the House, that no specific decision has been taken about the use of this force, but, unless that force is prepared and made available, we would not be in a position to take military action, should it subsequently be required. As I have said to the House before, the weather is not a factor in this regard.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I would have liked to thank the right hon. Gentleman for providing an advance copy of his statement, but, unfortunately, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party were not allowed to have an advance copy. I wonder whether that is an extension of the Prime Minister's pique from last Wednesday. In any event, the Secretary of State has gone out of his way to say that war is not inevitable. Committing 30,000 ground troops, however, smacks of inevitability. Has he taken into account the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that the inspections might take up to a year? If so, has he made any contingency plans for the replacement of troops, home leave, and so on?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the possible length of the inspections. However, he also needs to note the provision in resolution 1441 that states that the inspectors can return to the Security Council at any stage in the process. In those circumstances, it is obviously necessary for us to have available the military force that could be required to enforce the terms of the resolution. If we did not take the decisions that I have announced today, we would not be in that position. We cannot, therefore, wait for the year that the hon.

43
Gentleman's question implies might be necessary, if the inspectors return to the Security Council at an earlier stage to indicate their concerns.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: How much extra pay will our armed forces get in a conflict such as this? After all, they are putting their lives on the line.
Mr. Hoon: Significant allowances are available to our armed forces when they are deployed. It would not be appropriate for me to go into detail about them at this stage, simply because they depend on the length of any deployment and the time spent away from home. Equally, as right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, we are likely in the short term to receive a report from the armed forces pay review body, stating its recommendations on pay increases for the forthcoming financial year.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In his statement, the Secretary of State made it clear that there would be a requirement for the call-up of reservists to support the deployment, but he could not say how many or when. Is that because the Reserve Forces Act 1996 is deficient in ensuring that reservists' jobs are maintained while they are called up? Secondly, on air deployment, will the Ministry of Defence need to have recourse to civil air assets—in particular, high-volume aeroplanes such as the Antonov—to augment the C-5 Galaxies?
Mr. Hoon: I am not aware of any specific deficiency in the Act, and that certainly was not the reason for my caution in setting out numbers. On the last occasion that I addressed the House, I said that, at that stage, we were looking to issue sufficient notices to involve about 1,500 members of the reserve forces. Obviously, that figure is likely to increase, but it is not likely to increase to the level speculated in the newspapers. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assure other Members of the House, that when a more specific figure is available I shall ensure that those details are made known to the House. We have already used certain civilian aircraft for transport purposes, and I anticipate that that will continue when and if it is necessary to deploy those forces to the region.
Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, other options can be pursued alongside the threat of military force. One of those, for which I have pressed repeatedly in the House over a number of years, is indicting the Iraqi regime for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary say that they want to do that, and more than 200 MPs from both sides of the House of Commons have said that they want to see it done.
Today, I received a letter from the Attorney-General, who, two and a half years later, is still exploring what can be done. He says that his office, along with the police and counsel, are exploring how they can indict members of the regime. As my right hon. Friend knows, they have the evidence—it was given to them two and a half years ago. If we were using that evidence and if we had arrest warrants, people such as Ali Hassan al-Majeed, who are
44
in Damascus at present, could be arrested for killing 100,000 Kurds and for gassing the Kurds at Halabja. Why on earth are the Government not—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Lady, but that does not relate directly to the statement.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has raised that issue with me on a number of occasions, and she lists the other members of the Government whom she has addressed on the same question. We all admire her determination and, indeed, the principle of what she is setting out, but there is obviously a need for further consideration of whether what she recommends is practically possible and whether it would achieve anything. I rather thought that her answer from the Attorney-General was quite encouraging in that sense. What she advocates is sensible, but it obviously requires further practical consideration.
Mr. Mike Hancock: While the deployment will obviously send out a positive message to our allies and, I hope, a message of determination to the Saddam regime, what message does the Secretary of State imagine it will send to the people of Iraq? Is he satisfied that enough is being spent by the US and UK Governments in telling the people of Iraq the true position and what problems they face? Is he also satisfied that our troops, while protected against the possibility of a missile attack, are satisfactorily protected against biochemical or biological warfare being waged against them in the early stages of their deployment?
Mr. Hoon: Let me make it clear that the Government—and, I anticipate, no other Government —have any quarrel whatever with the people of Iraq. It may be that the only Government with any serious difficulty with the people of Iraq are the Iraqi regime led by Saddam Hussein, who have perpetrated unspeakable horrors on them over many years. Indeed, there is growing evidence to show that the people of Iraq are sick and tired of Saddam Hussein and are ready for a change. That is clearly anticipated by resolution 1441, but it is important that we continue to maintain the pressure on the regime and those who support them without in any way causing unnecessary difficulty for the people of Iraq.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: All of us in the House recognise the professionalism and dedication of our armed forces, but, given what the Secretary of State called the massive deployment of American forces in the Gulf area and, in particular, the commitment over the weekend of more American divisions—armoured, airborne and infantry—will he tell the House what, specifically, those units add to the capability of the massive force already assembled in the Gulf; or do they simply provide political credibility for that American force?
Mr. Hoon: In the planning of any multinational operation, it is always necessary to identify the contribution that individual countries can best make. It may help my hon. Friend if he considered carefully the

45
contribution that British forces were able to make in military operations in and around Afghanistan, when exactly the same question could have been asked. British forces provided some excellent assistance to American forces in areas where the Americans required that extra assistance. Should military action be necessary in Iraq, the same principle will apply.
Angus Robertson: Bearing in mind the role that air power plays in modern warfare and the fact that a high proportion of air service personnel are on 10-day stand-by notices, could the Secretary of State give some certainty to those personnel and their families by telling the House when a statement will be made on any air deployment?
Mr. Hoon: I cannot give a specific date. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that air power can be deployed at much shorter notice than the force that I have set out to the House today. Certainly, the deployment of air power is under active consideration, including the impact on the Royal Air Force and the decisions that will need to be taken in conjunction with our allies.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no British troops will be used in an invasion of Iraq unless the weapons inspectors have reported back to the United Nations that a material breach has taken place, and the Security Council, having failed to persuade Saddam Hussein to resolve this matter peacefully, makes a decision about what military action is appropriate?
Mr. Hoon: I can assure the House that the process set out in Security Council resolution 1441 will be followed.
Mr. John Lyons: If the UN Security Council decides not to take military action over Iraq, will we accept that decision?
Mr. Hoon: That is a matter for the United Nations Security Council and its individual members. That decision has yet to be taken.
Mr. George Foulkes: Did the Defence Secretary know that Kofi Annan said that it was the credible threat of force that had forced Saddam Hussein to allow in the weapons inspectors? Did he also hear Tony Benn on the "Today" programme, who, when asked whether he would support the deployment of force if there were a proven material breach and a second UN Security Council resolution, refused to answer three times? Have the
46
critics who find it so easy to criticise the Government suggested to him an alternative way of disarming the murderous dictator?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's observations, not least about what Kofi Annan has said on a number of occasions. What unites all Members of the House is the need for the support of United Nations Security Council resolutions. It is important that all right hon. and hon. Members of the House and any critics outside recognise that, if the United Nations process is to mean anything, its decisions must be upheld and enforced.
Harry Cohen: President Bush senior stopped the first Gulf war when the killing went above 100,000. Is there to be no limit to the turkey shoot this time? The United Nations has said that there are likely to be some 900,000 refugees in the event of war. What would be the policy of UK and US troops if those refugees were in the way of their push towards central Baghdad?
Mr. Hoon: No decision has been taken on the use of military force. I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that it is necessary to prepare for all contingencies. We cannot assume that military action will be easy and straightforward. We are potentially committing people to difficult and dangerous operations, and we must have regard to their safety and security while respecting the rules of international law that govern such deployments.
Paul Flynn: What proof has the Secretary of State found of collaboration between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda?
Mr. Hoon: We are aware of some contact between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda over a number of years, but as I have made clear to the House on several occasions, there is no evidence to link the Iraqi regime to the appalling events of 11 September.
Mr. Jenkin: We thank the Secretary of State for the answers he has been able to give, and recognise that there are some that he cannot give. He is, however, aware of the old adage that sweat saves blood, and he has failed to reassure us that none of the units now being deployed on this operation has been withdrawn from Operation Fresco. Can he assure us that none of the units being deployed is likely to be drawn on for firefighting duties?
Mr. Hoon: I said that 16 Air Assault Brigade, for example, would be withdrawn from Operation Fresco in stages. I made that very clear. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, however, that it will be properly prepared for any military action, should that subsequently be required.

Points of Order
4.56 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, Mr. Speaker has often expressed his disapproval when Ministers have made important statements to the press before the House has been notified. In the case of the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, the House was the last to be told. The statement was widely trailed in the Sunday newspapers and in today's media. This appears to be a recurring pattern with the current Secretary of State.
I do not know whether the leaks are motivated by vanity, or whether they result from incompetence or from a lack of respect for the House; but this is now occurring, if not daily, almost twice weekly. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, convey to Mr. Speaker our anger about the fact that Ministers still seem more obsessed with spinning in the press than with reporting to the House? Will you ask him to look again at the problem, and see what action can be taken to halt this deplorable practice?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to that entirely scurrilous observation from the Opposition Front Bench—
Mr. Knight: It is in The Sunday Telegraph.
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman refers from a sedentary position to The Sunday Telegraph, in which an interview with me appeared. If, rather than making generalised observations that anyone can come to the Dispatch Box and make, he can give specific examples of specific involvement in the practice on the part of Ministers, I assure him that they will be properly investigated. Instead of coming along and making this kind of—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but this is developing into a debate, and I think I should respond.
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order in a moment. I must deal with this one first, unless the hon. Gentleman's is further to it.
The point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) will be on the record. Mr. Speaker is well aware of the matters to which he has referred, and is deeply concerned about them. I understand that he intends to take them up with the Ministers concerned.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise a matter that extends beyond my interests, about which I have written Mr. Speaker a four-page letter?
On Friday, there appeared on the Order Paper Question 10, in my name, asking the Home Secretary if he would place in the Library unrestricted information about ricin from the laboratory of the Government
48
Chemist. I displayed a legitimate interest in ricin. I asked the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson)—about the matter, and we agreed that we would ask about the actions of the laboratory of the Government Chemist. That was accepted by the Table Office, on condition that I was careful about supplementary questions because of sub judice rules. It was deemed a legitimate question. On Friday, I was rung up by the Home Office, by a Miss Anna Michael, to be told somewhat cavalierly that my question had been transferred to the Department of Health. I queried that and asked her to check it. The question was taken off the Order Paper and transferred not to the Department of Health, but to the Ministry of Defence on the ground that the work on ricin was done at Porton Down.
I concede that most of the work is done at Porton Down but I assert that, albeit that the laboratory of the Government Chemist is now privatised, there is constant reaction and relationship between the Home Office and the laboratory of the Government Chemist, which is quite proper. I also assert that certain personnel in the laboratory of the Government Chemist were perfectly properly consulted.
In those circumstances, is it right that a question, Question 10, which would certainly have been reached, is just taken off the Order Paper on the basis, frankly, of decisions by fairly junior civil servants? I ask for your protection in this matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand completely the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. I am sorry that he lost his place in the list of questions for today but it is a long-standing principle that decisions about the transfer of questions rest with Ministers and are not matters in which the Chair seeks to intervene.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you can be helpful in this matter. I am sure that you will be. You will have observed over the weekend the many demonstrations, not only in this country but throughout the world, against a possible invasion in Iraq. Tomorrow, there will be lobbying of this House by people who are deeply concerned about a possible invasion and our participation in it. Today, yet again, a Secretary of State refused to say whether we could have a debate in the House and indeed a vote—[Interruption.] Well, the Secretary of State certainly evaded the question of whether we go to war against Iraq. Last—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I well understand the points that the hon. Lady is seeking to make. They have already been well aired and are perhaps matters that she could raise at other times in other places. It is certainly not a point of order for the Chair at this time.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have dealt adequately with that point of order. We must now move on.
Mr. Dalyell: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it is a different point of order? I do not want to deal further with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
Mr. Dalyell: It is a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House passed a devolution Bill and part of the understanding of the devolution Bill was that the Scottish Parliament would not discuss matters reserved to Westminster. I understand why the Scottish Parliament had a debate and a substantive vote on Thursday on Iraq but could Mr. Speaker reflect on the issues that are involved in this?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have heard sufficient to be able to deal with the point of order that the hon. Gentleman is raising. The matters that are raised, discussed, debated and voted on in the Scottish Parliament are not a matter for the Chair of this House.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that and I am not going to deal with it any more this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Occuptional Pensions
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses its deep concern at current arrangements for winding-up occupational pension schemes, which leave many people receiving much less than expected for their retirement; deplores the lack of action by the Government to address this issue; notes that present workers near to retirement after long service with the employer often receive less than those who retired early after less service; recognises the great urgency of the issue because of the large number of schemes now moving towards wind-up; welcomes the proposals in the National Association of Pension Funds document, Pensions—Plain and Simple, for a possible new schedule of priorities on winding-up a final salary scheme with an insolvent employer; further notes that the Government in its Green Paper, Simplicity, Security and Choice, was prepared to consider such a measure; further notes that there is widespread support in Parliament for such changes; and urges the Government to take early action to address the crisis and speedily to introduce new winding-up priorities which take proper account of the age and length of service of non-retired scheme members.
  It may be for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House if I say that we intend to split the time that remains equally, and conclude the first Opposition day debate by about 7.30 pm.
  The debate could not be more timely, because we face a wide-ranging crisis in the world of pensions. It is a crisis about the incentives to save, which has led to an estimated gap in savings of £27 billion; it is a crisis of increasing costs to pension funds; it is a crisis of confidence in the Government and employers; and above all, it is a crisis of escalating closures and wind-ups of pension schemes. Even when the wind-ups occur, there is a crisis of unfairness in the way that the assets of pension funds are shared. However, what the Government are offering is yet another Green Paper and yet another consultation. Today, we are asking for urgent action, but in one area alone.
  This debate is about particular proposals for reform to achieve the fairer sharing of assets when occupational pension schemes are wound up—proposals that command considerable support in the House. Do we really have to wait perhaps for years, when this change could be made speedily?
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman says that we should not have more debate, and that we should get on with the business of bringing relief to those of our constituents who are being affected adversely by the winding up of their pension schemes. Is he not aware that I have a Bill before the House on the winding up of pension schemes? If the Opposition are so keen, why do they not adopt that Bill and use some of their time to advance it through this House?
  Mr. Heald: The right hon. Gentleman is constructive in this area, and I am always very happy to discuss with

  51
  him detailed proposals that will help those throughout this country who are involved in pension schemes. Equally, I hope that he will help us by canvassing the Government's support for what I am proposing today.
  Mr. Field rose—
  Mr. Heald: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall outline what we are talking about a little more fully.
  The vast majority of problems have arisen where final salary schemes are being wound up and the employer is in liquidation. Of course, there are also cases where solvent employers are winding up, and I shall deal with cases such as Maersk later in my remarks. However, it is in cases involving liquidation and a forced wind-up where the problem is perhaps most acutely felt. The rights of pensioners who are already receiving their pensions, including their right to receive future increases in pensions, are placed above the accrued rights of continuing workers, however long they have been with the employer. So employees who are approaching retirement find that they will receive only a fraction of the pension that they were expecting.
  Of course, it is true to say that all future pensions would be paid in full if there were enough money in the scheme, but the pension schemes of insolvent employers are all too often underfunded. The importance of this issue was shown through the recent experience of Allied Steel and Wire, which went into receivership on 10 July last year. Within days, on 18 July, it was announced that the pension schemes for the Cardiff and Sheerness plants were to be wound up. The operation of the priority rules—putting those pensions in payment first—meant that many employees of long service at both Cardiff and Sheerness were told to expect pitifully low levels of pension: 15 or 16 per cent. at Cardiff, and no more than about 50 per cent. at Sheerness.
  The plight of ASW's workers has touched the hearts of people throughout the country, particularly following the "Panorama" programme "How Safe is your Pension?", which was aired on 17 November last year.
  Kevin Brennan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, as the MP for Cardiff, West, I am well aware of the issues that he raises. Does he agree that, in addition to examining the rules governing the way in which the pension fund is distributed on wind-up, we should also look at the role of the independent trustee? Do the hon. Gentleman's proposals include putting a cap on the percentage of fees that the independent trustee pays himself on the winding up of pension schemes?
  Mr. Heald: I certainly agree that there is concern about that. Reports have shown that substantial fees are being charged by professionals. We should consider that to see whether we can find a way of lowering those costs. What I am trying to do in this short Opposition day debate, however, is to urge the Government to deal quickly and discretely with a small matter, so that the worst excesses of the problem at ASW do not happen again in the coming months while the Government consult at leisure on their Green Paper.
  52
  The "Panorama" programme highlighted the experience of John Benson, who described coming home to his wife to tell her that he had lost his job, thinking that his pension was safe, and then about 10 days later having to tell her that in fact he was only to get a tiny part of his pension and that the family were in trouble. He did not understand why he had ended up in that situation.
  The Mail on Sunday highlighted the situation of Bernie Tarpar, aged 54, who has 28 years service at Sheerness. He is a technician who hoped to retire at 62, with over 35 years service by then, and to receive about half his salary in pension and have a lump sum with which to visit his family in Australia. He said that he felt bitterly let down. He said:
  "Over the years we have shown great loyalty to our employer, who has rewarded us with good pay. But the winding-up of our pensions leaves us devastated and extremely worried."
  I have had letters from hard-pressed ASW victims, as other hon. Members will have done, and I have had the opportunity to talk to several of them. I know that the Minister has met John Hayter, to whom I have spoken. He is 58 and has been in the scheme for 28 years. He expected to retire on half salary, but he has been told that he will get half of that. He said:
  "We have followed the rules all the way along and then bang—it is taken away … They never said my pension might not be safe, not once."
  Mr. Steve Webb: I have a lot of sympathy with the cases that the hon. Gentleman raises. Does he accept, however, as we must all accept, that we are dealing with a pot of money that is inadequate to pay everybody, and unless more money is made available, the flipside of paying more to the people whom he describes, who have suffered badly, is to pay less to retired pensioners? Does he accept that that would create new uncertainty for those who have already retired? Is he saying that if the Conservatives returned to office, everybody drawing an occupational pension from a private company would be at risk of having their pension cut if the firm went into liquidation?
  Mr. Heald: I am about to outline what we are proposing. There is an issue of justice. Somebody who has worked for longer than they planned to, perhaps because they have been asked to do so to allow the company to restructure or to move into administration, can receive far less—half their pension or less—than a person who worked for fewer years and retired early. As I shall make clear in a moment, there are cases in which directors seem to have retired in a remarkably prescient way, taking millions of pounds from the scheme ahead of a change. I shall develop my argument, and I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to intervene if he thinks that there is anything unjust about it.
  There are other such cases, such as that of British Federal, where the scheme has a shortfall of £2 million. The National Association of Pension Funds warns us that a large number of schemes are moving towards wind-up. In many cases, existing pensioners are safeguarded, as are rises in their pensions, but employees, who may have longer service, may receive half their pension or less. It is often said that the best workers, those who are vitally needed in the company, suffer most. We hear anecdotally that some of those workers are even encouraged not to retire.

  53
  Why are pension funds so underfunded? There is no doubt that a key factor is the loss of £5 billion a year, taken from funds by the Chancellor in extra taxes after he scrapped the dividend tax credits. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants made a point that is not boring, even though I notice that some Labour Members are yawning because they have heard these things so many times before. They will hear them many more times. The association stated:
  "The withdrawal of the tax credit is, in our view, the most important single contributory factor in the problems that currently afflict … schemes."
  The CBI makes the same point. David Rosser, its Welsh director, said:
  "The Government put us in this mess by taking out, through taxation, £5 billion a year from company pension schemes."
  Ken Jackson, a union leader, said the same thing a year ago. The London chambers of commerce have said it.
  Mr. Bill Tynan rose—
  Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman say it?
  Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Do the Opposition have any plans to restore the tax dividend?
  Mr. Heald: The disincentives to save— [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question".] I shall answer the question. The disincentives to save have been described as massive by many people throughout the pensions world. They are caused by the widespread extension of means-testing. The first thing to do is try to find a way of removing some of the disincentives to save. Employers who might be considering investing in a pension scheme know that employees earning less than £20,000 would receive the same amount through means-tested benefits, so what would be the point of them saving for their employees? There are massive disincentives.
  I agree, however, that we need to consider incentives for employers to save in pension schemes. We are actively looking into that—the sad thing is that the Government are not. They have taken £5 billion a year out of the schemes so less money is available, while at the same time they have widened means-testing so that there are massive disincentives to save. A consensus on how to proceed is emerging in the pensions world—on how to simplify the system and provide greater incentives to save and to remove some of the disincentives. But what are the Government doing? They sit by complacently and are not even prepared to discuss the matter.
  Mr. George Foulkes: There is a genuine problem; it is faced by my constituents who work for United Engineering Forgings. No one is more sympathetic to their plight than my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions. Would not the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) better serve my constituents and all those affected if he made constructive proposals instead of party political capital?
  Mr. Heald: On an Opposition day, the right hon. Gentleman must excuse me for replying to an intervention. After all, he often does so.
  54
  We are making constructive proposals—that is exactly what I am doing—but it is right to record why we are in such a mess. It is the Government's fault. They introduced a tax that takes £5 billion a year. They have weakened protection for workers by reducing the minimum funding requirement. Actuaries say that it was the decision to relax MFR by 8 per cent. in March 2002 that led to Maersk's decision to close its pension scheme, a point to which I shall return later.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Heald: I have given way several times and I want to continue with my speech.
  There are other reasons why it is more expensive to buy the deferred annuities necessary to secure the liabilities on wind-up. Assumptions about how long people will live have increased and the cost of index-linked gilts has risen as yields have fallen, yet the Government have failed to explain any of that to the public. If interest rates fall, the cost of providing a pension rises. The failure to point out those consequences meant that few if any pension scheme members have been aware of the new-found fragility of their pensions. As a result, they have been unable to take action to deal with the situation. The effect is dramatic. In 1997, the MFR was adequate on wind-up to buy between 80 per cent. of the accrued pension for a 40-year-old still working for a company and as much as 95 per cent. for a 60-year-old. That has now been reduced to less than half.
  Even some solvent companies are moving to wind up their pension funds. One deplores their decision. It is one thing if the choice is between the company's future existence or its pension scheme, but in some cases the choice is purely commercial—which the Government have encouraged by their negligence. It is wrong and short-sighted for a company to turn its back on long-standing employees when it is possible to continue its pension fund. Some people say that a pension is just deferred pay, but to many there is an obligation upon an employer to ensure that people who give their working lives to a company are not without the resources needed in their retirement.
  Mr. David Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the main cause of problems in the pensions industry is the underperformance of the market and the economy? Does he further agree that one of the reasons for deficits is that many companies took long pension contribution holidays, from which they benefited at the time, but are now unwilling to put in the resources needed?
  Mr. Heald: That will not do. The Government tell us time and time again how wonderfully the economy is performing, but when pensions are in such a mess as a direct result of the actions of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Government blame the economy. Some of the reasons for pensions being in crisis are external to the Government, but the most significant factor, according to experts, is the Chancellor's decision to increase the tax by as much as he did.
  Mr. Terry Rooney rose—
  Mr. Heald: I will not give way immediately. I want to move on to another important aspect.

  55
  Two ASW directors were allegedly paid packages valued at £2 million from the pension fund in the year prior to wind-up. Whatever the individual circumstances at ASW, there is widespread concern that directors with detailed inside knowledge can choose their moment to retire, while workers who continue in employment—sometimes at the behest of those very directors—may be left with only a fraction of their expected future pensions.
  The National Association of Pension Funds' proposals aim at providing better protection for scheme members nearing retirement when an employer goes into liquidation. They also tackle the problem of directors who retire just before wind-up, by treating all members who have retired in the past year in the same way as those nearing retirement. The proposals would give priority to pensioners in payment but only at up to 90 per cent. of the current level, then to those expected to retire in the next 10 years, who would receive a 75 per cent. pension, and then others. While pensioners in payment would receive a little less and those who continue to work in the company less still, such a scheme would be much better, much fairer and much more just.
  It may be that the Government have other proposals, but that suggested change would not prejudice any of them as it would apply only to wind-ups after the proposals have been introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has written to the Secretary of State offering our full co-operation in ensuring the prompt passage of legislation to change the priority order. We would like to co-operate with the Government to achieve an early outcome.
  The NAPF emphasises the urgency of such reform in its briefing for this debate which states:
  "The NAPF urges the Government to take early action to take the winding-up priorities through new regulations."
  The association points out that it is not necessary to wait for the redesign of the MFR replacement and adds:
  "We consider that this issue is urgent because of the large number of schemes now moving to wind-up."
  The Government, in their recent Green Paper, have proposed other suggestions for consultation, but none of those ideas would be prejudiced by that. The Government have played a part in creating the crisis, and the measures that we propose for emergency action would save future pension scheme members some of the agony suffered by ASW and other members, whose plight I have been highlighting.
  Mr. Frank Field: May I return to the point that I made earlier? I know that Oppositions have never done this in the past, but there is nothing in the Standing Orders of the House that would prevent the Opposition from using some of their Opposition time to introduce their own measures. If this is so important, why does not the hon. Gentleman introduce his proposals or back those that I am putting forward?
  Mr. Heald: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair enough point, but surely I ought to try to persuade the Minister first. The Government have most of the time available to the House, so they can act with dispatch. The trouble is that they will not. They sit around
  56
  twiddling their thumbs, producing for consultation measures that we have seen time and again before. There have been 26 consultation exercises, as the right hon. Gentleman says—he agrees with me about that. Surely we should get on to the Government and say, as I am doing, that we should act now.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says about changing the priority order, but does he accept that raising the priority of pensioners subordinates the priority of the debt? Banks therefore run an increased risk and the cost of capital will go up, so those companies could be put under even greater pressure, forcing them into liquidation earlier. All that may cause even more problems that the hon. Gentleman seeks to solve.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but it is not relevant to this proposal, under which the money available to a pension fund should be split up differently, so that working members of the scheme do not end up being so cruelly disadvantaged as they have been in incidents such as that involving ASW. The Government are consulting on another proposal, under which the debt owed by the employer to meet the pension fund liabilities should have a higher priority. That proposal deserves serious consideration, but it is slightly different and the Minister will have heard the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.
  The crisis in pensions is wide-ranging. There is a lack of incentive to save, caused by Government action in extending means-tested benefits. At the same time, there is a crisis of increased costs for pension funds, caused by the Chancellor's tax increase on those funds. There is a lack of confidence, with the recent YouGov survey showing that just 4 per cent. of people in Britain trust the Government to keep their word on pensions. It is crisis of escalating closures, which have doubled in the past year according to the NAPF—it is warning of many new wind-ups—but this debate is about the crisis of fairness in wind-up arrangements. We may not be able to solve all the problems immediately, but the Government can act.
  Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman is pressing the Government to introduce proposals on the differing range of priorities for pension schemes on wind-up. I accept that such measures are urgent, but would it not sow more confusion to introduce some measures now, while waiting to make further changes until after the Government have consulted on their Green Paper? There is nothing inherently superior in the scheme proposed by the NAPF other than perhaps the priority on which the Government are consulting. Indeed, there would be grave concern about the idea of messing around with existing pensioners' benefits.
  Mr. Heald: The point is that the NAPF came forward with these ideas and, on this particular subject, stressed the urgency of this reform. It is true that the Government are consulting on this and several other reforms relating to wind-up, which they are entitled to do, as they are of some complexity. This issue, however, is one of injustice: what happened at ASW needs to be tackled.

  57
  The Opposition are acting constructively. We are promising full support to the Government on this issue. Our motion deplores the lack of action on the issue. We are trying to spur on the Government on behalf of people in this country who have suffered already, and on behalf of those who will suffer if we do not make this change. We want a commitment to action today. I appeal to all hon. Members who care about this issue—and who have seen what happened in the cases of ASW, British Federal and others—for their support to get the Government to act. Let us urge them to action, with no more delays. We want this change now.
  5.31 pm
  The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to end and to add instead thereof:
  "acknowledges the crucial contribution of the UK tradition of occupational pension provision; welcomes the range of measures in the recent Green Paper to strengthen that tradition and to renew the pensions partnership between employers, employees, the financial services industry and Government; supports, in particular, the promotion of occupational pensions as a means to recruit and to retain good staff through the employer task force and other measures; notes the proposal to give employees the right to be consulted on changes to an employer's pension scheme; further notes the Government's consideration of a range of options to bolster member protection in cases where schemes are wound up, including options for a fairer sharing of assets when schemes close, with more priority for workers closer to retirement or those with more years of contributions; believes that there should be 100 per cent. protection in cases of fraud; supports the appointment of a new proactive regulator to investigate fraud and maladministration; further notes the proposed £150—£200 million administrative savings which will encourage firms to open new schemes and keep existing schemes running; and further welcomes the establishment of the independent Pension Commission to assess how effectively the current voluntarist approach is developing and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on whether there is a case for moving beyond that approach."
  We welcome the opportunity to debate the extremely important issue of security in retirement for working men and women. The Government are already consulting widely about proposals in the Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement", published on 17 December 2002, on which there was a statement in the House. The Green Paper makes it completely clear that, as a Government, we are alert to and concerned about the difficulties that individuals face when their schemes are wound up, either because their employer becomes insolvent or because their employer decides to wind up their pension scheme voluntarily. As part of the process of developing the Green Paper, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) acknowledged, I met a range of employees—and sometimes employees and management— in relation to a variety of schemes, which helped my deliberations in advance of preparing for the Green Paper.
  I also welcome the belated acknowledgement by Opposition Members of the need for some form of consensus on pension policy. I am not sure that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will promote a general consensus, but there has certainly been a move forward in respect of some items raised today, which is to be welcomed. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I confirm receipt
  58
  of the letter. I am not sure that it arrived before it reached the press, but we have got it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for providing it, and my right hon. Friend will respond in due course. We welcome the capacity of Members to seek consensus on some of these issues.
  Perhaps we will also have an opportunity in this debate to explore issues in relation to security in retirement, which we will deal with in some detail. At the same time, I should like to deal in detail with some of the issues in relation to consensus, as that gives the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and his colleagues the opportunity to provide some insight as to where they will stand in the debate on the Green Paper.
  Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has not heard what I have to say.
  Mr. Heald: This is a two-and-a-half-hour debate about the winding-up arrangements. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that we will not have a full day's debate on the Green Paper?
  Mr. McCartney: Do not be so silly. I have made it absolutely clear that I welcome debates in the House. The Government are committed to respond at the end of the consultation process and to provide opportunities for debate. In the context of the Green Paper, we welcome debate in the House with our colleagues and with Opposition Members. We want as much consensus as possible. Difficult as that may be on occasions, that is what drives us forward in terms of the Green Paper, and, I hope, its eventual outcome and the measures that flow from it.
  In relation to that consensus, the hon. Member for Havant wrote on 7 March last year to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)—who was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the previous Government—asking for proposals to be brought forward that would mean the privatisation of the basic state pension. He said that he had asked for a short note to be prepared on these issues. I have asked both hon. Gentlemen if they are prepared to put that note in the public domain as part of the process. The hon. Member for Havant has not indicated that that will occur, and the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who is a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, has said that it is up to the Conservative Front Benchers to decide whether we can have this information. It would be useful if the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire could tell us before the day is out whether his and the Conservative party's review on the funded alternative to the basic state pension is in place. The hon. Member for Havant described in his letter to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield the case for that alternative as a
  "powerful and compelling one which you and I share".
  We have a right to know what Conservative Members mean.
  The protection that people receive if their pension scheme is wound up is very important, and the Government understand why recent events have made the members of some pension schemes question whether that protection is adequate. The hon. Member for

  59
  North-East Hertfordshire quoted from the letter that the hon. Member for Havant wrote last week to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That letter calls for better protection, in particular through changing the priority order affecting pensioners and scheme members when an insolvent employer is forced to wind up a scheme. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is correct in thinking that such a change could be made by secondary legislation—as indeed could certain changes involving wind-ups by solvent employers, and that is an area where scheme members are more clearly being made to suffer by their employers. However, he has chosen not to mention that point in the debate so far.
  My right hon. Friend will obviously reply to the letter in due course and he will deal with the issues. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the shadow Secretary of State were leading members of the previous Government and they know how difficult the issues are and why they have arisen. Indeed, the previous Government introduced the current legislation on the minimum funding requirement for scheme funding protection, and they also introduced the current member priority order on wind-up. The problems that my right hon. Friend and I are currently dealing with were created by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, but he did not even say that he was involved in the process of establishing arrangements that he now says—and rightly so—are leading to many people being screwed by their employers. He is responsible for that.
  Mr. Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, if circumstances change, one has to change the rules? Will he comment on the figures that I gave from Maersk that show that, in 1997, the minimum funding requirement would have provided between 80 and 95 per cent. funding for a continuing worker. Now the figure is less than 50 per cent.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman fails to answer the question. He refers to fluctuations, but he designed the rules to protect workers. However, they have been totally inadequate and have failed to do that. Therefore, the Government have taken steps to start the process of repairing the hon. Gentleman's chronic mistakes.
  I must emphasise that the agenda is currently the subject of widespread consultation. Sensible as it is to soften the current cliff edge of the priority order payments between actual and deferred pensioners, the change that the hon. Gentleman particularly proposes could create losers as well as gainers. We would divide up the same-sized pension fund as before, but in a different way. It might be a fairer way, but it would not give everybody priority treatment. Therefore, we as a Government need to think carefully about the issue and to take account of the views put to us in the consultation process before we act. Throughout the process so far on the minimum fund requirement, we have sought to get consensus from all those involved. That is important on such a complex issue.
  The hon. Gentleman condemned the Government's proposals for the minimum fund requirement. [Interruption.] Yes, he did—he said that they had been
  60
  criticised and he criticised them. I know that he has only recently been brought back to the Front Bench from the wilderness but, last May, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) initiated a debate on the Occupational Pension Schemes (Minimum Funding Requirement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002. He said:
  "we welcome this broadly relaxing set of regulations. I hope that that relaxes the Minister and other Labour Members.
  I believe in giving credit where it is due. My contacts in the Engineering Employers Federation, with whom I have dealt on a number of industrial relations matters over the years, refer positively to the regulations, saying that MFR interim reforms are a 'shot in the arm' for defined-benefit schemes. They say that the reforms respond to most of their wishes for the interim consultation order and that they are pleased with them."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 14 May 2002; c. 3.]
  The Government have tried to sort out the complex muddle created by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and his friends, and we have taken industry with us. Last March, there were a number of changes, including extending the deficit correction periods within which scheme funding must be made good. That was important for employers, as it removed the requirement for annual recertification in schemes that are fully funded on a minimum fund requirement basis. That was important for the security of the fund, introducing stricter conditions when an employer decides to wind up a scheme voluntarily and improving protection for pension scheme members.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: The right hon. Gentleman has always taken a close interest in pension issues. I remember that he did so when I was pensions Minister. What points along those lines did he make when those regulations were introduced?
  Mr. McCartney: I do not believe that I ever discussed those regulations—[Interruption.] I was in fact on the Opposition Front Bench talking about fiddled figures and unemployment. I talked about fat cats when the Tories did not want to introduce the national minimum wage and refused to do anything about youth unemployment. My gaze was therefore on another set of big issues that the Government, thank goodness, have put right.
  One thing is quite clear. Even if the Opposition's decisions were well intended, they were an abysmal failure, and it is the present Government's watch to resolve that problem. At the outset, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that he wanted consensus. If he took a bit of responsibility for the problem, I would take the consensus thing a bit more seriously.
  We have launched a comprehensive, tiered consultation on the Green Paper proposals.
  Mr. Heald: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously denying that the cost of securing pensions has become far more expensive under his Government as yields have fallen? There is far less money to pay for pensions as the Chancellor has taken £5 billion a year in tax, but the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should leave things as they are and not change them at all. The

  61
  decisions that we made in 1997 were made on the basis of the facts available at the time, so should he not make some decisions based on today's facts?
  Mr. McCartney: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to make an incisive point, but he made the same point during his opening remarks and on previous occasions. The abolition of the dividend tax credit, he said, was part of an overall package of reforms. He failed to answer when asked about that, so may I advise him of what the hon. Member for Havant said when asked whether he would reintroduce the dividend credit at the end of last year? In The Observer on 24 November, he said:
  "Actually, I don't think we'll be doing that. Helping pension funds doesn't mean going back to the same system we had before, you know."
  Opposition Members may huff and puff, but they have no intention of making changes. However, we have introduced a new system to encourage long-term investment by employers in the British economy. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire cannot back up his point. Indeed, his party will do nothing about the problem.
  There will be a wide-ranging consultation on the Green Paper with employers, industry experts and the unions, who will be asked about the themes of extending working lives, tax and savings, and the new regulatory approach. In addition, my colleagues and I will hold seminars on a number of specific issues in the Green Paper. There will be technical workshops at which officials and pensions experts will discuss in detail specific changes, and there will be regional events in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at which grassroots views will be sought.
  Mr. Webb: Much has been said about consensus. At those workshops, it would be useful on a technical level to engage all the Opposition parties. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to extend that invitation to us?
  Mr. McCartney: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will write to Opposition parties about that, because it is important that we get this right. There is nothing to be gained either intellectually or politically in not involving Opposition parties as far as possible in these complex issues. Having given that commitment, correspondence from my right hon. Friend will be forthcoming.
  Chris Grayling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McCartney: This is the last occasion. I must get on.
  Chris Grayling: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that while that process is taking place, he will make representations to the Treasury to ensure that the Inland Revenue does not continue the process of looking at the specific rules that apply to pension funds and pension providers? That has been revealed in the media on a number of occasions in recent weeks, and the suggestion has clearly been that the Revenue is looking for more, rather than fewer, ways to raise money from pension schemes and pension providers.
  Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Gentleman has not read the Green Paper, I suggest that he does so. It covers a
  62
  range of issues of tax simplification, including reducing eight regimes to a single regime. Since the proposals were published on 17 December, they have been welcomed by employers and trade unions alike.
  It is important that we hold events involving community organisations at local level. Those will be arranged.
  When we came to power, fewer than 2 per cent. of pensions mis-selling cases had been satisfactorily resolved. We immediately sought to accelerate the process by naming and shaming the worst industry performers. By the end of last year, more than 99 per cent. of consumers with mis-selling claims had been compensated. Total compensation has reached £11 billion, and tough disciplinary action against laggard performers has resulted in £11 million of fines. Not a moment was spent by the Conservative party in supporting that activity or protecting pensioners ripped off by the policies of the last Tory Government.
  Mr. Michael Weir: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McCartney: I am not one to avoid the hon. Gentleman—far from it—
  Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise me for not speaking about the mis-selling of pensions from the 1980s, when the subject of the debate is winding-up arrangements?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must leave such matters to the Chair.
  Mr. McCartney: I am interested to discover that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is so sensitive. I was not speaking just about today. I was speaking about our attempts since 1997 to resolve the debacle. We got no support from the Opposition, even though it was they who created it in the first place.
  I shall deal with the wider issues of protection.
  Mr. Heald: What about winding up?
  Mr. McCartney: I have dealt with that. By the end of my remarks, the hon. Gentleman will find that our proposals for consideration are far more comprehensive than what he has to offer. He raised issues about genuine protections, and I shall deal with those.
  The new kind of regulator will be an important step forward. As good as Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority was—it was introduced by the previous Government—in many cases it was not sufficiently proactive and merely reacted to situations. Following the quinquennial review and the Green Paper, we decided to introduce a new regulator that would be risk-focused and flexible, that would target resources on schemes and weaknesses causing the greatest stress to scheme members, and that would produce quality advice and guidance to whistleblowers to help to identify materially significant breaches. We wanted to change its role so that it would be proactive rather than reactive.

  63
  We will introduce new rights to information and consultation. When changes to pension schemes are proposed, we want to ensure that better information is available so that employees' choices are easier to understand. We are setting up an employers taskforce to actively involve employers and encourage them to highlight the value of the pensions that they provide. We are encouraging all employers to provide better information to help to extend pension provision and take-up by employees.
  Mr. Weir: I am interested in what the Minister is saying about information. That may be at the core of the problem. The pensions mis-selling scandal, the Equitable Life debacle and various other matters have seriously undermined the public's belief in pensions. Do the Government have specific proposals to rebuild that faith in the pension system? Without that, we will get nowhere in reforming the system.
  Mr. McCartney: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. That is why we established the Penrose inquiry into Equitable Life. The Government will study its report closely. That was also the purpose of the Green Paper. One of the key elements in restoring faith in the pension system is improving the protections offered by the system that we inherited. The fair sharing of assets—
  Mr. James Clappison rose—
  Mr. McCartney: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not give way. Numerous colleagues want to speak. We will have many opportunities to debate these matters, and I have given way six or seven times.
  We want to ensure that when a scheme winds up, the assets are divided among scheme members as fairly as possible. I met my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and their constituents who have been affected by the winding up of the Allied Steel and Wire pension scheme. I know that the statutory priority order introduced by the Pensions Act 1995 and associated regulations are inadequate. We deal with that issue in proposals set out in the Green Paper. For the record, it was the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire who was the Minister who introduced the regulations.
  In the Green Paper, we are consulting on whether people who are approaching retirement age should be given higher priority when a scheme's assets are distributed on wind-up or whether those who have been members of their pension scheme for a number of years should be given higher priority—a proposal that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has been promoting. We are also consulting on whether there should be fairer sharing of assets between those with larger and smaller pensions when a scheme winds up. That might involve setting a cap on the level of pension that those with the highest pensions might receive if limited assets are available in the scheme. That deals with one of the points made about fat cats who try to use short-term gain to get bigger access to the assets of the scheme to the detriment of the workers.
  64
  However, we recognise that, while changes to the priority order could mean that some people get more protection, that would be to the cost of others who receive less. We will therefore carefully consider the responses to the consultation. Only then will we decide what changes to implement and when. I am due to meet members of the all-party group on steel to discuss recent developments in pension provision in the steel industry and their concerns about protection of scheme members' rights. I look forward to hearing their views.
  The statutory priority order can be modified by secondary legislation and we will consider how best to implement any proposals in that regard. On fairer sharing of assets and amending the priority order of creditors, when pension schemes such as those of Allied Steel and Wire or United Engineering Forgings are wound up because their sponsoring employer becomes insolvent, they are categorised along with unsecured creditors at the bottom of the list of creditors that can make a claim on an insolvent employer's estate. We are considering moving pension schemes up the order of priority for payment, possibly by creating a new a category of creditor that would give pension schemes higher priority than they have at present. That is another recognition of what was said in the discussions that I had before the Green Paper's publication.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given that consultation on the Green Paper will inevitably be detailed and will almost certainly prove relatively lengthy—I state that not as a criticism, but simply as an observation of reality—is there any possibility that the right honourable Gentleman will be prepared to consider for the benefit of affected parties the retrospective application of his final proposals?
  Mr. McCartney: On retrospection, the honest answer has to be no. However, there are issues about real time. There will be occasions on which wind-ups are not complete, but changes have been made in the wind-up regulations. In such circumstances, a decision has to be made on whether a scheme that has not been fully wound up will be covered by any changes that are made during that time. I am prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman about the matter, as the area is difficult and complex and I do not want to mislead him. I have been firm about the first part of his question and the second is worth looking at. Furthermore, I know that he has raised issues about a particular company. I have a policy to meet hon. Members, from whatever part of the House they come, with regard to issues relating to particular companies. If he wants to avail himself of that policy, I shall be more than happy to concur with his wishes.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McCartney: No—
  Mr. Brazier rose—
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to make a speech, and I could rightly be criticised for giving way far too much. I have given an absolute commitment to the House to return to the matter and I dealt honestly with the two difficult issues that it involves.

  65
  We will also consider issues relating to insolvent employers in terms of insurance and centralised clearing house facilities.
  Mr. Gardiner: My right hon. Friend said that the priority order might influence what happens to the benefit of pensioners. Does he accept that while the prioritisation of pensioners over debt may lead banks not to foreclose on them so quickly, the fact that debts are down the pecking order might mean that they foreclose earlier on the companies involved?
  Mr. McCartney: I said that we were consulting on a number of measures and I did not go out of my way to indicate a preference as to those proposals. The issue must be considered in the Green Paper and large numbers of employees are rightly asking us to consider it. We will consider whatever recommendations arise on the basis of what is said by stakeholders, and I note what my hon. Friend has said.
  We are again asking for consultation on insurance issues and the establishment of different funds far better to protect pensioners. We are improving compensation arrangements where schemes become insolvent because of acts of dishonesty—100 per cent. compensation will be provided in such cases—and looking at ways to improve arrangements in respect of underfunded benefit schemes where there is still a solvent employer. We are also looking to protect scheme members where a Government are seeking to define benefit provision, as we want to ensure that employers who want to make changes adequately consult their employees.
  On transfer between private companies, we are bringing forward proposals on transfer of undertaking regulations to protect pensions. I was the Department of Trade and Industry Minister who introduced changes in the relevant European directive to protect pensions in public-to-public and public-to-private transfers for the first time in Britain. That will now be the case in respect of private-to-private transfers. I look forward to changes following the end of discussions on the Green Paper.
  On renewal of partnerships, we are doing two very important things in the Green Paper. First, we are establishing the pensions commission to deal with a whole range of issues independently of the Government. Key people are stakeholders and all of them have skills and knowledge. The commission is intended to provide in the short term and the medium to long term a source of information that is independent of the Government and the Opposition, while giving them a capacity to ask questions and seek information about pensions issues. It will give advice about issues such as compulsion. The Government have not closed the door as some might suggest in trying to ensure that both state compulsion through national insurance contributions and the voluntary system can work more effectively. We have said that the matter should be considered closely by members of the commission over the next few years.
  We will also introduce an employers taskforce, whose membership will, I hope, be announced soon. Its aim is to provide a bridge enabling employers to work with the Government and trade unions to achieve best practice
  66
  and innovation and ensure that employees save more for the longer term and that more of them participate in bringing investment into pension schemes.
  Lynne Jones: Will the Government also ask the pensions commission to give advice on the interaction between the state pension system and private pensions?
  Mr. McCartney: The commission will be working on a programme. First, it will consider statistics on pensions; secondly, it will consider the wider situation. I take note of what my hon. Friend said, as it is important that the commission does effective work. That is exactly the Government's intention in establishing it.
  Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McCartney: No; I want to conclude my speech.
  Bob Spink rose—
  Mr. McCartney: I like the hon. Gentleman dearly and we have spoken over many years. I assure him that next time when I speak in a debate in the House and he is present, 1 shall give him the first chance at my neck. There is a rash judgment if ever I heard one.
  Opposition Members hint and wink about some issues relating to pensioners, giving the impression that they are prepared to consider a consensus. As a consensus and bridge-building politician, I welcome that. [Laughter.] I do not know why there is so much laughter about that, as it is absolutely true.
  In the spirit of reconciling Conservative policy with consensus, perhaps the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire can give us an insight into the development of his party's policy on pensioners and older people. Only a matter of weeks ago, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, boldly stated in the 29 December edition of The Sunday Telegraph that, on behalf of the shadow Cabinet, he was
  "digging through current spending, and had found opportunities for cuts".
  He said that those cuts could total 20 per cent. of public spending across the board of Government activity. When numerous Conservative spokespeople confirmed that over the holiday, they made no effort to exempt pensioners from the share of agony that £100 billion of cuts will cause. Why? We want some answers at the end of the debate. If Conservative Members genuinely support those policies, there will no consensus between hon. Members on pensions in the long term.
  Let me give some examples of what Conservative policies would mean. The basic state pension would have to decrease by £15.49 for a single pensioner and £24.76 for a pensioner couple. The minimum income guarantee would have to be cut by £20.42 for a single pensioner and £31.16 for couples. That figure could be further reduced. The former Tory leader told the House in 1999 that there was nothing to recommend the minimum income guarantee. It is Conservative policy to eradicate it.
  The winter fuel payment would be cut from £200 per pensioner household to £160 or less. The hon. Member for Havant made it clear that he believed that it was a

  67
  gimmick and implied that a Conservative Government would drop it. In 2001–02, we spent £16 million on cold weather payments; the Conservative party would slash that figure by £3 million. I could go on about pensioner credit, capital allowance, attendance allowance, bereavement lump sum payments, carer's allowance, TV licences, bus fares and the health and social services budget. The Opposition propose cuts for them all.
  We require an answer: would the Opposition cut cold weather payments or the home energy efficiency scheme? Would they cut pension credit, which would mean a cut of £400 a year or 20 per cent. across the board? We have invested an additional £2 billion, yet the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has not told us whether the Conservative party will support the introduction of pension credit in April.
  The Opposition would reduce capital allowances by £2,400 from the current £12,000 to £9,600. That would fundamentally undermine the concept of pension credit. They would cut attendance allowance by £11.25 a week. That is a disgrace and I hope that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who winds up the debate, gives an absolute assurance that the proposals that the hon. Member for Havant made before Christmas will be scrapped and put in the bin.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: The subject of our debate is important and it is proper that the Conservative Opposition have chosen to use some of their allocated time for it. It is important to individuals who have been affected and the many who will be affected, although they do not yet know it. Their expectations of a comfortable retirement will be utterly devastated and many of us will have to respond to our constituents by telling them that, as matters stand, nothing can be done for them.
  We have all heard of the Allied Steel and Wire case. Although the company would prefer not to be a cause celebre, it has become a classic case of what can go wrong under the current regime. The ASW workers told me that many joined the scheme when it was compulsory. The Minister nods and obviously appreciates the point, which has not been brought out in the debate. Joining the scheme was a condition of employment at ASW.
  All hon. Members who supported such legislation or would like to reintroduce compulsion must ask whether the public sector has a responsibility that goes beyond simply saying that perhaps workers can contract back in. Since the law of the land meant that they had to join the schemes, and they did not make a misguided financial decision, perhaps the public sector owes them a greater obligation than has so far been acknowledged.
  Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman is a keen advocate of compulsion in pension contributions, for which the TUC is also campaigning. However, does he agree that, for the reasons he outlined, it would be wrong to make it compulsory for workers to contribute to an employer's scheme if there were no separate state earnings-related scheme that they could choose to join instead?
  Mr. Webb: I half agree with the hon. Lady. We are in favour of compulsion, but on top of what? What is the
  68
  state's role? We support compulsory membership of a private sector scheme for those above specific minimum income levels in addition to an adequate basic universal state pension. All pension provision carries risk. The hon. Lady is understandably wedded to state pension provision. However, the Conservative Government ripped the state earnings-related scheme to shreds. That was a political risk. Anyone who pinned hopes for income in old age to that scheme was severely disappointed. No mechanism is without risk, and we would prefer it to be shared.
  We have heard of the ASW case. In my constituency, BAE Systems is a major employer. It projects that, in three years, its pension fund will be £1 billion in deficit. We have heard about a fund that will be £2 million in deficit, but the figure could be £1 billion for BAE Systems in a few years. The Secretary of State for Defence queries whether it is genuinely a British company and is perhaps thereby softening us up for not giving it a contract. There could be a combination of a fund in huge deficit and a company that faces commercial difficulties. The system cannot cope with funds that are vastly under-financed and companies that get into trouble. I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not go further and outline some of his proposals in the Green Paper that could cope with such a problem.
  I want to emphasise the human cost of the problem by mentioning the case of a constituent who came to see me only yesterday, unaware that the House would debate the issue today. She is two years from retirement after working for her employers for more than 20 years. Last June, the pension fund was closed. The company will not wind up the fund because it is solvent and if it wound up the fund, its under-financing would mean charges that would drive it out of business. It is possible to transfer out, but the value of doing that is woefully inadequate.
  My constituent was expecting a pension of £22,000 a year. She has been told that the transfer value will buy her a pension of £4,000. She was devastated and asked whether I could do anything. I said that we would debate the subject in the House the following day, that I would bring the circumstances to the Minister's attention and ascertain whether any aspect of the Green Paper or any other proposal could deal with the problem or offer my constituent consolation.
  I was tempted to be rude about the Conservative motion but I realised that I helped to draft it. However, I am an academic and could therefore probably do both.
  Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that shortfalls in pension schemes were almost unheard of when the Conservative party was in government?
  Mr. Webb: Clearly, the state of the stock market puts pressure on funds. It has been performing badly and is a specific cause of underfunding, coupled with the dividend tax credit—a policy that the hon. Gentleman did not propose to reverse.
  I began to consider the origins of the motion. At the beginning of December, Conservative Members tabled early-day motion 304, which gave an uncritical welcome to the proposals of the National Association of Pension Funds to change the order of priorities when a scheme

  69
  winds up. That organisation claims that not only retired members but those within 10 years of retirement should be a priority. I am worried that, under the proposal, people in their late 50s who join a company would go straight to the top of the queue whereas those who worked for it for 30 years since leaving school would be at the bottom and could get nothing.
  Distance from retirement is therefore not the only factor that matters. People who are close to retirement cannot do much else, but most of their pension eggs may not be in the current employer's basket. Length of service therefore matters as well as proximity to retirement. I therefore amended early-day motion 304 and advocated introducing
  "new winding-up priorities which take account of both the age and length of service of non-retired members."
  I am delighted that the final sentence of the Conservative motion refers to introducing
  "new winding-up priorities which take proper account of the age and length of service of non-retired scheme members."
  I anticipated thanks from the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for my contribution to the motion, but I expect that he ran out of time.
  The refined position therefore takes account of people's closeness to retirement, because they will have no time to make other arrangements, and the number of eggs that are in a specific basket. Both aspects matter and should be taken into account.
  As the Minister highlighted, Conservative Members cannot be allowed to get away with the start of the motion, which I did not write. It states:
  "this House expresses its deep concern at current arrangements for winding-up … schemes, which leave many people receiving much less than expected for their retirement; deplores the lack of action by the Government to address this issue".
  The Minister pointed out that the author of those schemes was sitting on the Conservative Front Bench at the moment. He did not mention, however, who the members of the Standing Committee on the Pensions Bill were in 1995. We have spent some time today trying to find that out, and we discovered that those who brought in the framework that we are debating today included the previous leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), and the present one, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), whose name, unless my eyes deceive me, appears at the top of the Conservative motion. The structure that he is criticising is, therefore, one that he himself introduced. It would be inappropriate, however, to be partisan on an occasion such as this.
  One of my concerns about the motion is that it is extremely narrow. In other words, it takes a point at which there is not enough money in a fund, and proposes a very narrow debate on who should get a share of that money, and who comes first in the queue. I intervened earlier on the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and gently suggested that, if those who were near retirement and with long service received a higher claim, we should all be honest with them. We should be saying to every one of today's retired occupational pensioners that they might receive less pension. In other words, we would be giving new security to a group of people who might, perhaps, have
  70
  a disastrous cut in their pensions, but we might also be sowing a new insecurity among millions of private sector occupational pensioners who have hitherto always had the first claim on pension funds.
  Mr. Brazier: It is, of course, the case that 90 per cent. is the level of underpinning guarantee for those who are on even as protected a form of income as an annuity, under the terms of the protection provided by the different annuity companies, so there is a good precedent for that in relation to pensioners with private sector schemes.
  Mr. Webb: I take that point. Indeed, 90 per cent. is not an arbitrary figure. It is a figure that is already used in protection schemes. The point that I am trying to make is that, at a time when there is a crisis of confidence in private sector pensions, we must all bite the bullet together and say to all Britain's 5 million—something of that order; several million, anyway—retired occupational pensioners that they will have a less high priority when the funds are divided up and that they might get less next year than they would have got this year. We should not try to pretend that that is not a consequence of focusing our help on those close to retirement and with long service.
  The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire was, regrettably, absolutely silent on how we should ensure that there is enough money in the pot in the first place. By all means, let us have a debate on how to carve up an inadequate fund and give it out more fairly. Of course we should do that, but what can we do to ensure that there is enough money in the first place? The Government are proposing fewer actuarial valuations, as a measure to reduce the regulatory burden on employers who run schemes. That is the goal towards which they are heading. That worries me, because a fund could satisfy the minimum funding requirement at a particular point in time, but things could then go wrong. The stock market could fall, for example, and life expectancies could increase. The fund might then have insufficient money in it before it was wound up. So, at the point at which it was wound up, things could have gone horribly wrong without any corrective action having been taken.
  I am not sure whether the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), will be responding to this debate—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)indicated assent.
  Mr. Webb: I am pleased to see that she will be. Will she clarify whether that measure will provide sufficient safeguards? Regular valuations are, one would hope, like an amber light. They are a warning that something needs to be done. If valuations were infrequent, things could go badly wrong and a scheme could be wound up at the wrong time. It would then be frozen, and nothing could be done about it. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me on that point.
  We have not talked much about the regulator. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) raised with the Occupational Pensions Regulatory

  71
  Authority in the Public Accounts Committee whether another Robert Maxwell case could happen. The response of the regulator was, broadly, yes. She was not convinced that there was enough protection in place to prevent that.
  Maria Eagle: While the hon. Gentleman is right about that, does he accept that the regulator was saying that a determined fraudster or criminal could get round most of the rules that anybody could devise?
  Mr. Webb: That is absolutely true. Indeed, the Maxwell case showed how an imaginative fraudster could get money out of a pension fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was pointing out, however, that we need to do more to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of funds before things get out of hand. That means prevention rather than cure; it means amber lights, warnings and trigger mechanisms. That is what I am driving at. There needs to be a much more effective system of spotting problems before things go wrong. Today's debate, however, is essentially about how we bail things out when they have gone wrong.
  A further key issue is how we ensure that, once we have this pot of money, a bigger proportion of it goes to the pensioners and workers, and a smaller proportion to the financial institutions that wind up the schemes. We have heard of cases in which independent trustees of the company who are put in to wind a scheme up have charged £100 to answer the inquiries of The Daily Telegraph. It is outrageous to charge £100 to deal with a media inquiry. The Minister described himself as a socialist the other day. I wonder whether he has ever thought of nationalising this process.
  Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: I will not, because I have nearly used up all the time that I had planned to take.
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: She is the other one.
  Mr. Webb: The other socialist, yes.
  There is clearly a serious issue here. Once we have reached the stage at which there is not enough money in the pot, the money must not—for goodness' sake—go to pay the financial people. It must go to the pensioners.
  Some schemes take decades to wind up. For example, I have known pension schemes to take 30 years or more to be wound up. That is totally unacceptable. What are the Government doing to make wind-ups a great deal quicker? In our view, scrapping contracting out would make the whole process a good deal easier. What are the Government doing about that?
  The scope of the motion is extremely limited. It is about carving up an inadequate pot more fairly. We do not have a problem with that, but that is only a small part of the process. My biggest concern is that the Government have produced yet another Green Paper that will further delay any effective action in relation to the much wider canvas that I have painted.
  I shall cite one example of just how slow and indecisive the Government have been. Back in 1993, when the Goode committee was examining these issues,
  72
  it considered what is called a central discontinuance fund—the idea involves a pot of money that can be dipped into when a fund goes wrong—but decided that that did not represent a viable solution. In September 2000, the Department responsible for social security implemented a consultation to consider a central discontinuance fund. In March 2001, the response to the consultation found that
  "very few were attracted to the idea"
  and that the Government would not act as guarantor. There was very little support for the proposal. Then, on page 65 of a Government report published in September 2002, we learn that
  "an alternative approach would be to introduce an insurance scheme, perhaps a central discontinuance fund, providing pensioners and non-pensioners with greater protection"
  and that
  "we would welcome views on these options".
  So, presumably we are going to hear yet again the same views as those that were put forward in 1993 and those that were given 18 months ago. This will mean more delay while we go back to the same ideas that have already been rejected, and no serious action appropriate to the scale of the problem being taken. There is a huge agenda involved here, of which this motion touches on just a tiny part. Yes, let us share out inadequate pension pots more fairly, but, for goodness' sake, let us act urgently to ensure that those funds have enough money in them to begin with, so that this issue need not arise.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I say to the House that, if hon. Members impose on themselves a voluntary limit of about eight minutes, it might be possible for me to call everyone who is seeking to catch my eye.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I also wish to add a sense of urgency to today's debate. All hon. Members have been lobbied by steelworkers who have recently lost not merely their jobs and the prospect of a decent pension but, often, their homes as well, in that they will have inadequate income to complete their mortgages. They, and many others among our constituents who have recently been affected by the closure of their pension schemes, are looking to this debate to see what action the Government might introduce in the short term to abate the suffering that they are experiencing.
  If the parliamentary answer that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions gave me the other day is accurate, it is clear that, since we came to power in 1997, a large number of our constituents have already been affected by the closure of their pension scheme. It would be a foolish person who thought that the situation was going to become easier over the next few years, rather than the opposite. Of course, one applauds the way in which my right hon. Friend has approached this debate, as well as his enthusiasm for the whole issue of pensions and his keenness for consultation, but I hope that he will take back to his colleagues the fact that the House does not think that consultation alone is going to be adequate. There comes a point at which the consultation has to cease and action has to begin.

  73
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, was right to point out that some ideas in the recent Green Paper go back at least to the Goode committee, and many of the others, which are presented as a novelty, were in the 1998 pensions or general welfare reform Green Paper. So, merely to say that one is consulting on them is clearly not adequate, but neither is the Opposition stance.
  I suggested to the Conservatives that, if they are serious about the plight of those who find themselves in pension schemes that they were made to join but which they see winding up, they could be the first Opposition in the history of this Parliament to dispense with show debates and demonstrating a great deal of anger about the Government's lack of action, and introduce legislation themselves. In place of a further debate on the serious decline of occupational pensions, might they not consider introducing legislation? If they are interested in introducing legislation on winding-up arrangements, may I describe to them the Bill that my hon. Friends and I have already introduced?
  Mr. Brazier: The right hon. Gentleman knows the considerable respect in which he is held by the House and, indeed, by the Opposition. He will recall that in the previous Session we tried to assist him with every possible co-operation on his measure to take housing benefit from unruly, antisocial neighbours, but his colleagues on the Front Bench wrung their hands while the Liberal Democrats talked it out.
  Mr. Field: The good thing about today's debate is that, this time, the Liberal Democrats want to support a Bill that goes beyond merely dividing up the sums. In the three minutes that I have left, may I describe to the House the Bill that my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and I have introduced?
  First, while we accept the Liberal Democrats' point that the current way of dividing funds is inadequate, there ought to be greater weighting to the contributory years that people put in a scheme rather than to their age. Of course there must be protection for pensioners, but clearly it is not right that those who have been in a scheme for 30, 35 or 40 years are pushed down the list by somebody who may have been in it for only five, but who is retired and so begins to scoop their whole pension entitlement.
  So, the Bill's first aim is to have a winding-up formula based on contributory years rather than age. Its second aim is to deal with those legal and professional advisers who milk such schemes. All of us know examples involving our constituents or those of other Members in which the professional fees have taken a fifth of the pension savings. We cannot allow that to continue.
  Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Field: No, no. We all want to get into the debate.
  The Bill's third clause says that while we may have proposals to protect funds in the future, some of our constituents have been badly affected already. What are we going to offer them? The Bill proposes that we introduce a gentle levy on orphan funds, which are funds that the insurance companies have built up,
  74
  sometimes over 200 years, involving people who had policies, but died without claiming. Surely those who, as the hon. Member for Northavon said, were made to join pension schemes should have some stake in those unowned assets, which we should not allow to be of book value in the insurance companies.
  Looking to the future, the Bill's fourth clause would introduce an insurance scheme for those who do everything required of the pension scheme to pay their contribution, but find that the funds are not there to pay that entitlement. On that, we need to act collectively, hence the clause. Clause 5 asks the Secretary of State and his colleague the Minister to introduce within a time scale a measure on where we should put the pension debt as against a company's other debts.
  Although my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has left the Chamber, we might say that putting pensioners up the list of debtors would, for example, make the banks close companies more quickly. My view is that, as in the recent closure of the steel fund, the banks make a careful calculation. They had recently lent to the company, and they thought, "If we push it out of business now, we will get all our money back. We don't want to continue to take a risk." In fact, had the banks been pushed down the list, that company might not have been pushed into liquidation.
  I make a plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions and to the Opposition: there are many issues in the Green Paper and we need detailed discussion, but increasingly, over the next couple of years in the run-up to the general election, many more of our constituents will be affected by the closure of their pension scheme, and we could legislate this year.
  Our Bill is coming back to the House in early March, and it would be wonderful if the Government took it over and rewrote part or even lots of it. Let us have fewer crocodile tears from the Opposition. Let them say that they will use their time to give a Second Reading to the Bill, which my hon. Friends have already introduced. Most of the people affected so far come from constituencies represented by Conservative Members, so most of the Bill's supporters are Conservative Members.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: I have a huge regard for the Minister for Pensions and for what he knows and does in relation to pensions, so I hope that he does not take it as a discourtesy when I say that it is a great pity that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did not remain in his job. Had he done so, we might not be facing some of these problems.
  I declare an interest as a member of Equitable Life and as a pensions barrister. I also declare an interest as one of the guilty men who introduced section 73 of the Pensions Act 1995. Experience has shown us that the priorities highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) need fine tuning. That makes the problem sound small, but it has turned into a major one. We all know that it arises from a more fundamental issue than a stock market collapse—the fact that we live longer, join the working population later because we spend longer in education, retire earlier and save less. Possibly the most important issue of all is the post-war baby boom, which we have yet to take account of in funding our pension schemes.

  75
  We have a recipe for a catastrophic old age for many people, and the system that we have set up to cope with that potentially catastrophic old age is not at all simple. It is expensive, complicated, intimidating and run by a set of trustees who are largely unpaid and frequently untrained, yet they bear huge responsibility for our future in old age. The Government have introduced some fairly sensible measures in some places to deal with that. The Myners, Pickering and Sandler reports impress me, as do many points in the Green Paper, notably on the simplification of taxation, but the radical nature of the problem brings me back to what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said: it does not seem to have been addressed by a radical solution. Overall, there is nothing in the Green Paper to start people saving when they would not otherwise do so.
  I take as my text a letter that Professor Blake from the Pensions Institute sent to the Select Committee in August. He is a highly respected, independent academic who deals with these issues. He asks about the word "crisis" and says:
  "The word 'crisis' may be an exaggeration, but it is certainly the case that within a few short years what was the envy of Europe, namely a good well-funded private pension system sitting on top of an admittedly poor-in-comparison-with-the-rest-of-Europe basic state pension system, appears to be on the verge of possible disintegration."
  The first cause to which he attributes that is the ending of tax relief on UK equity dividends.
  The issue of winding up schemes has become extremely urgent. The National Association of Pension Funds confirms in its report that the issue is urgent. What sense of urgency have the Government shown? I am afraid that they have not shown very much. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, who stresses the need for urgency.
  Two measures are required: the first is difficult, and the second is easy. The difficult one arises out of Professor Blake's letter, in which he considers how we can get out of this mess. He highlights certain relationships and says:
  "higher state pension entitlements reduce the need to save privately for retirement, but have no discernible effect on the timing of the retirement decision
  higher occupational (defined benefit) pension entitlements have the effect of increasing private savings, but also of encouraging earlier retirement
  higher personal (defined contribution) pension entitlements have the effect of increasing private savings, but also of delaying retirement."
  We need to increase private savings and to delay retirement. The evidence given by Professor Blake points to higher defined contribution pension entitlements, as the closure of final salary pension schemes is now commonplace.
  There is nothing wrong with money purchase schemes, provided—it is a huge proviso—that companies pay into those schemes the same amount as they were paying into their final salary schemes, or more. A major problem is that companies have tended to pay much less into their money purchase schemes than they were paying into final salary schemes. What does the Green Paper suggest to address the need for
  76
  higher defined contribution payments? I am afraid that the answer is nothing. Companies that pay more into their schemes encourage individuals who would not otherwise be given to saving to decide to save in a defined contribution pension scheme.
  Therefore, the first thing that the Government should do is to give companies major incentives to pay more into their defined contribution schemes. If the Government do not do that, we run the risk, as set out in Professor Blake's letter, of retirement becoming a 20th century concept—something that came in towards the end of the 19th century and went out at the beginning of the 21st. We as a country would find that change devastating.
  The second thing that the Government must do is relatively easy. They must accept the urgent need for a change of priorities. The priorities that arose out of section 73 of the Pensions Act may have been right or wrong at the time. If they were wrong, I accept my fair share of responsibility. They are certainly wrong now, and something needs to be done about them. What we require from the Government is not endless consultation, but action this day.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Terry Rooney: Occupational pensions have an inherent strength, partly because they have the widest possible membership. We should take account of the fact that the changes in April 1988, which led to 5 million people leaving occupational pension schemes, resulted in £13 billion being paid in compensation because of mis-selling. All that money came out of insurance companies' reserves, so it is not available now to get us through the difficult times that the financial world faces. In the past 15 years, employers have taken about £31 billion in contribution holidays. Had part of that money been put into schemes during those years, many of the difficulties would have been dealt with.
  I want to dispel the myth that means-testing by the Government is a disincentive to save. No one in their right mind, whether they are 21, 31, 41 or 51, says to themselves that, as there is a minimum income guarantee of £98 a week, they do not need to save, because that is fine for their retirement. No one in their right mind wants to retire on £98 a week, and no one consciously takes that decision.
  Much has been said about the need to protect workers. It is staggering that those words have been used by Conservative Members, but we live and learn. Information and consultation have also been discussed. Frankly, information is fine, but not consultation, because consultation gives no rights to workers. It is the ability of working people and members of a scheme to influence decisions that counts, not the fact that they are consulted when the scheme is in a mess and the company wants to close it. That is no good at all.
  We had the Goode report in 1993, a Green Paper in 1998, and now we have the 2002 Green Paper. They all raise the same issues, which have been ducked. This problem has gone on for far too long, and it is time that we grasped the nettle and took action. A vital component of that action must be proper training and support for trustees of pension schemes. At the moment, the position is quite scary. In view of their

  77
  responsibilities, the training and skills that they are given to manage schemes are appalling. They should have much better support.
  Dubious comments have been made about the minimum funding requirement, and I am amazed that no one has mentioned FRS 17. It is not a problem in itself: it is a warning when a fund is out of kilter. The problem is the response that is taken to it. In the past couple of years, it has been used as an excuse for closing down schemes. When a problem has been identified, it should be cured in the shortest possible time, but not necessarily overnight. Better regulation of the response to deficiencies thrown up by those two requirements would be far preferable.
  I find it difficult to get into a debate about who has priority when a scheme goes into liquidation—it is like shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is more important to consider what mechanisms can be put in place so that when a scheme unfortunately goes into liquidation there is adequate funding from somewhere, be it Government, a discontinuation fund, an insurance fund or a mutual fund. However, that would not affect what will happen in the next year or two, even if we brought in legislation today. This is a matter for the future.
  When schemes go into liquidation, an independent trustee is appointed. That is an introduction to the world of the golden salary. A company in Bradford called Lund Humphries went into liquidation, and an independent trustee was appointed at a fee of £100,000 a year. He was working on the scheme four hours a week on average. It took six years to wind up the scheme, because there was no incentive for him to do so. The longer it went on, the longer he got his £100,000. One of the issues that came up was the length of time it takes the Government to give notification of the minimum pension guarantee. For that scheme, it took 18 months. The Government could provide such information a lot faster. There should be tightly controlled time limits on winding up a scheme once it goes into liquidation. The accountants are ripping people off. Not the pensioner, not the worker but the trustee is the No. 1 priority. He, with his £100,000 a year, must come first.
  Many years ago, in 1990 or 1991, the European Court made a judgment that became known as the Coloroll judgment. It decided that pensions were deferred wages. That judgment has never been effected in British legislation, but it would change our landscape dramatically. A pension scheme's assets would become the property of the workers rather than the company. Decisions and power would lie elsewhere, and there might be a rather different response to market conditions.
  6.41 pm
  Andrew Selous: If we had any doubts about the seriousness of the issue we are discussing, they have surely been dispelled by the realisation that 25 million of our fellow citizens are members of occupational pension schemes. That includes all the members of public-sector schemes. Over the past five years or so, some 30,000 schemes have had to be wound up. This is indeed a real, live, serious issue, which will sadly continue to affect many of our constituents.
  78
  The Government acknowledged the seriousness of the problem when they tried, with legislation introduced in April 2002, to do something about the delay in winding up schemes that many Members have mentioned today. I understand, however, that fewer than 10 per cent. of those running schemes who were required to report the winding up of their schemes to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority by June 2002—some 4,000—had done so by that date, and considerably fewer schemes had been wound up. More effort must be made to ensure that schemes are wound up speedily.
  Members have rightly expressed concern about the costs of winding up schemes. Last October, the BBC's "Money Box" programme estimated that in the past few years about £800 million had been taken unnecessarily from schemes owing to the inefficient use of lawyers and actuaries. It said that trustees should have a duty to shop around and secure the best possible value for scheme members, to prevent the haemorrhage of funds from schemes that are already underfunded.
  It is particularly worrying that so many of our fellow citizens do not understand their lack of pension rights. A recent poll showed that 55 per cent. of people assumed that their pensions would be safe, and that their entitlements would be paid in full if their schemes were wound up. It is very worrying that so many of our fellow citizens believe they will be safeguarded when that is not the case. The Government's role is to educate them, so that they can take their own precautions should they choose to do so.
  It has been suggested that solvent employers whose schemes need to be wound up should be allowed to pay the accrued benefits owed to scheme members over the remaining working lifetime of those employees. I hope the Government will view that proposal sympathetically. Most of the problems that we have heard about today, however, involve employers who become insolvent when schemes are wound up. That does indeed lead to the worst situations. As many Members have said, it is particularly sickening when directors or senior executives who are privy to information use retirement schemes to secure their own future benefits at what turns out to be the expense of their employees. Their pensions are safeguarded, while employees with deferred pensions suffer as a result of what has been taken from the pot. That is especially unacceptable: we can fairly describe it as another example of the unacceptable face of capitalism. I hope that the Green Paper's proposals to deal with it will be implemented.
  It is also vital for us to protect those with long service. People with 30 or 35 years' service face a triple jeopardy: the loss of their jobs, the possible loss of their homes, and the loss of their pension assets. Part of the solution is to remedy some of the unfairness involved in dividing an admittedly inadequate sum, but that is not enough. It could be described as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Given the great unfairness favouring those who enter a scheme just before it is wound up, there must clearly be a readjustment of priorities to favour those with long service. No one has mentioned the other half of the solution, however. I suggest a mutual insurance scheme for occupational pension funds.
  The United States has a pension benefit guarantee corporation, which takes a small levy from all occupational pension schemes. The concept of

  79
  insurance is the prudence of the many coming to the aid of the misfortune of the few. It may not always be the perfect solution, but it would go a long way towards remedying the problem here. I speak as, probably, one of the few chartered insurers in the House. I urge the Government to look seriously at the American example. Although the premiums have risen lately, evidence suggests that the arrangement greatly helps those whose schemes have been wound up. We should think about both making current arrangements fairer and adopting an insurance scheme such as the one I have described.
  Insurance could be particularly useful in a context that has emerged in my constituency, where General Motors withdrew some £167 million from the AWD pension scheme. That affected many employees in my area. The action was legal at the time and the scheme was apparently solvent when the money was withdrawn, but surprise, surprise: it transpired that the scheme was not adequately funded. The pensioners did not receive their entitlement. The Government should seriously consider giving employers a duty to buy commercial rather than mutual insurance in such instances. Employers who had withdrawn a sum would have to pay it back to scheme members if the sum was later found to be inadequate.
  I urge the Government to look at the insurance markets. The London insurance market is one of the most sophisticated in the world, and I think that it can be part of the answer to the problem with which we are grappling.
  6.49 pm
  Kevin Brennan: I welcome the debate. It is a pity that we do not have more time, but I understand that an important debate on herbal products will follow. That shows the Opposition's priorities.
  I do not agree with the motion, which is too narrowly drawn. The Opposition think that they have a good story to tell, but no one really believes that. After all, the Opposition introduced Flash Harry into pensions in the first place in the 1980s with the mis-selling scandal. While I accept the Minister's word that he seeks consensus and that the Opposition seek it too, it crossed my mind that the words "Conservative" and "consensus" have one thing in common: they both contain the word "con".
  Andrew Selous: That was a cheap jibe.
  Kevin Brennan: I will leave that cheap jibe, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, and move on to the issues in question.
  The Green Paper is a sensible kick-off point for the debate and the discussion. I thank Ministers, in particular my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, for the meetings held with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and workers from Allied Steel and Wire during the past few months to discuss ways through the crisis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is right when he says that the firm went under because it was so easy for the banks to pull the
  80
  plug. The firm had a full order book, so potentially it could have been solvent—but pulling the plug was an easy option for the banks because they knew that their money was guaranteed.
  Let us remind ourselves of the injustice—that is what it is—that the workers of Allied Steel and Wire have faced. One of them telephoned me just last week. He had worked for the company and its predecessors for 38 years and entered the pension scheme as a condition of his employment. At the time, it was a nationalised industry: workers were employed by the Government when they started their scheme. Let us remember that.
  Neither the man who telephoned me nor the workers to whom I have spoken ever dreamed for one minute that their pensions were not safe. They never had a big health warning strapped across them saying, "You are putting your money into a vehicle that, a year or two before you are due to retire, could be worth next to nothing." No one ever gave them that health warning, whatever the complexion of the Government in power.
  The issue of independent trustees has been raised. I read with interest recently an article in which Eddie Thomas, director of the independent trustee Law Debenture, said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead appeared to assume that the smaller the pension scheme, the cheaper the wind-up. My right hon. Friend had pointed out that it had cost £800,000 to wind up a scheme that was worth just £5 million. Eddie Thomas said:
  "Small funds can involve a lot of work that is disproportionate to their size. I don't think it is generally appreciated how much work there is in winding-up a scheme. We have to recognise that in a winding-up case all the chickens come home to roost."
  The animal metaphor that the workers whom I have met have used about independent trustees is not chickens coming home to roost but snouts in the trough. That is exactly what has been involved in some of these cases.
  There are some sensible suggestions in the Green Paper about giving greater priority to those workers nearer retirement. We have debated that this evening. There are suggestions that we should reorder the payment of creditors to get rid of the perverse incentives for banks to withdraw, make pensioners preferential creditors, or perhaps give them some new status that would put them higher up the pecking order when pension schemes are wound up.
  There have been suggestions, which I strongly support, that we should look again—it does not matter how many times it has been looked at—at setting up a mutual insurance scheme, such as exists in Sweden, or the central discontinuance fund model in the United States of America. I have been told by some people—I have done a bit of economics in my time—that moral hazard is a worry, as I am sure the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) knows. The worry is that pension fund trustees will not seek to get the best out of the pension fund for members because they know that they can be bailed out; it will change their behaviour. Technical and academic debates about moral hazard mean nothing to workers who face the immoral hazard of losing their pension when they are nearing retirement if a company is going bust. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions for listening at all those meetings we had. It is good that those issues have become a central plank in the Green Paper and that the Government are taking them forward seriously.

  81
  What the Green Paper does not do, perhaps what it cannot do, is what we are trying to do in the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has introduced and that I support: it does not attempt to assist those who are currently affected by wind-ups in insolvency. We have a moral duty to seek every avenue that we can to try to help those workers.
  In many cases, the workers we are talking about are the best of British. They have worked through to close to retirement. Often, they have been asked to carry on working and not to take early retirement. They have been loyal, flexible and productive.
  At Allied Steel and Wire, workers have had to accept many changes in working practices. They do not have a guaranteed pension fund after 30 years' service, as one would in the fire service. They had to accept radical changes in working practices to keep their jobs. Then they lost their jobs. Fortunately, some of them may get them back, but they have still lost their pensions. They were still conned. They were told by successive Governments to save for retirement and to join their company pension scheme. To them, it is all a swindle. To be frank, if I were in their shoes I would feel the same way, and so would hon. Members. Therefore, we have a moral duty to look at every way to help them and to call on the Government to find a way.
  No stone should be left unturned, as the Minister for Pensions said in a previous debate in the House, in looking for solutions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has come up with an ingenious Bill that we should look at carefully. About 40,000 individuals may be affected because of the liquidation of their pension schemes in wind-up. To make good the losses, the Bill proposes a distribution of a small amount of the orphan asset funds that are held by insurance companies prior to setting up a permanent system based on the suggestions in the Green Paper.
  Pensions are supposed to be about security, not risk. Why should the workers bear the risk when it is the banks and shareholders who are supposed to bear the risks when companies go bust? The Government's objective is dignity and security in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners, to use the Government's own words, so let us look carefully at those proposals and see whether we can help the people who feel that they have been conned.
  6.56 pm
  Adam Price: We have heard a lot of talk about consensus. Perhaps the consensus that dare not speak its name but that is emerging is that successive Governments of all political colours have failed to provide adequate protection for current employees in cases of insolvency. We are almost unique in the industrialised world in lacking any protection for workers in those situations. I think that the Government now accept that if the guiding principle of the Goode committee on pensions law reform was to provide maximum security, the legislation based on it, the minimum funding requirement, has been an unmitigated failure in meeting that objective.
  We have heard of the bleak situation facing the workers at Allied Steel and Wire. I spoke to John Benson only this morning. There are plenty of other examples—we have heard of United Engineering
  82
  Forgings, Albert Fisher and others. Frustratingly, the solution has been lying in the in-tray of Ministers in both the current and previous Administrations. The idea of a statutory safety net for occupational pensions is not particularly new or original. It was the Government Actuary who first proposed a central discontinuance fund in his evidence to the Goode committee 10 years ago. He said in a memorandum to the committee:
  "Because many schemes would find it difficult to secure their liabilities on discontinuance, a mechanism is needed for handing over the liabilities to another vehicle, similar to an ongoing pension fund … The answer would appear to be to have a Central Fund … The fund would simply act as an administrative arrangement and investment vehicle for running off the liabilities of discontinued pension funds."
  If only the Government then or now had listened to the advice of their own Actuary, we would not be in this mess today.
  The Government have floated the idea of a mutual insurance system or a central discontinuance fund on a number of occasions. Indeed, they have commissioned research or consulted on those two options on no less than four occasions over the past five and a half years. At the time of the last round of consultation two years ago, the Government claimed that the responses received were overwhelmingly against mutual insurance or a central discontinuance fund.
  That strikes me as a little curious and strange to say the least, given the fact that the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the National Association of Pension Funds and Pensions Management Institute have all been lobbying for the introduction of a central discontinuance fund for the past 10 years. Indeed, when in opposition, the Labour party tabled an amendment, during discussions of what became the Pensions Act 1995, to create a central discontinuance fund. Unfortunately, that was conveniently forgotten when Labour won the election.
  It strikes me that the Government cannot have it both ways: they cannot sanction an increasing reliance on private provision without providing adequate protection against the danger of fund collapse. It is no accident that in every country where widespread private provision exists, a central discontinuance fund or a mutual insurance system is an integral component of the pension system. As we have heard, since the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was set up in America in 1974, the benefits of hundreds of thousands of scheme members have been saved from the failure of their pension funds.
  The Government have said that they will look again at these ideas in the Green Paper, but even if they do improve provision and protection for future generations, that will not address the plight of former workers at companies such as ASW, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) pointed out. The Minister has again ruled out any prospect of retrospection, but retrospection is precisely what happened in similar situations in the United States when the PBGC was established. More than 200 companies that had gone into liquidation were retrospectively brought under the terms of the relevant legislation.
  As has been said, a strong argument exists that the Government have a moral responsibility to the affected workers. Before the recent introduction of the

  83
  stakeholder pension, legal rules actually prevented people from contributing to a private pension if they were in an employer's scheme. That meant that people had no way of providing any other retirement income for themselves, yet their contributions were not properly protected. The responsibility for that surely lies with the Government. However, if the Government refuse to accept their moral obligations in this regard, they must live up to their legal obligations. Article 8 of the 1980 European Union directive on insolvency rights requires member states to protect pension benefits in situations of insolvency. This provision has never been fully implemented into UK law, and as a result the Government are liable to be sued for compensation. That is the opinion of Denton, Wilde Sapte, the UK's leading insolvency and pensions practice, and of Thompsons, the employment law firm that is acting on behalf of ASW employees, who are members of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. I understand that last week Thompsons employed a Queen's counsel to take this matter further.
  Faced with a lawsuit on behalf of ASW workers who are in the ISTC, the Government must ask themselves whether they are prepared to send Government counsel into the courts to rob redundant steel workers of their entitlements under European law. That would be a new low for the Government. Instead, I hope that they will make it clear that they intend not only to provide real protection for future generations of workers, but—as has been argued—to compensate in full the former workers who have been failed by the inaction of this Government and of previous Governments.
  7.3 pm
  Lynne Jones: I am told that I must finish by 7.10 pm, so although there is much that I would have liked to say, I will have to curtail my comments. Today's debate reminds me of one that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and I initiated back in 1994, concerning the Teampace pension fund. The directors of that company, Michael Spiers and Kenneth Shaw, were able to milk dry the pension funds of companies that they took over to such an extent—and to their own benefit—that they decided to wind up the company, leaving the pension scheme £2 million in the red. During that debate, the then Minister—a former Member of Parliament for Tatton—said that that would never have happened if Goode's proposals for minimum solvency requirements had been in place, but as we have learned today, that that was not in fact the case.
  I must also place on the record that the then Government were unable to deal with an application for those individuals to be disqualified as company directors because the Department of Trade and Industry did not have the resources to deal with the many claims arising from insolvency schemes. As far as I am aware, those individuals, whose activities verged on the criminal, can still act as company directors to this day—unless they have been caught with their hands in the till elsewhere.
  That shows that every time pensions scandals arise, Governments and Members are under pressure to do something about the injustices suffered by our
  84
  constituents. That remains the case, but the question is whether, ultimately, we can do anything to offer the security that people expect from their pension schemes. It is rather like trying to patch up an old mattress—as soon as one part is dealt with, another spring pops up elsewhere and problems occur. We have heard about some possible solutions, and measures outlined in the Green Paper, those suggested by the National Association of Pension Funds, and those in the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) may have a contribution to make. However, the ultimate crisis is the underfunding of pension schemes. The fact is that we are not putting away enough money for our pensions—a fact that can be attributed to a combination of demographic changes and the poor performance of the stock market, particularly in this country.
  It is disingenuous—indeed, it beggars belief—for the Opposition to suggest that a major factor is the Government's decision to end tax credits. That may have a small effect, but given that more than £400 billion has been wiped off the value of stocks in the FTSE all-share index in the past couple of years, the taking out of the system of a few billion pounds a year through Government measures is not the major point. As the Financial Times said in its leader of 27 February
  "The fact is that companies are no longer getting a free ride from the bull market towards paying for ex-employees in their long retirements. Now that pension fund surpluses are disappearing, they want to dump that responsibility. Another few billion a year from the government would not change their minds."
  Some of the proposals in the Green Paper, such as the simplification of the tax regime, are welcome. The Government say that that will save a few hundred million pounds in administrative expenses, which is all well and good. There are other proposals such as the re-prioritisation of assets, which is the major burden of the Opposition's argument. However, one does not get insurance for nothing. Under current proposals, if better mutual insurance schemes existed, or if better compensation existed where fraud and dishonesty were involved, the costs would be met by a levy from pension funds. That would actually add to the cost of the pension funds. Although there may be benefits in terms of confidence, the fact is that massive shortfalls in pension funds may well occur.
  In putting forward in the Green Paper their exemplifications of what people might expect from pension schemes, the Government assume that the return on investment will be 6.55 per cent., which is 2 per cent. above their predicted rise in earnings over the long term. We do not know whether that is true. There will always be risks in a system that is based on stocks and shares. That is why, as I said earlier, I hope that the pensions commission will consider the interrelationship of the state system and private pensions. There is no virtue in having a set percentage of pensions provided by the state or by the private sector; what is important is the total amount of money that we save for our pensions.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: We have had a good debate, despite the fact that the time has been squeezed by two statements. I was particularly struck by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who outlined very

  85
  clearly just how serious is the crisis facing the pensions industry in this country. He did not seek to lay all the blame at the Government's door, but he made it clear how much worse they have made the situation.
  In 1997, the Government inherited an economy in which private pension savings, across the different categories of schemes, were more than those in the rest of the EU put together. Since then, the proportion of people who reach retirement age with a second pension has fallen from 67 per cent. to 59 per cent. The rate of closure of pension funds to new members is accelerating, and 12 million workers have no pension arrangements at all. That is a shameful record.
  We chose today to focus specifically on the wind-up of company pension schemes. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made it clear that that is the most urgent aspect of the entire crisis. I realised how bad the situation was when a constituent of mine who worked for ASW, or Sheerness Steel as we used to call it, came to see me. He was just weeks from retirement, and he told me that after nearly 40 years with the company, he will not know for two or three years what his pension entitlement is, and he may receive less than half of the amount that he was expecting.
  We have discussed a number of issues today. First, and central to the crisis and to our motion, is the issue of priority, and we made it clear in our motion how we see that. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), mentioned the important issue of the role of the independent trustee. A survey by Higham Nobbs, which looked at many closures, showed that up to £800 million appears to have been wasted in excessive fees. The conclusion of those industry specialists—that the average wind-up takes far too long and is too expensive—should give us all pause for thought. Other issues mentioned include the priority that a debt to a pension fund should take and the question of insurance, compulsory or not.
  Against that background it was very depressing to hear the Minister for Pensions take almost a quarter of the total time allocated for the debate to make a speech in which he largely attacked the Opposition on matters that have nothing to do with this. He can argue quite reasonably that when consultation is going on, he cannot give his views on the particular points in our motion. However, hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that we are in the middle of the Department's 26th consultation on pensions, and many people want this narrow and desperately urgent issue unbundled from the rest.
  I shall ask Ministers two questions, and the Under-Secretary may choose to answer them in her speech. First, are the Government willing to consider unbundling the issue of wind-ups from the rest of the package? Secondly, is the Minister for Pensions seriously saying that there can be no retrospection at all? I hope that I misheard him, because this matter may affect many thousands of people. Nobody, least of all Opposition Front Benchers, would argue that measures should apply retrospectively to the time before the Green Paper was published. However, many companies at the margins have read its small print very carefully and asked themselves whether, if they are going to bail out, they should not do so quickly before the provisions
  86
  bail in. Why cannot the Under-Secretary say that measures will apply retrospectively from tonight, if not from the publication of the Green Paper? Otherwise, the Government are providing a huge incentive for the problem to get worse and for more companies to back out of their commitments before the rules change.
  In a typically articulate speech, the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made a powerful case for insurance and a central discontinuance fund. However, he did not fully explore the downside of that idea, which obviously lies in the likely costs that must fall ultimately on the taxpayer or on pension funds, many of which are already struggling. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). I am not sure that I agree with her recipes, but she brought her extreme concern and interest and her knowledge of the subject to the House, as she always does.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it clear that the Government understand two points that go beyond the central crisis in the pensions industry and which they have refused to acknowledge—they simply go on and on consulting. First, they must accept that the crisis in winding up is the red-hot tip of the crisis as a whole. Secondly, if they announce possible action and give detailed options that put extra burdens on companies but do not make their measures retrospective to the date of the announcement, they will worsen the problem, and thousands of people will suffer.
  Will the Government unbundle this urgent issue from the rest of the package? We have made it clear what we think, and we are willing help them to take legislation through the House, if it is even needed; the central issue of priorities could be handled by secondary legislation. Will the Under-Secretary also address the point about retrospection?
  The Opposition take our responsibilities seriously. We have repeatedly drawn attention to this issue. We have set out our views in black and white in the motion about what should be done about the central issue of prioritisation. We have even offered the Government every possible co-operation in taking swift action in the House to tackle the problem. When are the Government going to take action?
  7.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I welcome the debate, which although short, has been robust and fascinating. I welcome the fact that the Opposition are buying into some of the proposals in the Green Paper, which shows a willingness to develop a consensus for moving forward. Certainly, on pensions, the wider the consensus that we can achieve, the better. We look forward to hearing what else they have to say and what other parts of the Green Paper they agree with, because the motion is very narrow.
  Many Members from all parties and many people outside the House are concerned about ensuring an appropriate level of protection for the interests of pension scheme members on wind-up, whether or not insolvency is the cause. That is partly because there have been high-profile cases to which right hon. and hon. Members have referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and others have talked about ASW.

  87
  If we value our voluntary system of private pensions, and we do, pension promises must be kept. That is an important part of the partnership. The question is how we can balance appropriate protection for members, which is tremendously important, with sufficient flexibility and the lowest possible costs, which will make the provision of pension schemes appealing to employers as well.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions set out our proposals for improving protection on wind up, so I shall refer to only one or two of them before I deal with some of the points that have been raised in the debate. In the Green Paper, we are already consulting on whether there should be a fairer sharing of assets between those with larger and smaller pensions when a scheme winds up. We are looking at capping the level of the highest payment where there are limited assets. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire appeared to show some sympathy for that, so we look forward to the support of the Opposition on that proposal.
  Where there is a wind-up of an underfunded scheme, we are looking into possible changes to the priority order, introduced in 1995 by the Conservatives, to ensure fairness for those affected. However, it is right that we should listen to what everyone affected might think of the proposals, as the National Association of Pension Funds noted in its parliamentary brief for this debate. Despite the calls for immediate action, citing the ideas of the NAPF, which we heard from Opposition Front-Bench speakers, the association itself says that further discussion with interested parties would be necessary to finalise the fairest and most practical solution. The NAPF does not suggest that we move immediately to producing a set of regulations but that we should get things right before we go forward. I approve of that.
  The motion expresses deep concern at the current arrangements for dealing with pension funds affected by employer insolvency. As we have already heard, the Conservatives devised those arrangements, so it is touching that they are now championing workers' rights. I prefer to look at the Conservatives' record, however, and to judge them on the basis of what they did when they had the chance.
  During their 18 years in office, the Conservatives did nothing to enhance protection for workers affected by insolvency and redundancy and they themselves devised the order of priority between unsecured creditors on the wind-up of schemes that they now criticise. When prompted, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire remembered that in fact he was responsible for that when he was an Under-Secretary at the former Department of Social Security. As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) kindly reminded us, the responsibility did not lie only with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire; both the current Leader of the Opposition and their previous leader were involved in setting out that order of priority.
  It is not as though there was no pressing problem of company insolvency and redundancies during the Conservatives' time in office. They were engaged in systematically wrecking the private pension provision of
  88
  millions of workers by promoting mass unemployment. That did not happen by accident; they did it on purpose. Creating mass unemployment was an instrument of economic policy for the Conservatives. They were also engaged—just for good measure—in allowing the mis-selling of private pensions on a truly staggering scale, so people who did not lose their jobs might have fallen foul of that.
  Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Maria Eagle: No, I do not have time.
  In fact, the Conservatives were so keen on the ideological policy of promoting private provision at any cost that they actually incentivised private pension sales to the tune of £3.6 billion. They threw millions of workers on to the dole as an instrument of economic policy while presiding over the two worst recessions this country has endured since world war two.
  If people came out of that with their occupational pension intact they were lucky. Millions did not. Not only in my own city of Liverpool, where three quarters of manufacturing jobs were lost in 18 months between 1979 and 1981, in an avalanche of factory closures and pensions closures engineered by—
  Mr. Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that when the hon. Lady refers to shortage of time, the division between the two debates today is arbitrary and agreed? It is not a fixed point. The Opposition are completely relaxed about letting the hon. Lady have an extra minute.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whatever else, it is nothing to do with the Chair.
  Maria Eagle: It was not only in Liverpool that we suffered the loss of three quarters of our manufacturing jobs within 18 months; more than 2.6 million manufacturing jobs were lost throughout the country, many of which had good pension schemes. That avalanche of job destruction and that wanton industrial and social vandalism were wreaked deliberately by the party that said that unemployment was a price worth paying. The Conservative record speaks for itself.
  I shall now deal with some of the points that were raised during the debate, so I hope that Opposition Members will be pleased. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred to the so-called £5 billion raid on pensions. The Opposition keep repeating that figure yet they never mention the off-setting effect of the corporation tax cuts that were introduced at the same time. The withdrawal of payable credits removed a major distortion in the tax system that encouraged companies to pay out their profits as dividends rather than retaining them for reinvestment in the business. It was designed to create a more neutral environment for planning and investment decisions that would encourage long-termism rather than the damaging short-termism of the previous arrangements. In any case, when the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was asked whether he would reintroduce the dividend credit he said, in The Observer on 24 November last year, that he did not think that the Conservatives would do that. He said that helping pension funds did not mean going back to the previous system. On that point, I think that the Conservatives protest a little too much.

  89
  Many right hon. and hon. Members referred to concerns about independent trustees and their behaviour on wind-ups, especially the fact that they take a great deal of money out of funds because they have higher priority than other creditors. The law requires independent trustees to disclose the scale of the fees that they charged within the past 12 months. Such transparency is important.
  Independent trustees should also be able to demonstrate to the pensions regulator that they are acting professionally and in the best interests of the members. If that is not the case, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority can replace trustees where there is evidence that those appointed by the insolvency practitioner are failing to carry out their duties responsibly. The proposals in the Green Paper for a more proactive regulator should strengthen those powers. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for Cardiff, West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who made a particular point about that.
  The hon. Member for Northavon, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, made some points about speeding up wind-up. The Government are also concerned about the length of time that it can take to finalise arrangements when a scheme winds up. We introduced new legislation last April that places greater visible accountability on the people involved. We need to reduce costs to make the whole process more efficient. The new rules mean that OPRA has a more proactive role and we expect it to ensure that the improvements actually come about.
  Several Opposition Members referred to the closure of defined benefit schemes, although the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) struck a somewhat discordant note in respect of his party and made an interesting speech that advocated the increasing use of defined contribution schemes. I agree that there is nothing inherently better about defined benefit schemes; it is the level of contribution that matters. At present, contribution levels tend to be less—about half as much—in defined contributions schemes than in defined benefit schemes. Although it is true that closures of defined benefit schemes have been accelerating over recent years, only 1 per cent. of them closed in 2001. We need to keep the matter in perspective. Many employers are still committed to their defined benefit schemes.
  Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Maria Eagle: No, I do not have time. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We will give the hon. Lady another minute. Will she give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Once again, that is entirely a matter for the participants in the debate.
  Maria Eagle: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire stops me from dealing with the points that were made in the debate.
  90
  I welcome the conversion of the Tory party and their new-found deep concern for the workers. However, I am a suspicious sort and so I suggest to the workers and their trade union representatives that they beware of Tories bearing gifts. Sometimes wolves appear in sheep's clothing. Pensioners will judge the Tories by what they did when they had the chance, not by what they say now when they are about as far away from power as I am from being recognised as the tallest woman in Britain.
  The Conservatives described the £200 winter fuel payment as a gimmick. They opposed free television licences for the over-75s. They said that the minimum income guarantee had nothing to recommend it. They said that they would reconsider the pension credit, which rewards people for saving, and their leader has been a long-standing advocate of wrecking the basic state pension, of which he once wrote that it should become a function of the private sector.
  To top it all, the Conservatives are now advocating a 20 per cent. across-the-board cut in public expenditure, which would devastate pensions. All that from the party of VAT on fuel, charges for eye tests and pensions mis-selling—and from the party that slashed SERPS not once but twice. It cut inherited SERPS in half, then did not bother to tell anyone. No wonder the Opposition kept their motion so narrow—they did not want their record examined. But we remember that record and will keep reminding the people of Britain that despite the Tories pretending to be the workers' friends, they cannot be trusted on pensions. I commend to the House the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 315.

  Division No. 56]

  [7.30 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter

  Cash, William

  Allan, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Amess, David

  Chidgey, David

  Ancram, Michael rh

  Chope, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, James rh

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, David

  Clarke, Kenneth rh

  Atkinson, Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bacon, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Barker, Gregory

  Cotter, Brian

  Baron, John

  Cran, James

  Barrett, John

  Curry, David rh

  Beith, A. J.rh

  Davey, Edward

  Bercow, John

  Davis, David rh

  Beresford, Paul

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Blunt, Crispin

  Dodds, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen rh

  Brady, Graham

  Doughty, Sue

  Brake, Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan, Peter

  Breed, Colin

  Evans, Nigel

  Brooke, Annette L.

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browning, Angela

  Fallon, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Mark

  Burnside, David

  Flight, Howard

  Burstow, Paul

  Flook, Adrian

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric rh

  Cable, Vincent

  Foster, Don

  Calton, Patsy

  Fox, Liam

  Cameron, David

  Francois, Mark

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  91

  Garnier, Edward

  Norman, Archie

  George, Andrew

  Oaten, Mark

  Gibb, Nick

  O'Brien, Stephen

  Gidley, Sandra

  Osborne, George

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Ottaway, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Page, Richard

  Gray, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Grayling, Chris

  Pickles, Eric

  Green, Damian

  Price, Adam

  Greenway, John

  Prisk, Mark

  Grieve, Dominic

  Pugh, John

  Gummer, John rh

  Redwood, John rh

  Hague, William rh

  Reid, Alan

  Hammond, Philip

  Rendel, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Robathan, Andrew

  Harris, Evan

  Robertson, Angus

  Harvey, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence

  Hawkins, Nick

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hayes, John

  Ruffley, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Russell, Bob

  Heath, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hendry, Charles

  Selous, Andrew

  Hermon, Lady

  Shephard, Gillian rh

  Hoban, Mark

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hogg, Douglas rh

  Simmonds, Mark

  Holmes, Paul

  Simpson, Keith

  Horam, John

  Smith, Robert

  Howarth, Gerald

  Spelman, Caroline

  Hughes, Simon

  Spink, Bob

  Jack, Michael rh

  Spring, Richard

  Jackson, Robert

  Stanley, John rh

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Steen, Anthony

  Johnson, Boris

  Streeter, Gary

  Kennedy, Charles rh

  Stunell, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Swire, Hugo

  Kirkbride, Julie

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Tapsell Peter

  Knight, Greg rh

  Taylor, Ian

  Laing, Eleanor

  Taylor, Matthew

  Lait, Jacqui

  Taylor, Teddy

  Lamb, Norman

  Thomas Simon

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tonge, Jenny

  Laws, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Trend, Michael

  Lewis, Julian

  Turner, Andrew

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tyler, Paul

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Viggers Peter

  Lilley, Peter rh

  Walter Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Waterson, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Watkinson, Angela

  Luff, Peter

  Webb Steve

  McIntosh, Anne

  Weir Michael

  Mackay, Andrew rh

  Whittingdale, John

  Maclean, David rh

  Widdecombe, Ann rh

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wiggin, Bill

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wilkinson, John

  Maples, John

  Williams, Hywel

  Marsden, Paul

  Willis, Phil

  Mates, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Mawhinney, Brian rh

  Winterton, Nicholas

  May, Theresa

  Wishart, Pete

  Mercer, Patrick

  Young, George rh

  Mitchell, Andrew

  Moore, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moss, Malcolm

  Mr. Hugh Robertson and

  Murrison, Andrew

  Mr. Desmond Swayne

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Austin, John

  Ainsworth, Bob

  Bailey, Adrian

  Allen, Graham

  Baird, Vera

  Anderson, Donald rh

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, Janet

  Barnes, Harry

  Atherton, Candy

  Barron, Kevin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  92

  Beard, Nigel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Begg, Anne

  Etherington, Bill

  Bell, Stuart

  Farrelly, Paul

  Benn, Hilary

  Field, Frank rh

  Bennett, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Flint, Caroline

  Best, Harold

  Flynn, Paul

  Betts, Clive

  Follett, Barbara

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Michael

  Blears, Hazel

  Foster, Michael Jabez

  Boateng, Paul rh

  Foulkes, George rh

  Bradley, Keith

  Francis, Hywel

  Bradley, Peter rh

  Gapes, Mike

  Bradshaw, Ben

  George, Bruce rh

  Brennan, Kevin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Nicholas rh

  Gibson, Ian

  Brown, Russell

  Gilroy, Linda

  Bryant, Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  Buck, Karen

  Goggins, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Jane

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel

  Burnham, Andy

  Griffiths, Win

  Caborn, Richard rh

  Grogan, John

  Cairns, David

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell, Alan

  Hall, Patrick

  Campbell, Ronnie

  Hamilton, Fabian

  Casale, Roger

  Hanson, David

  Caton, Martin

  Harris, Tom

  Cawsey, Ian

  Havard, Dai

  Challen, Colin

  Healey, John

  Chapman, Ben

  Henderson, Ivan

  Chaytor, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clapham, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Helen

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Lynda

  Heyes, David

  Clark, Paul

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Tom rh

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tony

  Hoey, Kate

  Clelland, David

  Hope, Phil

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, Alan rh

  Coffey, Ann

  Howarth, George

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coleman, lain

  Hughes, Kevin

  Colman, Tony

  Humble, Joan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hurst, Alan

  Corston, Jean

  Iddon, Brian

  Crausby, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Cruddas, Jon

  Ingram, Adam rh

  Cryer, Ann

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cryer, John

  Jackson, Glenda

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen

  Cunningham, Jack rh

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Tony

  Johnson, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Helen

  Darling, Alistair rh

  Jones, Kevan

  Davey, Valerie

  Jones, Lynne

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Martyn

  Davies, Denzil rh

  Joyce, Eric

  Davis, Terry rh

  Keeble, Sally

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Alan

  Dean, Janet

  Keen, Ann

  Denham, John

  Kelly, Ruth

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kidney, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobbin, Jim

  King, Oona

  Dobson, Frank rh

  Ladyman, Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lammy, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Drown, Julia

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dunwoody, Gwyneth

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Angela

  Leslie, Christopher

  Eagle, Maria

  Levitt, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Ivan

  Ellman, Louise

  Lewis, Terry

  93

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  Love, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie

  Lucas, Ian

  Roy, Frank

  Lyons, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Stephen

  Russell, Christine

  McCartney, Ian rh

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sawford, Phil

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McGuire, Anne

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Sheridan, Jim

  McKechin, Ann

  Shipley, Debra

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Simon, SiÔn

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Andrew rh

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Chris rh

  Mahon, Alice

  Smith, Jacqui

  Mendelson, Peter rh

  Smith, John

  Mann, John

  Soley, Clive

  Marris, Rob

  Southworth, Helen

  Marsden, Gordon

  Speller, John rh

  Marshall, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Marshall, Jim

  Starkey, Phyllis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Meacher, Michael rh

  Stewart, David

  Melton, Gillian

  Stewart, Ian

  Michael, Alun rh

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miliband, David

  Stoate, Howard

  Miller, Andrew

  Stringer, Graham

  Mitchell, Austin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Tami, Mark

  Mole, Chris

  Taylor, Ann rh

  Moran, Margaret

  Taylor, Dari

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, David

  Morris, Estelle rh

  Thomas, Gareth

  Mountford, Kali

  Timms, Stephen

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Munn, Meg

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Denis

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Jim

  Truswell, Paul

  Naysmith, Doug

  Turner, Dennis

  Norris, Dan

  Turner, Desmond

  O'Hara, Edward

  Turner, Neil

  Olner, Bill

  Twigg, Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Twigg, Stephen

  Owen, Albert

  Tynan, Bill

  Perham, Linda

  Vaz, Keith

  Picking, Anne

  Walley, Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ward, Claire

  Pike, Peter

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Plaskitt, James

  Watson, Tom

  Pond, Chris

  Watts, David

  Pope, Greg

  White, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Whitehead, Alan

  Prentice, Bridget

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon

  Williams, Alan rh

  Prescott, John rh

  Williams, Betty

  Primarolo, Dawn rh

  Wills, Michael

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Winnick, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Winterton, Rosie

  Purnell, James

  Woodward, Shaun

  Quin, Joyce rh

  Woolas, Phil

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Worthington, Tony

  Rammell, Bill

  Wright, Anthony D.

  Rapson, Syd

  Wright, David

  Raynsford, Nick rh

  Wright, Tony

  Reed, Andy

  Reid, John rh

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, John

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mr. Fraser Kemp

  Question accordingly negatived
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House acknowledges the crucial contribution of the UK tradition of occupational pension provision; welcomes the range of measures in the recent Green Paper to strengthen that tradition and to renew the pensions partnership between employers, employees, the financial services industry and Government; supports, in particular, the promotion of occupational pensions as a means to recruit and to retain good staff through the employer task force and other measures; notes the proposal to give employees the right to be consulted on changes to an employer's pension scheme; further notes the Government's consideration of a range of options to bolster member protection in cases where schemes are wound up, including options for a fairer sharing of assets when schemes close, with more priority for workers closer to retirement or those with more years of contributions; believes that there should be 100 per cent. protection in cases of fraud; supports the appointment of a new proactive regulator to investigate fraud and maladministration; further notes the proposed £150–£200 million administrative savings which will encourage firms to open new schemes and keep existing schemes running; and further welcomes the establishment of the independent Pension Commission to assess how effectively the current voluntarist approach is developing and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on whether there is a case for moving beyond that approach.

Food Supplements Directive
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.43 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Food Supplements Directive includes a list of nutrients and nutrient sources that may be used in supplements and that there are nearly 300 safe nutrient sources on the UK market which are missing from the list; further notes that unless full safety dossiers are submitted for consideration by the European Scientific Committee for Food by July 2005 these nutrients will be illegal; observes that the cost of commissioning research to include within a dossier, and the compilation of such dossiers, makes the task prohibitively expensive and that some 270 safe and popular nutrient sources will be lost to the UK industry and its consumers; and declines to approve the proposed statutory instruments implementing the Directive unless and until the Government secures an amendment to the Directive so as to allow to remain on the national market those products which would otherwise fall outside the Directive's technical restrictions; further notes that the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive would require dossiers to be submitted to the Medicines Control Agency and would impose costs of tens of thousands of pounds per product on manufacturers; regrets that it would not allow any overseas product which had not been on the European market for 10 years even if it were demonstrably safe; and urges the Government to renegotiate the main provisions of this flawed Directive.
It is fair to say in the House that it sometimes comes as a surprise that a certain subject should produce a very large mailbag for Members on both sides of the House, and this is one of those issues. Indeed, the concerns expressed have prompted the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House through early-day motions that were tabled in the last Session and this Session. Tonight, we all have an opportunity to reinforce those concerns in a real debate in Parliament, with a real vote and a real motion reflecting those early-day motions.
The directives are important for two reasons, the first of which is specific to the directives themselves, and the second relates to the general burden of regulation. The directives will have specific effects on consumers' freedom of choice and on United Kingdom manufacturing and retail business. On the general burden of regulation, as my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor pointed out recently, 4,642 new sets of regulations were introduced in the United Kingdom last year—one for every 26 minutes of each working day. That is not only a record, but an increase of nearly 50 per cent. on the number introduced in 1997. As well as the general burden of over-regulation, those directives reflect the European Union's increasing intrusion into areas of our national life and legislation where it has no place.
I shall first turn to the background to the two directives—first, the food supplements directive. In May 2000, the European Commission published a directive on food supplements, which was finalised in the spring of 2002 and published in the Official Journal on 12 July 2002. Its main provisions will be implemented over the next seven years. Although presented as essential to ensure consumer safety, the food supplements directive has been designed to standardise the different regulatory regimes for vitamin and mineral supplements across EU member countries. That may cause a slight liberalization
96
of the market in France, Germany and some other countries, but it will mean the loss of a substantial number of products in the existing liberal markets—the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in particular—where millions of consumers have been using higher-dose vitamins and minerals for several decades. In March 2002, Conservative Members of the European Parliament voted against the food supplements directive.
The second directive is that on traditional herbal medicinal products. Under Community legislation governing pharmaceuticals, no medicinal product may be placed on the market without having obtained a marketing authorisation. The draft directive on traditional herbal products provides for a new special procedure to apply to the authorisation of traditional herbal products. Products to which the proposal applies would be identified in a positive list, subject to their meeting certain conditions, including the need for safety to be demonstrated, a requirement to show a history of 30 years' use, the use of agreed medical indications and the need for labelling to include a clear statement that product efficacy is not proven, as well as other information on the safe use of the product. On 21 November 2002, the European Parliament voted for that directive at first reading, backing numerous amendments tabled by the Conservatives designed to protect individual choice as much as possible.
Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this crucial issue. Many of my constituents are angry that they will not be able to buy their normal products in the usual way, and shops are worried about the damage to their business. Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Government cannot stop the EU doing such enormous damage to something that does not need fixing shows that they have absolutely no influence at all in Brussels?
Dr. Fox: It would be reassuring for me to tell my right hon. Friend that the Government have no influence—I imagine that that is true—but I am not sure whether they tried to use any influence in this instance, so I am not sure whether we can draw any inference from their inactivity.
We have some specific reservations about the food supplements directive. The first threat is that the directive introduces a system of maximum permitted levels for nutrient content. Those levels are expected to be set substantially lower than the scientifically assessed upper safe level. That process will start with a cautious assessment of the safe level by the EU Scientific Committee for Food. That level will then be further reduced by the European Commission to take into account risk management factors, such as nutrient intake from other dietary sources and population reference intakes. Political considerations at the relevant EU Standing Committee will then come into play, with probably the Governments of France, Germany and other countries seeking to block everything, except the lowest possible dose levels in line with their existing markets.
Millions of British consumers regularly use higher-range vitamins and minerals. Removing those products from general sale will not stop consumers wanting them. A good example might be the generally high doses of

97
vitamin C available in this country. If we harmonise down to the sort of level used in countries such as Italy, we might find that a couple of fruit smoothies from the House of Commons canteen gives us a higher does than recommended by the EU. What is to stop the outrageous and incredibly creative step of consumers taking two tablets instead of one? That directive is complete bureaucratic nonsense. As Consumers for Health Choice has put it,
"such action would raise a very real moral hazard by forcing consumers to seek"—
these products—
"from unregulated outlets such as overseas mail-order companies and the Internet, putting consumer safety at risk."
In addition, if high-dose nutrients are lost, the entire market will be genericised, putting a question mark over the future of all natural health care and alternative therapies, and putting at risk the livelihood of specialist retailers and manufacturers. Of course, UK manufacturers could take advantage of some of the loopholes. They could move abroad or go somewhere as close as the Isle of Man to continue to manufacture and market the same products to the same consumers through the internet. What is much more likely, however, is that they will simply disappear, sacrificed needlessly on the altar of European harmonisation.
Mr. Mark Todd: Will the hon. Gentleman set out how British manufacturers such as Peter Black in my constituency currently have access to the German, French and Austrian marketplaces, to which he referred as liberalised in this process? Currently, I believe that they are not able to sell into those marketplaces satisfactorily.
Dr. Fox: I referred to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands as liberalised. I referred to France and Germany as much more restrictive, which is entirely in line with what the hon. Gentleman says. I fear that, rather than liberalising and allowing German and French consumers access to the products currently available to UK consumers, the exact opposite process will occur, with greater restriction of the markets in the United Kingdom to bring them into line with the restricted availability in other countries. The directives will be designed to suit the already restrictive practices in other countries, not the liberal trading environment of the United Kingdom. It will be against the interests of British consumers and British manufacturers.
The practical effect of the detailed proposals in the second directive on herbal medicines would remove many safe and popular products from the marketplace, as some products have not been on the market for the necessary period. The imposition of the extraordinarily arbitrary 30-year period would jeopardise the position of products introduced over a period of nearly three decades and prevent all future innovation. No new products could be brought to market, even if they had been available for many years in another non-EU country with a good safety record. The directive would not allow products that were combinations of otherwise legal ingredients—for example, existing mixtures of herbs with nutrients such as vitamins and minerals—leaving some of those products, which represent an important section of the UK market, in a regulatory vacuum.
98
On top of all that, the cost of the new framework would be completely beyond many small manufacturers, forcing them out of business. What do we want the Government to do?
On the food supplement directive, the Government must immediately use every opportunity to persuade the Commission and the Governments of other EU member states to allow the most liberal possible interpretation of the legislation. The Government must also force an early review of the procedures of the EU Scientific Committee on Food so that the requirement to submit dossiers for nutrients currently not on the permitted list is not overly burdensome and expensive. Above all, the Government must work now for an amendment to the directive that would allow those safe supplements, which would otherwise lie outside the directive's technical restrictions, to remain on the UK market. As the Health Food Manufacturers Association put it
"What is needed is a system whereby the SCF can accept minimum data requirements for such products, based on their history of safe use. The UK Government should be arguing for this in Brussels."
Mrs. Angela Browning: Is it not the case that if the Government do not use their influence in the way that my hon. Friend suggests before we receive the final directive to be considered in Standing Committee, it will not matter what Members of the House think about it, or what representations we make? It will be a done deal, and we will have no power to amend it.
Dr. Fox: As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I shall come to the democratic deficit that that represents in just a moment.
What do we want from the Government in relation to the second directive? The directive's scope is currently restricted to herbals alone, thereby making many safe and popular products that combine herbals and food nutrients ineligible, as well as excluding many important combination products used in traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine. That needs to be addressed.
The second area is cost. There are two ways in which the impact of registration costs could be ameliorated: first, by ensuring that registration fees are kept as low as possible; and secondly, by encouraging the early development of a national positive list made up of products with a long tradition of safe use in the United Kingdom, for which minimum regulatory assessment will be required. Those are not huge steps for the Government to take, but they will take some energy in pushing them forward, given the state of play that the Government have allowed to develop.
There is more to this debate, however, than the specific directives. We suffer in this country, as I said at the outset, from an increasing burden of over-regulation. Digby Jones, the director general of the CBI has said:
"our flexibility has been steadily eroded by ever increasing regulation and there is still more to come onto the statute book. We now face a real danger of our advantage being destroyed and there are clear signals that firms will go elsewhere if they are burdened with more legislation."
That is exactly what is happening in this arena. A survey of 600 members of the Institute of Directors showed that 84 per cent. feel that the problem of excessive

99
bureaucracy has got worse under the Labour Government. Much of it, however, originates in Europe. On the burden of legislation, it is worth pointing out to the House that the Lord's prayer has 59 words, the Ten Commandments have 297, the American declaration of independence has 300, and these two directives together have 10,038. That makes the point clearly.
Time after time, the EU extends its influence though the spurious use of directives, and we in this House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, can do absolutely nothing about it. Time and again, control over whole areas of our national life is abandoned with little more than ministerial whimpering. Specific directives such as those under discussion may be small issues in themselves, but they amount cumulatively to the castration of this Parliament. I cannot stand the nanny state telling us how we must live our lives. If I hate one thing more than the British nanny state, however, it is "Euro nanny" running amok. It is time that Members on both sides of the House stood up for those who elected us to protect and not surrender their interests.
7.57 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"recognises, in relation to the Food Supplements Directive, the Government's firm commitment to the view that the law should allow safe and properly-labelled food supplements to be freely marketed; welcomes its intention to take advantage of flexibility, secured by the UK, to permit continued use of substances not on the permitted lists where products comply with existing UK food safety legislation; notes that the impact on the long-term availability of products currently on the market will depend upon future developments on maximum limits and lists of permitted nutrients; supports the Government's efforts to press the case for any maximum limits which may be established at EU level to be based on thorough scientific risk assessments; further recognises that the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would introduce regulatory arrangements to set safety and quality standards for unlicensed herbal remedies, and introduce systematic consumer information about the safe use of products and permit companies to make claims; further notes that the proposed Directive is supported by most interest groups, who believe it will protect public health and boost consumer confidence in herbal medicines; further welcomes the progress of the Government in negotiations for more flexibility to take account of valid evidence of traditional use from outside the European Union and to permit herbal nutrient combination remedies; and further welcomes the stated willingness of the Herbal Forum, representing all UK manufacturers' trade associations in the sector, to work with the Medicines Control Agency to minimise regulatory impact, consistent with the need to protect public health."
I do not think that these are small issues but ones of great importance to people up and down the country. I am therefore delighted that we have the opportunity tonight to debate these two European directives: the food supplements directive, which has already been passed, and the directive on traditional herbal medicinal products, which is currently under negotiation.
I want to make it clear at the outset that we support the right of consumers to have access to a wide range of safe remedies and supplements. We understand the anxieties that people have about the possible effects of
100
the directives, but the discussions have also included a great deal of misinformation, which has caused consumers some unnecessary anxiety.
It is absolutely vital that we get the right balance in this area of policy. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) rightly mentioned the views of consumers, the important issue of freedom of choice and the effect on manufacturers, which I will deal with in my remarks. I am absolutely amazed, however, that he did not once mention public health in relation to the important area of food supplements and herbal remedies. We must get the right balance between consumers having freedom of choice and access to a wide range of safe supplements, while making sure, crucially, that we protect public health.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Does not the hon. Lady subscribe to the fundamental principle of European law that once a product has been accepted for free movement in one member state it should be generally allowed in every other member state? By excluding these products, the French and Germans are therefore acting illegally.
Ms Blears: No, what is important is that products are able to demonstrate their safety, quality and efficacy. I will be amazed if Conservative Members depart from that principle. The proposal for the herbal sector is for a simplified registration process so that the products do not have to go through the even more lengthy and expensive process of obtaining a specific medicines authorisation. The proposal is designed to try to make sure that those products can get to market in a way that recognises their traditional use.
Mr. Michael Weir: I am interested in the Minister's remarks, but can she explain, if supplements have been on sale perfectly safely in this country possibly for generations, why the European directive will effectively take some of them off the market? Where is the evidence that public health requires some of them to be removed from the market?
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman raises an important question and I intend to deal with it in relation to both the food supplements directive and the herbals directive. In both cases, there are important public health issues, so I shall deal with that point in some detail.
Dr. Fox: The Minister is right to suggest that public safety should be paramount. However, is she suggesting that the current legislation is insufficient to protect the public? If she thinks that some of the products that are currently available might be adversely affected by the directive, why will they be on sale until 2009?
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman is certainly well aware of the significant concerns about a whole range of herbal products. For example, in Westminster Hall, we have debated aristolochia, which has been found in traditional Chinese remedies and has led to serious health problems. We have also seen recently how prescription-only steroids have been used in traditional Chinese eczema remedies. We placed in the Library last year a whole dossier relating to the concerns about such products. It is generally accepted—among manufacturers as well as

101
consumers—that getting proper quality standards into the sector is a top priority. I shall come to the views of manufacturers in due course, because they are important.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given the Minister's concerns—which I do not share—will she answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) as to why the products will remain on sale for many more years?
Ms Blears: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the food supplements directive rather than to the herbals directive, he might like to know that it makes provision for a transitional phase. We need also to introduce quality into the herbals sector, because some of the products are pretty dangerous. On food supplements, we have to make sure that people recognise the findings of the dossiers that prove that products are safe. There is a long way to go on food supplements. We have not yet had any negotiations about maximum permitted limits, and there is a great deal to play for in getting the best deal for the products that are on sale in Britain. Much of what the hon. Member for Woodspring said was speculation about what might happen in the future. The important thing is that the Government are engaged actively in the debate and are not simply throwing our hands up and saying that there is nothing that we can do.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Late on Thursday, I become the latest Member of the House to present a petition, and this time it was on behalf of 437 of my constituents who have expressed a great deal of concern about the two directives. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the views of the hundreds and thousands of people who have been represented in the many petitions that have been presented to the House are being taken into careful account in all the work that she is doing on this issue?
Ms Blears: I certainly can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The allegation has been made that the Government have failed to use their influence on this important issue. I absolutely reject that. The Government have been able to exercise considerable influence on the food supplements directive and on the herbals directive. I will come to the details of that, because we are absolutely determined to engage actively in putting forward the interests of the people of this country. We will not abdicate our responsibility.
Mrs. Browning rose—
Angus Robertson rose—
Ms Blears: I have given way lots of times. I now intend to make a little progress.
As I said, it is important to get the balance right between protecting public health and promoting honest and informative labelling so that people can make informed choices. It is for consumers to choose what to eat. We are not in the business of the nanny state—whether it is a British nanny state or a European one. We know that consumers welcome a wide range of choice and we are determined to make sure that that is
102
sustained. The rationale of our approach applies as much to food supplements as it does to other foods. We know that many consumers value the range of food supplements that are currently available on the UK market.
Our current position on the food supplements directive is the one that we took in the negotiations. They were difficult negotiations. It was not a case of our not engaging; we were in there arguing the case for our position. The negotiations were carried forward with great vigour and in full consultation with all interested parties. The negotiations are now over and the supplements directive is a fact of life, but the Government were positively engaged in achieving the flexibility that enables us to have transitional provisions from 2005 to 2009 and in securing a commitment in the directive that the maximum permitted limits, which is the crucial issue for most consumers, will consider not just nutritional need, which was the view taken by most other members states, but safety, which was the view taken by the Government, and dietary intakes. We achieved in the negotiations a broader base of factors to be taken into account in setting maximum permitted limits than we would otherwise have done had we taken the view of the hon. Member for Woodspring and opted out of the negotiations.
Mrs. Browning: If I heard the Minister correctly, she said a few minutes ago something about safety, which suggested that she believes that some products on the market contain dangerous components or ingredients. She mentioned a Westminster Hall debate on one of them. Before statutory instruments appear before the Standing Committees of the House, will she place in the Library a list of all products on the market in this country that she believes contain dangerous ingredients or components? If she has the medical and scientific evidence to show that dangerous products are on the market, the House deserves to know what they are and why they are dangerous.
Ms Blears: That is exactly why, following the debate in Westminster Hall, we did just that. We placed in the Library a dossier compiled from reports from all around the world about substances that had given rise to health concerns. If any further items have given rise to concern since the dossier was placed in the Library, I shall gladly include them on it.
I have already referred to aristolochia. In addition, digitalis causes serious irregular heart rhythms. That was reported in the United States following the accidental substitution of harmless plantain with digitalis. Synthetic drugs have been adulterated. For example, fenfluramine, a prescription-only medicine, was banned globally on health grounds in 1997, but has been identified in traditional Chinese weight-loss remedies. Steroids have been found in skin creams, and there are herb and drug interactions with St. John's wort.
There have also been quality issues. Analysis has been carried out on echinacea, and lots of leaf and ash have been found in the product even though it should be made from the root if people are to obtain the benefits that they think they are buying. A lot of information is available and the dossier is in the Library. If further

103
matters have arisen since the dossier was produced—the debate should be based on proper evidence—I will gladly place information about them in the Library.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Why does it take a far more adverse reaction to remove a pharmaceutical product from the shelves than it does a herbal product?
Ms Blears: Herbal products are only just starting to be regulated. That is why it is important to support the directive. We need a proper regulatory framework for the herbal sector as well as our framework for traditional medicines. Herbal medicines are becoming more accepted in different medical environments, and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) has been pressing their case for a long time. As they become more widely used and demanded, the requirement for them to be properly regulated becomes even more intense.
Angus Robertson rose—
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)rose—
Ms Blears: I want to make a little progress. I have given way many times, and I now want to describe our current position on the food supplements directive.
We have taken a robust position in the negotiations. The directive establishes the positive list that defines the range and form of vitamins and minerals that can be used in food supplements. It sets the principles for defining the maximum permitted limits; it does not go into specific limits but sets a framework. It also provides for mandatory labelling on nutrition information, warnings about keeping the product out of the reach of children and a statement making it clear that supplements are not a substitute for a balanced diet. We welcome those provisions.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. I have not seen the dossier in the Library—I have been concentrating on other dossiers recently—but what is the directive's position on qat, which is classified by the Government as a herbal substance and is chewed mainly by people in the north African community? It is a great concern to the elders of that community, who have been to see me, because it is a powerful tranquilliser, then stimulant, causing young people in particular to do nothing with their lives. Can the Minister advise us whether the directive will cover that substance?
Ms Blears: I am not in a position to do so at the moment, but I undertake to look into the matter. I shall get back to the hon. Lady about the important matter of where that substance falls in the regulatory framework.
The directive contains a provision enabling member states to require notification of new products when they are developed. We will not activate that provision because it will involve unnecessary regulation. We are anxious to keep regulation to a minimum, but commensurate with the protection of public health—we
104
want to get the balance right. It is fair to say that, if the Government and the Food Standards Agency had riot engaged actively in the negotiations, the directive would have gone through and we would not have won flexibilities. Nor would we have broadened the base on maximum permitted limits, which is an important gain.
The directive must be implemented by 31 July this year. Draft regulations have been prepared and are out for consultation. The first effect of the directive, on labelling, bites on 1 August 2005. Reports of the imminent withdrawal of swathes of products are misleading. I am concerned that, in the motion, the Opposition talk about 300 products being taken off the shelves—[Interruption.] Well, they talk about 300 but mention 270 later in the motion. I am not sure whether they know which figure is correct—perhaps it depends on which briefing they are citing.
The food supplements directive contains two positive lists. The first deals with vitamins and minerals that can be included in food supplements, and lists all the vitamins currently used in food supplements and all but six minerals in those supplements. The controversy arises in relation to the second positive list, which deals with sources of nutrients, not nutrients themselves. The distinction is important. This is not about taking products off the shelves, but about the fact that 270 sources of vitamins are not included in the positive lists. Both lists remain open for amendment—they will not be closed—and new sources can be added to them.
The second positive list in the food supplements directive includes 32 sources of vitamins, nine of calcium, 11 of magnesium, 11 of iron, eight of zinc, eight of sodium and nine of potassium. A range of nutrient sources are included in the positive list, so consumers have been caused unnecessary alarm. It is simply not the case that the products on which they rely will be withdrawn.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister saying that our brief from Holland and Barrett, a reputable company, is grotesquely inaccurate and dishonest? It says:
"The Directive, when transposed in UK law will still … lead to the banning by August 2005 of several hundred nutrients and nutrient sources which are currently permitted, affecting potentially thousands of UK products".
I have a retail outlet in my constituency. I like the shop, go there and use its products from time to time. Is it being dishonest?
Ms Blears: Many of us have such outlets in our constituency—I have myself. I have not seen the letter, but it refers to "nutrients and nutrient sources", thus making the point that I have been making—that the vast majority of things that are not on the positive list are not vitamins and minerals, but combinations and formulations of those ingredients. I am informed that the vitamins that people want to take will be available in the formulations—the nutrient sources—on the positive list. However, companies may be required to reformulate their products or submit dossiers if they want to carry on with a specific formulation.
I have just said that there are a number of formulations for all minerals and vitamins on the positive list, so it is unlikely that a whole range of

105
products will be wiped out. Both lists include a wide range of vitamins, minerals and formulations. Admittedly, other formulations and nutrient sources are not included in the lists at present, so it will be a matter for industry and manufacturers to decide whether they want to submit dossiers on those nutrients or provide products derived from nutrient sources included on the lists. They therefore have many choices to make. I have received letters from constituents who think that echinacea and garlic will be banned. That is not the case—there is no substance in those allegations.
Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—she has been generous in accepting interventions. She will appreciate that many hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland, as throughout the rest of the UK, are concerned about the measures, but I have heard nothing about joined-up government and devolved Administrations. Matters such as food hygiene, composition labelling and advertising are devolved. What discussions has the Minister had with her counterparts in the Scottish Executive? How many times has her opposite number in the Scottish Executive, Malcolm Chisholm, who is Minister for Health and Community Care, attended the Council of Ministers to battle for a Scottish interest on that important subject?
Ms Blears: The matter is clearly of concern and interest to consumers up and down the country, and the proposed regulations have been consulted on in other countries. On the second question, I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman the exact details.
On the future of food supplements, the next big step is maximum permitted limits, which will be of great interest to consumers. Substances can be added to the list so long as a dossier is submitted by 12 July 2005. Member states may allow continued use until 31 December 2009, so there is a lengthy transitional period for manufacturers and retailers to take steps to ensure compliance. I welcome the fact that manufacturers using substances that are not on the list are co-operating in the preparation of dossiers, which clearly reduces the costs and regulatory burdens on them.
The directive does not set maximum limits, but establishes a framework for them. The House should be aware that other member states take a view of food supplements that is very different from ours. They regard them much more as medicines and, initially, have taken a more restrictive line than the one that we take. We have been able to achieve a wider framework for the setting of permitted maximum limits that looks at safety and thorough scientific risk assessments as well as nutritional need. We shall to continue to press those key considerations. Our efforts will focus on getting a good deal for the UK on implementation. I accept that many consumers value the high-dose products on the UK market, but we are actively pressing for thorough scientific risk assessments. There is still a great deal to play for.
Mr. Todd: Can I return to the point that I raised with the Minister's opposite number, who wilfully ignored it? From the perspective of a UK manufacturer seeking to
106
enter the European marketplace, is not the attempt to break down restrictions in currently restricted markets good news?
Ms Blears: Indeed, it could well be in future. We are speaking of a different viewpoint from that of our country. The Netherlands shares our view, but other member states take a much more restrictive view. It is important, therefore, that we have been able actively to engage in those negotiations to make sure that we can retain UK consumers' rights to the supplements that they value, and ensure that we make those goods more widely available in future.
We set up an expert committee on vitamins and minerals, which is preparing a report and has consulted widely. The report is likely to be published this summer. It will then go to the European food safety agency and will form the basis of our negotiating position on the maximum permitted limits. I can promise the House that that will be robust, and that we will argue the case as strongly as we can.
Dr. Iddon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the European Union committee on food safety has set a maximum daily dose of 25 mg on vitamin B6, without taking into account factors such as dietary intake? The dose recommended by the committee may be less than 25 mg. It is traditional in this country for consumers to take more than 100 mg of vitamin B6. What will happen if there is such a wide disparity between the UK and the EU figures?
Ms Blears: I am aware that vitamin B6 is taken by many thousands of people in this country, and that there are concerns about the consumption of very high levels of vitamin B6 and the effect on the nervous system. At this point, it is not right to speculate about the European food safety agency's view on these matters. That is why it is important that we have succeeded in widening the framework within which the maximum limits will be set, rather than simply on the basis of nutritional need. Safety is the primary concern and must be taken into account.
On the directive on traditional herbal medicines products, there is agreement across almost the entire herbal sector that current regulatory arrangements for unlicensed herbal remedies are unsatisfactory. We do not set quality standards, we do not set safety standards, we do not require consumer information about the safe use of products, and we do not allow companies to tell consumers what the product is for. We have had repeated examples in the UK and across the world of unsafe or poor quality unlicensed products, or products containing illegal ingredients. I have already set out some examples of the wrong herb being used, contamination and poor labelling. We have placed the summary of evidence in the Library. The Medicines Control Agency has undertaken several successful prosecutions in relation to herbal remedies found to contain illegal ingredients, but the real issue is the lack of systematic quality controls to prevent those illegal ingredients from getting into the products in the first place.
The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee examined the issue of complementary and alternative medicine and reported in November 2000. The all-party group took evidence from various sources and was clear on the case for regulation. It stated:

107
"We are concerned about the safety implications of an unregulated herbal sector and we urge that all legislative avenues be explored to ensure better control of this unregulated sector in the interests of the public health."
The House of Lords Committee realised that public health was an important consideration, as well as consumer choice and the rights of manufacturers.
The proposed directive will put in place systematic arrangements to protect consumers. Ministers, including myself, have had meetings with people from the sector—manufacturers, herbalists and consumers. The clear majority of interest groups broadly support the directive. Groups representing practitioners, manufacturers, pharmacists, doctors and toxicologists, and the Consumers Association have all indicated their support. They believe that the directive will protect public health and, importantly, boost consumer confidence. The herbal manufacturers want a regulated regime, because they want their sector of the market to have the confidence of consumers, so that they will want to buy the products and feel that they can rely on their efficacy and quality.
Unlike Consumers for Health Choice, which has campaigned and issued hundreds of thousands of leaflets, and which is funded by some large companies in the field, including Holland and Barrett, Solgar and Biocare, many other groups do not have the resources to engage political lobbyists, but they are passionate in their support for the directive.
The European Herbal Practitioners Association, which represents 1,200 herbal practitioners in the UK, states that the EHPA now supports the proposed directive,
"recognising that it represents the best chance to safeguard the public by ensuring reliable quality and safety standards for herbal products."
The EHPA states that in its judgment, failure of the proposed directive to pass into law
"could potentially jeopardise the supply of herbal medicines to the public since in the absence of agreed quality and safety standards for herbal medicines throughout the EU, there would undoubtedly be a loss of confidence in the sector".
The Herbal Forum, which represents all 10 manufacturing trade associations, recently stated that it sees the need for the directive and that it wants to work closely with the Medicines Control Agency. Such views are held not only in this country. The draft strategy of the World Health Organisation on traditional medicines was published last year and recommends support for all countries to establish effective regulatory systems for registration and quality assurance of herbal medicines.
In our European negotiations, our main aim has been to press, as in the case of food supplements, for increased flexibility as regards the scope of the directive. We are very hopeful of progress. We understand from the European Commission that the next version of the proposals, which is due out shortly, will extend the proposed simplified registration procedure to herbal/ nutrient combination remedies. The hon. Member for Woodspring raised the issue, and consumers and others in the field have been raising it for some time. The combination products, which at present do not have authorisation, would currently be required to go
108
through a full market licensing procedure, but they may well be able to come under the simplified procedure of the directive. That would be an extension of consumer choice, rather than a limitation of it. We look forward to the next draft. If that development is confirmed, it will be an example of the Government's creativity and the Opposition's lack of imagination on the subject.
We have also pressed for the directive to be amended so that more account can be taken of valid evidence of traditional use from outside the European Union. The Medicines Control Agency, with the support of many groups across the UK herbal sector, has fought long and hard in Europe over several years to get wider recognition of non-EU traditional remedies. We welcome the possibility of progress. We think that the next draft of the directive will give the European herbals committee power to reduce the requirement for a minimum 15 years' EU usage where valid evidence is supplied. On those two issues, combination products and traditional non-EU usage, we are hopeful of progress.
The thousands of leaflets issued by Consumers for Health Choice will have frightened many consumers. Last year, we extended the public consultation process and asked people who were worried to send in examples of products likely to be ruled out as a result of the directive. We referred 200 substances for examination. The results showed that three or four of them might have been excluded. That is the extent of the issues with which we are dealing. To frighten consumers by talking about hundreds, if not thousands, of products being ruled out is not a responsible course of action.
We are keen to ensure that Chinese and Ayurvedic medicines can be incorporated in the category of traditional non-EU use. We shall continue to press for that.
Manufacturers large and small are supporting us in this cause. They are concerned that some of their competitors are short-changing the public with lesser quality products. Why should the public have to accept patchy, second-rate standards merely because a medicine is made with herbal ingredients rather than chemical ones? None the less, we attach great importance to trying to keep the regulatory requirements to a minimum, so we are keen to engage with the industry in that regard. The MCA and the Herbal Forum have launched a detailed programme of discussions about the dossier process, in which they are asking how those requirements can be streamlined and how they can ensure that companies collaborate so that they are not all starting from scratch, perhaps by enabling them to refer to each other's evidence.
The hon. Member for Woodspring proposed the idea of a national positive list. We are certainly sympathetic to that idea, but we think that many of the practical issues could be dealt with by co-operation between those in the industry, who should use each other's information. We are not unsympathetic to the idea of a national positive list as well as a European one, and we will continue to explore it.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am glad to hear about the consultation that my hon. Friend is promising to continue to hold with the industry. Will she assure the House that she will not

109
allow any directives to pass through the European Union legislative process unless the industry's concerns are taken into account?
Ms Blears: From the outset, the Government, the MCA with regard to herbals and the Food Standards Agency with regard to food supplements have been engaged with the industry, including large and small companies, manufacturers, retailers and the whole field to try to ensure that we advance the views of the people whom we represent and to protect consumers and public health by getting the balance right.
On the food supplements directive, our focus is now on good implementation, ensuring that we maximise consumer choice and pressing for a safety-based approach to maximum limits. On herbals, we want to enhance the status of herbal medicine and maintain consumer choice, and our initiative is widely supported in the sector.
It is crucial that we get the balance right between protecting public health and ensuring that consumers have a wide choice of safe and effective food supplements. I suppose that I can do no better at the end of my speech than to quote from the brief that the Consumers Association—an independent and challenging organisation—has given to hon. Members for this debate. It states:
"There is potential for harm in relation to both herbal medicines and food supplements, where there is inadequate quality control and insufficient information. These two EU Directives will establish regulatory frameworks that ensure consumers can take full advantage of these products in the secure knowledge that they are using them safely and that they contain what they say they contain."
The Government are ensuring that that happens. As usual, the Opposition motion is cynical, short-sighted and opportunist. It exposes their inability to take mature and responsible decisions on behalf of the people of this country. Our amendment sets out our plans actively to engage on all these important matters with other member states and the Commission to get the best possible deal for consumers in this country, as well as adequately illustrating the difference between us. I ask the House to support our constructive amendment.
8.31 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: The Liberal Democrats welcome this debate and applaud the Conservative party for raising on one of their Opposition days a subject that features heavily in hon. Members' postbags and which has attracted much cross-party support as the subject of early-day motions. It has also been the subject of petitions submitted by many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Under-Secretary was uncharacteristically harsh in her closing remarks in claiming that the Conservative party's motion was cynical, short-sighted and opportunistic. That might embarrass some Labour Members who support at least some of the sentiments underlying the concerns that have been expressed. Generally, the debate has been detailed rather than partisan, and I hope to continue in that spirit.
The Under-Secretary was right that there is an issue of public health, and it has to be balanced with choice. She has my sympathy in grappling with the difficulties of
110
finding that balance. I think that the main principle should be that people should be allowed to consume products where it is safe to do so and where they are not being misled into doing so. In some cases, we are dealing with vulnerable consumers who are seeking specific health effects, even if they are not advertised as such. Another principle that should be established is that the greater the health claim, the greater the potential vulnerability and the need for safety. In that respect, information is very important.
The labelling aspects of the directives have not been stressed enough. They will provide for proper labelling. Yes, there will be a cost to the industry and retailers in providing it, but we support it with regard to food and licensed medicines and it is right that we should support it with regard to an intermediate group of products. The directives are good in that respect. I know that people who feel that there should be freedom to consume also recognise that that must exist in the context of adequate health information. For example, very few hon. Members would ban smoking, but most of us insist that a significant amount of information should be given to people who are especially vulnerable, as they are addicted in many cases.
Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman is a medical practitioner, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to smoking. The European Union promotes and subsidises the production of a leaf—tobacco—that is known to cause harm, yet we are considering banning substances that humans have used for many years and have not been proven harmful. What is the logic of that?
Dr. Harris: I agree that it is morally outrageous that the European Union subsidises tobacco crops. Many hon. Members feel strongly that such subsidies should end because they cannot be justified, especially when the products are marketed in the developing world. It is therefore consistent, and the hon. Gentleman is consistent. to raise anxieties about that and to be worried about some of the directives' unintended—or, indeed, intended—effects on products that are currently available. I hope to deal with some of those concerns.
Although I generally agreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring, he went further than I would go in decrying regulation. I shall revert to that shortly. He was inconsistent when he argued that the directives would send people and users underground and that they would double their dose, go abroad or seek black market sources, because that argument also applies to some softer drugs. He praised the Netherlands, but it is important that hon. Members realise that some countries are consistent in their liberal approach of allowing consumer choice, provided that adequate information exists about a product's safety or health risks. There are health risks associated with, for example, cannabis.
I do not believe that over-regulation is the problem. We support the principle of regulating food supplements and herbal products, but there are valid concerns about the detail. The directives aim to improve the single market. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) pointed out the difficulties that

111
manufacturers in this country experience in marketing products in other European countries that are stricter. That is the problem with a single market, which the Conservative party supported in the past.
Safety, information, labelling and public health also need to be tackled. We must take a balanced view, and I am therefore worried about scapegoating the pharmaceutical industry. Although there are problems with pharmaceutical companies, they are not the baddies with regard to the directives. As we have heard, significant commercial resources back those who lobby against the directives or some of their provisions. That does not invalidate their concerns, many of which I share, but the pharmaceutical industry does not have a monopoly on lobbying.
It is pleasing that some progress has been made in amending the food supplements directive in the European Parliament. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the European Parliament supported a move to extend the 18-month period for submitting evidence for the harmless nature of a food supplement to at least 36 months. It is regrettable that it is not longer. If the derogation allows the products to be used until 2009, it is strange to set a cut-off date of 2005. The evaluation would not require four years.
I agree with those who tabled the motion, Consumers for Health Choice and others, that up to 300 nutrients or nutrient sources that are currently in use may not be available, and that that is unsatisfactory. I do not believe that the Minister disputes the numbers. It is worrying that the maximum allowed dosage may not be based on an upper safety threshold. I believe that all hon. Members would support such a basis.
It is unclear whether the positive list remains open in the way in which the Minister implied when she spoke about the amendment. The positive list remains open only with the provision of the dossier. That places a significant burden on smaller companies, and there is a valid concern that it will be more difficult for established small companies to ensure that their products are included on the positive list. It would be useful if Ministers cleared up the part of the amendment that implies that the positive list remains open without qualification.
The suggestion that there should be a British positive list could only result in support being given to smaller companies to enable them to work with other people to establish the safety of their product. There is an argument for at least some kind of framework for helping those companies, if not for Government intervention, given that they will be put in a difficult competitive position by the regulations, which will have been difficult for them to foresee when they first marketed and established their product.
The Government have made progress. They have obtained—or, at least, they claim to have obtained—a derogation to allow the use of existing products until 2009. Their approach goes in the right direction with regard to the maximum permitted safety levels, and there is therefore much to be welcomed in their approach. It could have been worse: they could have taken a very narrow line on these issues. It is, therefore, appropriate to give them our support and wish them luck in future negotiations on these matters.
112
A series of amendments to the directive on traditional herbal medicinal products has been tabled in the European Parliament. Again, the position is not as bleak as had first been thought. Liberal Democrat colleagues have supported the amendments to allow the inclusion of non-herbal ingredients such as vitamins and minerals—I suppose that Conservative MEPs will have done so too—and to modify the definition of a herbal medicinal product to mean those products containing pharmacologically active ingredients.
Dr. Fox: Those were Conservative amendments.
Dr. Harris: I shall put on record that I accept that the hon. Member for Woodspring claims that they were Conservative amendments, but the Conservative party—and its colleagues, such as they are—does not have a majority in the European Parliament and requires the support of other groups to pass such amendments. There is a greater spirit of co-operation, and more recognition of the need to form such coalitions, in the European Parliament than we have here. Amendments tabled to clarify the border between food and herbs and to ensure that the directive does not apply to food supplements or cosmetics were also successful.
It was regrettable, however, that there was no success in amending some other parts of the directive, and those areas give rise to some concern. First, it needs to be clearly established that combinations will be allowed under the directive, and I hope that the Minister will clarify that point. During an earlier debate of a European Standing Committee, it was not entirely clear that the Government had been reassured on that position. Indeed, it was not clear that the Government even supported the concerns raised by, among others, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) about whether such combinations would be permitted. It would be useful if the Minister could put his views on that matter clearly on the record.
It is also regrettable that there is inequality between the amount of traditional use allowed in other parts of
the world—where there has been traditional use for longer—and in the European Union, and that we require the passage of a measure through the Council of Ministers even to make progress to 10 years rather than 15 years of European use. An early review will be required to see how the measures are working, but it is not clear that that is to be delivered. It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that we expect a lot of the Government in regard to the traditional herbal medicinal products directive, which has not yet been published and is therefore not yet in force. The Government claim to seek flexibility on the years of European use necessary, and I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify exactly what his aspirations are in that respect, and what level he would consider unsatisfactory.
The Government also claim to be trying to reduce the regulatory impact burden on smaller producers of these products, but more substance needs to be put on the bones of that claim. Otherwise, people whose business depends on such action may not believe them. Like the Consumers Association—I, too, shall quote selectively from its briefing—we recognise that
"there are positive benefits … from both of these EU directives"—

113
but, in both cases, there is still more work to be done.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must tell the House that a number of hon. Members are clearly seeking to catch my eye, but there is a limited amount of time left. It would, therefore, be helpful if Members could make their remarks as brief as they feel is reasonable.
8.44 pm
Alan Simpson: If any Members in the House tonight were medical students in China, they would be given a simple message in the first lecture of the first part of their course: food is our first and strongest medicine. It has the power to cure us and make us well, but it also has the power to kill us. The importance of that in medicine lies in understanding the significance of thresholds and appropriate intakes. Even in this country, a large number of members of the medical profession will happily repeat part of that message. They will tell people that if they were to drink even water in sufficient quantities, it could kill them. For me, the sad thing is that that common ground between our conventional medicine and the traditional medicines of our own country and of the east seems to end there.
Our medical culture is dominated by a view of medicine written largely by the pharmaceutical companies. As such, we have a medicalised model that addresses, by and large, not health, but ill health. We have a culture that is resistant to the idea of people taking responsibility for their health. No matter how much we say that we want people to be responsible for their health, we increasingly throw up all sorts of obstacles in their path to doing so.
In some ways, tonight's debate has managed to capture the contradictions of where we are, although it is further complicated by a number of disparate and different interests, which we are trying to encompass in one discussion. We are dealing with two directives involving some common ground, but lots of differences of interest. Also, two Ministries are involved as are, at European level, two different views as to the place of nutritional supplements and traditional herbal remedies in the pattern of health culture.
In addition, there are two clear political tendencies with interests in the debate. One, which seems to exert a disproportionate influence in the European Union, is pro-standardisation and pro-regulation while the tendency in our country is much more pro-choice and pro-information. I can understand that the negotiations involve genuine differences of view that have to be argued and fought out between those different perceptions.
As if that were not complicated enough, there are two clearly different sets of lobbying interests—the pharmaceutical industries and some large herbal product suppliers and, on the other side of the equation, members of the public who just want more extensive choices that they are empowered and trusted to make. We have to try to navigate our way between those sets of competing interests.
114
For Ministers, the final complication is that, within our advisory system, different views are taken by the Food Standards Agency and the Medicines Control Agency. Members should remember that throughout our debates on nutritional supplements, the MCA has consistently sought to medicalise the health model that applies to traditional herbal remedies and food supplements. We need to try to hold off those interests as separate from and in competition with those being put to us by members of the public and our constituents.
Let me make it clear that it would be crass for the House not to support the Government amendment. A good amendment has been tabled and, even as a sceptic, I think it incumbent on us to support and understand its importance, because it reflects the negotiating position that the Government seek to occupy. In particular, it is worth supporting because, as I must say for the record, the robust negotiations involving Lord Hunt have presented a formidable challenge to many of the inclinations that people wanted to be written into the first draft of the directive.
It is important for us to recognise the lobbying and negotiating role played by the Food Standards Agency. A former Minister in this House, the noble Lord Rooker, had the sense to kick some of our earlier debates into touch. He put together a Joint Committee, which is due to report to the Government and to the House this spring. It would be naive and politically dishonest of us to try to pre-empt that. It may turn out that it puts forward a strong position, and most of us who support nutritional supplements and public choice may find it an ally in our negotiations, not a limitation.
I want to focus on my concerns, which I hope the Minister will heed. The food supplements directive raises issues about potency that we must address. The wording that has so far been used stresses the notion of safe levels. It is important for us to recognise that what some other European countries mean by that is minimum levels. The references to vitamins C and B6 show how problematic that could be. The idea of a safe level of 25 mg of vitamin B6 would be a sad joke to the thousands of British women who regularly take vitamin B6 to maintain their well-being as part of their informed health choice.
The Minister referred to the adverse effects of an intake of large amounts of vitamin B6—four times the current safe level recommended by the EU, or even eight or 10 times that level. There is no medical evidence to support that claim. People in the Department advise the Minister on the basis of one study alone, the Dalton and Dalton study. It is worth going through that study if one wants to read a piece of hocus-pocus research. The authors have persistently refused to allow their peers to review the data on which they based their recommendations. It is astonishing that researchers have made such far-reaching claims but have refused to let their peers examine the basis on which they were made. I understand that there is one study that may offer a crumb of comfort to them, but as it was a study on dogs rather than people, I suggest that any investigation of its significance should be carried out with caution.
The Medicines Control Agency has attempted to bounce successive Governments into a medicalised view of regulating these supplements, because it suits its needs and those of the pharmaceutical industry, which would make an awful lot of money out of the process if

115
it were able to capture that market. It would give the agency monopoly control, and it would allow the industry to charge monopoly prices. The vast majority of women who campaigned in opposition to the initial proposals to set ludicrously low limits on the availability of vitamin B6 knew what game they were playing and what was at stake.
Whatever figure we choose to put on it, there is a problem with having a limited number of nutrients allowed to be registered under the directive. I think that it would be crass of us to say that some of the nutrients that are currently available in the UK would not automatically be covered by the new directive. To go down that path would be to take a serious step backwards, with no medical evidence on which to base our contention.
I also caution the Minister and other colleagues about going down that path, because it does not make any sense, even in pragmatic terms. In today's globalised information market, if we set foolish, prohibitive and restrictive rules, consumers who have looked into this issue and made their own health choices will go through other channels. They will use mail order or the internet to do so. A more open and regulated market will always be better than the present market, which is prescriptive and pushes more people into making choices outside a formal market framework.
Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman has voiced many of the anxieties that lie behind our motion, and indeed behind early-day motions signed by many Members. Does he not realise that this motion gives him, and others on both sides of the House, an opportunity to make their point robustly?
Alan Simpson: I do, and the terms of the motion certainly presented an initial attraction. The more I read the Government's amendment, however, the more I saw a compelling case for Members on both sides of the House to support it. We are talking about negotiations that are currently in progress, and our debate should send Ministers a message about where we want the progress to end up. That will, I think, strengthen their position. The message is clear: if we as a Government fail to meet demands made by Members on both sides of the House, Members on both sides of the House will not give their support.
Let me say something about the proposed directive on traditional herbal medicinal products. I urge the House to be cautious about the catalogue of criticisms that we are offered in relation to the dangers of herbal products. It would sit more easily on my conscience if we had a similar list of the problems associated with manufactured pharmaceutical drugs. The catalogue of health disasters foisted on people by an industry that appears at times to be able literally to get away with murder is scandalous.
In that context, it is outrageous for us to allow ourselves a distorted debate that fails to recognise the thousands of years of knowledge—especially in the east—of the use of traditional herbal remedies. The issue is not the use of the herb involved, but an understanding of dosage. That has always been the basis of the
116
application of such remedies. The House must not become trapped in a caricature of a debate—an exchange in which scare stories are thrown around, suggesting that if Ayurvedic medicines or different herbs are used there will be terrible consequences for us all. Using such herbs in an informed fashion is arguably one of the best ways of giving people more responsibility for and control over their own well-being, and all parties in the House should welcome that.
We would like the Minister to return from his negotiation with affirmative answers based on the need to address the existence of products that have been on the market for some time, and ought not to be outside the loop of existing or proposed legislation. We should oppose the suggestion that no new products should be brought on to the market even if they have been available in another EU country and have a good safety record. We should recognise that the standards for manufacturing of such products must relate to food safety rather than medicinal standards. We should allow more emphasis to be put on labelling, rather than on the restriction of dosages.
One question relating to how the markets will function after the two directives are agreed on and become operative will concern the number and nature of suppliers. The costs of compliance will have a profound effect on the range and character of the choices that the public face.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree tonight to commit the United Kingdom to five clear points at the negotiations. The UK must reserve a position that gives it the right to derogations, otherwise the consensus would be for a market that was so restricted that it was diametrically opposed to everything that the UK has built up. We must emphasise upper safety levels rather than minimum risk restrictions. We must have a commitment to abolish the arbitrary period that a herbal product must be on the EU market before it is allowed to register. We must press for maximum rights to clear information about product labelling, and minimum presumptions that positive health choices need to be medicalised rather than just publicised. Finally, we must try to set the lowest possible price hurdles for product registration in each of the respective markets.
Consumer choice will depend not on the assurances of agencies or Ministers but on the freedoms, derogations and choices that end up being written into the legislation or directives. The UK is committed to a strong negotiating position. The message that must come from the House is that we must deliver on that position if the House eventually is to offer any support to the final directives that come through.
9.1 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is to be congratulated on his choice of debate this evening and on the eloquent way in which he set out his stall and explained in great detail some of the problems that we face. I will try to add a little colour to what he said.
Talking of colour, I straight away refer to the Minister's speech. She presented an amazingly rosy picture of the Government's approach and what they have done in the past few months. I am astonished to

117
hear her blame organisations such as Consumers for Health Choice for scaremongering, and others for distributing leaflets when it is the very fact that they generated interest among the public that brought the Government to their senses and got them to act in the first place.
If the Minister casts her mind back to the spring of last year, the Department of Health was in disarray on the matter. It was impossible for any of the manufacturers such as the ones to which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) referred to see a Minister to put their case. It was not until her Department agreed to meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), and industry experts on 17 June to discuss the problems that the Department became aware of what was going on. The only reason why the Minister and Lord Hunt agreed to meet us then was that the next day they were going before Standing Committee C and they were going to get a right grilling.
In the Minister's defence, she had just taken over the brief from, from memory, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). It was not easy to go before that Committee at that time but she did and she defended herself in an honourable way, on the basis that she had very little knowledge of the subject; that is a slightly double-edged compliment.
We have many specific concerns about the directive and they have been listed this evening: unreasonably requiring 30 years' continuous medical use; unreasonable demands for compliance; the exclusion of safe and popular products; and leaving many combination products outside the directive's remit. I should like to look at some of those in turn but, to give an example of how wrong the Government got it, they had to extend the consultation period on the herbal directive. It was not an achievement to extend the consultation period; it happened because the Government were behind the game. That was the problem. On 18 June, the Minister appeared before the Standing Committee and had a pretty rough time of it. It was only then that we saw some action.
The Minister has given a typically upbeat, new Labourish presentation. [Interruption.] She shakes her head—perhaps she is part of old Labour, but she has given such a presentation. However, I do not want to get her into any trouble. In her rather clever debating style, she managed to focus on the few rogue problems that have occurred in the herbal industry. She referred to aristolochia, as I knew she would. We have surely been round that track before: the mis-prescription of a wrongly labelled drug by the wrong practitioners at the wrong time for the wrong purposes, and the resulting problems. She has gone on about the hoary old chestnut of steroids in creams—yes, we know all about that—and one or two other matters.
The Minister has tried to distract us from the issue. No one on this side of the House wants unsafe remedies on the market, and it is a good thing that two professional committees, under Professor Pitillo and Lord Chan, are looking at herbal medicine and Chinese acupuncture, and trying to draw the strands together in this country. No one is suggesting for one second that we want unsafe products on the shelves. The real problem is that the shelves will be denuded if this Government do not get their act together. I am very
118
relieved to hear that, almost at the last fence, the Minister has got some good news on combination therapies.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) mentioned the dangers of herbal medicines when compared with other products, as did the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). I nearly described the latter as my hon. Friend—perhaps because we once led a march together. I have looked up the figures. In 1997, the last year for which figures were provided, 562 people died from taking paracetamol, and 51 died from taking aspirin. In his winding-up speech, the Minister who is to reply might like to tell us how many people in this country have died from eating parsley, or from taking most of the other herbs that are obtainable in stores such as Holland and Barrett. The Minister made much of this issue, but the fact is that the number of herbs that have caused health problems is very small indeed. Generally speaking, such problems have occurred because of incorrect labelling and rogue marketing. We obviously welcome a tightening up in that regard, but we do not want this Government to be rolled over and knocked about by members of the Commission or the European Parliament because they failed to present Britain's case effectively.
The really big issues that we are considering through the motion are borderline products and the combination products of herbs, vitamins and minerals. The Minister made much of the positive lists, which she says are still open, but she has said little about the costs that manufacturers will have to incur if they are not on those lists. Even if they are on those lists, they will still have to produce complex dossiers—[Interruption.] I note that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South is nodding. They will also have to clear the hurdles set by the Medicines Control Agency. That will of course result in restriction of choice—my party stands for choice, not restriction—and it will prove damaging to the industry as a whole. Are the Government really in favour of monopolies in this field? What will happen to the small producers? I am slightly suspicious of the position taken by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, because I have a feeling that he is representing only the larger manufacturers, such as the one in his constituency. We should focus much more on the little people. We do not want them to be wiped out.
I was pleased to hear today from the Minister about the new negotiations on simplified procedures. That announcement conveniently slipped out today in order to take the wind out of our sails, and having seen what happened in the Department before the Minister participated in Standing Committee C, I have no conscience about offering such criticism. We have all called for simplified procedures, and we want vitamins, herbs and minerals to be sold in this country as they were in the past. This has been a bone of contention, and although the Minister says that everything is wonderful and that they have been on top of the situation the entire time, that simply is not the case. She must accept that fact—[Interruption.] I do not know whether she is smiling or blushing, but it would not surprise me if she were upset at thinking about what happened in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to the work of MEPs. The Government are not responsible for the amendments to

119
the traditional herbal medicines directive; that responsibility lies with John Bowis, MEP, the former Member for Battersea. I spoke to him on the telephone at some length this afternoon. I said, "Put me straight. What have the Government actually done?" He replied, "Precious little. They let it coast along. They did not intend to do much." Only the pressure that has been brought to bear on them has caused them to take any action at all. The amendments are nothing to do with the Government. They were produced by the Conservatives in the European Parliament and include amendment No. 1, which concerns easier registration, and Nos. 9 and 11, which are about combinations. Some of them are supported by the Liberal Democrats—I will give them that.
The awful truth is that the letters sent out by Lord Hunt in the summer were intended to lull us into a false sense of security, but it is possible that the amendments will be rejected and that we will be in a worse situation than we were in the spring. Perhaps when he winds up the debate the Under-Secretary will tell us whether there is a guarantee that the amendments will be accepted. In this case, the big gun wheeled out by the Government was inertia. They let the issue drag on. It is only the determination of certain groups to bring the subject to people's attention and to needle the Government about it that has brought them kicking and screaming to the point where they take the issues seriously.
The Council of Ministers, which is made up of national representatives, will have an impact on the matter, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), should get in there and make strong points. We want to see a little fire in her belly and a little action. We do not want to hear from our representatives in Europe that nothing much is going on. The former Member for Battersea is a very honourable man, and in our conversation earlier we were not trying to make political points. I asked him what line I should take in this debate, and he said that not much has been done about the matter. It is not very good.
The Minister still has time to effect change. The Government should introduce proposals that would allow the UK to set national rules to permit the continued sale of products that are safe and appropriately labelled, but which may lie outside the restricted code. They should abolish the completely arbitrary period for which a product must have been on the EU market before being allowed registration. That period has no relation with the availability of safe data. Finally—the Government can certainly do this—they should end the attempts by the Medicines Control Agency to regulate herbal medicines as if they were pharmaceutical drugs, thus reducing compliance costs. We are talking about the third way, which has been referred to in the past. That was part of earlier legislation but it was never implemented.
I turn briefly to the food supplements directive. We have already heard about the problem of minimum dosage levels, and the ho n. Members for Nottingham, South and for Bolton, South-East have spoken about the pressure in Europe to reduce the maximum permitted levels of vitamins. If the Government do not stand up and sort this out, it will simply be a tax on poor
120
people. They will buy the amount that they want—they will buy on the internet and get the products from abroad—but they will have to pay three times as much. The Government must stand up and be counted. It is wrong that we should be forced to reduce the levels of vitamins when 20 per cent. of the nation are using supplements and complementary therapies. It is time for the Government to be tough.
The possible effects of the directives include the loss of thousands of safe, popular herbal products, completely unnecessary restrictions on consumer choice, substantial job losses in the retail sector, the bankruptcy of several specialist manufacturers and retailers, an adverse impact on public health and a substantial increase in the number of visits to general practitioners.
The Government's approach to the directives has been the most appalling example of inertia, muddle, late action, refusal to consult, defensiveness and, if not deception, at least sleight of hand. We are often told, as we have been tonight, that everything will be all right in the end, but the amendments could be thrown out and worse could come. We shall not avoid problems in the future. The Government have done far too little, far too late, but I hope that some good may come out of it.
9.15 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: I want to make a few new points.
The pharmaceutical industry has been accused of being behind the directives and promoting them for its own benefit. I do not believe that. The pharmaceutical industry was born from natural products. Many of the drugs that we use nowadays are derived from plants, roots, berries and tree bark. Salicylic acid, for example, comes from the bark of the willow tree, and then turns into acetyl-salicylic acid or aspirin. Many of our modern drugs follow similar pathways.
I should like to tell the House a funny story about a late friend of mine, Dr. Michael Scrowston, who used to lecture in my subject at the university of Hull. Over many, many years, he collected a large number of beautiful plants from all over the world, potted them and nurtured them in his greenhouse. He gave lectures on how the modern drugs industry was derived from the plants described in little books such as the one I have in my hand. On one occasion, he set out a wonderful display of plants on the lecture bench in front of him; there were beautiful flowers such as the autumn crocus and some extremely rare plants. When he had finished his lecture, the lady from the Women's Institute who had invited him said, "Dr. Scrowston, how wonderful of you to bring all those amazing plants for the raffle", and he lost the lot.
I do not want the Government to underestimate the public reaction that always occurs when new legislation is introduced in this policy area. If the public were not fully behind the natural health products industry, how could it have achieved such growth? The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) has just referred to MLX 249. When it was under discussion a few years ago, there was a march from Hyde park and a rally in Trafalgar square. I still cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman and I stood on the plinth of Nelson's column talking to a large gathering about MLX 249. Probably, nobody had ever heard of it, apart from the people in

121
Trafalgar square on that day. Thousands of people came from all over the country because they were annoyed about a European directive that has long since passed into law.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has pointed out, more than 20 Members, including him, have presented petitions to Parliament expressing concern about the directives relating to the UK health products industry that we are debating. Altogether, there are more than 1 million signatures and the petition is one of the largest presented to Parliament in modern times. Just before Christmas, I presented six boxes, which alone contained 350,000 signatures. Those petitions are still coming in and they show that people in every corner of the country—in all our counties and nations—are extremely concerned about what is going on. The Government should not lose sight of that fact.
As of today, 165 hon. Members have signed my early-day motion 278 on the food supplements directive and 164 Members have signed early-day motion 279 on the traditional herbal medicinal products directive. That, too, demonstrates the concern expressed to us by our constituents.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Iddon: I have little time, so the hon. Lady will forgive me. If my constituents cannot purchase health products from a local shop, they will not blame the European Parliament but the Government. They may be tempted to purchase such products on the internet or from mail order catalogues that may not be manufactured to the standards that they have come to expect. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) tells me that he has seen health products on sale at car boot sales. Not much regulation there.
Many people, myself included, like to keep as far away from our doctors—with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)—as possible and self-medicate minor ailments. If popular over-the-counter products are removed by legislation, there is a slight possibility that general practitioners and even hospitals will be under greater pressure.
The food supplements directive is almost set in stone. It appeared in the Official Journal of the European Commission in July 2002 and must be implemented by our Government in July this year. I am glad that the Government have stressed safety as the important factor. Government representatives have worked hard on putting their arguments across in the Council of Ministers and its working parties, where people from less liberal regimes on the continent are pressing for topping up the nutritional requirement a little.
The European Union Scientific Committee on Food has already published a list of recommended daily doses to be enshrined in the final directive. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the ad hoc committee on vitamins and minerals that was established following the vitamin B6 fiasco which has now become part of the Food Standards Agency. In May, it will report its own recommended levels. I have already indicated the disparity that might exist, particularly in respect of
122
vitamin B6. The European recommended level is 25 mg but people in this country are taking 100 mg and up to 200 mg per day—most of them without any adverse effects. In any event, if they exhibit peripheral neuropathy, it is reversible if they lower the dose or stop taking B6.
We can all adhere to the safety requirements that are enshrined in the directive on herbal remedies but it requires manufacturers to adopt pharmaceutical processes that will add costs, because it requires each batch of herbal remedy to be tested. Industry estimates may be over the top but I have been given a figure of £2,000 per batch. Smaller organisations prepare about 10 batches of the same product every week, so a lot of money would be added to the cost of producing a particular product. Some companies handle 100 products, so that requirement could soon mount up to £200,000 of extra costs for a small or medium-sized enterprise.
This afternoon, some of us put that concern to the Minister in the other place with responsibilities for the herbal remedies directive. He assured us that he does not want any small or medium-sized enterprises going out of business as a result of imposing such regulations on the industry. I am sure that manufacturers will be pleased with that news, as we were.
However, there are other costs. The cost of registering the product may also be about £2,000 per product. The industry has set a figure of £15,000 on the cost of preparing the dossier on each product because specialist advice will have to be taken. I accept that those ballpark figures are over the top, but nevertheless, if they are imposed on small and medium-sized enterprises, they may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
We do not want those small and medium-sized enterprises to go out of business. We want to preserve the competition that exists in the industry. We do not want the large concerns—Holland and Barrett has been mentioned, but there are many others—to begin to attain monopoly positions. I, too, am concerned about the extra costs that both directives, particularly the herbal remedies directive, will impose on the industry.
I will vote for the Government amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has suggested, it clearly enshrines words that tell us that the Government are still manoeuvring on both directives, particularly on the herbal remedies directive. I wish the Government a fair wind in achieving what the British people expect them to achieve, so that our consumers do not suffer from a reduction in the wonderful choice that they already have in health product shops.
9.26 pm
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on his speech. He echoed many of my concerns on these issues, but I particularly want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), because there is no doubt at all that, although people might smile gently as he gets to his feet, he has done all constituents and hon. Members a great service in bringing this very important subject to our attention.
The Minister has popped out of the Chamber briefly, so I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), will

123
pass on my remarks. In her speech, she sought to charm and reassure the House. There is no doubt at all that she succeeded in charming the House, but I have to tell her that she did not reassure hon. Members.
I should also like the Under-Secretary to pass on to the Minister the fact that I had not realised until now that she was a highly accomplished joke teller. In fact, so good were her jokes that I shall include them in after-dinner speeches in the future. She told the House that the Government are not about the nanny state. Well, I had to scrape myself up off the floor. For goodness' sake, if the Government are not about the nanny state, they are not about anything. They interfere in anything and everything. That is why the country is such a mess, and the sooner my colleagues get their act together and replace them with a good Conservative Government, the better for all of us. The Minister then had the nerve to talk about the Government's creativity. We all applaud their creativity in reannouncing things time after time and in duping the general public, but she certainly did not reassure the House.
Unless the food supplements directive is changed, it will result in the loss of up to 300 currently available safe nutrients. That is certainly causing great distress to my constituents. Unless the traditional herbal medicinal products directive is changed, it will result in the loss from the United Kingdom market of a wide range of safe and popular herbal remedies, as the hon. Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) said. That is a very serious matter, and many of our constituents our worried that a large number of products that are mixtures of nutrients, vitamins and herbs could be lost.
I would like a derogation from the food supplements directive so that the United Kingdom may continue to allow products to be sold, provided that it is satisfied that they are safe and appropriately labelled, even if they fall outside the technical restrictions of the directive. Furthermore, there should be added to the list of 300 permitted nutrients and nutrient sources those that are currently missing but that are accepted as safe by the UK authorities prior to the deadline of July 2005.
On the first of the directives, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth has blown the Government's position out of the water, following his conversation with one of our representatives in the European Parliament. I would like active lobbying by the Government to ensure that maximum permitted levels for nutrients are set at acceptable levels, not the restrictive ones preferred by France and Germany.
On the traditional herbal medicinal products directive, I would like a derogation from the directive to allow the United Kingdom to introduce national rules to permit the continued sale of products that are safe and appropriately labelled, but which may otherwise lie outside its restrictive scope. Furthermore, the completely arbitrary period for which a product must have been on the European Union market before being allowed registration should be abolished. Finally, I want an end to attempts by the Medicines Control Agency to regulate herbal remedies as though they were pharmaceutical drugs, thus reducing compliance costs.
9.32 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: First, I want to set out one principle: consumers in the perfect world—at the moment, we have something close to this—should be free to purchase food supplements and herbal remedies that are not harmful or marketed dishonestly. In my view, the issue of scientific efficacy should be largely irrelevant to that process, provided that no claims are made to that efficacy.
As a result of a liberal regime run roughly on that principle, we have an extremely diverse marketplace, in which there are small, niche retailers and one can also purchase many of those products in large supermarkets. There are manufacturers who design and develop specific products for very narrow marketplaces, and bulk manufacturers—I have been criticised for having one in my constituency, but I am delighted to have it and to argue for its interests, among others—who supply the supermarket sector and other sectors.
However, we must strike a balance. We seek a free European marketplace and a position in the provision of those products in which some of our citizens can visit another European Union country, receive broadly the same treatment when they get there and buy goods on the same terms. We should all share that aspiration, but it is not a process in which our view can be imposed unilaterally on our colleagues. That was made clear in a wise speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who dwelt on the different cultures and perspectives in relation to this subject. We cannot impose our will; compromise is required.
I have spoken on these topics previously, and I compliment the Government on making substantial progress on this issue. It is undoubtedly true that more remains to be done, but we should be positive about what has been done so far and recognise that the balance of these goals—between individual choice, our liberal values and the requirements of a free market—requires compromise. That balance will undoubtedly affect our marketplace, and it is important that we recognise that. It is particularly likely to affect—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick)—small niche players, both as retailers and as manufacturers. By eliminating some of the higher dose and more marginal products to which some of our European partners are particularly averse, we may remove the competitive advantage in the marketplace of some smaller players. That would be true in any other industry; it must be true in this. It will aid consolidation and maturity in the market—that would probably happen anyway—but I am not sure that that is the role of Governments.
We may also impede new product development, and I will listen to what the Minister has to say about that in winding up. In particular, we may impede the development of products that use familiar ingredients in novel combinations. It is important to have greater clarity about how we deal with the development of the marketplace, because we cannot freeze the products in aspic and suggest that that is all that consumers will want in the future. It is a fast-developing sector, with new demands from consumers, and we need a clear framework by which new products can be added to the marketplace for our consumers and those of other

125
European Union states to enjoy and use. If we do not do that, we will inevitably encourage the use of the internet to purchase the products.
Many manufacturers, such as Peter Black in my constituency, seek to make more formal claims for their products than heretofore. In a maturing marketplace, one should not expect people simply to rely on recommendations in magazines or informal endorsements. It should be possible for a manufacturer to make clear endorsements of a product and statements of its effects. Manufacturers such as Peter Black wish to do that and recognise that it requires a tougher regulatory framework if they are to do so. They would welcome that.
Manufacturers also recognise—we should commend this aim in any case—that we need tighter quality controls. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to notable examples of poor quality control that exposed consumers to risk. We need to recognise that, as consumers become more demanding, they expect the highest possible quality and we should aid them in that goal.
What should Ministers do in the remaining negotiations? First, we need to ensure that we set for ourselves the lightest possible touch for our regulatory activity. I particularly point the finger at the Medicines Control Agency, which, as several Members have said, does not have a track record of sympathy for the sector. It is important that it understands its responsibility not to crush innovation and stifle consumer choice through the dead hand of an institution that is used to dealing with very large companies.
Secondly, we need continually to review the effect of the framework on the way in which the industry and marketplace operate, so that innovation and learning from experience are permitted. We should not stifle that process. Finally, we need to make sure that negotiations aim at safety as the prime goal but with the widest possible choice. To stray down the route of seeking proof of medical effect that some of our European counterparts may suggest to our negotiators would he dangerous. We have taken a consistent intellectual path until now, and we should persist in that.
9.39 pm
Chris Grayling: This has been a timely and important debate on an issue that has prompted a million people around the country to lobby their Members of Parliament, sign petitions and otherwise express their great concern about something that affects many people.
The debate provides the House with an opportunity to make its views clear to the Government. Many Members on both sides have signed early-day motions both in this Session and in the last expressing their concerns about these matters. Indeed, the motion on which the House will vote tonight reflects the views of more than 160 Members from all parties, including 88 Labour MPs, who signed two of those early-day motions.
Our debate began with a spirited at tack by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on the flaws in the two directives. He also made telling points about the torrent of regulation from Brussels and its impact on our manufacturing firms. The Minister
126
unsurprisingly defended the directives on public health grounds. More worryingly, she said that many of the products in the health sector were "pretty dangerous". If that is the case, the Government ought to take urgent action under existing legislation. Why are products that the Minister regards as pretty dangerous on sale in this country? She also admitted that many companies would have to reformulate their products, but appeared not to understand the cost to manufacturers. In their amendment, the Government make a disingenuous claim about the list system, implying that it will still be possible for products to remain on an exclusively British list. There is no formal evidence in the wording of any of the legislative documents on the measure to suggest that that is true.
Turning to the contributions of the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), the wording of tonight's motion is drawn from two early-day motions that they signed. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East proposed tabling them. Will he vote tonight against the very words that he suggested and, if so, what message does that send to the community outside that is concerned about the measures, and what will that do to his credibility in those circles? I very much hope that he will reflect on what he has said and join us in the Lobby.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) accused the Government of painting far too rosy a picture. If anyone in the House knows about that, he does, and I pay tribute to all the work in this area that he has done over the months and years. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) talked about the distress in his constituency about the likely impact of the measures. That distress is shared across the country, as the two directives will have stark effects. The food supplements directive creates an approved list of nutrients which the European Commission will permit for use in foodstuffs. Almost 300 ingredients, however, will disappear even though they are currently deemed safe in the UK. In 2005, those products will become illegal. We may get an extension to 2009, but people who swear by those products to treat illnesses like osteoporosis, ME, digestive disorders, stress and bronchitis will lose the right to buy them.
The only way for those products to remain legal is for manufacturers to submit, at a cost of many tens of thousands of pounds, a dossier to the European Commission, effectively applying to allowed to keep on the market the products that they are selling today. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) last year, the Government admitted that the initial cost of the dossiers would be between £80,000 and £250,000, which would result in an additional cost to the industry of £24 million to carry on selling products that are sold legally and safely today. That point was recognised by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who said that small manufacturers who cannot afford the cost of the measures will suffer.
This morning, I walked down the aisles of the Holland and Barrett store in Epsom past product after product that will become illegal under the two directives. However, they are popular and are selling well and safely. That is the absurdity of the current situation—a small manufacturer of a perfectly safe nutrient that has been on sale for years will lose the right

127
to sell it in future unless he pay tens of thousands of pounds for the privilege. In my view, that is a scandal. If that were not enough, the directive sets maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals. At first glance, that appears sensible, but the maximum levels bear no relation to safety—they are simply a compromise with the norm in other countries. In Italy and Germany, there has traditionally been a different approach to the use of vitamins. Almost every one of the vitamin tablets that I saw when I walked around the store this morning will have to be modified if it is to continue under the directive.
When hon. Members walk into their supermarket next weekend, they should look at the vitamin C tablets on the shelves. The vast majority of the vitamin C tablets sold in this country will become illegal under the new directive. There is no suggestion that they are dangerous. There is a long tradition of using vitamin C in those doses in this country, so what on earth is the rationale for turning those tablets into an illegal product?
Even the Government admit that the restrictions will be a disaster for the industry. The former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), stated in a written answer last year:
"Setting unnecessarily low maximum permitted levels for nutrients in food supplements is likely to have a detrimental impact on the viability of the United Kingdom's specialist food manufacturers and on UK consumer choice."—[Official Report, 30 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 765W.]
She is right and we agree with her. Why are the Government not taking tougher action to deal with the matter?
Even the European Commission, in the small print to the directives, admits that the measures will have an adverse effect on small and medium-sized enterprises—the manufacturers. Surely it is not right that, for no reason, we are placing a burden on those businesses that may make it difficult for many of them to survive. It is not good legislation, and it is not too late for the Government and the House to reject it.
The food supplements directive is only part of the story. The traditional herbal medicinal products directive could have an equally serious impact on smaller manufacturers. The Government say that their goal is to provide a proper regulatory framework for herbal medicines, and to provide improved protection for the public. No one on either side of the House would disagree with the desirability of maintaining public safety, but the measure is tantamount to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, like so many of the regulations introduced by the Government since 1997.
Once again, the improvements that the Commission and the Government seek will be achieved only at the expense of the manufacturers—literally. They face bills of thousands of pounds to secure approval for products that have been selling in the UK for years, and possibly even decades or longer. Many smaller manufacturers cannot afford to pay the bill. As a result, their businesses may disappear. Even if the manufacturers can afford to pay the bill, they may not be given the opportunity to do so, because the directive requires manufacturers to
128
prove that a product has been on the market for 30 years, and for 10 or perhaps 15 of those years in Europe, in order for it to be eligible for licensing in the future. If it has not, it will be banned in perpetuity. As a result, many products that have been introduced over the past few years will disappear.
Let me share with the House the words of one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who wrote:
"I know of many people who cannot find a cure for their particular ailment through the NHS and opt for self-help using natural remedies. To deny them is to deny them their health."
I know that those anxieties are shared in the constituency of every hon. Member. I suspect that there is not a Member in the Chamber who has not received representations on the issue. The wording of the motion has been carefully chosen to reflect those representations and the concerns expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. It has been designed to give Parliament the opportunity to state its view—to allow us to act on behalf of a huge number of the people whom we represent, which is, after all, what we are here for.
The two measures will do real damage to businesses around the country. They will do little to improve public safety. The authorities already enjoy the power to tackle areas of concern quickly and effectively. When the measures become law—which I hope they do not—people who have used the products for years and believe that they have made a difference to their lives will find that they are no longer able to buy them in their local health food shops or their supermarket. Do Ministers honestly believe that that means they will stop buying them? Instead, they will buy products from overseas by mail order or via the internet, from suppliers in countries where the rules do not apply—countries where health and safety and quality checks are not present, and where the contents of the products cannot be guaranteed.
I believe that some simple principles should underlie legislation in this area. Consumer choice should not be reduced unless there are genuine safety reasons for doing so. No manufacturer should have to pay thousands of pounds to continue to sell a product that they have been selling safely for years. We should not ban safe and legitimate products in the United Kingdom simply to achieve harmonisation across Europe.
Opposition Members believe that the two directives fail on all those counts. I know that that view is shared by many hon. Members in all parties. I believe that the measures do not have the confidence of the House, and tonight presents us with an opportunity to send them back to the drawing hoard. I very much hope that the House will take that opportunity.
9.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I warmly congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in a very good debate on this very important subject. We have heard some excellent speeches delivered with passion and conviction. In particular, strong speeches were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd).

129
The debate started with the speech of the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—[Interruption.] Indeed, he is an hon. Member. It is fair to say that he set the tone for the contributions made from the Opposition Benches. His speech was perhaps the most animated contribution that I have heard him make, I suspect because it was not about health, but about Europe. We know from his speech and his suggestion that we live in a Euro-nanny state that his sentiments are shared by the majority of those on his Benches and that his speech must have been written by a nanny with a handbag in another place.
Mr. Swayne: Sir John Krebs states in his letter to us of 17 December that 300 sources are currently omitted by the directive. Nevertheless, we will be able to continue to use them until 2009 should evidence of their safety be presented by July 2005. If evidence of their safety will preserve their use until 2009, why will we have to do without them thereafter?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman refers to 300 sources; the motion refers to 270.
Mr. Swayne rose—
Mr. Lammy: What we need from the Opposition is some clarification. As my hon. Friend—
Mr. Swayne rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman asked for clarification.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is clearly in need of some supplements.
Mr. Swayne rose—
Mr. Lammy: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to answer the question, I can say that the issue is about nutrient sources and not the nutrients themselves. I shall go on to explain that issue further.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a slightly rambling contribution, as expected, in which he took a number of different positions. Presumably, they were assigned to different audiences. None the less, he asked a couple of important questions. He asked whether combinations were permitted. Yes, of course they are. He also asked for clarification about positive lists and whether they were still open. Indeed, in order to add substances to the positive lists, safety dossiers will have to be submitted. They need to be submitted by 12 July 2005. That is the position and we are clear about it. It sits alongside the derogation that we obtained leading up to 2009.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South made a very measured and reflective contribution in support of the Government. He expressed his concern about nutrients that may be prohibited and may no longer be available in the UK. There is an important
130
difference between nutrients and nutrient sources. My hon. Friend listed several sources, which may continue. However, time is available for contributions to the list.
Dr. Fox: The Under-Secretary avoids the crucial point. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, if a dossier is presented before 2005, and a substance is subsequently made available, why should it become unavailable again after 2009? That is ludicrous.
Mr. Lammy: That is not ludicrous. We are considering public safety—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman did not use the term "public safety" when he opened the debate. We are considering public safety in the absence of regulation. That is why we are having the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South also mentioned traditional use. The consultation period was extended to allow contributions on that, but few were forthcoming. There are serious issues to consider about herbal remedies outside Europe. There have been unfortunate instances of contamination, for example, metal and other substances have contaminated Chinese and Indian medicines.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) made a rambling contribution in which he made familiar points about his favourite single issue. [Interruption.] Indeed, he took 10 minutes to say little. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Swayne is becoming very excited. In fact, he may need some medication because he is out of order. I advise him to try to listen to the Under-Secretary calmly. It helps.
Mr. Lammy: Doom and gloom pervaded much of the speech of the hon. Member for Bosworth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East made an excellent contribution. As a chemist, he brought considerable experience to the debate. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) also spoke. However, his jokes were poor. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire made a helpful contribution in his usual reflective manner.
Hon. Members will remember that, after the general election, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) pronounced that his party should be quiet about Europe. He is also keen to portray the Conservative party as the party that will help the vulnerable and champion the needs of children in our inner cities. Just as the Christmas decorations were coming down in homes all over the country, and children were preparing to return to school, the Opposition did a U-turn on that issue.
David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 309.

Division No. 57]

[9:59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Allan, Richard

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Amess, David

Gidley, Sandra

Ancram, rh Michael

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Arbuthnot, rh James

Goodman, Paul

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Grayling, Chris

Bacon, Richard

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Baker, Norman

Greenway, John

Baldry, Tony

Grieve, Dominic

Barker, Gregory

Gummer, rh John

Baron, John (Billericay)

Hague, rh William

Barrett, John

Hammond, Philip

Beith, rh A. J.

Hancock, Mike

Bellingham, Henry

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Bercow, John

Beresford, Sir Paul

Harvey, Nick

Blunt, Crispin

Hawkins, Nick

Boswell, Tim

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Brady, Graham

Heald, Oliver

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Heath, David

Brazier, Julian

Hendry, Charles

Breed, Colin

Hermon, Lady

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hogg, rh Douglas

Burns, Simon

Holmes, Paul

Burnside, David

Horam, John (Orpington)

Burstow, Paul

Howard, rh Michael

Burt, Alistair

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Hunter, Andrew

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Jack, rh Michael

Cameron, David

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Carmichael, Alistair

Jenkin, Bernard

Cash, William

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Chidgey, David

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Chope, Christopher

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Clappison, James

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lamb, Norman

Conway, Derek

Lansley, Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Cotter, Brian

Leigh, Edward

Cran, James (Beverley)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Curry, rh David

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Lidington, David

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Lilley, rh Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Djanogly, Jonathan

Loughton, Tim

Dodds, Nigel

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Mclntosh, Miss Anne

Doughty, Sue

Mackay, rh Andrew

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Maclean, rh David

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Evans, Nigel

Malins, Humfrey

Fabricant, Michael

Maples, John

Fallon, Michael

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Mates, Michael

Flight, Howard

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Flook, Adrian

May, Mrs Theresa

Forth, rh Eric

Mercer, Patrick

Foster, Don (Bath)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfiel)

Fox, Dr. Liam

Francois, Mark

Moore, Michael

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Moss, Malcolm

Gamier, Edward

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

132

Norman, Archie

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Syms, Robert

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Page, Richard

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Paice, James

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Paterson, Owen

Thurso, John

Pickles, Eric

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Portillo, rh Michael

Tredinnick, David

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Pugh, Dr. John

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Redwood, rh John

Tyrie, Andrew

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Viggers, Peter

Rendel, David

Walter, Robert

Robathan, Andrew

Waterson, Nigel

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Watkinson, Angela

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Rosindell, Andrew

Weir, Michael

Ruffley, David

Whittingdale, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Sanders, Adrian

Wiggin, Bill

Selous, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Simmonds, Mark

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Willis, Phil

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

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Spicer, Sir Michael

Wishart, Pete

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Spring, Richard

Young, rh Sir George

Stanley, rh Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Desmond Swayne and Hugh Robertson

Streeter, Gary

Stunell, Andrew

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Burgon, Colin

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Burnham, Andy

Allen, Graham

Cairns, David

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Caplin, Ivor

Atherton, Ms Candy

Casale, Roger

Atkins, Charlotte

Caton, Martin

Austin, John

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Bailey, Adrian

Challen, Colin

Baird, Vera

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Banks, Tony

Chaytor, David

Barnes, Harry

Clapham, Michael

Barron, rh Kevin

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Battle, John

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Bayley, Hugh

Beard, Nigel

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Bell, Stuart

Benn, Hilary

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Bennett, Andrew

Clelland, David

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Berry, Roger

Coaker, Vernon

Best, Harold

Coffey, Ms Ann

Betts, Clive

Cohen, Harry

Blackman, Liz

Coleman, lain

Blears, Ms Hazel

Colman, Tony

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Corston, Jean

Bradshaw, Ben

Crausby, David

Brennan, Kevin

Cruddas, Jon

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cummings, John

Bryant, Chris

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

133

Dalyell, Tam

Jenkins, Brian

Darling, rh Alistair

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

David, Wayne

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dawson, Hilton

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Denham, rh John

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Kemp, Fraser

Dismore, Andrew

Kidney, David

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dobson, rh Frank

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Drown, Ms Julia

Lammy, David

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Lepper, David

Edwards, Huw

Leslie, Christopher

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Etherington, Bill

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Farrelly, Paul

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Linton, Martin

Fisher, Mark

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Love, Andrew

Flint, Caroline

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Follett, Barbara

McAvoy, Thomas

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McCabe, Stephen

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

McCartney, rh Ian

McDonagh, Siobhain

Foulkes, rh George

MacDonald, Calum

Francis, Dr. Hywel

McFall, John

Gapes, Mike (IlfordS)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Mclsaac, Shona

Gerrard, Neil

McKechin, Ann

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McKenna, Rosemary

Gilroy, Linda

Mackinlay, Andrew

Godsiff, Roger

McNamara, Kevin

Goggins, Paul

McNulty, Tony

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McWalter, Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McWilliam, John

Grogan, John

Mahmood, Khalid

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mallaber, Judy

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Hanson, David

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Healey, John

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hendrick, Mark

Martlew, Eric

Hepburn, Stephen

Meacher, rh Michael

Heyes, David

Merron, Gillian

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Michael, rh Alun

Hinchliffe, David

Miliband, David

Hodge, Margaret

Miller, Andrew

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Moffatt, Laura

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mole, Chris

Hopkins, Kelvin

Moran, Margaret

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Morley, Elliot

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Morris, rh Estelle

Mountford, Kali

Howells, Dr. Kim

Mudie, George

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Munn, Ms Meg

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Illsley, Eric

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Ingram, rh Adam

O'Hara, Edward

Irranca-Davies, Huw

O'Neill, Martin

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Owen, Albert

134

Perham, Linda

Stevenson, George

Picking, Anne

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Pickthall, Colin

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Plaskitt, James

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Stringer, Graham

Pound, Stephen

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Purchase, Ken

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Purnell, James

Timms, Stephen

Quin, rh Joyce

Tipping, Paddy

Quinn Lawrie

Todd' Mark (S Derbyshire)

Rammell, Bill

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Trickett, Jon

Raynsford, rh Nick

Truswell, Paul

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Turner, Dr- Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rooney, Terry

Tynan, Bill Hamilton S)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Ruane, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Ruddock, Joan

Ward, Claire

Russel, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Wareing, Robert N.

Watson, Tom (w Bromwich E)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Watts, David

Savidge, Malcolm

White, Brian

Sawford, Phil

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Sawford, Phil

Wicks Malcolm

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Shaw, Jonathan

Wills Michael

Sheerman, Barry

Winnick, David

Sheridan, Jim

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Simon, SiÔn (B'ham Erdington)

Woodward, Shaun

Singh, Marsha

Woolas, Phil

Skinner, Dennis

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Soley, Clive

Wright, David (Telford)

Southworth, Helen

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Spellar, rh John

Squire, Rachel

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. John Heppell and Dan Norris

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Steinberg, Gerry

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 151.

Division No. 58]

[10:12 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Barrett, John

Allan, Richard

Barron, rh Kevin

Allen, Graham

Battle, John

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Bayley, Hugh

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Beard, Nigel

Beckett, rh Margaret

Atherton, Ms Candy

Begg, Miss Anne

Atkins, Charlotte

Berth, rh A. J.

Austin, John

Bell, Stuart

Bailey, Adrian

Benn, Hilary

Baird, Vera

Bennett, Andrew

Baker, Norman

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Banks, Tony

Berry, Roger

Barnes, Harry

Best, Harold

135

Betts, Clive

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Blackman, Liz

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Edwards, Huw

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Bradshaw, Ben

Etherington, Bill

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Farrelly, Paul

Brennan, Kevin

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Fisher, Mark

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Flint, Caroline

Bryant, Chris

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Buck, Ms Karen

Follett, Barbara

Burden, Richard

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burgon, Colin

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Burnham, Andy

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Burstow, Paul

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Foulkes, rh George

Cairns, David

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Caplin, Ivor

Gerrard, Neil

Carmichael, Alistair

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Casale, Roger

Gidley, Sandra

Caton, Martin

Gilroy, Linda

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Godsiff, Roger

Challen, Colin

Goggins, Paul

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Chaytor, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Chidgey, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clapham, Michael

Grogan, John

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hancock, Mike

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Hanson, David

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Clelland, David

Harvey, Nick

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ms Ann

Healey, John

Cohen, Harry

Heath, David

Coleman, lain

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Colman, Tony

Hendrick, Mark

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hepburn, Stephen

Corston, Jean

Heppell, John

Cotter, Brian

Heyes, David

Crausby, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Cruddas, Jon

Hinchliffe, David

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Hodge, Margaret

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Cummings, John

Holmes, Paul

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Dalyell, Tarn

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Darling, rh Alistair

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hoyle, Lindsay

David, Wayne

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Dawson, Hilton

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Denham, rh John

Ingram, rh Adam

Dhanda, Parmjit

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Dismore, Andrew

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Jenkins, Brian

Dobson, rh Frank

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Doughty, Sue

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Drown, Ms Julia

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

136

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pickthall, Colin

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Plaskitt, James

Kemp, Fraser

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Kidney, David

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Pound, Stephen

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Prosser, Gwyn

Lammy, David

Purchase, Ken

aws, David (Yeovil)

Purnell, James

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Quin, rh Joyce

Lazarowicz, Mark

Quinn, Lawrie

Lepper, David

Rammell, Bill

Leslie, Christopher

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Rendel, David

Linton, Martin

Robertson, John (Glasgow Annieland)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Love, Andrew

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooney, Terry

McCabe, Stephen

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McCartney, rh Ian

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ruane, Chris

MacDonald, Calum

Ruddock, Joan

McFall, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Mclsaac, Shona

McKechin, Ann

Sanders, Adrian

McKenna, Rosemary

Sarwar, Mohammad

Mackinlay, Andrew

Savidge, Malcolm

McNamara, Kevin

Sawford, Phil

McNulty, Tony

Sedgemore, Brian

Mactaggart, Fiona

Shaw, Jonathan

McWalter, Tony

Sheridan, Jim

McWilliam, John

Shipley, Ms Debra

Mahmood, Khalid

Simon, SiÔn (B'ham Erdington)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mallaber, Judy

Singh, Marsha

Mandelson, rh Peter

Skinner, Dennis

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)

Marshall, David (Glasgow shettleston)

Soley, Clive

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Southworth, Helen

Martlew, Eric

Spellar, rh John

Meacher, rh Michael

Squire, Rachel

Merron, Gillian

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Michael, rh Alun

Steinberg, Gerry

Miliband, David

Stevenson, George

Miller, Andrew

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Moffatt, Laura

Mole, Chris

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Moore, Michael

Stinchcombe, Paul

Moran, Margaret

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Morley, Elliot

Stringer, Graham

Morris, rh Estelle

Stunell, Andrew

Mountford, Kali

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mudie, George

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Munn, Ms Meg

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Thurso, John

O'Hara, Edward

Timms, Stephen

O'Neill, Martin

Tipping, Paddy

Owen, Albert

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Perham, Linda

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Picking, Anne

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

137

Trickett, Jon

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Truswell, Paul

Wicks, Malcolm

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Willis, Phil

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wills, Michael

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Winnick, David

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Woodward, Shaun

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Woolas, Phil

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Worthington, Tony

Walley, Ms Joan

Wright, Antony D. Gt Yarmouth)

Ward, Claire

Wareing, Robert N.

Wright, David (Telford)

Wareing, Robert N.

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Watts, David

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Nick inger and Dan Norris

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

White, Brian

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Amess, David

Grayling, Chris

Ancram, rh Michael

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Greenway, John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Grieve, Dominic

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gummer, rh John

Bacon, Richard

Hague, rh William

Baldry, Tony

Hammond, Philip

Barker, Gregory

Hawkins, Nick

Baron, John (Billericay)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Bellingham, Henry

Heald, Oliver

Bercow, John

Hendry, Charles

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hermon, Lady

Blunt, Crispin

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Boswell, Tim

Hogg, rh Douglas

Brady, Graham

Horam, John (Orpington)

Brazier, Julian

Howard, rh Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Burns, Simon

Hunter, Andrew

Burnside, David

Jack, rh Michael

Burt Alistair

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Cameron, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Cash, William

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Chope, Christopher

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Clappison, James

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lansley, Andrew

Conway, Derek

Leigh, Edward

Curry, rh David

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Lidington, David

Djanogly, Jonathan

Lilley, rh Peter

Dodds, Nigel

Llwyd, Elfyn

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Loughton, Tim

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Mclntosh, Miss Anne

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Mackay, rh Andrew

Evans, Nigel

Maclean, rh David

Fabricant, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fallon, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Maples, John

Mates, Michael

Flight, Howard

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Flook, Adrian

May, Mrs Theresa

Forth, rh Eric

Mercer, Patrick

Fox, Dr. Liam

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Francois, Mark

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Moss, Malcolm

Gamier, Edward

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Norman, Archie

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Goodman, Paul

Osborne, George (Tatton)

138

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Page, Richard

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Paice, James

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Paterson, Owen

Tredinnick, David

Pickles, Eric

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Portillo, rh Michael

Tyrie, Andrew

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Viggers, Peter

Redwood, rh John

Walter, Robert

Robathan, Andrew

Waterson, Nigel

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Watkinson, Angela

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Weir, Michael

Rosindell, Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Ruffley, David

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Selous, Andrew

Wiggin, Bill

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Wilkinson, John

Simmonds, Mark

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Wilshire, David

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Wishart, Pete

Spring, Richard

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Stanley, rh Sir John

Young, rh Sir George

Streeter, Gary

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Tellers for the Noes: Hugh Robertson and Mr. Desmond Swayne

Syms, Robert

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Question put accordingly,
Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises, in relation to the Food Supplements Directive, the Government's firm commitment to the view that the law should allow safe and properly-labelled food supplements to be freely marketed; welcomes its intention to take advantage of flexibility, secured by the UK, to permit continued use of substances not on the permitted lists where products comply with existing UK food safety legislation; notes that the impact on the long-term availability of products currently on the market will depend upon future developments on maximum limits and lists of permitted nutrients; supports the Government's efforts to press the case for any maximum limits which may be established at EU level to be based on thorough scientific risk assessments; further recognises that the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would introduce regulatory arrangments to set safety and quality standards for unlicensed herbal remedies, and introduce systematic consumer information about the safe use of products and permit companies to make claims; further notes that the proposed Directive is supported by most interest groups, who believe it will protect public health and boost consumer confidence in herbal medicines; further welcomes the progress of the Government in negotiations for more flexibility to take account of valid evidence of traditional use from outside the European Union and to permit herbal nutrient combination remedies; and further welcomes the stated willingness of the Herbal Forum, representing all UK manufacturers' trade associations in the sector, to work with the Medicines Control Agency to minimise regulatory impact, consistent with the need to protect public health.
Dr. Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion relating to the previous debate was taken from two early-day motions, 278 and 279, from the last Session. That was done with the intention of allowing Members of Parliament to vote in the House for something that they had put their name to on paper. Yet bizarrely, several members of the Labour party actually voted against the early-day motion that they had put their name to in the House.
We do expect Members to act consistently, although we understand that all are free to change their minds. However, would it not be only honourable for Members

139
who have actually voted against their own early-day motions now to withdraw their names from them? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can answer the point of order, if the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) will allow me. As the hon. Gentleman said, hon. Members are free to change their minds. [Interruption.] Order. Of course, that is why we have debates: so that hon. Members can be swayed by persuasive words.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
DIOXINS, FURANS AND POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13438/01, Commission Communication on a Community strategy for dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls; and supports the Government's objective that effective and proportionate measures are taken across the European Union in order to reduce emissions of, and exposure to, these substances, and to meet national, other regional and global commitments.—[Gillian Merron.]
Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Airguns
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: The petition that I present tonight has been signed by almost 10,000 people from in and around the city of Sunderland. I must give great credit to those who were responsible for obtaining the majority of those signatures: to Monique Swan, whose name is appended to the petition, and to the Sunderland Echo, which has campaigned vigorously on the vexatious question of airguns. It is some weeks since this petition was lodged, and I am pleased that we seem to be making some progress.
  The petition states:
  The petition of residents of the city of Sunderland
  Declares that stricter legislation and licensing of airguns throughout the country is needed to safeguard the public.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to restrict the purchase, ownership, hire and use of airguns and ammunition to persons aged 18 years and over, and to establish a comprehensive and strictly enforceable firearms licensing system and secure storage and transport protocols for all owners and users of airguns.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Natural Health Products
  10.29 pm
  Paul Farrelly: Appropriately, I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 240 people, on behalf of Keith Woolley, a constituent of mine who is proprietor of the Boots health and herbal store in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
  The petition states:
  The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters
  Declares that 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 fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would 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 require that the Secretary of State for Health do 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 products.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table

Dog Welfare
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
10.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity this evening to speak up for man's best friend and to bring the issue of dog welfare before the House. Millions of British people, including many of our constituents, either own or have owned a dog. There are an equally large number of dog lovers in Britain who recognise the importance of these creatures in the lives of humankind. I am therefore certain that hon. Members will agree that we all have a responsibility to be concerned for their well-being.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of my close interest in dog issues over many years. During the past decade in particular, I have had the privilege of working with some of the most dedicated and committed campaigners on dog issues. Indeed, I would like to begin by paying tribute to some of those people and the organisations that they represent. They include Clarissa Baldwin of the National Canine Defence League, whose famous slogan, "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas", has probably saved the lives of thousands of dogs up and down this land, and Ronnie Irving, Phil Buckley and Caroline Kisko of the Kennel Club, whose work in the dog world goes far beyond the wildest expectations of any dog lover, ranging from welfare issues to dog shows, breeding and, of course, the Westminster dog of the year competition.
Juliette Glass of the "Fury" Defence Fund has been a personal inspiration to me. She is always there with an open ear and friendly advice to people all over the country who have problems in the dog world. Juliette has helped to save many dogs from immediate death, following the implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, prior to its amendment. Battersea dogs home does miraculous work in looking after dogs that have been cast out by cruel and irresponsible people. Today I had the privilege of visiting the home. I met staff and volunteers, as well as some of their four-legged boarders, including Rex the singing collie, Teddy the Staffordshire bull terrier and Snoopy the greyhound. I am sure that I echo the views of hon. Members in paying tribute to Battersea dogs home for its caring work in helping to give deserted dogs a fresh start in life.
As a former owner of a Staffordshire bull terrier, I also briefly mention Staffordshire Bull Terrier Rescue, the Sussex branch of which is run by Joanna Mason—a more caring person I have yet to meet. I am also honoured to have been asked to become a honorary member of both the East Anglian Staffordshire bull terrier club, which includes the county of Essex, the Staffordshire bull terrier club itself, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier Welfare. The more I work with those organisations, the greater is my determination as a Member of Parliament to help to secure a better future for our canine friends.
I was also pleased last year to be asked to become the chief patron of Justice for Dogs, a charity that exists to offer free legal advice and assistance on all matters relating to canine welfare and to encourage the formation of groups throughout the UK working for better education on responsible dog ownership. I am
142
sure that hon. Members will understand that groups such as this, which face no easy task, and work on a shoestring budget, are often the only hope for dog owners who have been trampled on due to breed-specific legislation, of which I will speak in greater detail a little later.
Dog ownership goes way beyond the daily walk and a bowl of water. The individuals and organisations I mentioned, as well as others too numerous to mention this evening, do a magnificent job in representing and protecting our canine friends. Dogs are inherently loyal creatures. They will always stand by us as our best friend. Most important, they never stab us in the back.
Hon. Members will be aware that until last year, I, too, owned a dog: a Staffordshire bull terrier called Spike. Sadly, he passed away on St. George's day. My hon. Friends know that Spike stood by me at every step of my political career. Dressed in his trademark Union jack waistcoat, he accompanied me on my first victorious campaign when I was elected a councillor in Romford in 1990.
As the hon. Members for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) will recall, Spike trudged the streets of Glasgow, Provan with me during the 1992 general election and in Thurrock in 1997. On both occasions, he shared my disappointment when I failed to be elected to Parliament. Finally, he stood by my side as I was elected Member of Parliament for Romford in June 2001—a Conservative gain.
Spike regularly caught people's attention with his outspoken column in my newsletter. He successfully campaigned to overturn the no-dogs policy at Havering town hall and made a justifiable effort to oppose the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. His proudest moment was when he greeted the noble Baroness Thatcher during her visit to Romford two days before the general election. Always full of energy and enthusiasm, Spike proved to me that a dog really is a man's best friend. Until the last day of his life, he remained reliable, committed to everything that I did and, above all, steadfastly loyal. Politicians could learn a thing or two from these creatures.
Before I move to the main focus of my speech. I ask hon. Members to reflect on the significance of dogs in our everyday lives. They are not just household pets; there are guide dogs for the blind and hearing dogs for the deaf. There are schemes that take dogs into hospitals where they bring relief and joy to the sick. Dogs bring happiness and often help to the disabled.
Dogs perform vital tasks in the police, Customs and mountain rescue services, as sniffers and in search and rescue. Indeed, more than 100 dogs were involved in the operation to find survivors in the aftermath of the tragic events in the United States of America on 11 September 2001.
Dogs are a great source of companionship to elderly and lonely people. There is no doubt that dogs contribute to society and play a significant role in all our lives, as is well demonstrated by the excellent work of organisations such as PAT Dogs, Dogs for the Disabled and, of course, Guide Dogs for the Blind.
Sadly, 12 years ago, the House committed an awful injustice to certain breeds of dog following the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act—which, to my

143
regret, was introduced by a Conservative Government. The 1991 Act was a draconian piece of legislation that penalised some breeds just because of a handful of isolated but tragic incidents. It was a classic example of ill thought-out, rushed legislation at its worst. The Act has led to the unnecessary destruction of countless gentle family pets and criminalised many respectable dog owners. Especially before the 1997 amendment, that led to the compulsory death sentence of dogs. The legislation has also cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds. In a written answer to me on 8 May 2002, it was revealed that the total cost to the Metropolitan police, which hold the largest number of dogs under the 1991 Act, was more than £4.5 million. Multiplying that figure across the 451 police forces in the United Kingdom paints an expensive picture. I challenge any right hon. or hon. Member to prove that all those dogs are necessarily dangerous to society. Surely it is the deed, not the breed, that should be punished.
The Act's provisions fundamentally go against the grain of the British legal tradition. Under section 1 of the Act, it is for the owner of the seized dog to prove to the court that it is not of a banned type—hardly innocent before proven guilty. I am not asking for the handful of dogs that cause problems to go unpunished but as the Kennel Club correctly puts it, the deed should be punished, not the breed.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the work that must be done to promote responsible dog ownership. There are no problem breeds, just a handful of problem owners. The law punishes a dog simply for the way that it looks, rather than cracking down on the criminal and antisocial behaviour of certain irresponsible dog owners. Surely it would be more successful to refocus the law to deal with the irresponsibility that leads to problems—making the offence not the ownership of the dog but the handling of it—and rather than attacking entire breeds, properly to enforce laws such as those that prohibit unleashed dogs in public areas and compulsory muzzling orders.
As part of the drive to promote responsible dog ownership, dog awareness should be covered in schools. If children are taught from an early age how to respond when around dogs and to look after a dog properly, and are taught what a dog needs to lead a healthy and trouble-free life, when those children become dog owners later and enjoy them as pets in a family situation, they will be able to give their dog the care and attention it deserves.
I am fortunate in having a large greyhound stadium in my constituency that regularly plays host to many significant events in the greyhound calendar. Most recently, I was pleased to attend, together with colleagues from the all-party parliamentary greyhound group, the 2002 Coral Essex Vase final at Romford dog track. However, a significant problem is attached to greyhound racing, when some owners destroy their dogs when they can no longer run. I find it astonishing that anyone who works with animals could destroy a dog simply because its running days are over. I am advised by the National Greyhound Racing Club that its rules ensure that owners are responsible for the future of their
144
greyhounds at the conclusion of their racing careers. A number of options are available for them to comply with the rules.
Greyhound racing is enormous fun but those who participate must surely consider the welfare of the dog during and after its racing days. That is why I am pleased to commend the efforts of the Romford retired greyhounds association, which is doing wonderful work in rehousing greyhounds at the end of their racing, and Greyhound Rescue, representatives of which I was delighted to meet at Crufts last year.
To conclude, I seek some assurances from the Minister tonight: first, that the Government will not seek to introduce legislation without proper consultation with the main dog organisations and charities; secondly, that they will seek to form stronger relationships with those groups, giving support where it is needed; thirdly, that the Minister will consider promoting dog awareness and responsible dog ownership in schools and communities; and, finally, that the Government will seriously review those laws already on the statute book, the limitations of which I have highlighted. I truly believe that a dog is man's best friend, and I urge all hon. Members to join me in working to achieve justice for dogs.
10.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on the way in which he has raised this issue. He made a number of important and serious points, and I shall reply in the spirit in which they were made. I can say that as a former dog owner—I owned German shepherds, although it was a long time ago.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the work of many charities and welfare groups, such as the National Canine Defence League, the Kennel Club, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Blue Cross and a range of dogs homes, not least Jay Gee Animal Sanctuary, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and from which he obtained his very lovable Labrador, Ben, which I see quite regularly.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Staffordshire bull terriers, and I happen to know a great deal about them. In fact, I may know more than I care to know about them. He is not the only hon. Member with an affection for such dogs; at least one other has such an affection. He was very willing to pull from his wallet pictures of his dog, although he did not seem to carry a picture of his wife. He was certainly very keen on his Staffordshire bull terrier.
I understand about the very real loss of a pet. I sincerely express my sympathy with the hon. Gentleman because all of us who have pets, which become part of the family, feel that loss very considerably. Of course, the loss of a dog is no less than that of any other pet, particularly because of the loyalty that they display. I confess that, because of my current lifestyle, it is just not possible to own a dog because I could not give it the attention that it would rightly deserve, so I have become a cat owner because they are a great deal more independent. They are a bit different from dogs: it is often said that dogs have masters, but cats have staff.

145
I agree that dogs, like other pets, reduce stress. That is one of their great values. Dogs also fulfil many important roles—for example, working dogs. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to enforcement and responsible ownership, and we take those issues seriously. I was very pleased that he mentioned greyhounds. A great many people are concerned, as he is, about greyhounds when they reach the end of their working lives.
By coincidence, I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) before we entered the Chamber. He co-owns a greyhound, Sobers Maxine, and not only does he share the hon. Gentleman's views on the need to take care of retired greyhounds, but I understand that he intends to keep that dog as a pet when it reaches the end of its working life. I congratulate him on his responsible ownership.
There are some doughty campaigners on the issue of retired greyhounds, such as Annette Crosbie, who has also spoken on the subject to the associate parliamentary group for animal welfare on several occasions. I was delighted to hear about the Romford retired greyhound association, and I wish that there were many more organisations of that kind that took their responsibilities seriously.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to reply on three points, and I shall certainly do so. First, he asked me to give an assurance that the Government would not introduce legislation on dogs or animal welfare without consultation with the various groups and stakeholders. I freely give that commitment. He will be aware that we are consulting on a new animal welfare Bill, which is designed to consolidate the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and associated legislation in a new welfare Bill fit for the 21st century. Not only are we consulting on that but we have been through one round of consultation. We intend to respond, and we propose to produce a draft Bill on which people will be able to comment before we apply for parliamentary time. It is right and proper that we have such consultation with all the various groups, particularly on such fundamental issues as upgrading animal welfare legislation, which probably comes round only about once a century. It is therefore very important that we get the Bill right.
The hon. Gentleman also asked the Government to give strong support for relationships with other groups. Again, I am happy to give that commitment. I have attended the associate group on several occasions to talk to the various welfare organisations and interested Members from all parties who want to raise issues of animal welfare, including dog ownership.
The hon. Gentleman asked, too, about promoting dog awareness, which is a serious issue that we need to support through local authorities and dog warden schemes. Many councils have a very good record on this, in relation not only to dog enforcement but to promoting responsible dog ownership. We are keen to support that serious issue.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I understand exactly his points, but even though that legislation was introduced under a Conservative Government, it was designed to address a serious problem. The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 was a great improvement, and many of us
146
thought that it would have been sensible to include that commonsense amendment, which gave the courts discretion to decide whether an animal fell within the meaning of the Act, from the very beginning. Instead, the strict and rigorous interpretation of the Act, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, gave courts no discretion and caused a great deal of problems.
Under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Secretary of State has the power to designate certain types of dog identified as primarily bred for fighting. Currently, four species of dogs are so designated: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Braziliero. Such dogs are banned in this country unless the owners have a valid certificate of exemption, which can be issued only at the direction of a court of law.
The main problem was the pit bull terrier, which became notorious not only for illegal dog fighting but for a number of well-documented attacks on individuals. It is a very broad, muscular, smooth-haired dog noted for its strength and determination: a very dangerous cocktail of characteristics and features.
There are concerns that organised dog fighting is still taking place. Unfortunately, pit bull types can go under other names: for example, American Staffordshire terriers, Irish Staffordshire terriers and American bull dogs. They may not be called pit bull terriers, but they are pit bull types and prohibited under the 1991 Act. That is an abuse, and it is unfortunate that people try to present and sell such dogs as some form of Staffordshire bull terrier, thereby encouraging illegal activities. That does no good to the reputation of the Staffordshire bull terrier breed, which is completely undeserved. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, by the end of April, my Department will have published a leaflet to assist enforcement agencies, as well as those whose work may bring them into contact with dogs, with guidelines on identification to help them to deal with some of the problems that he has rightly outlined.
I make no apology for trying to protect the public and to prevent the appalling act of organised dog fighting in which dogs are encouraged to inflict as much injury on each other as possible. Organised dog fighting is an international problem and, sadly, websites advertise such dogs for sale with proud boasts about their "gameness", which is code for, and a clear reference to, their fighting ability. Because the dogs are bred for fighting, they are also a risk to people.
Although I deal with the dangerous dogs legislation, I also deal with the control of dogs. I receive many representations from hon. Members who are concerned about attacks on their constituents from the dogs held by irresponsible owners and about the damage that such dogs can do. We cannot be complacent. There are unscrupulous people who want to abuse the law and descriptions of breed, and who keep dogs that are dangerous to individuals. Such dogs are bred for the illegal and indefensible activity of organised dog fighting.
One proposal that we are considering for the proposed new animal welfare Bill is to raise the penalties for those involved in organised animal fights as well as to give the police greater powers to deal with those unpleasant events. As long as there is a threat that the number of dogs specifically bred for fighting could be on

147
the increase and that members of the public could be placed in danger, there is not a credible argument for removing those dogs from section 1 of the 1991 Act. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was arguing for that, as he was expressing worries about the confusion between breeds.
The 1991 Act does not just prohibit the possession of certain types of dogs. Under section 3, it is an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place or in a place where it has no right to be. Again, we should not apologise for that. It is a necessary piece of public protection legislation. Although I accept that many dog attacks are caused by a lack of control, a lack of care and irresponsible owners, we must recognise that some people will breed dogs that can inflict terrible
148
damage on people, particularly children, and that are linked with the illegal dog-fighting rings. For all those reasons, I believe that the legislation has a role to play. It has been applied as carefully as the courts can apply it, but there will always be difficult borderline cases in which it is necessary to identify a dog under the breed-specific provisions in the law. Overall, however, the legislation is justified.
The hon. Gentleman has made a very good case and a number of fair points, and I have listened carefully to him on behalf of the Government. In the animal welfare Bill, we intend to address some of the abuses and the penalties. If there are specific problems about the workings of the 1991 Act, I should be only too pleased to consider them on their individual merits.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how many cars in the Government Car Service pool will pay the full London congestion charge; and how many will be eligible for a reduction; [91098]

  (2) how many and what proportion of the Government Car Service drivers are (a) women and (b) from a racial minority; and what were the equivalent figures in (a) 1997 and (b) 2000; [91096]

  (3) if he will list the cars in the Government Car Service pool broken down by (a) make, (b) model. (c) registration number and (d) where they are registered. [91097]

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

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the impact of the congestion charge on(a) the Government Car Service and (b) Ministers on official business. [91100]

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

  However, there is no special exemption from the congestion charge for Government vehicles. GCDA will meet the cost of the congestion charge for its fleet of vehicles and will cover the cost from its customers.

  Any congestion charge incurred by Ministers while on official business would be met by Departments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people fell out of fuel poverty because of reduced energy prices during the financial year which ended on 31st March 2002. [90807]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is estimated that in England the number of households in fuel poverty fell by around 1½ million between 1996 and 2000. This fall is largely a2W
  consequence of increased incomes and reduced fuel prices in roughly equal degrees. The impacts of energy efficiency schemes since 1998 are not included in this estimate. Information is not available specifically for the year ending 31 March 2002.

  Further analyses of fuel poverty and explanations of the methods used to produce these, are given at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/consumers/fuel—poverty/.

  Aerospace Industry
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to support the Pechiney Aviatube Company at Lillyhall, Workington against the downturn in the aerospace industry. [91214]

  Alan Johnson
  Pechiney Aviatube have received an offer of a £240,000 Regional Selective Assistance grant support towards the £2 million first stage of a project intended to upgrade facilities at the plant. The North West Development Agency is also working with the company to identify other forms of support that may be available to them.

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much producing her Department's latest Annual Report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90890]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost incurred by the Department for design and artwork of the latest Expenditure Plans report (June 2002) was £32,161. This figure includes the costs incurred in placing an electronic version of the report on the departmental website. Other costs of printing and publication were met directly by the publisher, The Stationery Office Ltd. (TSO), and did not fall to the Government. TSO recoups these costs through sales and uses its commercial judgment as to the number of copies printed. Some 420 copies of the latest Expenditure Plans report were sold at the cover price (£25) by TSO or through its accredited agents and other booksellers.

  In addition, the Department circulated some 540 complimentary copies to Ministers, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, Select Committee Members and staff, other Peers and MPs, the Parliamentary Libraries, DTI officials and external Board Members (including in agencies and NDPBs), officials in other Government Departments and journalists.

  Appointments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who have been members of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders' Industry Forum since its inception; what(a) expenses and (b) salary each received; and if she will make a statement. [91659]
  3W
  Alan Johnson
  The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders' Industry Forum is not a membership organisation. There is however a non salaried board which oversees its activities. The members of the board have included:

  Michael Baunton Varity Perkins Group Ltd

  Alan Jones Toyota Motor Mfg (UK) Ltd

  Sir Ian Gibson ex Nissan Motor Mfg (UK) Ltd

  John Neill CBE Unipart Group of Companies Ltd

  Trevor Bonner CBE ex GKN

  Mike Beasley CBE Jaguar Cars Limited

  John Cushnaghan Nissan Motor Mfg (UK) Ltd

  J Gilchrist Leyland Trucks

  Allan Cooke Cobham plc

  Christopher Macgowan SMMT

  Bob Lawrie SMMT

  Graham Broome SMMT IF

  Arthur David SMMT IF

  Geoff Dale SMMT IF

  Kevin Dimmelow SMMT IF

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who have been members of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force since its inception; what expenses or salary each received; and if she will make a statement. [91661]

  Alan Johnson
  The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force had 13 members, excluding Ministers, who were: Ian McAllister (ex Ford), Tony Rose (Rover), Keith Taylor (Esso UK), Neil Johnson (RAC), David Lea (TUC), Nigel Haigh (IEEP), Michael Gwilt (Arriva), David Green (FTA), Michael Parker (Nexus), Michael Baunton (Perkins), Stuart Holland (ALTER), Sir Trevor Chinn (Lex). Membership was on a voluntary basis and no salaries or expenses were paid. The Task Force had its final meeting in June 2000 and disbanded afterwards.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who have been members of the Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership since its inception; what(a) expenses and (b) salary each received; and if she will make a statement. [91663]

  Ms Hewitt
  The members on the Council of Excellence in Management and Leadership since its inception are:

  Council Members

  Sir Anthony Cleaver

  Ms Sarah Anderson

  Dr. Neville Bain

  Sir Michael Bichard (only 2000–01 year)

  Dr. Tony Hayward

  Mr. Chris Humphries

  Professor Amin Rajan

  Sir Martin Sorrell

  Professor Stephen Watson

  4W
  Organisations Working Group

  Mr. David Butcher

  Mr. Robert Currie

  Mr. Patrick Lewis

  Ms Rosalind McCool

  Mr. Terry Morgan

  Mr. Neil Rodgers

  Mr. Paul Rodgers

  Ms Hilary Rowland

  Mr. Mark Woodhouse

  Professions Working Group

  Mr. Geoffrey Armstrong

  Mr. E. S. Awty

  Sir Michael Bichard

  Ms Mary Chapman

  Mr. Jonathan Harris

  Dr. Robert Hawley

  Mr. Michael Napier

  Dr. Jenny Simpson

  SME Working Group

  Mr. Simon Barley

  Mr. Anthony Cann

  Ms Vikki Cooke

  Mr. Ram Gidoomal

  Mr. William Kendall

  Mr. Paul Kiss

  Mr. Keith Moxham

  Professor Ken O'Neill

  Mr. Andy Powell

  Mr. A. Robinson

  Mr. C. Steel

  SME Taskforce

  Mr. David Battersby

  Mr. Cameron Beard

  Mr. Alan Bretherton

  Mr. Anthony Carey

  Mr. Mike Davis

  Mr. Brian Dunsby

  Mr. John Evans

  Ms Samantha Gemmell

  Ms Teresa Graham

  Mr. Martin Henry

  Mr. Michael Horner

  Professor Robin Jarvis

  Mr. Alan Jones

  Mr. Ian Kinder

  Professor Andrew Lock

  Ms Fiona Mellett

  Mr. Stephen Nightingale

  Mr. Stephen Pegge

  Mr. Chris Pierce

  Dr. Ken Poulter

  Mr. Peter Russian

  Dr. Michael Sanderson

  Mr. Don Scriven

  Mr. David Sears

  Mrs. Toni Shawley

  Mr. Mark Smith

  5W
  HE Advisory Group

  Mr. Peter Campbell

  Mr. Ray Campsie

  Professor chris Greensted

  Professor David Kirby

  Dr Clare Morris

  Ms Sally Muggeridge

  Professor Leo Murray

  Mr. Michael Osbaldiston

  Dr. B. A. W Redfern

  Ms Margaret Saner

  Professor Ken Starkey

  Non HE Advisory Group

  Mr. Amarjit Basi

  Ms Tricia Bradley

  Ms Sue Cheshire

  Mr. David Clark

  Mr. Chris Hughes

  Ms Denise McCormack

  Mr. Will McKee

  Ms Oonagh McPhillips

  Dr. Sally Messenger

  Mrs. Lindsay Millington

  Mr. David Pardey

  Mr. John Quinan

  Ms Hilary Tucker

  Measurement Network

  Professor Derek Bosworth

  Ms Lisa Cramp

  Mr. Jim Hillage

  Dr. Christopher Mabey

  Professor Andy Neely

  Mr. Peter Russian

  Ms Penny Tamkin

  Professor Andrew Thomson

  Professor Stephen Wood

  CEML Support

  Mrs. Liz Amos

  Professor John Burgoyne

  Dr. Lew Perren

  Mrs. Dorothy Robb

  Dr. Wendy Hirsh

  Dr. Kim James

  Dr. Neill Schofield

  No Salaries Were paid to members. Members were entitled to reimbursement of travelling expenses so to attend meetings upon production of receipts etc. However, most did not in fact claim any expenses.

  Assisted Areas (Scotland)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to revise the withdrawal of assisted area status from Arbroath by the implementation of the Assisted Area Order 2000. [91769]

  Alan Johnson
  The European Commission's approval of the Assisted Areas map in Great Britain lasts until the end of 2006. It is not possible to increase the coverage in one area without reducing it in another. This would be 6W
  likely to require an overall review of the map and new negotiations with the Commission, with no assurance that any particular area could be covered. The Government are therefore not planning to review the Assisted Areas map until it is necessary to develop proposals for the subsequent period.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to revise the Assisted Areas map for Scotland through the Assisted Area Order 2000, prior to the expiry of that Act. [91770]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have no plans to revise the Assisted Areas map before it is necessary to develop proposals for the period following the expiry of the European Commission's approval of the current map at the end of 2006.

  BAE Systems (Financial Dynamics)
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she(a) directed and (b) approved UBS Warburg's engagement of Financial Dynamics to advise on matters connected with BAE Systems. [88854]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government retained the services of UBS Warburg to provide specialist financial advice. Financial Dynamics was retained for a short period as part of this arrangement.

  Business Links
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Business Link partnerships there are; how many have closed in each year since 1999; and if she will make a statement. [91649]

  Nigel Griffiths
  There are 43 Business Link Operator partnerships covering 45 areas across England.

  In April 2001, the network of Business Link Operators partnerships was rationalised from 80 to 43 in order to improve customer focus and divert more resources to front line services for SMEs.

  Contractual arrangements remain in place with all Business Link Operators awarded contracts in April 2001.

  Broadband (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 8 January 2003 (ref 88014), how many of the grants for broadband satellite were placed in Sittingbourne and Sheppey; and if she will make a statement on the timing of the publication of information about SEEDA's broadband strategy. [90246]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]One grant application has been approved by Wired Sussex acting on behalf of SEEDA, in each of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. Two further applications await processing in Sheppey.

  Maximising access to, and take up of, broadband facilities forms Priority 14 of the Regional Economic Strategy which SEEDA are launching on 23 January 2003.
  7W
  Associated Action Plans, currently under formulation, set out how SEEDA and Regional Partners will deliver specific programmes both with respect to broadband generally and as it applies on a sub regional basis.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by her Department. [89973]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 1W.

  Cement Kilns
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total energy requirement of the United Kingdom's cement kilns(a) is and (b) is expected to be over the next 20 years; and if she will forecast the maximum quantity and types of waste these cement kilns can digest over this time period. [88568]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government do not have information on the total current and future energy requirement of cement kilns. However, estimates from the British Cement Association suggest that in the short term (3–5 years) the potential use of waste in cement kilns, by a range of products, could he around 1–1½ million tonnes per year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to reply to the letter of 29 July 2002 from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, regarding Mr. D.G., reference number 97657. [91111]

  Ms Hewitt
  A response to this letter was sent on 15 January 2003.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in(a) the Department and (b) each of the agencies it sponsors; and what the figures were for 1997. [90666]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer to the answer given by the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office on 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 697W.

  Electricity Industry (Scotland)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Transmission Issues Working Group will publish its report on the modernisation of Scotland's grid infrastructure. [91925]

  Mr. Wilson
  The report is being finalised at the moment and my intention is to publish it as soon as possible.

  Energy White Paper
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) the target publication dates that Ministers have employed for the Energy White Paper and (b) when each target was first used. [91137]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 16 January 2003.]The Energy Review published in February 2002 by the Performance and Innovation Unit indicated that the Government would set out its detailed response in an Energy White Paper later in the year. The Consultation document for the White Paper issued in May 2002 said the Government intended to issue a White Paper around the turn of the year. In a reply to a Parliamentary Question in October 2002 Ministers said that they planned to publish the White Paper in the new Year.

  We plan to publish the White Paper shortly.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates she has made of the number of UK jobs within the defence industry that depend on export credit guarantees; and if she will make a statement.[90337]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of jobs in the defence sector that are created, secured or sustained as a result of export credit guarantees is difficult to estimate as the amount of ECGD support for particular industry sectors can vary widely from year to year. In UK Defence Statistics 2002 the Defence Analytical Services Agency estimates that total UK defence exports, only some of which have ECGD support—have on average supported around 100,000 jobs in the defence industry over the last five years.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost to her Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90503]

  Ms Hewitt
  Central records indicate that contracts for consultancy for a total of £43 million were awarded in calendar year 2002.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from the Chairman of the Arab-British Chamber of Commerce on the effect of a war in Iraq on UK trade with the Arab world. [91154]

  Ms Hewitt
  No such representations have been received.

  Job Creation Grants
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many grants for job creation her Department awarded in(a) Blyth Valley and (b) south-east Northumberland in 2002; and what the value was in each case. [91570]

  Alan Johnson
  The table sets out the numbers, value and job links for grants offered in 2002 under the Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) and Enterprise
  9W
  Grants schemes for Blyth Valley and south east Northumberland (the local authority districts of Blyth Valley, north Tyneside and Wansbeck). From 1 April 2002 responsibility for RSA was transferred to ONE NorthEast, the regional development agency.

  Details of individual RSA grants of over £75,000 are published in "Labour Market Trends" after the first payment of grant has been made.

  Regional Selective Assistance and Enterprise Grant 2002

  Blyth Valley

  South east Northumberland

  Number of offer

  5

  20

  Grant value

  £344,671

  £5,327,460

  Associated jobs

  82

  842

  Logica
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the contracts awarded by her Department to Logica since 1 August 2002; and in each case what the(a) title, (b) total cost, (c) time scale and (d) terms of reference were. [90227]

  Ms Hewitt
  Central records indicate that only one contract has been awarded to Logica since 1 August 2002, for development work on the Immarsat Voice Roaming (IVR) project. The contract runs from October 2002 to April 2003 and the total cost is £160,000.

  New Employees
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the needs of employers with regard to new employees. [87457]

  Ms Hewitt
  I assume the question concerns the needs of employers employing staff for the first time.

  I firmly believe that new employers need clear, accessible advice and guidance on good employment practice and regulatory requirements. This is made available by ACAS and the Small Business Service, working with my Department and other key Departments and agencies.

  In addition, I plan to take forward the helpful recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force in this area: to run pilots to identify ways in which businesses, particularly small businesses, can participate in shared human resources schemes; to provide advice visits to employers, free seminars to businesses with less than five employees and easier access to mediation and arbitration services.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from businesses about their requirements with regard to new employees. [87458]

  Ms Hewitt
  Ministers regularly meet businesses and their representatives to discuss a range of issues, including employment matters.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the 10W
  costs to British Energy of (a) storage of all AGR nuclear fuel and (b) continuation with current reprocessing contracts in each year of the projected life of each of British Energy's advanced gas-cooled reactors.[91920]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 8 January 2003,Official Report, column 242W.

  Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ask the Director of her Department's Office for Civil Nuclear Security to review the security of British nuclear power plants and other nuclear installations with special reference to the invasion of Greenpeace protestors at the Sizewell B nuclear plant on 13 January. [91966]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Director of Civil Nuclear Security is reviewing security at Sizewell B following the incident on 13 January. The Director and the Government take security very seriously and are concerned that any lessons to be learned should be applied to all civil nuclear power stations. Security at civil nuclear sites will continue to be kept under regular review.

  Oil Reserves
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the(a) extent and (b) accessibility of oil under Iraqi sovereignty; and what recent (a) representations she has received from and (b) discussions she has had with BP on this matter. [90790]

  Mr. Wilson
  Iraq's proven oil reserves are estimate to be 112.5 billion barrels which amounts to over 10 per cent. of the world's total reserves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in regular contact with all the major UK oil companies, but "Under Exemption 13, third party commercials confidences of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on access to government information", I am not able to comment on specific commercial issues.

  Personal Business Advisers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Business Link Personal Business Advisers there were in each year since 1999; and if she will make a statement. [91650]

  Nigel Griffiths
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Post Boxes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received concerning changes in the number of red post boxes in rural areas; and if she will make a statement. [91325]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day to day responsibility of Royal Mail and I have therefore asked the Chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member.
  11W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Post Office on the continued provision of red post boxes in rural areas. [91326]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters which fall within the day to day responsibility of Royal Mail and I have therefore asked the Chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Post Office (Losses)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) the losses, broken down by operational activity, for (i) Royal Mail, (ii) Parcelforce and (iii) Post Office Counters, and (b) non-operational charges, broken down by (A) write-offs and (B) pension costs at (1) Royal Mail, (2) Parcelforce and (3) Post Office Counters. [91938]

  Mr. Timms
  Losses for Royal Mail, Parcel Force and Post Office Counters in 2001–02 are set out in the table:

  Losses from:

  Losses from operations

  Exceptional costs

  Losses after exceptional items before tax

  UK Mails

  74

  74

  148

  UK Parcels

  94

  397

  491

  Post Office Ltd.

  163

  78

  241

  It is not possible to provide more detailed figures as these are commercially confidential.

  The Department's officials are working with Royal Mail to provide the information requested on write-offs and pension costs. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as this is available, and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Post Office (Benefits)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Post Office will receive for each benefit and tax credit transaction paid via the(a) universal bank and (b) Post Office Card Account. [91297]

  Mr. Timms
  Remuneration for benefit and tax credit transactions is a commercial matter between the Post Office and its clients.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Post Office receives for each benefit transaction that is processed. [91298]

  Mr. Timms
  Remuneration for benefit transactions is a commercial matter between the Post Office and its client.

  Postcomm
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the members of Postcomm. [92002]

  Mr. Timms
  The Commissioners appointed to Postcomm are:

  Graham Corbett, CBE

  Robin Aaornson

  12W

  Tony Cooper

  Julia Kaufmann

  Ken Olisa

  Janet Lewis-Jones

  Martin Stanley

  PV Solar Panels
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many grants have been awarded for PV solar power panels in each of the last three years; and what the total value of such grants is. [91563]

  Mr. Wilson
  Year 2000—Domestic PV Systems Field Trial, First Round: £1.4 million to support nine projects totalling 166 homes.

  Year 2001—Domestic PV Systems Field Trial, Second Round: £4 million to support 23 projects totalling 380 homes.

  Year 2002—Large Scale BIPV Field Trial for Public Buildings: £4.2 million to support 18 projects on schools, universities, council offices, leisure centres etc.

  Major PV Demonstration Programme, First Phase—Stream 1 (small-scale up to 5kWp)—118 grants awarded, worth £880,000; Stream 2 (medium and large-scale up to 100kWp)—27 grants awarded, worth £3.52 million.

  Total value of grants for last three years is £14 million.

  Renewable Energy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of Britain's current energy requirements she estimates could be met from renewable sources by 2020 if the sector were to benefit from the level of financial support currently made available to the nuclear industry. [91582]

  Mr. Wilson
  Scope for the expansion of renewable energy and the question of future renewable energy targets will be discussed in the Energy White Paper, which will be published shortly. The White Paper will also address the issue of the future of nuclear power.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many working days were lost due to illness in her Department in(a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding five years. [90744]

  Ms Hewitt
  The average number of staff days lost per staff year in the DTI Group have been:

  Number

  1997

  8.2

  1998

  8.0

  1999

  7.8

  2000

  7.5

  2001

  7.8

  The DTI Group, in addition to DTI HQ, consists to of ACAS, Companies House, Patent Office, Insolvency Service, National Weights & Measures Laboratory, Employment Tribunals Service and the Radiocommunications Agency.
  13W
  The figures are taken from the annual reports on public sector sick absence commissioned by the Cabinet Office each year and which enable interdepartmental comparison.

  Central figures for 2002 will not be available for some months but will be announced by Ministerial statement and copies placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Small Business Service/Business Links
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at what conferences and seminars in each year since 2000(a) the Small Business Service and (b) Business Links were represented; what costs were incurred in each case; and if she will make a statement. [91657]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The conferences at which SBS and Business Link were represented as exhibitors during the period and costs incurred are listed below. There is no central record of conferences where SBS and Business Link were only represented by delegates or speakers.

  £

  Women Unlimited

  13/2/01

  4000

  Chief Executives Conference

  8 to 9/3/01

  400

  BCC National Conference

  27 to 28/3/01

  15426

  Cardiff European Forum

  11 to 12/10/01

  12500

  CBI Conference

  4 to 6/11/01

  36075

  OST Framework Conference

  22/1/02

  Free

  NDC Jobs Convention

  28 to 29/1/02

  681

  Trade Association Forum

  37593

  500

  BCC Conference

  22 to 23/4/02

  8010

  IOD Annual Convention

  24/4/02

  6500

  Women Moving On

  22/5/02

  550

  LGA Conference

  2 to 5/7/02

  3422

  Trading Standards Conference

  9 to 11/7/02

  1860

  CBI Conference 2002

  24 to 26/11/02

  15000

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking(a) to support and promote the UK steel industry and (b) to help the UK steel industry fulfil its production capacity. [92032]

  Alan Johnson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Department works closely with steel industry representatives to help the sector to improve its competitive position. We are providing support towards a number of initiatives designed to help steel companies to improve productivity and innovation.
  The Metal Industry Competitiveness Enterprise (MICE) is a five year process improvement and supply chain improvement project launched in February 2000 with £1.5 million contribution from DTI.The National Metals Technology Centre (NAMTECH) is a collaborative venture which will draw together sources of metals related expertise in order to provide a unique service to UK companies seeking help and advice on metals technology and R&D issues. DTI. in partnership with Yorkshire Forward, are providing £2.7 million in pump priming support.
  (b) I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply to his questions tabled on 10 December 2002, Official Report, column 404W, and 12 December 2002, Official Report, column 403W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of pledged assistance for the reconstruction of Afghanistan has been received by the Afghan Government; and how much of the financial assistance so far received by the interim Government of Afghanistan has been spent on projects other than humanitarian aid. [90907]

  Clare Short
  At the conference in Tokyo in 2001 the international community pledged over US$4 billion to the reconstruction of Afghanistan over periods of 1–5 years. In the current financial year close to the $1.8 billion pledged at Tokyo for the current financial year has been disbursed to Afghanistan. This has been through a number of avenues, including the UN system, NGOs and the Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF). The money directed through the ARTF is available for the Afghan Transitional Administration to utilise as it chooses. To date the ARTF has received over US$200 million from donors.

  The international community is committed to the reconstruction of Afghanistan but at the same time it is important to continue to address the needs of the returning and returned refugees, the internally displaced people and those who continue to struggle to survive. particularly during the winter months. To this end many donors continue to provide both humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. The distinction between humanitarian and reconstruction projects is often undefined, with many humanitarian activities having longer-term reconstruction outcomes. In the current financial year DFID has provided £55 million to Afghanistan, £24 million of which has been for reconstruction purposes. The international community as a whole provided $1.067 billion of support to the UN Immediate and Transitional Assistance Programme.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's activities in relation to Afghanistan planned for the coming year. [90737]

  Clare Short
  In 2003 DFID will be continuing to work towards the Government's strategic aim of helping to create a stable, secure and prosperous Afghanistan that is once again able to become part of the community of nations, and that enjoys mature relations with its neighbours. The development challenge is considerable, and will require a sustained effort by the international community

  The balance of DFID's programme for Afghanistan will continue to move from short-term humanitarian support to a medium-term, more strategic approach in 2003. DFID is committed to working with the Afghan Transitional Authority and its international partners and is developing a strategy that will map DFID's engagement in Afghanistan over the next two years.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in the Zabul province of Afghanistan; and what action is being taken to ensure the security of those distributing aid in the province. [91159]
  15W
  Clare Short
  Zabul province is one of the poorest of Afghanistan's 32 provinces and is suffering from a prolonged drought. Several NGOs are delivering humanitarian relief in the province and have been doing so for some time. An extensive relief programme for the current winter is being provided in vulnerable parts of Afghanistan including Zabul. The UN reports that this is going well and is meeting humanitarian needs.

  Following a reported hijacking of one of their aid vehicles last week Oxfam has temporarily suspended its activities in Zabul until the security situation is reviewed.

  Security is a serious concern in all parts of Afghanistan. Addressing this remains a priority for the international community and the Transitional Authority.

  All NGOs in the province are determined to continue their activities in Zabul, however, and Oxfam have indicated that their project will continue after the security review.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's latest assessment is of the number of refugees that have returned to Afghanistan. [91450]

  Clare Short
  In 2002 nearly 1.8 million Afghan refugees returned home under the UNHCR assistance programme. In addition more than 250,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) went home with assistance and another 200,000 Afghans returned on their own. The return rate has declined during the winter months, with weekly returns of about 2,000 during December. This compares to a peak of over 100,000 a week in May.

  A further 1.2 million refugees and 300,000 IDPs are expected to return home in 2003. Despite the massive number of returns, some four million Afghans remain outside the country, including an estimated two million in Iran and 1.5 million in Pakistan.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) progress is being made in and (b) aid is being given to educating women in Afghanistan. [90909]

  Clare Short
  DfID helped in the rehabilitation of several schools, and during the past year, three million children, both boys and girls, have returned to school throughout Afghanistan. Since September 2001, we have also provided UNIFEM with £1 million of support to work with the Ministry of Women's Affairs on a national gender strategy for Afghanistan.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid is being given to(a) democracy building, (b) women's advocacy organisations and (c) the Revolutionary Association for Women, in Afghanistan. [90910]

  Clare Short
  DfID has provided £0.5 million to support the emergency Loya Jirga, which elected the current Afghanistan Transitional Administration in July 2002. DfID has also offered to provide a further £1 million to the Constitutional Drafting Committee, in conjunction with other international donors. A number 16W
  of donors have offered to support preparations for the election in 2004, although these plans are still at an early stage.

  DfID does not at present fund any specific women's groups in Afghanistan, although in 2001–02, DfID contributed £1 million to UNIFEM to develop a gender strategy with the Ministry of Women's Affairs. The joint Global Conflict Prevention Pool has also contributed £1 million to the Human Rights Commission. Addressing women's rights is an integral part of DfID's strategy in Afghanistan. For example, the needs of widows and households headed by women are accorded urgent priority by the World Food Programme, who DfID part fund.

  No funding has been directly allocated to the Revolutionary Association for Women.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what proportion of the pledged assistance for the reconstruction of Afghanistan has been received by the Afghan government; [91118]

  (2) how much of the money received by the interim government of Afghanistan has been spent on projects other than humanitarian aid. [91120]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave her to question 90907, earlier today.

  Water Shortages
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action was taken by the UK in 2002 to contribute to the prevention of water shortages for the world's population by 2025. [90460]

  Clare Short
  DFID recognises the key role that water plays in the reduction of poverty and is committed to assisting those in the developing world to assess and manage their water resources in a sustainable manner. Nearly two-thirds of the world's population will be living in countries of significant water stress by the year 2025. 1.2 billion people lack access to safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. Strong commitments were made at the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development for Better Management of Water Resources and Improved Access to Drinking Water and Sanitation, and these must now be implemented.

  In 2002, my Department has continued to support a substantial number of on-going activities, which seek to contribute to the prevention of water shortages. Such shortages may be caused because insufficient water is available or because of a lack of infrastructure, poverty or pollution which mean that people cannot access the resource.

  The sustainability of the quality and quantity of water resources depends on the balance of agricultural, industrial and domestic uses and environmental needs against the prevailing hydrological conditions. DFID, with most other bilateral and multilateral organisations, is promoting integrated water resource management, which is the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources.
  17W
  My Department is supporting a number of global initiatives, including the Global Water Partnership; the International Hydrological Programme; the Dams for Development Unit of the World Commission on Dams; Water for Food and Nature Dialogue and the International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage. My Department also supports initiatives for assessment and monitoring of the status of the world's water through the UNESCO-led World Water Assessment Programme and the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme. Our Knowledge and Research Programme also supports a number of projects that aim to improve meteorological and hydrological assessment, collection, analysis and modelling for improved water resource assessments, as well as projects that investigate improvements in the efficiency of irrigation water use.

  There is an increasing possibility of conflicts over water becoming more common in regions of water stress. Equitable sharing of water between users at national and at local level has a significant contribution to make towards reducing conflict and promoting peace and security. The Nile Basin Initiative is a current example of an initiative being supported by the World bank, my Department and other donors, to manage competition for water equitably.

  Africa Action Plan
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of Secretary of State for International Development, what progress the UK has made with implementing the G8 Africa Action Plan. [91796]

  Clare Short
  The UK is implementing all six areas of the G8 Africa Action Plan. UK implementation priorities are peace and security, trade, health, education, aid effectiveness and transparency in the extractive industry. A recent success was the agreement by the UK Working Group of a report setting out a framework to give Africa's poor access the medicines.

  Aid (Points of Entry)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the principal points of entry are for international aid to(a) Zambia, (b) Malawi and (c) Zimbabwe. [91258]

  Clare Short
  WFP's logistical arrangements have been modified and adjusted as appropriate during the first six months of this emergency operation. The graph shows that the actual corridor use and the estimated use of corridors in the period July-December 2002. The shift, which can be attributed to the GMO and milling issues, has in particular affected the Beira corridor which was expected to supply Zambia and Zimbabwe in much higher quantities. The GMO issue demanded that an increased tonnage of non-GM cereals was purchased in Tanzania and the Republic of South Africa (RSA) whereas as a result of the need for milling of GM cereals, more cargo was routed through the RSA for milling prior to dispatch to Zimbabwe.
  18W

  WFP: Corridor use: planned, actual, expected

  Percentage of total traffic

  Planned July-December 2002

  Actual July-December 2002

  Planned January-June 2003

  Dar-es-Salaam

  11

  8

  14

  Nacala

  4

  2

  6

  Beira

  40

  19

  27

  Maputo

  19

  3

  10

  Durban

  25

  24

  27

  Regional Purchase

  -

  48

  18

  It is not realistic simply to extrapolate the actual use of the various corridors during the past six months in order to determine the logistics plan for the next six months. Due to the fact that the availability of non-GM cereals in the region is now limited, WFP will need to make future purchases on the international market and therefore cargo is expected to arrive through the originally planned points of entry. It should be noted that this shift to international purchases will negatively impact on the lead time for arrivals of cereals at the points of entry.

  As a result of the increased tonnages of non-GM cereals being purchased on a FCA basis in the RSA, the logistical set-up in Johannesburg had to be revamped when WFP became a major exporter of food commodities rather than an importer.

  Angola
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evidence has been collated by her Department on abuse of civilians by army personnel in the Cabinda enclave of Angola; and if she will make a statement. [91156]

  Clare Short
  Access to Cabinda is difficult and the UK government has been unable to assess the situation on the ground. However as part of its emergency response mandate in Angola, the UN is planning an inter-agency mission to the region at the end of this month. This is likely to include UNICEF, the World Food Programme and one of the UN protection agencies, as well as the Government of Angola. We expect that the mission will address the issue of human rights.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in the distribution of food aid to inaccessible areas of Angola. [91165]

  Clare Short
  The UN has been able to provide food aid to an additional 1 million vulnerable Angolans since the ceasefire agreement last April. However, humanitarian agencies are still unable to reach many parts of the country because of mine infestation and poor road infrastructure. The World Food Programme (WFP) is to conduct airdrops of food aid to Angolans in inaccessible areas.

  Serious mine accidents have closed a number of roads. Re-opening them is a UN priority and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has contributed US $460,000 from the Emergency Response Fund (ERF) to clear the mines from some of the main transport arteries used to deliver emergency supplies. My Department has allocated £500,000 to the ERF and a further £300,000 to UNDP for a project aimed at

  19W
  improving the effectiveness of mine action through strengthened co-ordination at the provincial level. The United Kingdom also contributed 19.7 per cent. of the 6 million euros which the EC has made available for mine action in Angola. This included 5 million euros to a variety of mine clearance agencies.

  A $6.9 million WFP Angola Special Operation (SO 10149.1) was recently approved to improve access to vulnerable populations and to reduce the cost of delivering humanitarian assistance. In addition to the £2 million my Department has contributed to WFP food aid in Angola, a further £750,000 has been provide for this special operation to enable WFP to lease all terrain trucks to deliver food aid. The first trucks have arrived in Mavinga where they are being used to deliver food to 70,000 Angolans in the two gathering areas outside the town.

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much producing her Department's latest Annual Report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90900]

  Clare Short
  The cost to my Department of producing our 2002 Annual Report was £61,236. The number of copies printed for DFID was 3,500. This excludes copies ordered by The Stationery Office Ltd. for sale to their

  Project

  Amount (£)

  Description

  Chars development programme

  50

  Major livelihood programme for vulnerable communities living on the unstable sand islands in the Jamuna river

  Developing Business Services Market

  9

  To develop services to support private sector growth

  Financial Management Reform Programme

  25

  Programme co-funded with the Dutch to improve public expenditure management accounting and planning

  Health and Nutrition Sector Programme

  75

  Second phase of the health sector programme aimed at delivering essential health package to all poor people

  Support to National Arsenic Programme

  5

  To help the Government devise a comprehensive programme to mitigate the effects of arsenic in drinking water

  Disaster Management

  7

  A project co-funded with UNDP to improve Government systems for responding to disasters

  Support to State Owned Enterprise (SoE) closure

  6

  To meet redundancy costs of closing down loss making jute mills

  Primary Education Development Programme II

  70

  Introduction of a sectoral approach to improve the quality and access to primary education

  Rural Electrification Board

  50

  To increase electrification in rural areas

  Public Access to Justice Project

  4

  To introduce concept of community policing with Bangladesh Police Force

  Roads and Highways Institutional Development

  12

  To continue support reforms in the planning and implementation of road sector

  Trade Capacity Building

  To be determined

  To support short and long term capacity for the Ministry of Commerce in international trade negotiations. Co-funded with EC

  Brazil
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's contributions to poverty reduction in Brazil in the years(a) 2000, (b) 2001, and (c) 2002 was spent on water and sanitation projects; what assessment she has made of the privatisation of water and sewage treatment in Brazil; and if she will make a statement.[90414]
  20W
  customers (these costs are not charged to government). The number of copies sold by The Stationery Office at cover price was 421.

  DFID does not charge for copies of its Annual Report. By the end of 2002, 1,733 copies of the report had been provided free of charge to people within the following groups: Parliament; British Embassies and High Commissions; Churches and Faiths; International Development Organisations; DFID headquarters, overseas offices and delegations; Other Government Departments; Non Governmental Organisations; Libraries; University Research Institutes and other Development Academics; and individuals who requested them via the DFID website or public inquiry point.

  My Department also produced a summary version of the report at a total cost of £11,673. 15,000 copies of this summary were produced, of which 12,694 have been provided free of charge to people within the groups listed above.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects the UK is developing with the Bangladeshi Government in that country. [89769]

  Clare Short
  DFID is preparing its new Country Assistance Plan for Bangladesh which will be published in April 2003 and will give a detailed description of our future intentions.

  DFID is presently developing the following projects:

  Clare Short
  Around 4 per cent. of DFID's budget for Brazil was spent on water and sanitation projects in the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. There was no expenditure in the financial year 2001–02 and none is planned for 2002–03. The EC programme in Brazil, to which DFID contributes 19 per cent. of the total, is not active in the sector.

  DFID has made no assessment of the privatisation of water and sewage treatment in Brazil, as this is not a priority area for DFID support.
  21W
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's aid budget to Brazil is this year; and how much of that will go to water and sanitation projects. [90415]

  Clare Short
  DFID's budget for bilateral development co-operation with Brazil for the financial year 2002–03 is £8.7 million. None of that budget will be spent on water and sanitation projects. The EC programme in Brazil, to which DFID contributes 19 per cent. of the total, has no plans in the sector.

  The World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank, of which DFID is a shareholder, currently have lending in the sector of over US$1 billion and US$2 billion respectively.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of water and sanitation provision in Brazil to(a) the rural population and (b) the urban population; and if she will make a statement. [90416]

  Clare Short
  None. In line with DFID's aim to focus our development effort in Brazil, we have agreed with the Government that the water and sewerage sector is not a priority area for DFID support.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to ensure that its additional debt relief beyond HIPC provides effective assistance in tackling poverty in indebted countries. [91679]

  Clare Short
  Before a country can qualify for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, it must produce an interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) at Decision Point, setting out what action it will take to develop a full PRSP. To reach Completion Point, the full PRSP must be in place, and under implementation for at least one year. The PRSP sets out the policy action governments are taking to reduce poverty and provide a budgetary framework not only for spending the savings from debt relief but also for allocating all other aid and government revenues that they have the greatest impact on poverty reduction. We believe strongly in the value of the PRSP process, which is leading to improved economic management and social reform. The additional bilateral debt relief provided by the UK goes towards these poverty reduction programmes. The UK is also aligning its development assistance programmes with the PRSPs.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the UN report on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo; what assessment she has made of the British companies named in the report; and if she will make a statement. [90413]

  Clare Short
  The latest UN Panel Report has provided a valuable further assessment of the illegal exploitation of resources in the DRC, but we and other members of the Security Council have asked for 22W
  additional information on the specific claims made in the report. In particular we have asked for sight of the information corroborating the allegations made against British companies and nationals. Once this has been received we will take a view on what further action to pursue in relation to the allegations.

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total expenditure of her Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90523]

  Clare Short
  The Department no longer purchases newspapers, magazines and periodicals from a central budget, but full details of decentralised expenditure could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The central expenditure is shown in the table for the year 2002.

  £

  Magazines and periodicals

  99,041.12

  Newspapers

  3,385.13

  Total cost

  102,426.25

  Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the running costs of(a) the Department and (b) each of its sponsored agencies were in (i) 1997 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [90709]

  Clare Short
  Detailed information on administration costs for the Department for International Development, going hack to 1998–99 and with projections to 2003–04, is set out in Table 6 of the 2002 departmental report (CM 5414). Data for years before 1998–99 are not available on the same basis. Final outturn figures for 2001–02 were published in DFID's Resource Accounts for 2001–02 (HC 48). Updated information, with plans to 2005–06, will be published in the 2003 departmental report in the spring.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the distribution of her Department's whole time equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to her, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90475]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 15 January(Official Report, column 609W).

  Famine
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of how many people are suffering from famine in(a) Zambia, (b) Malawi, (c) Zimbabwe and (d) other countries south of the Zambezi; and how much humanitarian aid was delivered to each country in 2002. [91257]
  23W
  Clare Short
  My estimate of how many people are suffering from famine is guided the by the Emergency Food Security Assessment Report prepared by the Southern Africa Development Community:
  Lesotho: 650,000 people (30 per cent. of the population) will require an estimated 36,000 tonnes of emergency cereal food assistance through to March 2003.Malawi: 3,300,000 people (29 per cent. of the population) will require an estimated 237,000 tonnes of emergency cereal food assistance through to March 2003.Mozambique: 590,000 people (3 per cent. of the population) will require an estimated 48,000 tonnes of emergency cereal food assistance through to March 2003.Swaziland: 270,000 people (24 per cent. of the population) will require an estimated 20,000 tonnes of emergency cereal food assistance through to March 2003.Zambia: 2,900,000 people (26 per cent. of the population) will require an estimated 224,000 tonnes of emergency cereal food assistance through to March 2003.Zimbabwe: 6,700,000 people (49 per cent. of the population) will require an estimated 486,000 tonnes of emergency cereal food assistance through to March 2003.
  Humanitarian aid is delivered through a co-ordinated approach and is best expressed by the following table:

  Donor contributions in response to the humanitarian crisis (Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe, regional)

  £ million

  Donor

  Contribution

  USA1

  175.2

  EU-EC-ECHO2

  112.7

  United Kingdom

  87.2

  Sweden2

  19.1

  Germany2

  13.3

  Netherlands2

  12.4

  Italy2

  8.8

  Norway

  8.4

  Japan

  7.9

  Finland2

  7.8

  Canada

  5.5

  Denmark2

  5.3

  Australia

  4.9

  Ireland2

  4.2

  Switzerland

  3.1

  France2

  1.9

  Belgium2

  1.5

  Spain2

  0.5

  Austria2

  0.2

  Luxemburg2

  0.2

  1USAID Southern Africa Complex Food Security Crisis Situation Report 5 (FY 2003)

  2As reported through ECHO 14 point fax system 1 January-19 December 2002 (Euro/GBP exchange rate Financial Times 11 December 2002: 0.64008)

  Source:

  Data from Reliefweb/USAID/EC

  Famine (Zimbabwe)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of how many people are suffering from famine in each province of Zimbabwe; what steps she is taking to ensure British aid supplies reach all areas of Zimbabwe; and if she will make a statement on the amount of British or British-supported food aid delivered to each province of that country in each month of 2002. [91255]
  24W
  Clare Short
  The SADC vulnerability assessment in September 2002 estimated that 6.7 million people are in need of food aid in Zimbabwe. By province and major urban areas, the numbers in need are as follows:

  Number

  Bulawayo

  167,077

  Harare

  395,566

  Manicaland

  976,455

  Mashonaland Central

  704,392

  Mashonaland East

  779,671

  Mashonaland West

  739,359

  Masvingo

  977,783

  Matabeleland North

  515,872

  Matabeleland South

  418,251

  Midlands

  975,155

  The number in need was revised up by 500,000 in December, with the increase in Mashonaland, largely of former commercial farmworkers.

  DFID-funded assistance is provided through a number of partners focusing on the most vulnerable districts in Zimbabwe. However, to produce this data by province by month would involve a disproportionate effort. DFID's Zimbabwe staff are based in country and their efforts are focused on implementation and monitoring of our assistance.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure that humanitarian organisations can deliver aid in Zimbabwe without interference by the Government of that country; and of what interference she received reports in 2002. [91256]

  Clare Short
  It is a fundamental principle of the international community working in Zimbabwe and elsewhere that food aid is delivered on the basis of need alone, and is not politically determined.

  The EU has established guidelines to ensure food distribution in Zimbabwe is apolitical and transparent. Our bilateral feeding programmes through NGOs use the same criteria. The WFP also works through NGOs under an agreement with the Government of Zimbabwe that enshrines this principle.

  The UN and donors closely monitor events on the ground to ensure that principles and agreements are honoured. If obstruction does occur, we work closely in support of the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator and WFP in engaging with the GoZ to ensure the obstruction is dealt with and food distribution resumed as quickly as possible.

  Two major incidents of interference were reported during 2002; the obstruction of operations by Save the Children UK in Binga, and the seizure of WFP food in Insiza prior to a parliamentary by-election. Both issues were successfully resolved and feeding has now resumed.

  Some commentators have failed to distinguish between political bias in the distribution of food by the Government of Zimbabwe, which is widespread and the principles of distribution according to need which are being adhered to by the international community.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the USA on food aid containing GM products and the provision of GM-free food aid; and if she will make a statement. [90417]

  Clare Short
  DFID officials have been in communication with USAID on these topics in the context of the humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa.

  Genetically modified varieties of maize and soya which are consumed by the US public, have also been provided as food aid by the USA for some time—one report suggests since 1995.

  The GM varieties concerned have been tested and approved for human consumption in the US and Europe. The FAO, WHO and WFP have all assured Southern African countries that the consumption of GM maize poses no risk to human health.

  HIPC Initiative
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries her Department estimates will have unsustainable debt burdens after their completing the HIPC Initiative. [91451]

  Clare Short
  The main aim of the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative is to ensure that countries exit the HIPC process with sustainable levels of debt. The current framework of the initiative has the flexibility to provide, when appropriate, additional debt relief at completion point, so called "topping up", to countries whose debt sustainability outlook has changed due to exogenous factors since reaching their decision point. The UK is pressing the World bank and the IMF to widen their approach to topping up, so that any HIPC country facing unsustainable debts, that has demonstrated its commitment to poverty reduction and economic reform, should qualify for this additional relief. Debt relief alone, however, cannot guarantee future sustainability. This requires sound macroeconomic policies, strong growth and export bases, including access to markets of developed countries, access to adequate financing on highly concessional loan and grant terms, and prudent policies on new borrowing. The UK is co-financing a debt strategy project aimed at helping HIPC Governments to strengthen their debt management capacity.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries taking part in the heavily indebted poor countries initiative have reached completion point within the time scale established at their decision point. [91452]

  Clare Short
  Six countries have reached their completion point under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative. Of these, five countries—Bolivia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda—reached their floating completion point either within the timescale assumed at decision point or between one and five months after the assumed date. Burkina Faso reached its completion point in April 2002—one year late. The reason for this was the delay in completing its PRSP, and the decision by the World bank and IMF to defer consideration of the completion 26W
  point until spring 2002, in order to reassess the country's external debt position and to update the debt sustainability analysis. As a result of this delay, Burkina Faso became the first country to receive additional relief, so called, "topping up" at completion point, to enable it to exit the HIPC process with sustainable levels of debt.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent proposals her Department has made to(a) the World bank and (b) the IMF to reform the HIPC initiative. [91453]

  Clare Short
  The UK continues to play a leading role in the implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative, to ensure that as many countries as possible benefit from the enhanced framework. Following UK pressure, it was agreed that the World bank and the IMF would provide additional relief to countries that risk exiting the HIPC process with debts above the 150 per cent. debt/exports ratio. This was reconfirmed at the spring meetings in 2002, when Burkina Faso became the first country to benefit from "topping up". Although we welcome this change, it does not go far enough. The UK has proposed that, in calculating topping up, additional bilateral relief should be excluded from the calculations. We also want to see a more flexible interpretation of the rules, so that any HIPC country facing unsustainable debts, that has demonstrated its commitment to poverty reduction and economic reform, should qualify for this additional relief. The UK has also asked the bank and fund to come forward with proposals to promote the full participation of all creditors in the initiative, including technical assistance to HIPC countries facing legal challenges from non-participating creditors.

  India
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Indian Government on food aid containing GM products; and if she will make a statement. [90418]

  Clare Short
  None. My Department has had no discussions with the Government of India regarding the provision of food aid containing GM products. Neither the UK Government nor the EC are currently providing food aid to India. The World Food Programme (WFP) does provide non-GM food aid to India, which it sources in-country.

  Iraq
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department will provide towards the UN appeal for basic readiness funding, in light of the possible war and subsequent humanitarian situation in Iraq. [90411]

  Clare Short
  My Department is not making funding available at this stage.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the UN has published a strategy for preparing for the humanitarian effects of hostilities against Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [91347]
  27W
  Clare Short
  The United Nations is undertaking inter-agency humanitarian preparedness and response planning for a variety of humanitarian contingencies in Iraq and neighbouring countries.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [90872]

  Clare Short
  Our most recent figures show that 113 members of staff are working reduced hours. 18 of these are employed on official job-share contracts.

  Job-sharing is one of a number of alternative and flexible working patterns that are available to staff. A flexi-time system is also available to all staff. DFID is strongly committed to providing a working environment which values and nurtures a diverse workforce and has identified diversity and the need for work/life balance as one of its five core values.

  In support of this, we issued a booklet to all of our staff in 2002 which set out the various work patterns available within DFID, advice on how staff can access them and-for women-specific information about how they can plan their return to work after maternity leave.

  The flexibility of the pattern is decided in conjunction with line managers to suit individual needs and the needs of the Department.

  Anyone applying for a vacancy, either internally or externally, may do so on the basis of working in the job on a flexible working pattern although, in some instances, this is not possible owing to the nature of the work.

  Kenya
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the Government's plans to assist the incoming Kenyan Government to tackle poverty and encourage economic regeneration. [90144]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) earlier today.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what the Government's policy is towards assistance to Kenya as a result of the recent Kenyan elections; [90165]

  (2) what the total UK public funding to Kenya was in each year since 1997; [90164]

  (3) what plans there are for talks between the new government of Kenya and the UK Government; and if she will make a statement. [90166]

  Clare Short
  The UK is providing substantial bilateral assistance to Kenya, as illustrated in the table. In addition we provide support through our contributions to multilateral agencies including the European Commission. Following successful elections on 27 December, my officials based in Nairobi have already had discussions with the new Government on its plans to tackle corruption, revive the economy and reduce poverty, and on how the international community,28W
  including the UK, can best help. I expect to visit Kenya very soon to have face to face discussions with President Kibaki and his team.

  UK Bilateral assistance to Kenya

  £million

  1997/8

  30

  1998/9

  42

  1999/00

  33

  2000/01

  62.7

  2001/02

  35.8

  Malawi Flooding
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the(a) numbers affected and (b) volume of crops destroyed by recent flooding in Malawi; what impact flooding has had on the distribution of food aid in Malawi; and what steps she is taking to assist those affected by the flooding. [91164]

  Clare Short
  In Malawi the Humanitarian Working Group of the National Food Security Task Force is now assessing the overall extent and impact of the recent floods. My Department is working with partners in this working group to develop an appropriate response. Although the floods caused some temporary disruption to humanitarian distribution work, where necessary the WFP NGO consortium has successfully developed alternative transportation routes.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department's solicitors will respond to the University of Greenwich regarding arrangements for a new underlease for the Natural Resources Institute buildings in Chatham Dockyard as set out in the university's letter of 24 April 2002; and if she will make a statement. [90429]

  Clare Short
  Neither my Department nor our solicitors have any record of receiving any such letter. The general issue of the lease on the premises at Chatham Dockyard has been the subject of long-term discussions. Our solicitors will be contacting those of the University of Greenwich shortly to arrange a meeting.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what the total budget of(a) her Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03; [84932]

  (2) what the total expenditure of (a) her Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02. [84799]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 3 December 2002.]: My Department does not hold a central budget for official travelling.

  Since 1999, the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April

  29W
  2001 to 31 March 2002 was published on 24 July 2002, .Official Report, columns 1374–75W. The cost of Ministers' visits overseas for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Peru
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what schemes her Department supports in Peru. [90571]

  Clare Short
  DfID's new draft Country Assistance Plan for Peru is currently being finalised after extensive consultation (the consultation draft is available on the DfID website). The overall objective of the Plan is to contribute to reducing poverty in Peru by 50 per cent. by 2015. We aim to do this by promoting the development of an inclusive society, which is responsive to the rights of the poor and excluded. The Plan focuses on three outcomes: promoting social inclusion, Government working for the poor and economic opportunities for the poor. To achieve these outcomes, we work closely with Peruvian organisations—both the Government and broader society—and the major multilateral development agencies, to improve the effectiveness of national policies, programmes and international assistance.

  DfID has a £3.7 million programme in Peru for 2002–03. The UK also funds about 19 per cent. of the EC development programme, and is a 5 per cent. shareholder in the World bank and 1 per cent. shareholder in the IDB.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the objectives of the 'Improving Health of the Poor: A Rights Based Approach' programme in Peru. [90572]

  Clare Short
  The proposed 'Improving Health of the Poor: A Rights Based Approach' programme in Peru has been designed to promote poor and excluded peoples rights to access health care, strengthen the relationships between health service providers and Peruvian citizens and to facilitate greater responsiveness to the needs of the poor within the health sector. The project would support the work of the Ministry of Health, the Ombudsman's office and civil society and has a number of components. The objectives are to: (i) improve public health service policies and institutions to protect and promote the right to health of poor and excluded communities in Peru; (ii) facilitate, with citizens and health care providers, the implementation of participatory mechanisms for the planning, provision and evaluation of health services and (iii) promote the uptake of lessons learned in the programme by the multilateral development organisations working in Peru.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid is provided(a) to encourage and (b) to finance abortions in Peru; and if she will make a statement. [90573]
  30W
  Clare Short
  None. My Department considers support for activities to improve the quality, safety and accessibility of abortion services where this is legal in the country concerned, and where it is available as a matter of individual choice. In all situations, as we have done in Peru between 1997 and 2002, DfID will consider support for measures to improve access to effective and high quality post-abortion care to deal with the complication of spontaneous or induced abortion.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate her Department has made of the revenues of the Congo Desk of the Rwandan Patriotic Army and Rwanda's national budget; and what impact this has had on development aid to the Rwandan Government. [90412]

  Clare Short
  We have made no such assessment. The Rwandan national budget is regularly assessed by the IMF which has reported positively on improvements in the effectiveness and transparency of budget management by the Rwandan Government, and has confirmed it has found no evidence of significant off-budget receipts or expenditure. There is no evidence in the national budget of receipts from the Congo Desk of the RPA. Development aid remains vital to support efforts to eradicate poverty and establish long-term stability in Rwanda following the 1994 genocide. We will continue to support the Government in implementing their poverty reduction strategy within a framework of good governance and respect for human rights.

  Sexual Reproductive Health
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the organisations her Department works with which specialise in sexual reproductive health; and if she will make a statement. [91181]

  Clare Short
  My Department works with a large number of sexual and reproductive health organisations in developing and developed countries. Information is not held centrally on all of these organisations, and to collate the information would incur disproportionate cost. However, a key element of DfID assistance for sexual and reproductive health programmes is that it is provided in support of the principles of free and informed choice set out at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo in 1994.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure made by her Department(a) came into force and (b) were considered by a delegated legislation committee in each of the last three Sessions. [88029]

  Clare Short
  Over the last three Sessions the Department for International Development has made one Statutory Instrument which was subject to negative procedure. It was not considered by a delegated legislation committee.
  31W
  2002/1408: International Development Act 2002 (Commencement) Order 2002.

  Trade Liberalisation
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken to assist developing countries to carry out impact assessments on the effects of trade liberalisation agreements, broken down by country. [91354]

  Clare Short
  DFID supports a variety of trade related technical cooperation programmes which are designed to help developing countries participate more effectively in trade negotiations and to take advantage of trade opportunities. A number of these programmes include consultancy or study funds which can be used to undertake impact assessments or to secure advice on trade liberalisation issues. Particular examples include:
  a study of the economic effects of EU bilateral trade agreements with developing countries, which includes case studies on South Africa, Egypt, Mexico, Chile, Turkey and the MERCOSUR Common Market;a study on the possible effects of changes in the EU Sugar Regime on African, Caribbean and Pacific sugar exporting countries;the Integrated Framework Trust Fund for least developed countries (LDC), which is also supported by multilateral and other bilateral donors, has helped LDCs to mainstream trade issues into national poverty reduction strategies. Support has so far been provided to Cambodia, Madagascar and Mauritania;Malawi Trade and Poverty Programme, which helps to build capacity in Malawian institutions to formulate, negotiate and implement trade reform strategies that are inclusive and pro-poor; and Trade Policy Development Project (with the World bank). This has included a broad range of trade related policy and impact studies, such as on the cashmere sector in Mongolia, trade and foreign exchange policies in Iran, the impact of WTO accession on the Russian telecommunications sector, trade facilitation and standards reform in the Asia Pacific region, and the linkages between regional trade policies and economic integration in south Asia and south eastern Europe.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her latest estimate is of the productivity of the agricultural sector in Zimbabwe. [91259]

  Clare Short
  Official figures for agricultural production are not issued in Zimbabwe until late February following the national assessment. Preliminary figures indicate that the area planted to maize, the staple crop this year is larger than last. However widespread shortages of tillage, seed and fertilisers will suppress yields. Early planted crops in some areas wilted and had to be replanted. The condition of the maize in the main growing areas is reported to be average. Providing the rains continue then Zimbabwe is expected to produce between 850 000 to 1.0 million tonnes, an improvement over 2002 but only 60 per cent. of its annual maize requirement.

  No figures have been released for the late 2002 wheat harvest but a figure of 160,000t is being used which was 50 per cent. less than the previous year. This year's wheat crop will be planted in July as usual.
  32W
  The harvesting of flue-cured Virginia tobacco, the main foreign exchange earner for Zimbabwe, is just starting. The main producer group is forecasting a total crop of 80 million kilogrammes, considerably lower than the 165 million kg in 2002 and the 202 million kg produced in 2001.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoner Conveyances
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent assessment he has made of the efficiency and value for money of private firms who deliver prisoners to court. [91437]

  Hilary Benn
  The contracting out of prisoner escort arrangements has offered better value for money, a reduction in escapes and has freed up prison officers to concentrate on their main duties. A recent Prison Service review confirmed that escorts should continue to be contracted out, and the existing contracts, which are planned to be re-let in 2004, will be replaced with more flexible ones to allow the Prison Service to respond more effectively to business needs and population.

  Drugs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans he has to support communities in the fight against drugs. [91440]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The new communities target was simplified to focus it on what matters most—reducing drug related crime. The target is to reduce drug related crime, as measured by the proportion of offenders testing positive at arrest.

  Additionally we have invested through the Community Against Drugs fund to empower local people to take action on local problems.

  Police Resource Allocation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with representatives of local constabularies about the allocation of police resources used in the investigation of crime. [91441]

  Mr. Denham
  Home Office Ministers and officials have regular discussions on a wide range of police resourcing issues with representatives of the police service.

  Police (Gwent)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police numbers in Gwent. [91442]

  Hilary Benn
  On 31 March 2002 Gwent police had 1,333 officers, a record number. Gwent was allocated 81 recruits from the Crime Fighting Fund for the three years to March 2003.
  33W
  The provisional grant settlement for 2003–04 provides Gwent with an additional £40,000 from the Crime Fighting Fund for further additional officers. We estimate that this will allow a strength increase of up to seven officers by the end of 2003–04.

  Gun Crime
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making in tackling gun crime. [91443]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  While the overall proportion of crime involving firearms is low the increase in gun crime in the year 2001–02 is unacceptable and is being tackled vigorously. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced:a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for illegal possession of a firearm;
  a new offence of carrying replica firearms or air weapons in a public place without reasonable excuse; and
  an amnesty to get many guns off our streets which may otherwise be used in crime.

  EU Drugs Policy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to implement a common drugs policy throughout the European Union. [91444]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  European Union member states, including the UK, develop national drug strategies, identifying national priorities and developing national solutions. The fight against drugs is complemented and co-ordinated by a range of EU-wide action. The EU Drugs Strategy 2000–04 guides this action and is practically implemented by means of the EU Action Plan on Drugs. These common measures aim to co-ordinate, complement and add value to action by member states.

  Youth Crime
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what international evidence he has taken into consideration in developing policies to tackle youth crime. [91445]

  Mr. Denham
  To help inform our approach to youth crime, we hosted an international youth crime seminar involving leading academics, practitioners and policy makers, in October 2002. A clear message from the seminar was that early prevention programmes, such as Sure Start, and tailored services for children and young people, are more likely to have a substantial impact in preventing the onset of offending behaviour and other adverse outcomes.

  Child Murderers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor's Department regarding prosecutions for child murderers involving joint enterprise. [91446]

  Hilary Benn
  There is regular contact with the Lord Chancellor's Department about a range of issues. This includes the difficult and important question of what we 34W
  might do to improve the chances of successful prosecutions for the death or serious injury of children where it is clear that the injuries inflicted were caused by one or other parent, but there is no evidence as to which was responsible. Although some measures already contained in the current Criminal Justice Bill, such as those about admissibility of hearsay and evidence of previous misconduct, will help in this respect. We are considering a number of other possibilities with a view to legislation at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the consultation period is for the siting of reception centres for refugees and asylum seekers. [91438]

  Beverley Hughes
  At the point where The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) expresses an interest in a particular property or location, and where there is no change of use, local authorities are given two weeks to provide NASS with any concerns they have regarding the potential use of the accommodation as some form of housing for asylum seekers. Where a change in use is required, as in the case of accommodation centres, local authorities have been given eight weeks to respond. However, it is clear that, in those instances when NASS intends to proceed with a contract, consultation and dialogue should continue beyond these minimum periods, and I have ensured that in future this will be the case.

TRANSPORT

  Counter-pollution Practices
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the United Kingdom's coastal waters counter-pollution practices were last reviewed. [91602]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In January 2000, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) published the "National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations" (NCP), which set out revised command and control procedures for the response to shipping incidents in the UK counter pollution zone following the experiences gained during SEA EMPRESS incident and from the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's review of salvage and intervention and their command and control. The MCA uses regular exercises to test the NCP.

  Oil and Chemical Spills
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many permanently equipped vessels are available in the United Kingdom to tackle(a) oil, (b) chemical and (c) diesel spillages at sea; and where they are stationed; [91597]

  (2) how many anti-pollution vessels there are to deal with (a) chemical and (b) oil spills within five hours sailing time of Lyme Bay; [91601]

  (3) what emergency plans are in place to deal with chemical spillages that may occur off the United Kingdom coast; and what defences are in place to prevent such incidents; [91603]
  35W
  (4) how many incidents of (a) chemical, (b) oil and (c) diesel spillage have occurred in United Kingdom waters since 1997. [91604]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Counter pollution operations at sea are best dealt with through the aerial spraying of dispersants. However, ships with a counter pollution capability to support the recovery of spillages can be resourced from commercial shipping companies, oil spill response organisations and ports. The numbers and locations will vary depending on the primary role of these ships. In Lyme Bay, for instance, craft with a counter pollution capability may be available in the ports of Plymouth, Poole, Weymouth or Portland, but there are no ships solely dedicated for that purpose. The Government has substantial counter pollution stockpiles with mechanical recovery resources to assist in the collection of marine pollution from the sea.

  Year

  No.s of Pollution Incidents

  Incidents where source could be identified (percentage)

  Incidents from offshore oil and gas installations

  Mineral Oils (percentage)

  Chemicals (percentage)

  Garbage (percentage)

  Vegetable/animal oils (percentage)

  Other substances (percentage)

  2001

  678

  87

  419

  95.5

  1.3

  0.4

  0.3

  2.4

  2000

  743

  88

  456

  95

  0.7

  0.5

  0.4

  3

  Year

  Nos. of Pollution Incidents

  Incidents where source could be identified

  Incidents from offshore oil and gas installations

  Incidents where an estimate of the quantity of oil was reported

  Incidents where 100 gallons or more were spilled

  2001

  678

  614

  419

  544

  67

  2000

  743

  627

  456

  543

  77

  1999

  747

  748

  382

  541

  69

  1998

  801

  609

  359

  613

  87

  1997

  723

  578

  351

  553

  100

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what specific funding is available to coastal local authorities for counter-pollution measures and clean-up operations for(a) oil, (b) diesel and (c) other spillages at sea; [91599]

  (2) what steps he has taken to train (a) local authority staff and (b) staff of other interested organisations, in the management, containment and clearance of (i) oil, (ii) chemical and (iii) diesel spillages at sea. [91598]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not make any specific funding available to coastal local authorities for counter-pollution measures. However, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) provides accredited training courses for the maritime local authorities to prepare them for such operations. These courses are primarily based on a response to oil pollution, but the response issues covered are also pertinent to chemical spills. The MCA runs two specific areas of training for local authorities:
  36W
  Companies and shippers involved in the carriage of hazardous chemicals have plans and equipment for dealing with emergencies whilst the substances are in transit. If an incident escalates expertise and facilities from relevant industries and the MCA are available. The MCA's main response would utilise the specialist chemical equipment in the UK's 'at sea' stockpile and its contracted chemical strike team, who provide both manpower and advice. The UK's National Contingency Plan and the Secretary of States Representative's (SOSREP) powers extend to chemical incidents.

  The MCA annually commissions a report on the different types of marine pollution in the waters around the British Isles from the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS). In the ACOPS Report the type of pollutant has been classified since 2000 into mineral oils, chemicals, garbage, vegetable/animal oils and other substances. Oil and diesel are categorised into the same group. Before 2000 the ACOPS report did not include this level of detail.

  The figures from the ACOPS report since 1997 for spillages in UK waters are as follows:

  Oil Pollution, Contingency Planning and Response
  A residential training course (five days) for local authority management staff involved in contingency planning and oil spill response. This is run four times a year at locations around the UK, including the MCA's Training Centre in Dorset.
  Oil Pollution Response
  A two day hands-on training course in counter pollution response for local authority staff, who would expect to be involved in supervising beach clean-up operations and protective booming operations. These are run eight times a year at locations hosted by maritime local authorities.
  In the last 24 months the MCA have trained over 150 people on the oil pollution, contingency planning and response courses. The MCA have also run two day hands- on training courses for councils in the following areas since the summer of 2000: Suffolk, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Hampshire, West Sussex, Cumbria, Somerset, Argyll and Bute, Fife, Kent, Pembrokeshire, Cornwall, Essex, Teeside, Highland and South Wales. Before April 2002 courses will also be run in Inverclyde, North East Scotland, North Devon, Humberside, the Isle of Wight and Dorset.
  37W
  Additionally, the MCA runs a series of decision making in oil spill response courses for the statutory nature conservation bodies, the environmental regulators, the Government Fisheries Departments and the public health authorities in the UK. These are designed to brief, train and prepare the staff of these agencies for their role in the multi-agency response to a pollution incident from shipping. The MCA have run nine of these courses since the beginning of 2000. The MCA also offer 24 hour incident response advice and support to local authorities and maintain a large stockpile of shoreline clean-up equipment at Southampton and Inverness that can be mobilised to an incident if required. The MCA has published a large range of scientific, technical and operational notices to provide guidance for local authorities on a wide range of response issues.

  Taxis (Disabled Access)
  Mr Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions he has taken regarding the making of regulations to provide for access to taxis by disabled people. [91546]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are still considering the options for implementing the Taxi Accessibility Regulations. We need to ensure that the costs of requiring accessibility do not have a major detrimental impact on the viability of the taxi trade in some parts of the country. We have been in discussion with the trade, with manufacturers and with our statutory disability advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC). I will make a statement once we have arrived at what we believe to be a workable way forward.

  Air Transport (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the Future Development of Air Transport-Scotland consultation documents were(a) sent out and (b) downloaded from the Department of Transport website by 10 January 2003; and how many responses have been received. [91175]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Estimates of Scottish consultation documents dispatched and downloaded from the web site as of the 10 January 2003 are shown in the following table:

  Dispatched

  Downloaded from the Web Site

  Main and Summary Documents

  13,149

  30,738

  Questionnaires

  6,704

  640

  As of the 10 January 2003, we have received approximately 350 letters and e-mails and 882 questionnaires for the Scottish region.

  Air Travel Organisers Licensing Regulations
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on changes to the law affecting Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (ATOL); and if he will make a statement. [91320]
  38W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has received one letter on behalf of a travel agent. However, the CAA in response to its consultation paper ("Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the ATOL Regulations") received over 90 replies.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend ATOL Regulations to cover firms who sell package holidays by air under separate contracts; and if he will make a statement. [91321]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are planning to introduce an early amendment to the ATOL Regulations to cover firms who sell package holidays by air under separate contracts.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the protection of individual airline passengers against schedule airline failure from whom they have bought accommodation from a listed supplier; and if he will make a statement. [91323]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has received no representations concerning the protection of individual airline passengers. However we have received representations from a number of travel organisers who assert that scheduled airlines that offer accommodation via linked websites ought to be obliged to comply with the ATOL Regulations.

  Air Travel Trust Fund
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will introduce legislation to increase the Air Travel Trust Fund; and if he will make a statement. [91322]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A draft Bill to secure the necessary powers to impose a levy will be introduced as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much producing his Department's latest Annual Report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90891]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The latest annual report for the Department for Transport was the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) Annual Report 2002.

  The DTLR Annual Report was published in June 2002 at a cost of £37,761.14. This figure represents the cost to the Department for the design, production and printing of 600 copies. Other costs of printing and publication were met by the publisher, The Stationery Office Limited (TSO). These 600 copies were distributed free of charge to members of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, various stakeholder groups and internally to officials within the Department. Copies were also laid before Parliament.
  39W
  The Stationery Office Limited (TSO) can provide definitive numbers of the total number of copies printed and sold at the cover price.

  British Transport Police
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Transport Police there were in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [91670]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport Police have provided me with the following information:

  Police officers

  Support staff

  2002

  2,123

  644

  2001

  2,109

  565

  2000

  2,091

  523

  1999

  2,113

  524

  1998

  2,095

  492

  1997

  2,132

  461

  1996

  2,165

  468

  1995

  2,147

  410

  1994

  2,155

  406

  1993

  2,114

  373

  Coach Accidents
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passenger(a) injuries and (b) fatalities were recorded for accidents involving coaches in each year since 1991. [91763]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures for coaches alone are not available, the table shows the number of bus or coach passenger casualties from accidents involving a bus/coach in each year since 1991:

  Bus/coach passenger casualties in accidents involving at least one bus/coach: GB 1991–2001

  Killed

  Casualties Injured

  All

  1991

  25

  8,197

  8,222

  1992

  16

  8,413

  8,429

  1993

  32

  8,637

  8,669

  1994

  20

  9,331

  9,351

  1995

  34

  8,510

  8,544

  1996

  10

  8,528

  8,538

  1997

  12

  8,594

  8,606

  1998

  17

  8,915

  8,932

  1999

  11

  9,333

  9,344

  2000

  14

  9,050

  9,064

  2001

  10

  8,882

  8,892

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters were received by his Department on the proposed policy of the Mayor of London to introduce congestion charges in London; and what percentage of the letters(a) supported the proposal and (b) opposed it. [90978]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Between May 2000 and 15 January 2003 we had received 154 letters. Approximately 5 per cent. supported the proposal and 95 per cent. opposed it.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the running costs of(a) the Department and (b) each of its sponsored agencies were in (i) 1997 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [90704]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Detailed information on administration costs for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and its transport related agencies, going back to 1998–99 and with projections to 2003–04, is set out in Table A5 of the 2002 departmental report Cm 5405. Data for years before 1998–99 are not available on the same basis. Provisional outturn for gross and net administration costs limits were published in Public Expenditure 2001–02 Provisional Outturn (Cm 5574), Tables 4 and 5. Updated information, with plans to 2005–06, will be published in the 2003 departmental report in the spring.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many documents were sent to DVLA as proof of identity in the last year for which information is available; and how many are known not to have been returned to their owners or holders. [90992]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the financial year 2001–02 DVLA returned 3.9 million identity documents to customers. In the same year the Agency met 2,704 compensation claims from customers whose documents were not delivered (0.07 per cent. of cases where identity documents were sent to DVLA). 5.9 million photocard driving licences were issued in the same period.

  Driving Licences (Vision Tests)
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving licences were withdrawn between July 2001 and December 2002, due to people failing a field of vision test. [92005]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Around 2,000 drivers have had their licences withdrawn or applications refused in this period, due to a failure to satisfy the visual field standard for driving.

  Foreign Commercial Vehicles
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the effectiveness of measures to ensure that foreign commercial vehicles driving on British roads are properly insured. [91539]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Both UK and European law require any vehicle, including commercial vehicles, to be covered by compulsory insurance when they are used on our roads. Foreign vehicles are subject to the same random checks as UK vehicles and if one were found to be uninsured, its user would be subject to the same fines as any UK motorist.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road vehicles which run on liquid petroleum gas fuel were in use in each year since 1999. [91157]
  41W
  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA statistics do not provide a breakdown by fuel type, only vehicles that are dedicated gas or petrol/gas combinations. The following table shows the number of vehicles that are dedicated gas or petrol/gas combination. DVLA statistics also do not distinguish between Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Natural Gas vehicles.

  Number of gas or bi-fuel vehicles

  1999

  17,010

  2000

  23,968

  2001

  29,968

  But this understates the number of vehicles because not all conversions to alternative fuelling are notified to DVLA.

  The Energy Saving Trust estimate that there is around 75,000 LPG vehicles currently in the UK. Motorists are converting to LPG at an increasing rate, with the number expected to increase by about 25,000 per year over the next two years, prompted by the Government grants available, and the fact that low-cost LPG fuel is now available in all areas of the country.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on how figures for attributable delays on the London Underground are to be used as(a) a performance measure for the PPP and (b) a basis for payments to the consortium; and who will evaluate the figures. [91068]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the PPP, the payments received by the Infrastructure Companies vary according to their performance. One of the key factors in determining performance is "Lost Customer Hours"—the time wasted by delays and the basic measure of Underground reliability.

  The methodology for assessing and attributing delays, and calculating payments to the Infrastructure Companies has been working since September 1999. It is explained in detail in the PPP contracts, which will be published once financial close has been achieved on all three deals.

  M25
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 684W, on the M25, if he will place in the Library a copy of the full report on the initial assessment by the Transport Research Laboratory of the Controlled Motorway Project on the M25 between junctions 10 and 15. [91883]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A report of the initial assessment of the M25 Controlled Motorways Project will be placed in the Libraries of the House in due course.

  Marinair
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guarantees he has received from the promoters of Marinair that they(a) have secured and (b) are likely to secure the funding necessary to complete the proposed Marinair airport. [91863]
  42W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Thames Estuary Airport Company Limited (TEACO) response to "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East)" included a statement about the availability of funding, but this was conditional, not guaranteed.

  We will make publicly available in due course all responses to the consultation, except those marked confidential. In the mean time publication is a matter for the authors.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to whom the Metropolitan Police must apply to close a road for(a) a period of seven days and (b) a period of more than seven days; and for how many consecutive periods of seven days the Metropolitan Police may close a road. [90556]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is open to the Metropolitan Police to apply to the local traffic authority for a temporary road closure order under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended by the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991). The traffic authority may grant an order for a period up to 18 months. The duration of an order may be extended with the agreement of the Secretary of State for a period of up to six months.

  New Communities (Thames Gateway)
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extra resources required to support the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway area; what discussions he has had with other Government Departments in relation to supporting the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway; and what resources he has allocated to support the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway. [90428]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend and noble, the Minister for Housing and Planning (Lord Rooker) chairs the Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership, whose membership comprises Ministers from five Government Departments (ODPM, DfT, DFES, DTI and DoH) three Regional Development Agencies, three Regional Assemblies and three sub-regional partnerships (East London, North Kent and South Essex).

  The Partnership is now looking at new means of accelerating the regeneration and development of the Gateway.

  Thames Gateway development and regeneration is being supported by investment from various Government funding streams and through regional public agencies (for example the RDAs).

  Night Flights
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish a consultation paper on night flights serving London's airports. [90734]
  43W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently considering an orderly timetable for this and other environmental consultations, in the light of the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to extend the consultation on "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East"Official Report, 28 November 2002, columns 474–75. We intend to publish shortly a consultation paper on night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports.

  Rail Subsidies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much subsidy has been paid to(a) rail freight operations and (b) passenger train operating companies in each year since 1997. [91532]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table provides the amounts paid in freight Track Access Grants. Details of the subsidy paid to each train operating company, in each year, are set out in the Strategic Rail Authority's annual report, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  £ million

  1997–98

  21.3

  1998–99

  19.3

  1999–2000

  17.2

  2000–01

  13.9

  2001–02

  19.9

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic accidents involved buses and coaches in each year since 1991. [91764]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table shows the number of accidents resulting in a fatality or injury involving a bus or coach in each year since 1991.

  Accidents involving bus/coach, by severity: GB 1991–2001

  All

  1991

  11,235

  1992

  11,064

  1993

  10,747

  1994

  11,186

  1995

  10,822

  1996

  10,988

  1997

  11,051

  1998

  11,585

  1999

  11,735

  2000

  11,524

  2001

  11,334

  Roskill Committee
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has carried out a comparison of forecasts made by the Roskill Committee of(a) air travel, (b) plane movements and (c) runway use with actual outcomes since that time. [80710]

  Mr. Spellar
  The 1971 Roskill report (page 191) projected 123 million passengers at Heathrow, Gatwick, and a third London airport in 1991 and 260 million 44W
  passengers in 2006. Over the period 1969 to 2006, traffic was projected in Roskill to grow over 15 fold. (Forecasts were presented in terms of passengers, rather than air traffic movements and runway utilisation.) Actual passengers through all London airports in 1991, the year before the Gulf war, was 62.8 million passengers (69.5 million passengers in 1992). In 2000, the corresponding actual figure was 117 million passengers. Our consultation documents report an unconstrained forecast of 301 million passengers in 2030, ie a 2.6 fold increase over 2000.

  The Roskill report forecasts are one of a number of projections of air traffic growth. Since the early 1970s traffic growth has fallen as the industry has matured. More recent forecasts produced by the Department in the 1990s have tended to under-estimate future traffic growth.

  Teleworking
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the effects of teleworking on(a) current and (b) future transport needs. [91542]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The National Travel Survey suggests that around 7 per cent. of all workers currently work from home at least once in a typical week. But about half of these are people whose paid job is only carried out at their home, and it is not clear how much of a role is played by communications technology.

  Taking the 3 per cent. of workers who travel to work sometimes and work at home sometimes as being representative of teleworkers, it appears that they make roughly half the number of commuting journeys of non-teleworkers. But that they make around 5 per cent. more trips overall.

  The Department will continue to monitor travel behaviour, and will analyse the data in more detail once a larger sample of responses has been accumulated.

  (b) A number of the multi-modal studies being carried out have considered "soft" policies such as encouragement of teleworking as potential methods of reducing travel demand. The Secretary of State is aware of a number of research studies which have estimated the likely future impact of increased teleworking, but there is no clear overall picture which emerges. One research study, currently subject to peer review, suggests that teleworking might reduce car commuting by of the order of 5 per cent. by 2015, but there is considerable uncertainty involved in any such estimate.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Thameslink 2000 project. [91178]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Planning and associated applications are currently before the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he is making to ensure that the Transport Research Laboratory continues to provide crash testing facilities for wheelchairs. [91826]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We understand that TRL are to cease the routine product testing of wheelchairs and associated equipment to concentrate resources on their core research businesses. The Department is aware of the importance of this dynamic testing service, and TRL has recently completed an extensive programme of research for my Department on the safety of wheelchair users who travel as passengers in vehicles. Equipment manufacturers also use such test facilities for product development and to provide evidence in support of applications for CE marking.

  TRL was privatised in 1996 and now forms part of the Transport Research Foundation group of companies providing impartial transport research and advice. Although it is disappointing that TRL has chosen to withdraw from this market, we are unable to influence the work that they choose to do or the services that they offer. Other test houses in the UK have dynamic test equipment and are able to offer this service.

  Young Persons Discount Card
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with(a) train operating companies and (b) London Transport on the introduction of a combined young persons discount card; and if he will make a statement. [91675]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has recently completed a consultation exercise on railway fares policy following publication of their consultation document "Future Fares Policy-Seeking Your Views". Fares integration with other modes of transport in the London area is addressed in the consultation document. The SRA is now considering the comments received from the consultation exercise and will shortly be advising Ministers on the outcome.

TREASURY

  Retirement
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the research was, referred to in the green paper Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement, that found that the 401k schemes in the USA have been successful in raising pension saving amongst the low paid.[90820]

  Ruth Kelly
  There is an ongoing body of research on 401k pension schemes in the US. Studies that have looked at the effect of 401 kschemes on the low paid, for example, Engen, E and Gale, W (2000J, The Effects of 401(k) Plans on Household Wealth: Differences Across Earnings Groups, NBER Working Paper 8032, (http:// papers.nber.org/papers/w8032.pdf) suggest that 401 ks have been successful in raising pension saving among lower earners.

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of his Department's latest annual report were printed; to whom copies of the report were provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge.[90894]

  Ruth Kelly
  Publication of HM Treasury's Autumn Performance Report (Cm 5665, published 6 December 2002) was handled by The Stationary Office Limited (TSO). 190 copies were produced for HM Treasury's own internal purposes and 310 copies have been sold by TSO to date.

  Departmental Minutes
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many departmental minutes issued by his Department were outstanding on 30th November that referred to public private partnerships as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89426]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: No departmental minutes related to public private partnerships are outstanding in respect of liabilities charged to the Treasury's resource estimate shown in table B14 of the latest published Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information relating to the transfer out of Equitable Life by the PIA's pension scheme in 1998 was available to the Treasury at the time the transfer took place. [91188]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Financial Advice Centres
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make it his policy to set up a national network of free or affordable financial advice centres; [91086]

  (2) what plans he has to increase consumer awareness about sources of unbiased financial advice. [91085]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is important that everyone should have access to appropriate financial education, information and generic advice to understand his or her options, as well as having access to regulated product specific advice where appropriate.

  We have noted the proposals for a new network to provide financial education, information and generic advice, with interest. Many organisations are already involved in the provision of those forms of help, such as adviser and product provider firms, trade associations and Government and regulators. A wide range of charitable and voluntary sector organisations are also active in providing individuals with help on their finances, including Citizens Advice, Citizens Advice Scotland, National Debtline, and other money advice, information and advice organisations.
  47W
  The Financial Services Authority (the FSA) has a statutory objective to promote public understanding of the financial system.

  I welcome the work the FSA is undertaking to look at the feasibility of a new tool to help deliver consistent, high quality, interactive generic help for those who need it. We also welcome the work the FSA will be doing to develop a more general strategy for consumer education, information and advice. We understand they plan to consult on this in the summer of 2003.

  The FSA already offer a great deal of help, for example through publishing a guide to financial advice which gives contact details for commercial advisers, trade associations, government, and charitable and voluntary organisations, as well as already providing specific help with many financial products and services, such as pensions, annuities, bank accounts and ISAs.

  Financial Services Authority (Pension Scheme)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) who the trustees are of the pension scheme of the Financial Services Authority; who the trustees were in 1998; who the trustees were of the pension scheme of the Personal Investment Authority in 1998; and what the role of the trustees is in relation to the(a) FSA and (b) other Government and regulatory bodies; [91191]

  (2) how many members of the pension scheme of the Personal Investment Authority paid additional voluntary contributions to Equitable Life in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; [91189]

  (3) if the trustees of the Personal Investment Authority pension scheme in 1998 had access to internal assessments undertaken by (a) the Government Actuaries' Department and (b) other regulatory and Government bodies, in relation to the viability of Equitable Life; [91193]

  (4) what the aggregate amount was of additional voluntary contributions paid to Equitable Life by members of the pension scheme of the Personal Investment Authority in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; [91186]

  (5) if he will place in the Library copies of the (a) Personal Investment Authority and (b) Financial Services Authority pension scheme trustees' annual reports for 1998–99; [91192]

  (6) what investments of the Personal Investment Authority pension scheme were held in Equitable Life at its scheme year end in 1998; what payments relating to the pension scheme were made to Equitable Life during the year 1997–98; what changes were made to the arrangement for investments with Equitable Life during the years (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; what the reasons were for those changes; and what costs were incurred by (i) the Personal Investment Authority and (ii) the Trustees. [91190]

  Ruth Kelly
  The matters raised are the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority whose chairman will be writing to the hon. Member.

  Fines (Financial Service Companies)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been collected in fines from financial service companies for wrongdoing in each of the last three years; and to what use this money has been put. [91087]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA tell me that the fines that they or their predecessor regulators imposed were as follows:

  Period

  Fines in £ million

  1/4/2000 to 31/3/2001

  4.6

  1/4/2001 to 31/3/2002

  8.0

  1/4/2002 to 15/1/2003

  7.5

  Fines received by the FSA are allocated to the relevant regulatory sector and used to reduce fees charged by them to firms in that sector.

  Government Actuary
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full time staff he estimates(a) were employed in the Government Actuary's Department in 1998–99 and (b) will be employed in 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [91712]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is estimated that there were 93 full time equivalent staff employed in the Government Actuary's Department in 1998–99. It is estimated that 103 full time equivalent staff will be employed in 2003–04.

  Investment Products
  Mr. Flight
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the European Commission on(a) the sale of investment products or services and (b) the liability of advisors and providers in relation to their customers, following the recommendations of the Sandler Report; and if he will make a statement [89468]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury officials have regular discussions with the European Commission about financial services, including investment services, particularly in the context of the Commission's proposal for an updated directive on investment services and regulated markets, published on 19 November 2002. The Government is seeking to ensure that this proposed directive is consistent with the proposals in Mr. Ron. Sandler's review of the medium to long term retail savings market.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [90866]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2002. The Treasury policy on job sharing remains unchanged. There are now 13 job sharers covering seven posts as at 31 December 2002. These individuals are employed on part-time contracts.

  Lisbon Strategy
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has
  49W
  undertaken into the progress of member states of the European Union towards achieving the goals set in the Lisbon Strategy in March 2000. [91199]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury has produced a series of documents on the progress of the EU towards the goals set in the Lisbon strategy.

  'European Economic Reform; meeting the challenge' (March 2001);

  The Government White Paper, 'Realising Europe's Potential; economic reform in Europe' (February 2002);

  'Structural Indicators of European economic reform; measuring Europe's progress' (February 2002);

  'Productivity in the EU, 1979–99', commissioned from Mary O'Mahoney at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (February 2002); and

  'Towards Full Employment in the European Union' (July 2002).

  All of these documents can be found on the HM Treasury website (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

  The Treasury will report on developments in European economic reform since the 2002 White Paper in a progress report, to be published shortly.

  Mortgages
  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average mortgage rate was in England in each year since 1978. [90835]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Andrew George, dated January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the average mortgage rate in England in each year since 1978. I am replying in his absence. (90835)
  The rates shown in the attached table are currently compiled by the Financial Services Authority (and previously Building Societies Commission). They are average rates for mortgages with Building Societies. Comparable figures prior to 1984 are not available..These figures relate to the UK Separate figures for England are not available.

  Average Mortgage Rate—Building Societies1

  Year

  Average Rate2

  Basic Rate3

  1984

  12.19

  11.88

  1985

  13.01

  12.75

  1986

  12.32

  12.3

  1987

  10.34

  10.3

  1988

  12.75

  12.77

  1989

  14.44

  14.42

  1990

  14.34

  14.48

  1991

  11.39

  11.52

  1992

  8.98

  8.98

  1993

  7.94

  7.99

  1994

  7.84

  8.14

  1995

  7.48

  7.98

  1996

  6.51

  7

  1997

  7.58

  8.16

  1998

  7.29

  7.75

  1999

  6.49

  6.88

  2000

  6.65

  7.31

  2001

  5.17

  5.34

  1The average rates are based on information provided by Building Societies. The figures reflect rates at the end of the year.
  50W
  2These data represents the weighted average of individual reporters' own weighted average rates on their overall residential loan book.

  3These data represents the weighted average of the individual reporters' standard variable (headline) rate applying to the majority of mortgage accounts at the end of reporting period.

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who the suppliers are of his Department's paper and paper products. [91902]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following suppliers provide paper and paper products to HM Treasury:

  Banner

  Talk Paper

  Tompla

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review staffing in relation to his Department's not meeting key targets set out in the 2000 Public Service Agreement. [91200]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury Management Board reviews the allocation of resources to the delivery of Public Service Agreement targets during the annual business planning round in-year when necessary.

  Sandler Review
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact that proposed revisions to the 1993 European Investment Services Directive would have on the proposals contained in the Sandler review of savings. [91574]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are seeking to ensure that the proposed revision to the 1993 Investment Services Directive is consistent with the proposals in Mr. Ron Sandler's review of the medium to long-term retail savings market.

  STEPS Contract
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date stamp duty was paid by Mapeley on the STEPS Contract with the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement. [89475]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: The payment of Stamp Duty is a confidential matter between the payer and the Inland Revenue. Ministers are not involved in the process and do not have access to information relating to it. Exemption 15 (Statutory and other restrictions) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the advice given by Mr. Dave Shaw of the Inland Revenue special investigation section to the Deputy Chairman of the Inland Revenue in respect of the Mapeley STEPS contract; and if he will make a statement. [89476]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: I understand that Mr. Shaw's advice referred to policy advice which it would be inappropriate to disclose.

  51W
  Exemption 2 (Internal discussion and advice) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Teleworkers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) employees and (b) self-employed persons are teleworkers. [91600]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Andrew Miller, dated 20 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about teleworkers. I am replying in his absence. (91600)
  The attached table gives the information requested, for the three month period ending May 2002. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The LFS questions on teleworking are asked in spring (March to May) quarters only. The latest available estimates are for spring (March to May) 2002.

  Employees and self-employed people who are teleworkers1,2

  United Kingdom: spring (March to May) 2002

  Thousand 3

  Number

  Teleworker homeworkers4

  Employees

  163

  Self-employed

  232

  Home-based teleworkers5

  Employees

  375

  Self-employed

  449

  Occasional teleworkers6

  Employees

  472

  Self-employed

  89

  Total

  Employees

  1,010

  Self-employed

  770

  1People who do some paid or unpaid work in their own home in their main job and could not do so without using both a telephone and a computer.

  2Estimates not adjusted for non-response to the teleworking questions.

  3Not seasonally adjusted

  4Teleworkers who work mainly in their own home.

  5Teleworkers who work in various locations using home as a base.

  6People who do not usually work at home or use home as a base but spent at least one day in the reference week teleworking in these locations.

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA) and have not yet been adjusted to take account of the recent Census 2001 results.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Widows/Widowers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women were widowed in each month in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002. [91616]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  52W
  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Oliver Heald, dated 20 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question asking how many (a) men and (b) women were widowed in each month in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002. I am replying in his absence. (91616)
  The latest available figures for England and Wales are for 2001. The information requested for that year is given in the table below.

  Number of new widows and widowers by month, England and

  Wales, 20011

  Widows

  Widowers

  January

  12835

  6430

  February

  11056

  5465

  March

  12375

  6018

  April

  11249

  5797

  May

  11471

  5506

  June

  10680

  5162

  July

  10893

  5411

  August

  10647

  5128

  September

  10716

  5212

  October

  11076

  5393

  November

  11014

  5604

  December

  12414

  5917

  1Data are for deaths occurring in the year

  2001 Census
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total cost of the UK 2001 Census of Population, broken down to show(a) gross cost and (b) net cost after census-related income; and if he will make a statement. [91704]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. David Laws, dated 20 January 2003:
  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question asking what is his estimate of the total cost of the UK Census of Population, broken down to show (a) gross cost and (b) net cost after census-related income, and if he will make a statement. I am replying in his absence. (91704)
  The information that has previously been supplied to the Treasury Sub Committee and the National Audit Office indicates that the overall budget for the Census in England and Wales covering the 13-year period 1993–2006 is £207m. ONS expect to deliver the Census within this figure subject to the settlement of outstanding claims from contractors. No income from the dissemination of census-related output has been budgeted.
  The Census is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but an estimate of £254m for the total UK Census over the same 13-year period was provided to the Treasury Sub Committee and published in the Report of the Treasury Committee, "The 2001 Census in England and Wales", HC 310 on 6 March 2002.
  For the 2001 Census, access to all standard statistical output will be through a user-friendly website and, subject to simple licence terms, access will be free at the point of use. This access is in addition to pre-defined printed reports to be laid before Parliament. Sections 2(3) and 4(1) of the Census Act 1920 require the cost of undertaking the production of key outputs to be covered as part of the sunk cost of the Census.
  For non-standard statistics, Section 4(2) of the Census Act requires that customers will be charged only the marginal cost of producing and disseminating the information. This is consistent with the Government's wider policy on the 'Knowledge Economy' to make best use of information held by Government by offering

  53W
  an extended range of data free of charge, thereby demonstrating its commitment to ensure that data is widely available and easy to access.

  All-employee Share Plan/Enterprise Management Incentives
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of companies that have taken advantage of(a) the all-employee share plan and (b) the enterprise management incentives as set out in the 2000 Budget. [91025]

  Dawn Primarolo
  442 Share Incentive Plans have received Inland Revenue approval up to 15 January 2003 with a further 197 plans in the process of approval. 3,297 companies have granted share options under Enterprise Management Incentives up to 15 January 2003.

  More detailed statistics relating to 2000–01 only are contained in tables 6.5 and 6.6 of Inland Revenue Statistics. These are available on the Inland Revenue website at: http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/emp_share_schemes/menu.htm.

  Business Inquiries (Inland Revenue)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) full and (b) aspect business inquiries were taken up and settled by the Inland Revenue in each of the last two financial years; and if he will make a statement. [91390]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Details of the numbers of 'full' and 'aspect' business inquiries taken up each year are set out in the Inland Revenue Annual Reports, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of the exemption from capital gains tax of gains arising on the disposal of the only or main residence as stated in table 7 of the November 2002 "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" if gains could be rolled over onto the purchase of another residential property; and if he will make a statement. [91744]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates of the cost of abolishing the exemption of gains arising on the disposal of the only or main residence, and instead allowing gains to be rolled over onto the purchase of another residential property, are available only at disproportionate cost.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of early retirement for the public sector in each of the last five years. [92073]

  Mr. Boateng
  Early retirements are the responsibility of individual public sector employers. The costs of making the early retirement are charged directly to employers' budgets and information about total costs is not held centrally. However, the costs of ill health pensions are borne by each pension scheme, and such centrally-collected information as there is was included 54W
  in the report of the "Review of Ill Health Retirement in the Public Sector", published by the Treasury in July 2000.

  Euro
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the background papers associated with the forthcoming recommendation on the five economic tests; and if he will make a statement. [91866]

  Ruth Kelly
  A number of supporting studies will be published encompassing the preliminary and technical work that will inform the assessment of the five economic tests. When the assessment is complete, the detailed supporting studies will be published alongside, all to be subject to intensive public scrutiny and debate. Further detail on the supporting studies was set out in the "Paper for the Treasury Committee on the Treasury's Approach to the Preliminary and Technical Work" published on 6 September.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 414W, on the euro, when his Department last updated its survey of April 1999 on the proportion of small and medium-sized companies prepared for membership of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [92053]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since April 1999, HM Treasury has published two surveys on the level of preparations among UK businesses for dealing with the euro as a foreign currency. These were published in April 2000 and November 2001. The results of these surveys are available on the Treasury's euro website (www.euro.gov.uk).

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish the supporting studies undertaken as part of the preliminary technical work on euro convergence, prior to the formal assessment of the five economic tests for the euro; and if he will make a statement. [92562]

  Ruth Kelly
  As set out in the Paper for the Treasury Committee on the Treasury's Approach to the Preliminary and Technical Work, published on 6 September 2002, "When the assessment is complete, the detailed supporting studies will be published alongside, all to be subject to intensive public scrutiny and debate".

  HIPC Initiative
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the external debt is of(a) the Gambia, (b) Ethiopia, (c) Cameroon, (d) Chad, (e) Zambia, (f) Senegal, (g) Rwanda, (h) Niger, (i) Nicaragua, (j) Mali, (k) Malawi, (1) Madagascar, (m) Honduras, (n) Guyana, (o) Guinea-Bissau, (p) Guinea (q) Ghana, (r) Sao Tome and Principe and (s) Benin; and what the debt level was when each country reached its Decision Point under the HIPC initiative. [91174]

  John Healey
  Most of these countries reached Decision Point in the HIPC initiative in 2000, with the exception of Ethiopia and Chad (which reached Decision Point in 2001), and Ghana (which reached
  55W
  Decision Point in 2002). Under the HIPC initiative a country receives interim debt relief on payments due when it reaches Decision Point, and subsequently the debt is irrevocably cancelled at Completion Point.

  To reach Decision Point and demonstrate their commitment to poverty reduction, a country must prepare an Interim-Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), to get to Completion Point they need to develop a full PRSP, and usually make progress in, implementing it for one year.

  The UK always goes beyond HIPC terms and offers 100 per cent. debt relief, including 100 per cent. interim debt relief from Decision Point. The HIPC initiative has helped increase social expenditures in countries receiving HIPC debt relief by US$1.7 billion in 2001–02, equivalent to 1.2 per cent. of Gross Domestic Product. On average, health and education spending account for 65 per cent. of the resources freed by HIPC debt relief.

  The most recent readily available data for external debt is for 2000 and is set out in the table:

  Country

  Date reached DP

  External debt (US$, millions) 2000

  The Gambia

  December 2000

  471

  Ethiopia

  November 2001

  5,481

  Cameroon

  October 2000

  9,241

  Chad

  May 2001

  1,116

  Zambia

  December 2000

  5,730

  Senegal

  January 2000

  3,372

  Rwanda

  December 2000

  1,271

  Niger

  December 2000

  1,638

  Nicaragua

  December 2000

  7,019

  Mali

  September 2000

  2,956

  Malawi

  December 2000

  2,716

  Madagascar

  December 2000

  298

  Honduras

  July 2000

  707

  Guyana

  November 2000

  128

  Guinea-Bissau

  December 2000

  61

  Guinea

  December 2000

  177

  Ghana

  February 2002

  483

  Sao Tome and Principe

  December 2000

  30

  Benin

  July 2000

  192

  Source:

  World Bank, Global Development Finance, 2002

  Income Statistics
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what numbers and percentage of people received an annual income from all sources of(a) £15,000 to £20,000, (b)£20,000 to £30,000, (c) £30,000 to £40,000, (d)£40,000 to£50,000, (e) £50,000 to £60,000, (f) £60,000 to £70,000, (g) £70,000 to £80,000, (h) £80,000 to £90,000, (i) £90,000 to £100,000 and (j) above £100,000 in the latest period for which figures are available. [91875]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the table.

  Annual income from all sources

  Number of taxpayers (thousand)

  Number of individuals with total income in range as a percentage of all taxpayers

  £15,000 to £20,000

  4,910

  17

  £20,000 to £30,000

  5,400

  18

  £30,000 to £40,000

  2,000

  7

  £40,000 to £50,000

  800

  3

  £50,000 to £60,000

  410

  1

  56W

  Annual income from all sources

  Number of taxpayers (thousand)

  Number of individuals with total income in range as a percentage of all taxpayers

  £60,000 to £70,000

  230

  1

  £70,000 to £80,000

  150

  1

  £80,000 to £90,000

  100

  1

  £90,000 to £100,000

  70

  Above £100,000

  300

  1

  These estimates are based on the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2002 pre-Budget report.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of staff numbers at the Inland Revenue in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2002–03; what the reasons are for change in staff numbers; in which areas changes in numbers have taken place; and if he will make a statement. [91719]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Staff usage in the Inland Revenue (including the Valuation Office Agency) for 1997–98 was 55,989 full time equivalent staff. Current plans show an estimated usage for 2002–03 of 72,444. The change is due mainly to:The transfer of staff from the contributions and benefits agencies in 1999;
  Preparation for the introduction of new tax credits on 1 April 2003;
  Implementation of the Grabiner review of the informal economy;
  Workload growth.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many local tax offices have been(a) owned and (b) utilised by the Inland Revenue in each year from 1985–86 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [91723]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Regrettably we are unable to supply an answer to this question on the grounds of disproportionate costs.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend medium and longer-term taxation policy to encourage more LPG fuelled vehicles. [92052]

  John Healey
  In Budget 2001, the Chancellor announced that duty on road fuel gases (including liquid petroleum gases) would be frozen in real terms until at least 2004. Furthermore, fiscal incentives to use LPG are also offered through both the graduated vehicle excise duty and company car tax systems.

  Any further announcement on the taxation of these fuels will be made in the context of the Chancellor's Budget judgments.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people entitled to the minimum wage are being paid less than the minimum wage in(a) the North West and (b) the UK. [91943]
  57W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 20 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people paid less than Minimum Wage. I am replying in his absence. (91943)
  The latest available data, for April 2002, show an estimated 330,000 people in the United Kingdom being paid below the National Minimum Wage. This represents 1.3 per cent of all jobs. The corresponding figures for the North West were 40,000 and 1.6 per cent. These estimates cannot necessarily be used as a measure of non-compliance with the legislation as it is not possible discern from the available data whether an individual is eligible for minimum wage rates.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were employed by the Office for National Statistics in each year from 1996–97 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [91702]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. David Laws, dated 20 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about staffing resources in the Office for National Statistics in each year from 1996–97 to 2002–03. I am replying in his absence. (91702)
  The numbers of people employed by ONS are published by the Cabinet Office at http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics. The following table sets out the numbers of permanent and casual staff as at 1 April in each year.

  Year

  ONS staff employed (Permanent) as at 1 April each year

  ONS staff employed (Casual) as at 1 April each year

  1996–97

  2894

  90

  1997–98

  2968

  179

  1998–99

  3089

  166

  1999–00

  3050

  240

  2000–01

  3210

  330

  2001–02

  3030

  110

  2002–03

  3386* (as at 17/1/03)

  113*(as at 17/1/03)

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff work in the Drummond Gate Office of the Office for National Statistics; and if he will make a statement. [91709]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. David Laws, dated 20 January 2003–01–20:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of staff who work in the Drummond Gate Office of the Office for National Statistics (ONS). I am replying in his absence. (91709).
  As at 16 January 2003, 968 people work in the Drummond Gate Complex of the Office for National Statistics, comprising two buildings: 1 Drumond Gate and Bessborough House.

  PAYE
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies have declared two employees or fewer who are taxed through PAYE since 1999. [91019]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There were approximately 640,000 PAYE schemes at April 2002 with one or two employees. PAYE schemes cover both companies and unincorporated businesses, and each employer can have more than one PAYE scheme.

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the net cost of the Royal Mint in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [91713]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Royal Mint is a Trading Fund and Self Financing Public Corporation. As such, it is structured so that it does not have a net cost to the Exchequer provided it is able to maintain a reasonable level of commercial performance.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the market value of the Royal Mint; and if he will make a statement. [91714]

  Ruth Kelly
  Any Government estimate of the market value of the Mint would be commercially confidential. Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reasons underlie his policy that the Royal Mint should be in the public sector; and if he will make a statement. [91715]

  Ruth Kelly
  The last review of the Royal Mint in 1998–99 looked at many different options for the Mint, including privatisation. The review concluded that it would not be appropriate to privatise the Mint at the time because of Mint's large change programme; the Treasury's customer relationship with Mint; and uncertainties in the market place, particularly relating to euro coinage.

  The next review of the Mint will be in 2003–04. Every option remains on the table.

  Taxation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the income tax receipts foregone, since 1998, as a result of the Government's policy of levying a lower rate of VAT on the installation of energy-saving materials in homes. [91018]

  John Healey
  There are no income tax receipts forgone but the cost to the Exchequer of the reduced rate of VAT on energy saving materials introduced in 1998 and extended in 2000 can be found in the relevant Financial Statement and Budget Reports. The cost is estimated at £5 million in 1998–99, £10 million in 1999–2000 and £45 million in subsequent years. The increased cost from 2000–01 results from to the extension of the reduced rates to installations in all homes.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of cooperation between Imperial Tobacco and HM Customs and Excise on the issue of tobacco smuggling; and what recent discussions HM Customs and Excise has had with Imperial Tobacco on strategies to tackle tobacco smuggling. [91576]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise have regular meetings with each of the major UK tobacco manufacturers.

  The Government are giving careful consideration to the recent report on tobacco smuggling from the Committee of Public Accounts and will include in their response to the Committee details of the present level of co-operation between Imperial Tobacco and Customs and Excise.

DEFENCE

  Accreditation
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department is doing to support the Government's policy on accreditation. [88094]

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

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops have been(a) killed and (b) wounded in Afghanistan in the last 12 months. [91009]

  Mr. Ingram
  Three British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the last 12 months, though none died as a result of hostile fire. Two British soldiers were wounded during the same period, both in accidental shooting incidents.

  Appropriation Accounts
  Mr. Jenkin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the Appropriation Accounts for 2001–02. [91460]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with the Government Resource Accounting Act 2000 the Department's financial performance is reported to Parliament in the Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts. The 2001–02 Accounts were laid on 21 November 2002 (HC47). Copies are available in the Library of the House. The Appropriation Accounts for 2000–01 were the last in that form.

  Army Recruits
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of Army Recruiting Group's budget has been spent for the current financial year; how many army 60W
  recruits will pass through Army Training Regiments in the period 1 January to 31 March; and when he expects the Army to achieve full manning. [91093]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: In the current Financial Year, as at 30 November 2002, the latest date for which accurate figures are available, 80 per cent. of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency's net resource budget has been spent. The total includes £64.8 million for the Recruiting Group, of which 68 per cent. has similarly been spent. The balances of 20 per cent. and 32 per cent. have, however, largely been committed.

  In the period 1 January to 31 March 2003, a total of 4,390 recruits will commence training at Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA) Phase 1 training establishments, including the Army Foundation College and the Army Technical Foundation College. The figure also includes Junior Entry recruits at Army Training Regiment (ATR) Bassingbourn and those commencing combined Phase 1 and 2 Infantry training at the Infantry Training Centre, Catterick. Only those Adult recruits who commenced training on 6 January at the other ATRs will pass out to Phase 2 training before the end of March; the present estimate of this number is 147.

  The Army intends to achieve manning balance, in accordance with the Public Service Agreement, by the end of 2005. The Army's overall manpower requirement is dynamic and subject to continuing review in light of evolving doctrine, new technology and equipment and possible changes to the operating environment.

  Recent performance has been encouraging, with personnel increasing by over 1,400 during the last 12 months.

  Asthma
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been discharged from the Armed Forces on account of their suffering from asthma in the last 12 months. [91039]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2002 there have been 13 medical discharges in the Armed Forces due to asthma, nine of which were in the Army and four of which were in the Navy.

  Further information on medical discharges can be found in the National Statistics publication entitled "Medical Discharges in the Armed Forces 2001" which was published on 27 March 2002. This publication can be found on the World Wide Web at http:// www dasa. mod uk/medstats/discharge/ns_initframe. htm.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by his Department. [89965]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has the following contracts with the Capita Group.
  61W

  Division

  Contract number

  Capita Business Services Ltd.

  MSC5/07998

  ABRO1A/0112

  CBC/2B/0139

  CP21B/1178

  Capita Group plc

  CPPF1/102/14

  Capita RAS Ltd.

  CBC/2B/0003

  CP21A/1411

  CP21B/1249

  Capita Property Services Ltd.

  DABMSC/10851

  Capita Property Consultancy

  WS35/806

  Chinooks
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purchase of the MH-47G Chinooks for special operations purposes. [90169]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 December 2002,Official Report, column 692W.

  Close Range Defence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels have recently been fitted with(a) general purpose machine guns and (b) other weapons systems suitable for close range defence. [91237]

  Mr. Ingram
  The majority of Royal Navy vessels are, and always have been, fitted with general purpose machine guns, and also with larger calibre weapons for the purposes of close range defence. The fitting policy for these weapons, including the number of weapons carried by each platform, is reviewed on a regular basis and is subject to change as a result of changes to the threat or operational tasking of the units concerned. The fitting policy of weapons, the numbers and types carried by each vessel and the outcome of any reviews is classified information and I am, therefore, withholding that information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice (Defence. security and international relations).

  Principal deployments

  1998

  RM

  Peacekeeping

  Republic of Congo—contingency deployment for possible non-combatant evacuation

  RM

  Peacekeeping

  Albania—contingency deployment for possible non-combatant evacuation.

  RM

  Anti-Terrorist

  Arabian Gulf—Maritime Interdiction

  RN/RM

  1999

  Peacekeeping

  East Timor

  RM

  Peacekeeping

  Sierra Leone

  RN/RM

  Humanitarian Ops

  Honduras and Nicaragua—Hurricane disaster relief

  RN/RM

  2000

  Peacekeeping

  Sierra Leone

  RN/RM

  Peacekeeping

  Kosovo

  RM

  Deployment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, according to theatre or country, the units of the(a) Royal Navy and (b) Royal Marines deployed on duties determined by (i) the UK exclusively, (ii) NATO, (iii) the European Union and (iv) the United Nations. [91238]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 20 January 2003, units are deployed as follows:

  (i) on UK tasking:

  North Atlantic

  (a) HMS Ark Royal, HMS Ocean, HMS Edinburgh, HMS York, HMS Liverpool, HMS Marlborough, HMS Iron Duke, HMS Grimsby, HMS Ledbury, RFA Fort Victoria, RFA Argus, RFA Sir Tristram. RF.A. Sir Galahad. RFA Fort Austin and RFA Fort Rosalie

  (b) 40 Cdo Gp RM and elements of 539 Assault Squadron RM

  Mediterranean

  HMS Chatham, RFA Brambleleaf, RFA Oakleaf

  Gulf/Indian Ocean

  HMS Cardiff, HMS Cumberland, HMS Bangor, HMS Blyth, HMS Brocklesby, HMS Sandown, RFA Bayleaf, RFA Sir Bedivere, RFA Diligence

  Caribbean

  RFA Blackrover

  South Atlantic

  HMS Endurance, HMS Leeds Castle, RFA Grey Rover

  (ii) NATO tasking:

  North Atlantic

  HMS Dumbarton Castle, HMS Walney

  Mediterranean

  HMS Northumberland, RFA Orangeleaf.

  No vessels are currently deployed on duties determined by the EU or UN.

  In addition, three Royal Marine Protection Teams are deployed. I am witholding the precise location of their deployments and details of the location of deployed UK submarines under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice.

  Deployments
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the principal(a) Royal Naval and (b) Royal Marines deployments on (i) peacekeeping, (ii) anti-terrorist and (iii) humanitarian operations in each of the past five years. [91239]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:
  63W

  Principal deployments

  2001

  Peacekeeping

  Sierra Leone

  RN/RM

  Peacekeeping

  Kosovo

  RM

  Anti-Terrorist

  Arabian Gulf—Maritime Interdiction.

  RN/RM

  Anti-Terrorist

  Afghanistan

  RM

  Anti-Terrorist

  Indian Ocean/Afghanistan

  RN

  Anti-Terrorist

  Gulf/Indian Ocean

  RN

  2002

  Anti-Terrorist

  Afghanistan

  RM

  Anti-Terrorist

  Indian Ocean/Afghanistan

  RN

  Anti-Terrorist

  Gulf/Indian Ocean

  RN

  In addition, Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel have been deployed on operations in support of the civil authorities in Northern Ireland in each of the years in question.

  Dstl Staff
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost of recruiting and training replacements from Dstl staff in Farnborough who are unwilling or unable to relocate to Portsdown Main. [89813]

  Dr. Moonie
  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) at Farnborough are scheduled to move to Portsdown in late 2006. At this stage it is not possible to predict whether any particular member of staff will leave Dstl rather than move to the new site.

  Dstl currently has a low annual turnover of staff and has an effective recruitment and training strategy. Dstl always looks to develop the talents and capabilities of existing staff and would look to existing staff to fill any vacancies at a more senior level, at the same time continuing to recruit and train staff to fill in behind them. Dstl does not therefore envisage a significant increase in such costs attributable to their relocation plans.

  Dstl annually recruits in the region of 100 graduates and indicators suggest it is an employer of choice for science graduates.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the account taken of the views of Dstl staff at the Farnborough site in arriving at the decision to relocate Farnborough staff to Porstdown Main. [89833]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) has been and remains keen to work with staff and trade unions to reduce the impact on staff of their relocation plans. Discussions with TUs have been open and constructive.

  Dstl has completed a formal consultation with TUs together with a series of seminars for staff where the relocation plans were explained and staff feedback requested. These responses were used to inform the series of decisions needed on how best to structure the laboratory in the future. Some suggestions from staff have led to changes to plans, including decisions to move staff to different sites than originally planned.

  Throughout, staff have been encouraged to express their views on Dstl relocation plans. Many have contacted the chief executive directly with questions, to which he has responded personally. CE/Dstl has also
  64W
  given a series of presentations to staff, including question and answer sessions, at sites affected by these plans.

  FA2 Sea Harrier
  Dr Julisn Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current capability of the FA2 Sea Harrier for possible combat in the Middle East. [89882]

  Mr. Hoon
  No decision has been taken to authorise military action against Iraq. As I told the House in the course of my statement on 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 37, HMS Ark Royal is deploying in a helicopter carrier role and is therefore not currently carrying any Sea Harriers.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Royal Naval and (b) other service personnel are on duties associated with the national firefighters' dispute; and if a schedule has been set for their return to normal military duties. [91307]

  Mr. Ingram
  Approximately 19,000 military personnel are available for duties associated with the firefighters' strike. Of these, approximately 3,000 are drawn from the Royal Navy and are employed in both the firefighting and support roles.

  The armed forces role during strike periods has been and will continue to be to provide emergency cover, thus seeking to save lives and ensuring that essential services are maintained. Emergency cover will, as far as possible, be maintained for as long as the strike continues and balanced with other demands on military resources.

  FIST Project
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the development of the FIST project; and what advantages it will offer to infantry soldiers. [84850]

  Mr. Ingram
  The final stage of a competition to choose a Prime Contractor for the Assessment Phase of the Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) programme is currently underway, involving BAE Systems Ltd. and Thales Optronics Ltd. Selection of a single Prime Contractor is planned for early 2003.

  The FIST programme will bring the benefits of enhanced technology to the infantry soldier by providing an integrated suite of equipment. The programme will enhance the mission effectiveness of those soldiers committed to dismounted close combat,

  65W
  particularly in the areas of command and control of information, lethality, mobility, survivability and sustainability.

  HMS Albion
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Albion is expected to become available for operational tasking. [91222]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans, HMS Albion is expected to enter service with the Royal Navy by July 2003. Following operational training, she should be available for tasking in October 2003.

  HMS Nottingham
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if changes have been made to the anticipated(a) repair costs and (b) time out of service for HMS Nottingham since she arrived in the United Kingdom for repairs. [91279]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no changes to the anticipated repair costs and time out of service for HMS Nottingham since she arrived in the United Kingdom for repair.

  HMS Sceptre
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the final nuclear safety justification for HMS Sceptre will take place; and when he expects the submarine to be fully operational. [91032]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 15 January,Official Report, column 638W. The final nuclear safety justification is planned for February 2003. This should permit HMS Sceptre's reactor to be powered up and tested prior to the submarine going to sea for the usual post refit trials and training before she returns to operations.

  HMS Trafalgar
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when HMS Trafalgar is to return to operational service; [91218]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the damage caused to HMS Trafalgar. [91227]

  Mr. Ingram
  The damage to HMS Trafalgar, following her grounding on 6 November 2002, is centred around her forward sonar.

  Surveys to fully scope the damage and assess the necessary repairs are currently being undertaken in Devonport dockyard. These include survey of the forward sonar (the damaged area), a full structural assessment of the forward main ballast tanks, foreplane operating gear, anchor operating gear and associated faired coverings. The surveys are expected to complete by the end of January 2003.

  The opportunity is being taken to combine the repairs with a planned routine maintenance period for the submarine. The overall work programme, which will be informed by the surveys, is expected to take until early
  66W
  2004 to complete. The submarine will then undergo the normal trials and training requirements before returning to the fleet.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the outcome will be known of the boards of inquiry into the accidents involving(a) HMS Trafalgar and (b) HMS Nottingham. [91219]

  Mr. Ingram
  Boards of Inquiry (BOI) into the accidents involving HMS Trafalgar and HMS Nottingham are complete.

  There are no plans to publish the BOI reports into incidents of this nature.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 January, Official Report, column 403W to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood).

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect on the overall capability of the submarine fleet has been caused by the withdrawal of HMS Trafalgar for repairs. [91228]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Trafalgar was due to enter a period of extended maintenance in April 2003. Her withdrawal from service in November 2002 has therefore not had a significant effect on the overall capability of the submarine fleet.

  Low-level Flying (Taunton)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints he has received in each of the last 24 months about(a) the RAF and (b) the USAF and US Navy low flying jet fighters on training runs flying over the Taunton constituency. [83340]

  Dr. Moonie
  The current system of recording complaints about low flying does not include the constituency within which the complainant resides. The nationality of aircraft involved in complaints is not routinely recorded, nor is it envisaged that it should be. The hon. Member may wish to be aware that in the last 24 months the number of individual complaints recorded by the Ministry of Defence Low Flying Complaints and Enquiries unit for all low flying military aircraft in the county of Somerset was as follows:

  Number

  November 2000

  10

  December 2000

  8

  January 2001

  11

  February 2001

  20

  March 2001

  7

  April 2001

  19

  May 2001

  32

  June 2001

  35

  July 2001

  43

  August 2001

  19

  September 2001

  15

  October 2001

  14

  November 2001

  3

  December 2001

  11

  January 2002

  9

  February 2002

  11

  March 2002

  5

  April 2002

  12

  May 2002

  11

  June 2002

  26

  July 2002

  45

  67W

  Number

  August 2002

  30

  September 2002

  30

  October 2002

  10

  Complaints have been recorded by the address given by the complainant. Details of the pattern of military low flying activity by low flying area are included on the Ministry of Defence website under the address www.lowflying.mod.uk.

  Mr. Hook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the ordnance survey co-ordinates for low-level jet fighters training run routes over the Taunton constituency. [83341]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no "training run routes" for low level jet fighters across the Taunton constituency; as part of their training, aircrew are instructed and encouraged to constantly vary their routes in order to maintain the training value. In common with the rest of the United Kingdom, the whole of the Taunton constituency is open to low flying training by military aircraft in order to spread the disturbance as thinly as possible. However, a number of areas are excluded, such as restricted airspace around civil aerodromes, glider sites, certain industrial sites and the larger centres of population (generally towns with over 10,000 inhabitants).

  Royal Navy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what vessels are(a) stationed on Atlantic Patrol Ship (South) duties and (b) assigned to Standing Naval Force Mediterranean duties. [91229]

  Mr. Ingram
  APT(S) is currently gapped because of the commitment to provide emergency fire cover during industrial action by the firefighters' union. Meanwhile the RN contributes to the significant UK presence in the South Atlantic with the Falkland Islands patrol vessel, HMS Leeds Castle, the APT(S) tanker, RFA Grey Rover and the ice patrol ship, HMS Endurance deployed to the region.

  The RN ship allocated to Standing Naval Force Mediterranean (SNFM) is HMS Northumberland having relieved HMS Edinburgh on 19 December 2002. HMS Northumberland was due to join SNFM on 15 January 2003 but will now join the group on 28 January 2003 following an extended period of operational sea training and maintenance.

  Naval Task Group 2003
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which foreign navies will be participating in Naval Task Group 2003; and which foreign warships will be involved. [91519]

  Mr. Ingram
  The French Navy and Italian Navy will participate during part of the Naval TaskGroup 2003 (NTG 03) deployment and have allocated the French Destroyer FS Primauguet and the Italian Frigate ITS Granatiere respectively. Their participation is at the personal invitation of Commander in Chief Fleet and the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff to their respective counterparts. Their integration is considered routine 68W
  business and follows a similar attachment by the French Frigate FS Aconit throughout the Naval Task Group 2000 deployment.

  For completeness, but whilst not strictly part of the NTG 03 deployment, a French Minehunter, FS Cassiopee, will also integrate with the MCM Group deploying to the Gulf region on 20 January 2003.

  NBC Suits
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether defects have been found in Mk IV NBC suits supplied to the Armed Forces; and what inspections are routinely made. [91042]

  Mr. Ingram
  No defect reports have been received regarding the Mk IV NBC suits supplied to the Armed Forces. There is no requirement to carry out routine inspections of the Mk IV NBC Suits, as they are vacuum-packed by the manufacturer for long-term storage. Units are responsible for ensuring the integrity of the packaging before they are issued.

  Oilfields and Fishing Grounds
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Naval units are deployed in the protection of(a) UK oilfields and (b) UK fishing grounds. [91231]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy does not allocate units specifically for the protection of British oilfields. However, RN ships, including those on fishery protection duties, conduct many routine operations and exercises around the United Kingdom throughout the year and any of these ships could be diverted if required to meet a specific requirement. In addition, the fleet ready escort, a frigate or destroyer continuously available at a high state of readiness, is at short notice to respond to any incident in UK waters.

  The RN currently has seven ships allocated to the fishery protection squadron. These ships are deployed in accordance with Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs requirements and conduct fishery patrols throughout British fishery limits, excluding Scottish waters which are covered by the Scottish Fishery Protection Agency. HMS Lindisfarne, Guernsey and Atherstone are currently on patrol.

  Operation Fresco
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what elements of the armed forces have been withdrawn from Operation Fresco for other duties; what units will replace them in each case; what areas of the country each will cover in the event of a firefighters' strike; and how long each unit has been training for fire fighting duties. [91029]
  69W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]The following units and sub units from 16 Air Assault Brigade are to be withdrawn from Operation Fresco once replacements have been trained:

  1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  1st Battalion Royal Irish Regiment

  7th Parachute Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery

  13th Air Assault Support Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps D Squadron Household Cavalry Regiment

  21 Battery, 47 Regiment Royal Artillery

  51 Air Assault Field Squadron, 23 Engineer Regiment.

  An equal number of replacements will be drawn from:

  1 Highlanders

  2 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  1 Worcester and Sherwood Foresters

  9 Supply Regiment Royal Logistics Corps

  16 Regiment Royal Artillery

  12 Regiment Royal Artillery

  32 Regiment Royal Artillery

  27 Regiment Royal Logistics Corps

  Elements drawn from across the RAF.

  Replacement forces began a rolling programme of training on 15 January. They will receive the same training package as those personnel being withdrawn from Operation Fresco duties. All units will have completed their training by 25 January but only those that have completed their training prior to 21 January will be able to assume Operation Fresco duties for a strike that day. Consequently, elements of 16 Air Assault Brigade will remain committed until the full complement of replacements are available to provide emergency cover. This ensures that there will be no diminution of the level of commitment to provide emergency fire and rescue cover nor a reduction in the quality of that cover.

  A direct correlation between the locations of those being withdrawn and the replacements cannot be made. This is because adjustments are being made to the deployment locations of a number of units in addition to those listed above and some of the units will only be deployed on Operation Fresco for a strike on 21 January. There will not, however, be any change in capability at any of the temporary fire stations.

  Pay Review Body
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the appointment of the new Chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body; and if he will take a statement. [91044]

  Mr. Hoon
  The present Chairman, the right hon. Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, does not leave her appointment until spring 2004. The announcement of her successor will be made at the appropriate time.

  RAF Uxbridge
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for RAF Uxbridge. [90342]
  70W
  Mr. Ingram
  As part of the Ministry of Defence Estate London (MODEL) project, it is proposed that the United States Navy (USN) should be offered the opportunity to consolidate its London operations at Uxbridge, in place of the seven sites in the London area it currently occupies. The site would remain the property of Her Majesty's Government. The changes are subject to formal MOD approval procedures, discussions with the USN and the United States approval procedures. Should the USN not participate in the project, the site will be considered for alternative Government use, and if none is found, it is likely that the site will be disposed of.

  Part of the Service Family Housing may be retained for use by MOD Service families. The historic RAF Bunker will be retained separately and preserved as a site of historic interest.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the compulsory retirement age of 60 for some Ministry of Defence employees; and if he will make a statement. [90219]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 January 2003]The Ministry of Defence, like other Government Departments, has recently completed a thorough review of its retirement policy for civilian staff in light of the Government's policy. Some two-thirds of the work force already have the option to work up to the age of 65. The review concluded that our current policy was consistent with departmental needs and that any change, including extending this option to those who currently have to retire at age 60, should be made through the implementation of the legislation on age discrimination that the Government are committed to introduce by 2006. We shall also have regard for the outcome of the consultation on greater flexibility for individuals to work beyond the present retirement age which the Government have initiated in the recently published Green Paper on Pensions.

  Ricin
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library unrestricted information about ricin from the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. [91431]

  Dr. Moonie
  This question has been transferred to me for response because it was Ministry of Defence scientists from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down who have been responsible for the identification of ricin in the recent terrorist alert.

  The Laboratory of the Government Chemist was privatised in 1996 and no longer has any official status. Therefore, in response to your request for unrestricted information on ricin to be placed in the Library of the House, I will make arrangements to place such information from Dstl in the Library. Information on ricin is already available from the Department of Health website.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90534]

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many working days have been lost due to illness in his Department in(a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding five years. [90966]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's sick absence rates for civilian non-industrial staff in the last five years for which MOD data are available, measured in working days absence per staff year, are as follows:

  Days

  1996

  7.9

  1997

  7.9

  1998

  8.0

  1999

  8.8

  2000

  8.8

  Sick absence data for all Government Departments is published in an annual Cabinet Office report, "Analysis of Sick Absence in the Civil Service". Copies of the 1999, 2000 and 2001 reports are available in the Library of the House. However, the 2001 report excludes data for MOD pending the introduction of a new and more accurate statistical reporting system. The 2002 report, which will include MOD data, will be placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  A programme of measures is being implemented to help meet the target in MOD's Service Delivery Agreement to reduce sickness absence to seven days by the end of 2003 (target adjusted following the reorganisation of Government Departments in 2000). MOD is committed to improving the health of its staff and managing sick absence more effectively.

  Shipping (Terrorists)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are in place to protect(a) merchant and (b) naval shipping from terrorist attack. [91235]

  Mr. Ingram
  The threat from terrorist attack is kept under constant review and the Ministry of Defence works closely with other Government Departments on the protection of merchant shipping. The Royal Navy's worldwide Maritime Trade Operations—known as UK MTO arrangements—enable a number of options to be offered in support of merchant shipping, graduated to the prevailing threat. These range from the provision of routine advice and guidance through to naval supervision. The appropriate level of MTO support required in a given area remains under constant assessment. For example, UK MTO arrangements in the Gulf have been enhanced since October 2001 by the establishment of a UK MTO liaison cell in the region. If necessary, higher level Maritime Trade Operations can be implemented very quickly. Information on specific measures to protect naval shipping were provided in my answer to the hon. Member on 15 January,Official Report, column 640W.

  Trident
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the operation and (b) the cost of the Trident submarine fleet in each year since 1997. [91240]

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

  Warships
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which warships are in extended readiness; for how long each ship has been in extended readiness; what the levels of extended readiness are for warships; and if he will make a statement. [91030]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently two Royal Navy warships being held in Extended Readiness, a single readiness state which is not further sub-divided:HMS Montrose, a Type 23 frigate, has been in extended readiness in Rosyth since September 2002, prior to an upkeep package in the dockyard. On current plans she is due to return to Fleet service in March 2004;
  HMS Bridport, a Sandown Class Mine Countermeasures Vessel, has been in extended readiness at Faslane since March 2002.

  Watchkeeper Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Watchkeeper programme; and what extra costs are being incurred by industry bidders in advance of the down select decision. [90335]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Watchkeeper programme seeks to acquire an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) capability which will provide United Kingdom commanders with accurate, timely and high quality imagery. It is a key element of the Government's efforts to develop a truly network enabled capability, so critical to enhancing the ability of our forces to bring military effect to bear in a timely manner. Bids were received from the companies competing for the remainder of the Watchkeeper programme assessment phase in mid 2002, and additional points of clarification were sought from each bidder in December 2002. Any additional costs incurred by the bidders in addressing these outstanding issues are matter for the respective bidders. We plan to announce a decision on down-select as soon as possible.

  West Africa
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the implications of recent unrest in the Ivory Coast for British defence interests in West Africa. [91226]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom is deeply concerned at the situation in Cote d'Ivoire. We continue to work with the French and other partners to support regional efforts to reach a peaceful political settlement. A resolution of the Cote d'Ivoire crisis is essential for stability of the West Africa region. However there are not considered to be any serious implications for British defence interests in West Africa at this time.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Driving Ban
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Solicitor General (1) what guidance is given to magistrates courts on the circumstances in which a driving ban should not be imposed on a motorist who has committed a criminal offence where an automatic disqualification is the normal outcome; in what circumstances a court is given discretion not to impose a ban; and what plans she has to remove the discretionary powers available to the courts. [90366]

  (2) what guidance is given to magistrates courts and crown courts on the circumstances in which driving bans should not be imposed on motorists who have accumulated sufficient points for disqualification; in what circumstances a court is given discretion not to impose a ban; what plans she has to remove the discretionary powers available to the courts; and if she will make a statement. [90367]
  74W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 15 January 2003]In September 2000 the Magistrates' Association implemented its most recent guidance to Magistrates on sentencing. This is a wide ranging document covering various aspects of the Magistrates' sentencing powers. However the guidance it provides in relation to the issues raised in the questions is limited.

  Although it states what the law is it does not necessarily specify in detail how it should be exercised in differing circumstances.

  The main source of guidance for the Magistrates is the relevant statute and case law.

  The current system provides a degree of flexibility to the Courts and allows for sentences to be appropriate to each individual case. There are no plans to remove the discretionary powers available to the courts in this area.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Racism and Xenophobia
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which EU countries(a) racism and (h) xenophobia is a criminal offence; and how it is defined in each case. [91131]

  Mr. Rammell
  Criminal law provisions that explicitly include the prohibition of racist and xenophobic behaviour are in place in all EU Member States.

  The joint action of 15 July 1996, adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union provides a common definition of racist or xenophobic behaviour, referring to public incitement to discrimination, violence or racial hatred in respect of a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to colour, race, religion or national or ethnic origin. However, the interpretation of this definition does vary amongst EU member states. A number of states, including the UK, have also entered significant reservations in regard to this Joint Action in order to protect freedom of speech and to reflect their legal traditions in regard to use of civil law.

  In its definition of racist or xenophobic behaviour, the joint action includes public condoning, for a racist or xenophobic purpose, of crimes against humanity and human rights violations; public denial of the crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 April 1945; public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia; participation in the activities of groups which involve discrimination, violence, or racial, ethnic or religious hatred.

  EU member states are in the process of agreeing a framework decision on racism and xenophobia which will supersede the joint action.

  Afghanistan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence has been collated by his Department on Taliban activity in the Zabul province of Afghanistan. [91160]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following Operation Anaconda in March 2002, we received reports that some residual Taliban elements had moved into Zabul, Paktia and Paktika provinces. Poor security and remoteness continue to hamper aid programmes in Zabul. The Governor of Zabul blames these activities on Taliban remnants.

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much producing his Department's latest Annual Report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90882]
  76W
  Mr. Straw
  Production of the 2002 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Report cost approximately £11,000. which covered design, photography, indexing and proof-reading expenses. Other costs of printing and publication are met by the publishers, The Stationery Office Ltd. (TSO), and do not fall to government. TSO charged the FCO £23,923 for supplying 1,403 copies for distribution to Foreign Office Posts abroad and internal Foreign Office Departments. TSO makes its own commercial decisions on how many further copies to print for sale. To date TSO have sold 351 copies. In London, about 20 copies of the report were provided free of charge to journalists and foreign Embassies. Others accessed the electronic version of the report available on the FCO website. We do not hold information centrally about copies distributed free of charge by Posts.

  Cuba Detainees
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations, including requests to meet with clients, he has had from the legal representatives of United Kingdom citizens detained in Cuba by the United States as suspected members of the Al-Qaeda terrorist group; what representations he has made to his United States counterparts in respect of the application of due legal process to these detainees; what information he has collated on the nature of the charges they face; and if he will make a statement on the compatibility of the conditions under which they are being held with human rights commitments entered into by the United States. [90237]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received representations by the legal representatives and families of the detainees. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the US Secretary of State several times about this issue, most recently on 5 January. Ministers and officials have raised it on numerous occasions with the US Government.

  We continue to encourage the US to move forward with the process of determining the future of the British detainees. We have made our position clear that if they are charged they must have a fair trial. We understand that none have been charged. The US has given assurances that the detainees are being treated humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Conventions. British officials have visited Guantanamo Bay to check on the welfare of the British nationals. I refer my hon. Friend to my Written Ministerial Statement of 11 December 2002, col. 17WS and the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Christine Russell) on 13 June 2002, Official Report, column 1402W.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States concerning the British prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. [91117]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the issue of the British Detainees at Guantanamo Bay with the US authorities, most recently on 5 January, when he spoke to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the distribution of his Department's wholetime equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to him, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90472]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 15 January Official Report, column 609W.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in(a) the Department and (b) each of the agencies it sponsors; and what the figures were for 1997. [90674]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 697W.

  Elections (Pakistan)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether British Government representatives observed the recent Pakistani elections(a) as part of the EU observer team and (b) independently; and whether his policy is on the EU team's criticism of the Pakistani Government's offering financial aid to those political parties it favours. [89586]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We welcomed the holding of multi-party elections in Pakistan. Although there were no formal UK observers, four qualified UK professionals were part of the EU Elections Observation Mission. In addition, we funded 50 per cent. of the costs of the Commonwealth Election Observation Mission which itself had a qualified UK professional as its security advisor. Our high commission in Islamabad also closely monitored developments. We have studied the report of the EU observers with care. The report underlines the need for a concerted effort by the new Government, all political parties and civil society to ensure the establishment of a sustainable form of democratic, civilian rule in Pakistan. We will remain engaged with the Pakistani authorities on this and other key issues.

  Global Partners Agreement
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monies were pledged by the G8, broken down by country, as part of the Global Partners Agreement, known as ten plus ten plus ten; how much has been spent or advanced by each country; what impediments there are to the expenditure and disposition of the global amount; and if he will make a statement. [90690]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Money pledged so far to the G8 `Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction' is as follows (in currency of pledge).
  78W

  Canada: Cdn $1 billion

  France: €750 million

  Germany: €1.5 billion

  Italy: $1 billion

  Japan: $200 million

  Russia: $2 billion

  US: $10 billion

  UK: up to $750 million

  Some countries have begun disbursing money to the Russian Federation and related projects, in particular the US under the Co-operative Threat Reduction initiative. The UK does not have details of expenditure to date by other G8 countries. Many countries are not able to disburse a substantial portion of the funds until there is agreement on a legal framework known as the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme for the Russian Federation (MNEPR).

  The UK has only been able to disburse around £20 million to date, and the continuing absence of either a multilateral or a bilateral agreement constitutes a substantial impediment to expenditure in a number of areas. Once we have the agreements in place we will be able to spend project money very quickly. In the interim, the UK continues to provide assistance to former Soviet Union countries in a number of areas, including safe storage of nuclear submarine fuel and site characterisation work in NW Russia, nuclear safety assistance to Kazakhstan, and measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons expertise from closed nuclear cities in Russia. In addition, the UK is working with other members of the G8 to establish a multilateral instrument to oversee the disposition of Russian weapons-grade plutonium.

  The Government are firmly committed to the Global Partnership and believes the need for co-ordinated non-proliferation work has never been greater.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the details and purpose of the Global Partners Agreement known as ten plus ten plus ten reached between the G8 and the Russia Federation in Canada in 2002. [90691]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On June 27 2002, leaders at the G8 Summit at Kananaskis, Canada, announced the 'Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction'. The details and purpose of the Partnership were set out as follows:"The attacks of September 11 demonstrated that terrorists are prepared to use any means to cause terror and inflict appalling casualties on innocent people. We commit ourselves to prevent terrorists, or those that harbour them, from acquiring or developing nuclear, chemical, radiological and biological weapons; missiles; and related materials, equipment and technology. We call on all countries to join us in adopting the set of non-proliferation principles we have announced today.
  "In a major initiative to implement those principles, we have also decided today to launch a new G8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. Under this initiative, we will support specific co-operation projects, initially in Russia, to address non-proliferation, disarmament, counter-terrorism and nuclear safety issues. Among our priority concerns are the destruction of chemical weapons. the dismantlement of decommissioned nuclear submarines, the disposition of fissile materials and the employment of former

  79W
  weapons scientists. We will commit to raise up to $20 billion to support such projects over the next ten years. We will review progress on this Global Partnership at our next Summit in 2003."

  Guyana
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on levels of criminal and political instability in Guyana; and what recent discussions he has had with the government of that country. [91312]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, is concerned at the political impasse in Guyana, and the rising levels of crime resulting from the deadlock. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) regularly engages with Guyanese politicians to discuss the political situation there, and register concerns on the escalation in crime.

  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, last met President Jagdeo and the leader of the opposition, the late Desmond Hoyte, in April 2002 to discuss the political situation. My noble Friend, Baroness Amos met President Jagdeo four times in the last year in April, May and September and most recently during her visit to Guyana in November 2002. We keep in close contact with Guyanese politicians through our High Commissioner in Georgetown. The FCO is following closely the Commonwealth Secretary General's efforts to mediate between the two parties. The FCO and Department for International Development (DFID) have provided help to assist the Commonwealth Secretary General's efforts to facilitate a resumption of talks between the two parties.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government has had with the government of Guyana on holding their local government elections. [91319]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, has had no direct discussions with the Government of Guyana on holding their local government elections. The local elections in Guyana have been deferred for one year due to the political impasse. The deadlock is a continuing cause for concern. An escalation in crime and violence has further heightened the need for constructive political dialogue to take place.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) regularly engages with Guyanese politicians about the political situation in Guyana. We keep in close contact with Guyanese politicians through our High Commissioner in Georgetown.

  Indonesia
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia following the prohibition of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community from practising their religion by local authorities in the Kuningan Regency; and if he will make a statement. [90958]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Government condemns the persecution of individuals because of their faith. We regularly impress on the Indonesian 80W
  authorities the importance of upholding and promoting human rights and religious freedoms throughout the country.

  Our Embassy in Jakarta has reported that the local authorities carried out the banning order in Kuningan Regency and it is unclear whether central government in Jakarta is aware. Our Ambassador has written to the Department for Religious Affairs to request further information.

  International Law
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on taking action under international law and conventions against Governments who starve their own people. [91265]

  Mr. Rammell
  States Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognise the right of individuals to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food. They undertake to take steps to the maximum of their resources to achieve progressively the full realisation of this right. They are obliged to report every five years on the implementation of such obligations to a UN Committee monitoring the treaty. That Committee gives a public view about a State Party's record of implementation. The Covenant does not provide for other international action where a State Party might be considered to be in breach of the Covenant. But the international community can address this in appropriate for a such as the UN Commission on Human Rights in order to defend international standards.

  Iran
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the terms are of the UK arms embargo on Iran. [91571]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) by the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr Lloyd) on 28 January 1998,Official Report, column 273–74.

  Iraq
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluation he has made of the ability of the UN oil for food programme to continue in the event of war in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [91123]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq and military action is not inevitable. The future of the oil for food programme in the event of any military action would depend on the circumstances at the time. The UN is preparing for all eventualities.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to his US counterpart regarding the protection of water and sanitation supplies in the event of military intervention in Iraq; [91124]
  81W
  (2) what representations he has made to his US counterpart regarding the protection of food security in the event of military intervention in Iraq. [91125]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq and military action is not inevitable. We regularly discuss all aspects of Iraq policy with our US colleagues.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what parts of the Iraqi document on weapons of mass destruction of 8 December 2002 were released to the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council; and what the response has been of those non-permanent members. [91345]

  Mr. Rammell
  Under relevant non-proliferation conventions, China. France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America are obliged to prevent the dissemination of information relating to the production of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

  The President of the UN Security Council therefore decided that the full Iraqi declaration should be given only to these members of the Security Council, who also have the expertise to assess the risks of proliferation. His decision followed consultations with all members of the Security Council.

  The non-permanent members received the main body of the Declaration excluding a number of sensitive passages and words that were omitted by UNMOVIC and the IAEA who, after consulting the Security Council members with expertise to assess the risks of proliferation, judged them to contain information which might be of use to potential WMD proliferators.

  Several non-permanent members have expressed a wish to see the complete declaration. There continues to be discussion on whether arrangements should he made to enable non-permanent members to consult a copy of the full Declaration.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what procedures the United States gained first access to Iraq's document of 8 December 2002 on weapons of mass destruction. [91346]

  Mr. Rammell
  Under relevant non-proliferation conventions, China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America are obliged to prevent the dissemination of information relating to the production of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

  The President of the UN Security Council therefore decided that the full Iraqi declaration should be given only to these members of the Security Council who also have the expertise to assess the risks of proliferation. His decision followed consultations with all members of the Security Council.

  ISAF
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he and the international community have to extend ISAF beyond Kabul. [90908]
  82W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are currently no plans to adjust ISAF's mandate. UNSCR 1444, adopted unanimously on 27 November 2002 following discussions among UN Security Council members, extends the existing ISAF mandate until 20 December 2003. As defined in UNSCR 1386 of 20 December 2001, this authorises ISAF to operate in Kabul and the surrounding area only.

  Israel
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the number of(a) British citizens and (b) foreign nationals who have been (i) denied entry to Israel and (ii) deported from Israel over the last two years.[91572]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  (a) (i) The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not keep statistics of British citizens denied entry to Israel.

  (ii) We do, however keep records on British nationals deported from Israel, which show that 12 British citizens have been deported from Israel in the last two years.

  (b) The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not keep details of other foreign nationals denied entry to, or deported from, Israel.

  Jamaica
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many additional staff are being posted to Kingston, Jamaica to deal with applications for visas to visit the UK from Jamaican nationals. [91341]

  Mr. Rammell
  Five additional staff members have been posted to Kingston.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [90861]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Over 20 staff are currently job sharing. All Foreign and Commonwealth Office jobs are, in principle, open to job share unless the nature of the work prevents this. To aid placement a register is held on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Intranet, containing details of staff looking to job share.

  Job sharing is only one of a number of alternative and flexible working patterns in use at present. Other arrangements include staggered hours, flexi-time. home working, school working hours, term-time working and time off in lieu. We currently have 142 part timers—an increase of 35 per cent. since last year.

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to advance co-operation between the UK and Italy on combating organised crime. [91538]
  83W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In addition to regular and ongoing contacts with Italian partners the UK has appointed law enforcement liaison officers to our Embassy in Rome. These liaison officers work closely with the Italian law enforcement agencies and similar agencies in the region to disrupt and dismantle organised crime gangs involved in the illicit drugs trade, people trafficking and tobacco smuggling into the EU, particularly the UK.

  Italy is leading on judicial reform in Afghanistan. The UK, which leads on counter narcotics, is working closely with them on updating Afghanistan's drug laws.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90546]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of days per employee lost due to illness in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2002 and each of the five preceding years is as follows.

  Number of days per employee

  2002

  5.7

  2001

  6.6

  2000

  6.3

  1999

  N/A

  1998

  8.0

  1997

  8.9

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1997 to 1998 have been uplifted to account for different recording practices in different parts of the Department and its overseas posts.

  2. Figures for 1999 could be provided only at disproportionate costs, as the method of recording changed part way through 1999.

  3. FCO figures are recorded as total days (not working days).

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many working days have been lost due to illness in his Department in(a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding five years.m [90968]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) today (UIN 90546).

  UK Prisoners (Saudi Arabia)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Saudi Arabia concerning the seven United Kingdom citizens recently imprisoned on alcohol charges. [92055]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and Ministerial colleagues have raised the cases of the British men detained in Saudi Arabia at the highest levels with the Saudi authorities. We remain deeply concerned about these cases. The men's welfare is our paramount concern. We continue to work tirelessly to resolve these cases. We are in close contact with the Saudi authorities and the men's lawyers. We also continue to make consular visits to the men.

  UN Resolutions
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which UN resolutions relating to(a) Turkey, and (b) Israel remain to be enforced; and what action the Government have taken to ensure their enforcement. [91344]

  Mr. Rammell
  Several UN Security Council resolutions (for example 365 (1974) and 367 (1975)) have called for Turkey's withdrawal from Cyprus since the invasion in 1974. The Government support the ongoing, UN-led process to resolve the Cyprus problem.

  Israel has not complied in full with UN Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1402 (2002) and 1435 (2002). But these resolutions also contain provisions calling on parties other than Israel to take certain action (for example agreeing a cease-fire, recognising Israel's sovereignty). We continue to support all efforts to resume the Middle East Peace Process, including through the work of the Quartet, of which the UN is a member.

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the UK has exercised its veto in the UN Security Council in each year since 1990; and on what issues. [91605]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK has not exercised its veto in any of the years in question.

  Women's Rights (Afghanistan)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Afghanistan concerning women's rights in that country; [90906]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the interim Government of Afghanistan concerning the abuse of women's rights in that country. [91119]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are in regular contact with the Afghan Transitional Administration about a range of human rights-related issues, including the need to ensure full respect for women's rights. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary highlighted the importance of progress in these areas at the Petersberg Conference in December 2002, which was attended by President Karzai. I raised our concerns with the Afghan Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah, Minister for Rural Reconstruction Hanif Atmar, and Chair of the Afghan Human Rights Commission Dr. Sima Samar when they visited the UK in October 2002.

  The Afghan Minister for Women, Habiba Surabi, will visit the UK in February for talks with Ministers and officials on how to improve the situation for women in Afghanistan.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Reform
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures he plans to take in relation to his proposals for European Union institutional reform, to strengthen the contacts between national parliaments of the EU. [91003]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have made a range of proposals in the Convention on the Future of Europe to strengthen the role of national parliaments in the EU, including on considering EU legislative proposals for compliance with subsidiarity. Such an increased role should help to strengthen contacts between national parliaments of the EU.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 18 December 2002,Official Report, column 835, what rules he is applying in respect of the release of the names of UK companies named in Iraq's declaration to the United Nations as supplying arms or weapon-making technology or material to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [91330]

  The Prime Minister
  Information provided to us by UNMOVIC is done so in confidence, for the UK authorities to take appropriate action.

  The task of analysing the Iraqi declaration is continuing. It would be wrong to conclude without such further analysis that companies whose names appear may have acted wrongfully. The premature publication of the names of individuals or companies that may appear in the declaration could therefore unjustifiably damage the reputations of such individuals or companies. Any evidence of wrongdoing disclosed by the Iraqi declaration will be vigorously investigated by the relevant authority and, where appropriate, further
  announcements may be made.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral Answer of 15 January 2003, Official Report, column 680, to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), what the evidential basis was for his statement that the decision to seek an injunction is one for the Attorney General rather than the Government. [91864]

  The Prime Minister
  The Attorney General has the power to apply to the courts for an injunction to prevent threatened criminal offences taking place. Under the common law, only the Attorney General can make such an application, because the courts have recognised that he represents the public interest before them. The power

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Wales and West

  17,168

  16,203

  14,071

  12,254

  13,097

  Home Counties

  11,643

  10,996

  10,477

  9,697

  6,514

  London and South East

  15,292

  12,899

  11,359

  10,520

  9,316

  Midlands

  11,113

  9,160

  8,834

  8,138

  7,494

  Yorks and North East

  11,926

  11,292

  10,996

  8,421

  8,862

  North West

  12,368

  11,171

  10,915

  10,631

  8,952

  Scotland

  10,970

  8,784

  8,477

  8,204

  8,372

  Totals

  90,480

  80,505

  75,129

  67,865

  62,607

  86W
  is exercised in his independent judgment in that role rather than as a member of the Government. This is the long-established position in relation to functions the Attorney General exercises in the public interest. In 1951 the then Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, said:
  "The responsibility for the eventual decision rests with the Attorney General, and he is not to be put, and is not put, under pressure by his colleagues in the matter. Nor, of course, can the Attorney General shift his responsibility for making the decision on to the shoulders of his colleagues. If political considerations which in the broad sense that I have indicated affect Government in the abstract arise it is the Attorney General, applying his judicial mind, who has to be the sole judge of those considerations". [Hansard, 29 January 1951, volume 483, column 683].

  Although that was said in the context of prosecutions for criminal offences, it has been accepted by successive Governments ever since, that the same applies to the power to apply for an injunction.

  Palestine Peace Conference
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Palestine Peace Conference hosted in London on 14 January. [91964]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made on 15 January 2003,Official Report, columns 25–26WS.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Prime Minister which department is responsible for the delivery of its public service agreements. [91166]

  The Prime Minister
  Each public service agreement includes a statement of who is responsible for delivery of the targets.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Health and Safety Executive
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he has made an assessment of trends in the number of inspections carried out by local offices of the Health and Safety Executive since 1997. [84777]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information asked for is not readily available. However, the number of inspection contacts made by each of the divisions within HSE's Field Operations Directorate (FOD) since 1997 is in the table:
  87W
  The decrease in the numbers of inspections is directly related to the increasing number of investigations (of both incidents and complaints) and the complexity of those investigations. Investigations take much longer than inspections and so it is inevitable that more investigations mean fewer inspections. HSE has also taken action to increase their other preventive work including seminars, conferences and awareness days.

  Health and Safety Strategy
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether his Department and its agencies have met the commitment arising from Action Point 13 of the June 2000 strategy statement on Revitalising Health and Safety, to summarise health and safety performance and plans in annual reports from the year 2000–01 onwards; [89517]

  (2) which senior officials within his Department and its agencies take responsibility for health and safety at board or equivalent level; and where their names are publicised; [89518]

  (3) what information he has collated on the application to his Department and its agencies of the checklist, circulated by letter by Sir Richard Mottram, referred to under Action Point 12 of the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy statement; and if he will make a statement. [89519]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In accordance with Action Point 14 of the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy, a High Level Forum (HLF), comprising representatives from all main Government Departments to provide leadership on health and safety management issues within the civil service was established in January 2001. On behalf of this group, Sir Richard Mottram circulated the ministerial checklist referred to in Action Point 12 in July 2001. In August 2002, HLF issued a Good Practice Guide to all Departments and their agencies reminding them of the current legal requirements that they should meet and setting out a number of basic aims which they should look to have in place. These included having in place a Health and Safety Policy Statement, a nominated Board member with responsibility for Health and Safety, a report on health and safety performance in annual reports (Action Point 13) and a properly structured health and safety management system linked to adoption of the ministerial checklist (Action Point 12) and the Health and Safety Executive's guidance Successful Health and Safety Management (HSG 65).

  The High Level Forum is currently reviewing progress made by Departments in the adoption of the checklist and guidance.

  Within the Department for Work and Pensions a new Health and Safety Policy Statement was signed in October 2001. This is implemented through a structured health and safety management system, and in particular though Statements of Internal Control.

  As with all Departments, the Permanent Secretary takes overall responsibility for health and safety. At departmental board level the Director of Human Resources has been given particular responsibility and, in addition, Jobcentre Plus, the Department's largest agency with some 85,000 staff has appointed a full-time
  88W
  Director of Safety. The DWP departmental report published in May 2002 sets out the new arrangements including the resetting of baselines against which rigorous targets for reductions in work-related accidents and ill health can be set. Details of progress against these targets will be published in future reports.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of each edition of leaflets that his Department has produced addressing the issue of married women's reduced rate national insurance contributions since 1973. [91090]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply. I have done so today.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts and Culture (Expenditure)
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what decisions have been taken on the distribution of the £257 million, designated to arts and culture under the 2002 spending review; and what proportion will be allocated to(a) heritage buildings and (b) the historic environment. [90408]

  Dr. Howells
  Allocations for the spending review period have been made to all the Department's sponsored bodies and other programmes, and these will be set out in the Department's annual report. 5 per cent. of the Spending Review uplift has been allocated to the architecture and historic environment budget line, building on a baseline of £152 million.

  Cricket
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much financial support for cricket has been provided this financial year by agencies and organisations which she funds. [91756]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England makes substantial contributions to the funding of cricket, the majority of which is for grass-roots development. 2002–03 funding for cricket to date has totalled approximately £13,036,030, of which £205,000 was Exchequer funding.

  Cricket World Cup
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to hold further discussions with the ECB regarding the Cricket World Cup; and what discussions she has had with other Governments whose cricket teams are participating in the Cricket World Cup. [91941]

  Mr. Caborn
  With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I met representatives of the England and Wales Cricket Board on 9 January. There are no further meetings scheduled. However, as my right hon. Friend made clear to the ECB, the Government will respond fully to requests from cricket for advice on the security and other issues raised by the Cricket World Cup.
  89W
  DCMS Ministers have had no discussions with the Governments of other nations participating in the World Cup. Such discussions are matters for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the distribution of her Department's wholetime equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to her, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90476]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon Friend to the answer given by my hon Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 609.

  Namely that the numbers of staff in each department (including its agencies) are shown in tables copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The figures show the data at the 1 April each year, and are based on the full-time equivalent figures for the number of permanent staff in each department, rounded down to the nearest ten. Data are shown by Government office region, with columns giving the total number of staff in England and the UK.

  Film Makers
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding from her Department and its agencies is available to British independent filmmakers. [90996]

  Dr. Howells:
  In April 2000 my Department set up the Film Council which distributes lottery funds to support the British film industry. In the financial year 2001–02 it received just over £33 million of lottery money for this purpose.

  In addition to providing support for training and other initiatives, it runs three principle production funds to which British film makers can apply: the Premiere Fund, the New Cinema Fund, and the Development Fund.

  Hotel Development (London)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what targets her Department has set for hotel development in London; and what assessment she has made of performance against them. [91379]

  Dr. Howells
  Good progress has been made towards the targets set in, and subsequent to, Tomorrow's Tourism for hotel development in London. The Government consider that further capacity, including budget accommodation, is still necessary. However, responsibility for tourism matters in London is now devolved to the Mayor and the London Assembly. The Mayor's recently published strategy document, 'Visit London', addresses accommodation supply and more specific proposals for futuredevelopment will be included in the forthcoming 'Action Plan'.

  Hotels and Guesthouses
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department has taken to introduce a grading scheme for hotels and guesthouses; and what assessment she has made of them since their introduction. [91380]

  Dr. Howells
  The harmonized National Quality Assurance Schemes (NQAS) for hotels and guesthouses were successfully launched in September 1999. The English Tourism Council has co-ordinated various forms of ongoing assessment at an operational level, including the reaction of both industry and consumers. The Government consider that more emphasis is also required on improving quality at the bottom end of the scale and will pilot a new fit for purpose initiative to address the problem of unsatisfactory hotels and guesthouses. Total membership has of the harmonized schemes has risen, with benefits in occupancy levels for members, but not as much as had been hoped. Therefore, a two-stage review of NQAS is being planned. The first stage will start very soon and consider harmonizing the schemes across Great Britain. The second will relate to England and look at matters such as the efficiency of inspections and the level of promotion.

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who the suppliers are of her Department's(a) paper and (b) paper products. [91906]

  Dr. Howells
  All paper purchased for use in photocopiers, printers and fax machines is recycled paper and is supplied by contracted stationery supplier Corporate Express. Other paper products and print are sourced wherever the specific contract dictates and where best value for money can be obtained.

  Rugby
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance she will provide(a) to the Rugby Football League in helping promote supporters trusts within rugby league and (b) to rugby league clubs wishing to establish supporters trusts. [91981]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS established Supporters Direct in 2000 to assist groups of supporters in forming and administering club-based trusts. Supporters Direct's remit covers Association Football only, and it is funded from football sources. In response to requests from supporters and clubs, Supporters Direct has provided informal assistance in the formation of trusts at a number of rugby league clubs over the last year. Officials in the Department are in discussion with Supporters Direct and others with a view to formalising this arrangement, and to providing Supporters Direct with the additional resources it will need to provide a high quality service to rugby league.

  Tourism
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will list the organisations and individuals attending the Tourism summit in(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002; [91372]
  91W
  (2) what measures her Department is taking as a result of the Tourism summits in (a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002; [91371]

  (3) when her Department held Tourism summits in (a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002. [91373]

  Dr. Howells
  The first Tourism summit of pan-Government Ministers and other key players in the tourism industry was held on 1 March 2000. Three subsequent summit meetings have been held on 6 March 2001, 5 March 2002 and 26 November 2002. The final reports of the first three summits held, which include details of the organisations and individuals that attended these meetings, are available on the DCMS website (www.culture.gov.uk/tourism). The reports also record the progress made in implementing the various aspects of the Government's strategy for tourism and the key conclusions and actions arising from the meetings to assist the development of tourism. The report of the fourth summit, held on 26 November 2002, is currently being cleared for publication with attendees. It will also be available shortly on the DCMS website.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent measures her Department has taken to support regional tourism; and what assessment she has made of those measures. [91374]

  Dr. Howells
  As announced on 31 October 2002, the Regional Development Agencies will, from 1 April 2003, play a stronger part in the strategic leadership of tourism and the Regional Tourist Boards will be their natural partners. The RDAs will receive at least £3.6million for each of the next three years to distribute to the RTBs for activity in line with regional tourism strategies and within the national policy framework for tourism. Guidance has been issued to RDAs on how tourism should be covered in their Corporate Plans and Regional Economic Strategies; Corporate Plans for 2003–06 are currently being submitted to Government for approval. The RDAs will also be represented on the board of the new national tourism body, whose initial chairman has been announced as Sir Michael Lickiss, who until recently chaired the South-West RDA.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department has taken to regenerate traditional tourist(a) resorts, (b) amenities and (c) services. [91375]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government consider not just regeneration of traditional tourism but also the generation of new activity, in line with developing consumer tastes, to be hugely important. Building on Government strategy in Tomorrow's Tourism, the English Tourism Council published 'Sea Changes', which outlines recommendations for successful regeneration of England's traditional resorts. A key point is that tourism may well play an important role in resort regeneration, but will rarely be the sole source of a sustainable local economy. Local government recognises the importance of tourism and its document 'A Change of Scene', which this Department supported, sets out many useful ideas for dealing with tourism-related regeneration. The Government's view is that local government has a key role in improving and supporting the regeneration of resorts, amenities and services, as do the regions, the private sector and its 92W
  trade associations, and many central government departments. In line with Tomorrow's Tourism, much progress has been made, including, for instance, initiatives on accommodation quality (including the lower end of the market) and programmes to improve bathing water standards and beach amenities (now better than ever before). Local Authorities are well aware that other services they provide, such as visitor information or the provision of litter services, contribute significantly towards the creation of attractive environments and lead to improvements in visitor experience. Our recently announced new emphasis on domestic marketing and the regional dimension to tourism strategy, will help stimulate focus on the importance of maintaining high quality amenities and services for tourism across the country, including our traditional resorts.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department has taken to develop niche tourism markets, broken down by type; and what assessment she has made of those measures. [91376]

  Dr. Howells
  Recent BTA campaigns have been themed around Britain's key strengths of great heritage, great countryside, great sport and great cities. The BTA evaluates the impact of its campaigns in the overseas markets in which they run. A new overseas strategy will advance this approach further by introducing market-specific campaign themes and marketing tools.

  We anticipate that the England Marketing Advisory Board will consider introducing similarly focused campaigns for the domestic market, in due course.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department has taken to integrate the promotion of British cultural heritage and countryside attractions. [91377]

  Dr. Howells
  Britain's cultural heritage and countryside are key attractions for overseas visitors. The BTA uses strengths such as these to develop its campaigns, such as one on Cities for 2003 and another on Outdoor Britain for 2004.

  We anticipate that the England Marketing Advisory Board will consider introducing, in due course, campaigns for the domestic market which are similarly focussed on our key strengths.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many employers in the hospitality and tourism-related sector have been signed up under her Department's towards the Investors in People standard since 1999. [91382]

  Dr. Howells
  An action point in the 1999 strategy document Tomorrow's Tourism was for a hospitality industry programme to sign up 500 employers to work towards Investor in People standard to help raise the quality of training in the industry. Latest available figures show that the number of hospitality organizations
  93W
  recognised as achieving Investors in People status has increased from 865 in September 1999 to 1,215 in August 2001. In addition, 957 organisations were signed up to working towards the accreditation in August 2001.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when in the last 12 months her Department held a careers festival and image campaign to raise the profile and promote the image of careers in the hospitality industry; and how much was spent. [91383]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department works pro-actively with Springboard UK the specialist industry body responsible for promoting career opportunities in the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism industry. They hold Career Festivals every 12–18 months. The last Festival was held in October 2001 and this Department contributed £15,000 towards two magazines focussing on careers in the sector which were launched at it. No Festival was held in 2002. We are currently working with them on their fourth Careers Festival taking place From 31 March to the 6 April 2003 and my Department is represented on the Festival Executive Committee. The Festival is intended to help build a more positive image of the sector and raise awareness of the range and diversity of career prospects within the industry.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what steps her Department has taken to develop internet systems to deliver worldwide tourist bookings and provide information on attractions and travel options; [91385]

  (2) what steps her Department has taken to encourage the provision of computerised tourist booking and information services. [91384]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2002, Government awarded £3.6 million to the EnglandNet project to develop a world class on-line tourism network for England. EnglandNet will provide quality-assured tourism information and empower tourism businesses to sell their product through new electronic outlets.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial assessment she has made of her Department's overseas visitors promotion programme in each year since 1997–98. [91386]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourist Authority, which is responsible for promoting Britain overseas, evaluates its activities, and results show that, for every £1 of baseline grant-in-aid awarded to the BTA by the Department, the following amounts in additional expenditure by overseas visitors have been generated:

  £

  Spend

  1997–98

  28

  1998–99

  27

  1999–2000

  29

  2000–01

  30

  2001–02

  26

  94W
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department has spent on developing its overseas visitors promotion programme in each year since 1997–98. [91387]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourist Authority, which is responsible for promoting Britain overseas, has been awarded baseline grant-in-aid by the Department as follows:

  Year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Grant (£million)

  35

  35

  36

  37

  35.5

  In addition, £14.2m was awarded in 2001–02 and a further £19m in 2002–03 from the reserve in order to drive forward a strategy to help tourism recover from the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak and the attacks of 11 September.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives her Department has developed to widen access to tourism for people who do not take a long holiday. [91388]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS works with both the industry and relevant bodies to encourage ways of making tourism accessible and more inclusive to these groups which tend not to take long holidays. Initiatives developed by the English Tourism Council (ETC) and Regional Tourist Boards include the enhanced National Accessible Scheme, the creation of an accessible website and the Access 21 project which are aimed at helping people with disabilities take holidays. Other examples of relevant initiatives include the recently launched website, Just Me and the Kids, which gives information to help single parent families plan holidays in Lancashire; the launch of a North West Marketing Kit and a destination manager handbook, currently being worked on by ETC, both of which outline the benefits to the industry of creating an inclusive environment.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she has taken to publish a blueprint for the sustainable development of tourism. [91389]

  Dr. Howells
  The English Tourism Council (ETC) published Time for Action, a strategy for sustainable tourism in England, in April 2001. The British Tourist Authority published Sustainable Tourists, a strategy for the sustainable growth of inbound tourism to Britain, in October 2001.

  Tourism (England)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department has taken to establish a strategic national body for the English tourism industry. [91381]

  Dr. Howells
  Since the announcement in October last year of plans for reform of the Government's support for tourism, the chairs of the English Tourism Council and British Tourist Authority have led a restructuring of the strengths and skills of both organisations into a lead national tourism body to be launched in April 2003. A policy group comprising representatives of all sectors of the tourism industry is overseeing their progress. The
  95W
  new body is designed to provide a more efficient service to promote inbound tourism to Britain and to market tourism in England to the domestic market.

  Tourism (London)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent by her Department on marketing London tourism in the last 12 months. [91378]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2002–03 my Department will grant aid the Greater London Authority £1.9 million in respect of its statutory tourism responsibilities, of which £1.5 million is specifically for marketing London as a tourist destination, both in its own right and as a gateway to the UK regions. In addition, London has benefited from the £54.5 million grant-in-aid to the British Tourism Authority in 2002–03 for the promotion of Britain abroad.

  World Heritage Status
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the UK's nominations for world heritage site status in 2003. [91520]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement regarding the UK's 2003 nomination for world heritage site status by the end of this month.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the European Commission about the compatibility with the EU Animal By-Products Regulation of her proposals to allow the composting of catering waste and its spreading on land. [89621]

  Margaret Beckett
  The UK was involved at all stages of negotiation of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation, and we consider our proposals on the composting of catering waste are in line with the requirements of that legislation, although we have asked the Commission for clarification on one point. We have also notified them or our proposals under the Technical Standards Directive.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce the Government's conclusions following her Department's consultation on changes to the Animal By-Products Order 1999 to allow the composting of catering waste and its spreading on land. [89622]

  Margaret Beckett
  The consultation period on the composting of catering waste closes on 12 February 2003. Taking into account the comments received in the consultation exercise, the final Statutory Instrument will be amended, made and announced as soon as possible thereafter.

  Animal Sales
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what initiatives she intends to take to encourage the use of alternatives to animal markets by direct sales, internet and video links. [90257]

  Mr. Morley:
  The development of marketing channels for farm animals is principally a matter for the livestock and meat industries. Through its support for the Red Meat Industry Forum the Government is helping these industries in finding ways to improve the red meat supply chain.

  Capital Assets
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, further to her answer of 17 December 2002 [85010], what the value is of the capital assets held by the Environment Agency that can be classed as(a) land and buildings and (b) plant and machinery. [88411]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Environment Agency has supplied the following figures for the value of its capital assets as at 31 March 2002:

  £000

  Land and buildings

  1,768,025

  Plant and machinery

  109,355

  Other—including assets under construction

  84,831

  Total

  1,962,211

  Civil Servants (Leadership Review)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) terms of reference, (b) purpose and (c) timescale are of her Department's leadership review. [91054]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]The leadership review flows from the Joint Strategic Review of Defra, carried out by the Department jointly with the Office of Public Service Reform. The Joint Strategic Review examined how Defra operated, and identified both the strengths it could build on and the areas it needed to improve to become a high-performing Department. This included a study of the kind of leadership Defra would need. The purpose of the leadership review is to: (i) develop and introduce a 'leadership profile' for Defra staff from top down to G7; (ii) implement a programme of Development Centres and supporting coaching based on the leadership profile and which also builds on earlier leadership development; (iii) focus future learning on supporting the change in culture and performance identified by the Joint Strategic Review; (iv) help individuals reduce any gaps between current and desired skills and competencies; and (v) generate a culture of learning within Defra so that staff outside the target group are properly supported in their own learning and development.

  A pilot Development Centre is scheduled to run in March 2003, with rollout across Defra from April 2003, and completion planned for July 2004. Following

  97W
  attendance at the centre participants will undertake coaching and other training for a period of at least a year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria she will use to assess the performance of civil servants subject to her Department's leadership review. [91051]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]Defra has developed a leadership profile, which will be used to assess individuals participating in its leadership development programme. It describes the skills and behaviour required to be an effective leader.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who will carry out the assessments of civil servants under her Department's leadership review. [91052]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: The leadership development programme is being managed by the Department's Human Resources function. A consultancy has been selected to design and deliver the programme.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many officials, at which grades, will be subject to her Department's leadership review. [91053]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]All 150 members of the senior civil service in Defra will participate in its leadership development programme, as will other managers in Grades 6 and 7 who occupy leadership roles in the Department, some two dozen and 380 respectively. Others in specialist and technical roles who aspire to senior management positions may also choose to participate. The number of officials participating is therefore approximately 560.

  Coastal Defence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what budget has been allocated to(a) create and (b) maintain the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database; how much has been spent and is planned to be spent in each financial year; and if she will make a statement. [89636]

  Margaret Beckett
  Defra is meeting the full external costs of developing the database by way of contributions to the Environment Agency. Up to and including the current financial year, this has amounted to some £2.2 million.

  Management and on-going maintenance will be funded from normal operating budgets of the Agency. The Business Case anticipates that there will be a significant net gain from the expected savings in improved efficiency of data management and operational activities.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which organisations have access to the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database; what plans she has to allow further access; and if she will make a statement. [89743]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Environment Agency advise that the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD) is now available to staff within the EA and 98W
  will subsequently be made available to all other operating authorities with responsibilities for Flood and Coastal Defence as well as to Defra and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) terms and (b) objectives are of her Departments' contract with Scisys for the provison of the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database. [89682]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Department has no contract with Science Systems Ltd. SciSys is one of the Environment Agency's Framework Partners for provision of IT Systems Development and Support. The objectives of the contract for the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD) are for the development and subsequent support of Phase One and Two of the system.

  Mr. Lidington:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports she has received from (a) the Environment Agency, (b) Coastal Defence Groups, and (c) Coastal Protection Authorities about the implementation of High Level Targets 6a and 6b; and what action has been taken to inspect coast protection assets in pursuance of High Level Target 6A. [89761]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: A number of coastal groups, on behalf of coast protection authorities, have submitted reports on inspection programmes and assessments of coastal erosion risk as required by High Level Target 6; no such reports are required from the Environment Agency. However it has been recognised that it would be useful to develop a methodology for a more consistent approach to the assessment of coastal erosion risk. To that end Defra will be forming a working group with representatives from the coastal groups to consider what research is needed, and the outcome will inform future reports for this High Level Target.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what proportion of(a) England and Wales by area, (b) coastline in England and Wales and (c) properties at risk of flooding information is now available on the national flood and coastal defence database. [89635]

  Margaret Beckett:
  Information on flood defences for the coastline of England and Wales and all main rivers is available in the national flood and coastal defence database (NFCDD) to staff within the Environment Agency. General flood plain information on properties at risk is available by inclusion in NFCDD of the indicative maps.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when final testing for Phase One of the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database was completed; what progress has been made with Phase Two; and if she will make a statement. [89637]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Environment Agency have confirmed that Phase One of the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD) has been successfully tested within the EA, but testing with the other operating authorities is not yet complete. The
  99W
  development of Phase Two of the NFCDD is currently being completed and is planned to be implemented in the EA and available to the operating authorities, together with Phase One, by June 2003.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money was spent by the Environment Agency on(a) flood protection and flood management and
  (b) coastal defence in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03; and if she will place in the Library an analysis by project of each year's expenditure. [90629]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: Expenditure by the Environment Agency in England for managing flood risk from main rivers and the sea is:

  £ 000s

  2000–01(actual)

  2001–02 (actual)

  2002–03 (forecast)

  259,462

  307,771

  349,128

  I regret an analysis of the above by (a) flood protection and flood management and (b) coastal defence, together with an analysis by project of each year's expenditure, could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the distribution of her Department's wholetime equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to her, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90474]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 15 January,Official Report, column 609W.

  Documentation
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answers of 16 December:2002,Official Report, column 576W and the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 18 December 2002, Official Report, column 801W, if she will make a statement on the reason underlying the number of copies of the document (a) printed and (b) distributed; and what the cost of its production and distribution was. [89765]

  Mr. Meacher
  We arranged for 5,000 copies of the consultation document to be printed because we believed this would be a sufficient number to allow distribution to all stakeholders with an interest in the issues set out in the document. The 5,000 figure also allowed for the Department to retain sufficient copies which could be distributed to members of the public who made direct requests for copies.

  1,400 copies were handed out at the Urban Summit, where the consultation was launched. Over 2,000 copies were initially sent out to local authorities, police, businesses, trade associations, Government Departments
  100W
  and a variety of other agencies and bodies. We sent a copy to all bodies known to have a direct interest in the outcome of the proposals set out in the consultation. The majority of the remaining copies have since been sent out to people who made direct approaches to the Policy Team in the Department and the Department's publications section.

  The total cost of production of the Defra consultation document was £12,000. Initial distribution was handled by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister when it published its own document, "Living Places—Cleaner, Safer, Greener". The initial distribution cost for the two documents was £5,241.50.

  Drainage Boards
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the local drainage boards for England and Wales and (b) the budget of each board for (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02, (iii) 2002–03, (iv) 2003–04 and (v) 2004–05. [89623]

  Margaret Beckett
  A list of drainage boards wholly or partly in England, together with income and expenditure figures for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02, have today been placed in the Libraries of the House. Information for later years is not yet available, as this is submitted on an annual basis. Flood defence is a fully devolved responsibility and the information related to boards in Wales should be sought from the National Assembly.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the future of local drainage boards. [89624]

  Margaret Beckett
  The current institutional arrangements for flood and coastal defence are currently being considered in the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review. While, along with ministerial colleagues, I am currently considering the conclusions of the review, I would expect to see a continuing role for internal drainage boards as, whatever future arrangements evolve, the Environment Agency could not take on all the essentially local work done by the Boards. It will, however, be necessary to ensure that, under future arrangements, the Boards are structured in such a way that they can deliver their responsibilities and duties effectively.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what sums she has allocated in the current financial year and in each of the next three years for(a) the costing and training and (b) early retirements expected to arise from her Department's leadership review. [91050]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: £7 million has been allocated over the next three years for the leadership development programme. £429 thousand has been set aside for the current financial year. The profile of expenditure for individual years has yet to be agreed within the Department. The leadership review will combine development and some assessment. Most people who go through the Development Centres will continue to work in Defra, making use of a leadership development programme which will follow up training

  101W
  and development needs identified at the centres. For some, it is expected that the results will encourage them to seek early retirement. To meet that eventuality, £3 million, £7 million and £7 million have been earmarked over the next three financial years respectively. There are no staff reduction targets or estimates of the numbers likely to leave Defra following participation in the leadership development programme.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) duration of and (b) reasons for the recent suspension of public access to the Environment Agency's website. [89617]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Environment Agency's website suffered problems in its service between 1–6 January. This was primarily because of the excessive load during that period and in spite of previous testing to ensure that flood incident loads could be met. A number of technical changes have now been carried out to improve the site's performance.

  While this reduction in service was regrettable, the agency's website is not the primary means of providing flood warning. The main flood warning systems operated effectively, including the agency's Floodline telephone service, automatic voice warning systems, news media information and direct manual warnings in flood warned areas.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports she has received from the Environment Agency in pursuance of its duty under High Level Target 5b. [89746]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Agency has provided a draft report under this target for 2001–02 but information in it is still being validated between the Agency and the Local Government Association.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much public money(a) was and (b) is planned to be allocated to the Environment Agency for each year from 2000–01 to 2005–06 in respect of (i) flood protection and flood management and (ii) coastal defence. [90630]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: The two sources of public funding to support the Environment Agency's work in England in managing the risk of flooding from main rivers and the sea are levies on local authorities as agreed by Flood Defence Committees and grant for specific capital projects and contributions to national initiatives provided by Defra. The former are reimbursed to a large extent by funding to local authorities from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). Figures for public monies allocated in the current and two past years are:

  £million

  2000–011

  2001–021

  2002–032

  Defra capital grant for specific projects and contributions to national initiatives

  41.9

  61.5

  70.0

  Local authority levies

  214.6

  233.6

  247.8

  Total

  256.5

  295.1

  317.8

  102W
  I regret an analysis of the above by (a) flood protection and flood management and (b) coastal defence could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  For future years, provision is:

  £ million

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Defra capital grant for specific projects to all operating authorities and contributions to Agency national initiatives1

  126

  129

  154

  ODPM funding to support local authority levies to the Agency and their own spend on management of flood and coastal erosion risk

  295

  332

  382

  1For all flood and coastal defence operating authorities—the Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards.

  I cannot be more specific about these years as Defra capital allocations and local authority levies are still being decided for 2003–04 and have not been considered at all yet for the later years.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria are used by the Environment Agency to decide which flood defence assets to inspect in accordance with High Level Target 4. [89742]

  Margaret Beckett:
  High Level Target 4 relates to the development of the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database and does not require the inspection of any flood defence assets.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) flood defence assets, (b) main rivers and (c) critical ordinary watercourses were inspected by the Environment Agency during (i) 2001–02, and (ii) 2002–03, in accordance with High Level Target 5a. [89744]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Agency has provided a draft report under this target for 2001–02, but information in it is still being validated between the Agency and the Local Government Association.

  The report for 2002–03 is not due until April 2003.

  Mr. Lidington:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she has received the Environment Agency's report on flood warning service standards, due in September 2002. [89611]

  Margaret Beckett
  High Level Target 2 requires the Environment Agency to report to Defra annually in April on achievement of their flood warning service standards. The latest report to Defra, covering April 2001 to March 2002, was published in May 2002 and I am therefore not expecting a further report until April 2003.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what objectives she has set the Environment Agency to improve its performance in meeting its two hour flood warning target. [89740]
  103W
  Margaret Beckett
  All High Level Targets are to be reviewed this year, including those relating to flood warning under target 2.

  Flood Prevention
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the national assessment of flood risk. [89634]

  Margaret Beckett
  This Department, as an aid for planning by all flood and coastal operating authorities, commissioned research to produce a national appraisal of the assets at risk from flooding and coastal erosion in 1999. The results were published in July 2000 and an update version was published in September 2001. Further research on large scale risk assessment has since been carried out under the joint Environment Agency/ Defra research programme in flood management and results of the first phase of this work have been applied to the latest information collated for input to the national flood and coastal defence database. The results of this research application which take account of updated estimates of property flood damage from other research are currently being compiled and reviewed. They will be made available once the necessary quality checks have been completed. It should be stressed that the new research methodology is at the leading edge of developments in risk analysis at this scale so the results will have to be interpreted with some caution.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the most recent meeting was between Ministers in her Department and the Association of British Insurers to discuss flood prevention; and if she will make a statement. [89633]

  Margaret Beckett
  The most recent meeting was on 17 September 2002 following which the ABI issued their Statement of Principles to apply from 1 January 2003. There are also regular discussions between my officials and the ABI.

  Flooding
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions there have been within the last six months between the Environment Agency and the insurance industry on the relationship between flood defence provision and the continuation of insurance cover for property owners against the risk of flooding. [89628]

  Margaret Beckett
  There has been regular discussion between the Environment Agency and the insurance industry on this subject during the last six months, which contributed to the announcement in September 2002 by the Association of British Insurers of their Statement of Principle, and there has subsequently been a continuing dialogue between the ABI and the EA on the information to be provided.

  Foot and Mouth
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will instruct her Department to make payments on account to Mr. Houldey of Granthouse, Berwickshire, a sub-contractor of Peter Boddy Ltd. [88502]
  104W
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether animal grazing will be permitted in 2003 on sites used for mass burning of carcasses during the foot and mouth epidemic. [89807]

  Mr. Morley
  Each site used for mass burial will be reviewed. As a general rule, where the ash has been removed or buried in accordance with Defra and Environment Agency/SEPA guidelines, and where the sites have been fully reinstated, there are no overriding reasons why grazing should not be permitted this year.

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The Department has no contractual relationship with Mr. Houldey of Granthouse, Berwickshire. No entitlement to payments on account arises. Financial matters pertaining to the commercial relationship between Peter Boddy Ltd. and their sub-contractor, Mr. Houldey, are entirely their responsibility, as is normal in any contractual relationship of this kind.

  Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89864]

  Alun Michael
  The Department's annual return of actual and suspected fraud and corruption submitted to HMT for the year 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 showed the following:

  Total cost (£)

  Core-DEFRA

  99,744

  Agencies

  226,11

  Non-departmental public bodies

  N/A

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many seizures of illegally imported meat were made at(a) Stranraer and (b) Cairnryan in each year since 1999. [90406]

  Mr. Morley
  No seizures of illegally imported meat made at Stranraer or Cairnryan have been reported to DEFRA. HM Customs or the Scottish Executive. These ports handle internal United Kingdom traffic from Northern Ireland, and vessels do not use them as their first point of call in the European Union.

  Lake Pollution
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of lakes in the UK are designated as polluted. [91122]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency does not monitor all lakes in England on a routine basis but takes action where there is evidence of a water quality problem.
  105W
  A study commissioned by English Nature in the 1990s showed that 46 per cent. of lakes designated as sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) showed nutrient enrichment. This can affect water quality in some circumstances.

  English Nature are carrying out condition reassessments on these SSSIs. Results will be available later this year.

  Since this is a devolved matter, this reply relates to England only.

  Meat Hygiene
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the costs to British abattoirs of complying with(a) the official feed and food control regulations and (b) the arrangements for blood storage and disposal included in the Animal By-Products Regulations. [89616]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Commission has not yet made proposals on charges to abattoirs for health inspections but we have made plain our preference for the existing structure and levels of meat hygiene charges. With respect to disposal of blood, officials are working with industry representatives to achieve satisfactory outcomes both in terms of regulatory requirements and the ability of industry to change existing practices at minimum cost and disruption.

  Mineral Water
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her latest estimate is of the number of litres of bottled mineral water consumed in the UK, in the last period for which figures are available. [91002]

  Mr. Morley
  It is estimated that 741 million litres of mineral water were consumed in the UK in the 12-month period starting in April 2001. This estimate is based upon records of consumer purchases from the Expenditure and Food Survey.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what use her Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when such usages were last reviewed. [87738]

  Alun Michael
  Postcoded data are used extensively by Defra and the Countryside Agency in the collection and publication of data on rural services. Postcoded data are not used for categories(b) and (c).

  Research Contract
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the organisations who(a) were invited to tender and (b) tendered unsuccessfully for the research contract which was awarded to MCM Research Ltd. [91306]
  106W
  Alun Michael
  Five organisations in total were invited to tender. These were the University of Birmingham, University of the West of England, Ken Dibble Acoustics, Symonds Group and MCM Research Ltd. All the organisations except the University of Birmingham submitted tenders and all but MCM Research Ltd. were unsuccessful.

  RIMNET3
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what research has been conducted by or for her Department on the effectiveness of RIMNET3; [90229]

  (2) what role her Department has in the maintenance and running of RIMNET3; and what changes have taken place and are planned to this system. [90228]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA is the lead Government Department with responsibility for the co-ordination of the UK response to overseas nuclear accidents. RIMNET3 will replace the existing RIMNET (Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network) system which was developed and put in place in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. DEFRA is responsible for ensuring the operation and maintenance of the RIMNET system but all Government Departments and Agencies with responsibilities to respond to an overseas nuclear accident have access to the system and each is individually responsible for negotiating support and maintenance contracts with the prime support contractor (Siemens).

  The RIMNET3 supply, support and maintenance contract was let to Logica plc in 1992 following an international competitive tender exercise. As RIM NET3 is not yet operational, the support and maintenance provisions have not yet been implemented and no research has been undertaken on its effectiveness in use. However, the RIMNET Co-ordinating Committee brings together representatives from the appropriate Government Departments and Agencies and all their requirements have been reflected in the design and development process. RIMNET3 will deliver all the functionality of the existing RIMNET system on more up-to-date technology and using commercially available software. There is a planned "technology refresh" during the 10-year life of RIMNET3 and any required improvements identified through regular testing of the system and through the extensive programme of domestic and international emergency exercises, will be implemented as appropriate.

  School Fruit Scheme
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will fund the provision of organic fruit to school children as part of the national school fruit scheme. [88255]

  Mr. Meacher
  The national school fruit scheme will entitle every child aged 4 to 6 to a free piece of fruit each school day from 2004. The scheme is currently being expanded to all eligible schools through large scale pilots on a region by region basis with funding of £42 million from the new opportunities fund.
  107W
  Since most organic fruit is currently imported, direct funding of the provision of organic fruit would result in increased imports at least in the short-term. However, we shall assist growers to respond to the consumer demand for organically produced fruit by means of a conversion aid which it is intended will start later this year.

  Sheep (EU Regulations)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the farming industry on the proposed EU Draft Regulations on the double-tagging of sheep; and if she will make a statement. [91418]

  Mr. Morley
  The main industry associations with an interest in these proposals have been consulted and we await their views. In addition. we have received a number of representations from individuals in the industry expressing concerns over the potential impact of the proposals on their businesses.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has received on the animal welfare implications of the use of distance-readable tags proposed in the EU Draft Regulations on sheep tagging; and if she will make a statement. [91419]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU proposals do not provide for distance-readable tags but do require tags to be applied on a place easily visible at a distance. We shall be seeking views on the proposals from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, other animal welfare organisations and from Government veterinary officials.

  Sheep Tagging
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the European Commission's draft regulations for the tagging of sheep. [89614]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Government support the European Commission's objectives to improve sheep and goat identification and traceability in order to control the spread of animal diseases.

  However, the Commission's proposals in their present form could cause practical problems for the UK sheep industry. The Government will be negotiating to try and ensure that that the eventual Regulations are both workable and enforceable, and that the timescales for implementation are realistic.

  Sulphur Emissions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to encourage power plants to reduce their SO2 emissions and to increase the use of flue gas desulphurisation systems. [90458]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]Power plants are currently regulated under the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) regime. IPC is established by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and regulates industrial pollution through a system of 108W
  permits. Operators are required to demonstrate that they would be carrying out the Best Available Techniques not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC) for their activities before being issued an authorisation to operate. BATNEEC is applied to prevent, and where that is not practicable, to minimise releases of substances to air, water and land.

  Authorisations set strict limits for sulphur dioxide emissions for the given power plant. In demonstrating the use of BATNEEC the operator would be required to consider techniques that would reduce emissions (including the application of flue gas desulphurisation). Each application is considered on a case by case basis, but all applicants must demonstrate BATNEEC.

  IPC is being superseded by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regime, established by a Directive of the same name (EC/96/61). Existing power plants will be regulated by IPPC from 2006; new plants or those undergoing substantial change will be required to apply for an IPPC permit with immediate effect. Operators are required to demonstrate that they use the Best Available Techniques (BAT) for their activities prior to a permit being issued. Again, permits will include limits on sulphur dioxide emissions.

  Sustainability
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to promote understanding that the actions of UK citizens have global consequences and to introduce the principles of sustainability into local communities. [90459]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are committed to raising awareness among UK citizens of the global consequences of their actions. For example, through our Environmental Action Fund we are assisting voluntary groups to run projects on education for sustainable development aimed at adults, schools and communities. DEFRA also directly supports a range of bodies that promote sustainable living, production and consumption. These include the Energy Saving Trust which works on energy efficiency, the Carbon Trust which supports technological innovation and encourages more efficient business working practices, and Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS), an umbrella organisation which encompasses all the activities undertaken by the Tidy Britain Group and Going for Green. ENCAMS works with community groups, local authorities, businesses and other partners to promote sustainable development at the local level, with a particular focus on local environmental quality and anti-social behaviour

  Our communications directorate are currently developing a new communications strategy on sustainable development. They will be considering all aspects of communications, including the use of the internet, media relations and paid publicity. We intend to seek stakeholder's views on proposals later in the year.

  Since 2000 the Local Government Act has placed a duty on local authorities to prepare community strategies for promoting the economic, social and environmental well being of their communities and contributing to sustainable development in the UK. The Government's

  109W
  statutory guidance on community strategies says that community strategies should articulate how global concerns can be addressed through local action.

  Tallow
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the notification and results of tenders to dispose of tallow produced under the over-thirty-months scheme. [90842]

  Alun Michael
  The tender exercise for the disposal of stored tallow from the over-thirty-months (slaughter) scheme is currently being considered by the Rural Payments Agency. Discussions with individual tenderers are taking place to determine likely quantities and availability and it is expected that decisions on successful bidders can be made shortly. Once determined, the results will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Teleworking
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the impact of teleworking on rural communities. [91540]

  Alun Michael
  Modern communications technology which enables people to work from home can bring economic benefits to rural communities, and especially to those remote rural communities which do not have good transport links to urban centres, which might otherwise be denied to them. Higher bandwidth internet links will help with this and the Government are committed to extending the availability of broadband to rural areas, through for example the work of the UK Broadband Task Force, so that more businesses will be able to reap the benefits.

  Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the planned timetable is for implementing the Water Framework Directive in the United Kingdom. [88434]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Directive itself sets out the timetable for its implementation, which we are following. Among the key dates are: that it must be transposed into domestic legislation by 2003; that that the characteristics of water bodies must be analysed by 2004; that river basin management plans must be published by 2009; that programmes of measures must be made operational by 2012; and that key environmental objectives must be met by 2015.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Appointments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [87395]
  110W
  Jane Kennedy
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 608W.

  Child Pornography
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been charged with offences arising out of information from the US authorities passed to the PSNI concerning child pornography in the last 12 months. [85685]

  Jane Kennedy
  One person has been charged with offences at the present time

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for Northern Ireland to follow practice in Great Britain with respect to the sectoral skills support for the construction industry through merging the support services relating to electrical, plumbing and building services. [91778]

  Jane Kennedy
  Unlike the situation in Great Britain plumbing and building services in Northern Ireland are within the scope of the Construction Industry Training Board (NI) which is a non-departmental public body established under the Industrial Training Act with the purpose of encouraging training and careers within the construction industry. The board is empowered to collect a statutory levy from companies within its scope

  Electrical skills are outside the scope of the board. The electrical contracting sector is facilitated in Northern Ireland by the Electrical Training Trust (ETT) a voluntary body. These arrangements represent the wishes of employers in the various sub sectors of the local construction industry as expressed in consultation.

  The Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA), a UK wide organisation established with the support of the devolved administrations, is working with the construction sector to form a sector skills council which will represent the industry in relation to skills issues. The Northern Ireland Construction Industry Training Board and Electrical Training Trust are involved in that work.

  Employment Programmes
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to create(a) employers' forums and (b)job assist centres for the four areas targeted for special action regarding employability. [91779]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 16 December I launched the report of the Taskforce on Employability and Long-Term Unemployment and announced my intention to pilot Targeted Initiatives as a new approach to tackling these issues in four areas. As part of the pilot arrangements the Department for Employment and Learning will implement the commitment in the Taskforce report to put in place a local consultative process in each targeted area. This process will actively involve employers whose support will be a key factor in helping people overcome their barriers to employment and find work. A range of measures, including a model Job Assist Centre, will also
  111W
  be put in place in each area. My officials are currently developing the arrangements necessary for the implementation of these initiatives.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the costs per participant are on(a) the Northern Ireland Employment Support Programme and (b) the Workstep programme in Great Britain. [91850]

  Jane Kennedy
  The costs per participant on the Employment Support programme in Northern Ireland were approximately £5,500 in 2001–02, the latest year for which figures are available. This figure includes the wage subsidy paid to employers to take account of the disabled workers assessed output and the fee paid to the sponsor organisations that deliver the programme on behalf of the Department.

  The costs per participant on the Workstep programme in GB in 2001–02 were £3,800. This amount is paid at a flat rate to delivery organisations with no account taken of the level of wages paid or the severity of the disability of the worker.

  The delivery mechanism and funding arrangements for the Employment Support programme in Northern Ireland are presently under review and a public consultation was carried out at the end of 2002.

  Fair Trade Criteria
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what fair trade criteria he sets when deciding upon what suppliers to use. [89917]

  2002–03

  2003–04

  District council

  Derating element

  Resources element

  Derating element

  Resources element

  Antrim Borough Council

  903,353

  0

  854,416

  0

  Ards Borough Council

  844,826

  1,076,102

  874,079

  1,024,975

  Armagh City and District Council

  621,005

  2,211,802

  658,360

  1,770,367

  Ballymena Borough Council

  1,059,536

  0

  1,082,962

  0

  Ballymoney Borough Council

  352,906

  1,009,866

  315,008

  1,026,368

  Banbridge District Council

  494,331

  1,040,650

  469,018

  935,925

  Belfast City Council

  6,725,784

  0

  6,502,085

  0

  Carrickfergus Borough Council

  335,689

  794,967

  532,007

  37,686

  Castlereagh Borough Council

  927,808

  0

  870,779

  0

  Coleraine Borough Council

  535,519

  0

  526,582

  0

  Cookstown District Council

  648,720

  562,700

  661,712

  947,132

  Craigavon Borough Council

  2,272,601

  64,592

  2,502,081

  0

  Derry City Council

  1,471,380

  630,064

  1,370,102

  1,207,414

  Down District Council

  449,410

  2,071,040

  435,010

  1,680,731

  Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council

  1,183,627

  646,353

  1,189,591

  1,053,781

  Fermanagh District Council

  696,275

  751,104

  671,874

  1,450,609

  Larne Borough Council

  463,838

  0

  523,808

  140,964

  Limavady Borough Council

  115,888

  1,011,770

  131,137

  1,273,410

  Lisburn City Council

  1,783,040

  0

  1,706,646

  0

  Magherafelt District Council

  622,630

  1,137,254

  631,281

  1,420,561

  Moyle District Council

  144,224

  559,866

  158,893

  600,636

  Newry and Mourne District Council

  1,020,266

  3,145,676

  1,121,110

  1,908,614

  Newtownabbey Borough Council

  1,731,125

  0

  1,836,130

  0

  North Down Borough Council

  578,326

  0

  560,867

  0

  Omagh District Council

  558,686

  850,293

  609,335

  1,411,497

  Strabane District Council

  333,306

  1,908,898

  375,739

  2,082,330

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the percentage change in rates will be for each district council during 2003–04 compared to 2002–03 as a result of changes to the general grant
  112W
  Mr. Pearson
  There is no government-wide approach to the procurement of Fairtrade products. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made clear, the Government are committed to supporting ethical trading wherever possible and provides significant support to the Fairtrade Foundation's efforts in promoting the supply and marketing of Fairtrade products.

  Catering in the Northern Ireland Departments is contracted out to private sector service providers and it is primarily a matter for them as to where they procure the goods which they require. The Department of Finance and Personnel has facilitated War on Want NI by jointly organising with them an event at Parliament Buildings to promote the aims and objectives of the Fairtrade Campaign.

  All of the major catering service providers to the Northern Ireland Departments attended the event and it was acknowledged as being very successful in raising awareness of Fairtrade issues within the Northern Ireland catering supply chain.

  General Grant
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the general grant will be allocated to each district council in 2002–03; and how much he estimates will be allocated to each district council during 2003–04. [90761]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The estimated general grant allocated to each district council for the financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04 are set out in the table:

  formulae; and what transitional arrangements will be made to moderate the effect of the changes in the local government general grant formulae to those councils for which funding has been reduced. [90762]
  113W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The level of district rates fixed each year is a matter entirely for individual councils. While the general grant contribution is a significant factor in the calculation of the rates, councils determine estimated expenditure and corresponding income. It would not be possible, therefore, for the Department to anticipate percentage change in rates year on year.

  The Department is currently considering how those councils that are adversely affected under the new formula for distribution of the resources element of general grant might be assisted in the coming period.

  Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the grants funded by his Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if he will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs. [82187]

  Jane Kennedy
  (a) The Total of such funding in the last Financial Year (1 April 2001–31 March 2002) was £426,124,585.43.

  (b) The Total number of Awards was 55,880 a.

  (c) The Administrative costs were 125,881.22 b.

  A full list of grants has been placed in the Library.
  a Figures were not available for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.b Figures were not available for Department of Education. Department of Finance & Personnel, Department of the Environment, Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister; Department of Enterprise Trade & Investment, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Health Social Services & Public Safety and Department of Culture Arts & Leisure.

  Lisburn-Antrim Railway Line
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if a decision has been made about the future of the Lisburn to Antrim railway line. [91643]

  Angela Smith
  The future of rail services on the Lisburn to Antrim line has been uncertain since the Railways Task Force produced its report in September 2000. The Consolidation Option in this report included the mothballing of the Lisburn to Antrim line when the line from Antrim to Belfast via Bleach Green junction reopened. Subsequently the Northern Ireland Assembly, in its budget of December 2000, agreed to provide funding for railways on the basis of the Consolidation Option. Since taking office I have been giving careful consideration to the future services on this line. On the basis of the data available the case for the continuance of regular services on this line is not compelling. I am awaiting receipt of a further economic appraisal on an option for the line. It is my intention to make a written statement on this matter in the near future. Clearly, that statement will be informed by the additional economic appraisal and made against the backdrop of competing transportation priorities in Northern Ireland.

  Luigi Marotta
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors were taken into consideration before granting the compassionate leave from prison to Luigi Marotta. [90309]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service had concerns about the likelihood of Marotta absconding and had initially refused temporary release. Following judicial review and directions by the court to reconsider this decision in the light of the recent implementation of human rights leglisation, the decision was reversed. Prior to release a sum off £150k was required to be lodged as surety by Marotta's solicitors.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who authorised the compassionate leave from prison of Luigi Marotta. [90310]

  Jane Kennedy
  The authorisation was given by the Operations Directorate of the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospect of obtaining the extradition of Luigi Marotta from Paris. [90311]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It is not Government policy to comment on whether an individual is being sought for fear of hampering any investigation

  MLAs
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research facilities for MLAs are available at Parliament Buildings, Stormont. [89437]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There are currently no research facilities available for MLAs at Parliament Buildings, Stormont. The Office Costs allowance, which continues to be paid to MLAs, is to help fund constituency offices including research assistance.

  I have received representations regarding the provision of the research facilities at Parliament Buildings which I am currently considering.

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints have been received by the Police Ombudsman's office since its inception; how many complaints have been(a) processed and (b) upheld; how many PSNI officers have been suspended; what is the average length of suspension from duty of PSNI officers during investigation by the Ombudsman; and how many reports arising from complaints received and processed by the Ombudsman have been passed to the Director of Public Prosecution. [86457]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Ombudsman has advised me that the number of complaints received since the inception of the office to the end of November 2002 is 7,362. The number of complaints processed and closed' is 6,106 and 1,256 complaints are current. The Police Ombudsman has passed 211 cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Chief Constable, who has responsibility for the suspension of any police officers,
  115W
  has advised me that 11 officers have been suspended as a result of investigations by the Police Ombudsman. The average length of suspension during investigation by the Police Ombudsman is 21.6 weeks.
  1Complaints are closed under categories listed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabularies and "upheld" is not a category listed

  Pre-school Places
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide funding for all preschool places proposed, through the PEAGS scheme, by the South Eastern Education and Library Board for the year 2003–04. [90620]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education has received proposals for the funding of pre-school places in 2003–04 from each education and library board's Pre-school Education Advisory Group (PEAG), and all will be considered in the context of identified needs and available financial resources. In particular, consideration of proposals for places in the voluntary sector must take into account the anticipated decline in the size of the pre-school age group in 2003–04. The Department is currently working on financial allocations to the Boards for 2003–04 and these will be notified to them shortly.

  Prisoners
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made about the likelihood of a prisoner absconding prior to granting compassionate leave from prison; and if he will make a statement. [90307]

  Jane Kennedy
  An assessment is made in all cases of temporary release of the risk a prisoner poses of absconding. This takes account of all relevant issues including previous criminal history, the length of time served, the police view, behaviour in prison and any assessments carried out by professional staff.

  PSNI
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to maintain a band and music tradition in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [90308]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland has indicated its intention to stand down the current Police band on 31 March 2003. The Chief Constable has no proposals to maintain a full-time formal band and music tradition beyond this date.

  An invitation has however been extended to the present band members asking them to consider forming an association where they would come together on a voluntary basis, both to rehearse and carry out engagements. The PSNI has made it clear that it would support the officers if they wished to form a voluntary association perhaps by making available the current instruments, other equipment and some financial support.

  Student Religion
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the religious breakdown is of students studying at(a) Queen's University Belfast and (b) the University of Ulster. [90020]

  Jane Kennedy
  The latest information available relates to the 2001–02 academic year. Religion is only recorded for NI domiciled students at the NI Higher Education institutions and the breakdown of religion for the University of Ulster and Queen's University Belfast is shown in the table:

  NI domiciled students enrolled on courses at Northern Ireland

  Higher Education institutions by religion 2001–021

  Institution

  The Queen's University of Belfast

  University of Ulster

  Total

  Protestant

  4,715

  5,797

  10,512

  Catholic

  6,113

  8,628

  14,741

  Other

  1,084

  602

  1,686

  Not known/available

  5,634

  2,585

  8,219

  Total

  17,546

  17,612

  35,158

  12001–02 data is provisional

  Source:

  HESA dataset

HEALTH

  Number of Trainee Doctors
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students in the United Kingdom were training as doctors in(a) 1972, (b) 1982, (c) 1992 and (d) 2001. [84657]

  Mr. Hutton
  In autumn 2002, the United Kingdom medical school intake was 6,740, an increase of over 1,675 than in autumn 1997. This is an increase of 33 per cent, between 1997 and 2002. Intake is planned to be over 7,050 next autumn, the highest figure ever which would be an increase of 39.5 per cent, over 1997.

  We do not have data relating to the total number of students in medical schools, training to qualify as doctors. We are able to provide the actual UK intake to medical schools, per academic year, for the years in question. This information is shown in the table:

  Academic year

  UK intake

  1972–73

  13,123

  982–83

  4,154

  1992–93

  4,449

  2001–02

  6,115

  1 In 1972–73, the figure is for Great Britain only. It excludes Northern Ireland.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of amublance staff retired early due to ill health in the latest year for which figures are available. [85768]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally, but may be available from individual National Health Service ambulance trusts.
  117W
  The number of staff who have taken a retirement pension since the establishment of ambulance trusts, is 1,645, to November 2002. The number of ambulance staff in service at September 2001 was 16,920.

  "Human Bodies, Human Choices"
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses he has received to the consultation document "Human Bodies, Human Choices"; and if he will make a statement. [90635]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has received 214 responses to the consultation document "Human Bodies, Human Choices". A further 17 responses have been received by the Welsh Assembly Government, with whom the document was published. The Department is currently analysing the responses. A summary report of the consultation workshops and national conference, as well as the written responses, will be published shortly. New legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

  Adoption and Children Act
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to local authorities in respect of section 116 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. [91135]

  Jacqui Smith
  A local authority circular is being prepared in respect of section 116 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which amends section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to make it clear that local authorities' powers under this section include providing help with accommodation. It will be issued shortly.

  Advisory Committees on Training
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the proposed abolition of advisory committees on training by the European Commission. [88174]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are concerned that the advisory committees on training have fallen into disuse. The Commission has proposed in the draft Directive on Recognition of Qualifications to replace them with a single committee to cover all professions. We will seek clarification of how this committee will function to ensure that public safety concerns and health training issues are fully taken into account. We will continue to address this matter in the European Union working group.

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much producing his Department's latest Annual Report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90883]

  Mr. Lammy
  The total cost to the Department of producing the 2002–03 Departmental Report was £31,668. This included £21,185 for design, typesetting and artwork and a further £10,483 for the cost of the 118W
  copies ordered by the Department. However The Stationery Office (TSO) met all the remaining costs for printing and publication.

  This year over 1,000 copies of the 2002–03 Departmental Report were printed.

  TSO have indicated that so far 395 have been sold at the cover price of £19.50. A total of over 670 copies were provided free of charge.

  The report is also freely available on the internet at www.doh.gov.uk/dohreport.

  Anti-smoking Campaign
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the likely changes that will take place in the next five year totals of(a) male and (b) female smokers as a result of the ban on tobacco advertising and the future use of nicotine replacement therapies and Zyban. [90215]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The Government have set the following targets in reducing smoking:
  To reduce smoking among children from 13 per cent., the 1996 figure, to 11 per cent., by 2005 and 9 per cent., by 2010.
  To reduce adult smoking in all social classes so that the overall rates falls from 28 per cent., the 1996 figure, to 26 per cent., by 2005 and 24 per cent., by 2010.
  To reduce the percentage of women who smoke during pregnancy from 23 per cent., the 1995 figure, to 18 per cent.. by 2005 and 15 per cent., by 2010.
  Smoking rates among manual groups will be reduced from 32 per cent., in 1998 to 26 per cent., by 2010.

  The priorities and planning framework (PPF), published on 2 October 2002, set out the priorities for the next three years for the national health service and social services and described what local organisations and communities need to do to plan for and implement the improvements.

  Two of the targets set in the PPF drive the existing programmes to tackle smoking.

  In the cancer section:
  "Reduce the rate of smoking, contributing to the national target of: reducing the rate in manual groups from 32 per cent., in 1998 to 26 per cent., by 2010; 800,000 smokers from all groups successfully quitting at the 4 week stage by 2006"

  In the Reducing Health Inequalities section:
  "Deliver a one percentage point reduction per year in the proportion of women continuing to smoke throughout pregnancy, focussing especially on smokers from disadvantaged groups as a contribution to the national target to reduce by at least 10 per cent., the gap in mortality between "routine and manual" groups and the population as a whole by 2010, starting with children under one year."

  These changes will be delivered through a comprehensive tobacco control strategy, including an advertising ban and the provision of nicotine replacement therapy and Zyban. It is estimated that banning tobacco advertising and promotion will result in a 2.5 per cent., reduction in tobacco consumption, eventually saving up to 3,000 lives a year.
  119W
  In the short term, the ban will save 1,500 or more lives a year.

  Capacity Planning
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the results of the work undertaken by strategic health authorities on behalf of PCTs concerning capacity planning, and if he will set out the national and regional level data arising from the franchise plans produced by strategic health authorities. [88564]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information drawn from the capacity planning process—which is not yet complete—will form part strategic health authority local delivery plans. These plans are based on the new planning framework, Investment, Expansion and Reform, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Child Medicine (Consultants)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants in child medicine are employed in the NHS. [89927]

  Mr. Hutton
  Paediatricians treat general childhood conditions. There are a number of other specialties that specialise in the treatment of specific childhood conditions.

  The following table shows the number of consultants, employed in the national health service in England, in child and adolescent psychiatry, paediatric surgery and within the paediatric group.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health

  Services (HCHS):

  Specialties of consultants in child medicine

  England at 31 March 2002

  Numbers (headcount)

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  480

  Paediatric surgery

  120

  Paediatrics group, of which:

  General paediatrics (including paediatric neurology)

  1,530

  Paediatric cardiology

  50

  Paediatric dentistry

  20

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the community psychiatric nurses employed between 1995 and 2000 were working directly in(a) primary care GP practices or health centres and (b) secondary or tertiary care settings. [89924]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of qualified nurses working in community psychiatric care who are employed by secondary and tertiary care organisations is shown in the table. These nurses work across the range of care settings. Information on nurses employed by general practitioner practices and health centres is not collected centrally.
  120W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS):

  qualified community psychiatric nursing staff in England as at

  30 September each year

  Headcount

  1995

  8,564

  1996

  9,333

  1997

  9,736

  1998

  10,231

  1999

  10,552

  2000

  11,080

  2001

  12,224

  Note:

  Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census.

  Complaints (Doctors)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require the General Medical Council to publish information on the number of complaints against doctors currently unresolved which indicates those outstanding for more than(a) six and (b) 12 months. [90898]

  Mr. Hutton
  The General Medical Council (GMC) has met its target, set in July 2000, that 100 per cent. of cases referred from the preliminary proceedings committee to the professional conduct committee were heard within a year.

  The GMC is an independent statutory body which derives its powers from the Medical Act 1983. The Secretary of State has no power to require the GMC to publish such information. Data on the work of the fitness to practise directorate is available on the GMC website and the GMC will, of course, respond to specific queries.

  Consultants
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of hospital consultants in(a) Doncaster (b) Yorkshire and (c) England do not undertake private work. [89115]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not collect information centrally about the proportion of consultants undertaking private practice. However, the Department collects statistics about the contractual status of consultants. While these statistics do not represent an accurate indication of the number of consultants undertaking private practice, they can give a broad indication of the amount of private practice undertaken in a region.

  Maximum part-time contract holders are those practitioners that have opted for maximum part-time contracts, or who have been required to change their status to maximum part-time because the volume of private practice undertaken exceeds the limit of 10 per cent. that applies to other whole-time contract holders. Maximum part-time contract holders have no limit on the amount of private practice they are permitted to undertake.

  Nationally 23.7 per cent. of all consultants hold maximum part-time contracts. The proportion of consultants on maximum part-time contracts in Yorkshire, at 19.4 per cent., is lower than the national average and in Doncaster the figure is considerably

  121W
  lower at 6.3 per cent, of all consultants. The table shows numbers of medical and dental consultants working maximum part-time contracts.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health

  Services (HCHS): Medical and dental consultants working

  maximum part time contracts

  England at 31 March 2002

  All Contracts

  numbers (headcount) of which Maximum Part-Time

  England of which

  26,350

  6,240

  Yorkshire1 of which

  2,570

  500

  Doncaster

  160

  10

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  1Statistics for "Yorkshire" are based on the mean figures for North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic health Authority (excluding Northern Lincolnshire), South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority and West Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 12 December 2002,Official Report, column 494W, on consultants, if he will list the specialities in which offers of appointment have been made under the NHS International Fellowship Scheme. [90312]

  Mr. Hutton
  We piloted the International Fellowship Scheme with an initial recruitment round in spring and summer 2002.

  As a result of the pilot, 39 offers of appointment have been made and accepted, although subsequently two have been deferred due to personal reasons. A further six candidates have potential offers under negotiation. 17 candidates have been invited for interviews in the new year. Of the 37 offers of employment, two are in cardiothoracic surgery, seven in histopathology, 26 in psychiatry and two in radiology.

  Contractor Fraud
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much contractor fraud was detected in the NHS in each of the last four years. [89030]

  Mr. Lammy
  The available figures are shown in the table:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Number of cases detected

  95

  238

  201

  Value of loss identified1 (£)

  450.041

  3,334,010

  4,296,395

  1 Subject to recovery

  The National Health Service Counter Fraud Service (NHS CFS) was created in 1998 and became operational during 1999–2000. Since then detection, referral, conviction and recovery rates for cases involving NHS fraud have improved significantly.

  Every health body in England and Wales is also required, in Secretary of State Directions, to have a dedicated and accredited local counter fraud specialist (LCFS) who can be contacted by NHS staff to report any suspicion of fraud in the NHS. The presence of LCFS in each health body not only improves the
  122W
  detection rates for fraud and corruption but also contributes to a wider change in public and staff attitudes towards fraud in the NHS.

  In addition, the NHS CFS has a fraud and corruption reporting line, which is a secure channel for members of the public and NHS staff to report any suspicion of fraud in the NHS.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reply to the letter of John C. Wood of Barton-on-Sea of 21 November 2002. [90695]

  Mr. Lammy
  A reply was sent to Mr. Wood on 13 January 2003.

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expenditure of his Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90518]

  Mr. Lammy
  The approximate total expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 200–02 was £469,880.

  The expenditure covers central purchasing through the Department's library, the Regional Offices and direct purchasing by individual units. The figures do not include expenditure by Agencies or official publications, which are published weekly, monthly or quarterly by The Stationery Office.

  Disability and Discrimination Act
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each primary care team what training they offer staff to comply with the Disability and Discrimination Act 1995. [86158]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the local training arrangements at primary care trust (PCT) or primary care team level is not collected centrally. However, the National Health Service Executive issued management guidance to NHS trusts, health authorities (HAs) and primary care groups on implementing Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) in July 1999. HAs were asked to develop a strategy to ensure that Section 21 of the DDA was implemented across their premises including hospitals, primary care premises, health centres and clinics.

  In addition, the Department has issued a guide, Doubly Disabled, to help NHS managers and staff improve their awareness of the needs of disabled people whether they are patients, carers or employees. A distance learning package on disability awareness for NHS staff, particularly front line staff, commissioned by the Department, has been available since November 1999.

  Drugs (Black Market)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with pharmaceutical companies about drugs provided at cost to African countries being resold on the black market in the UK. [89938]
  123W
  Mr. Lammy
  Officials from the Department and others have had extensive discussions with pharmaceutical companies about the problem of drugs sold at discounted prices to poorer countries being diverted into the European Union and other developed country markets. The subject was also discussed in the working group on access to medicines, chaired by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for International Development, and which reported to the Prime Minister on 28 November 2002.

  The report, a copy of which is available in the Library, recognised that measures to prevent diversion were one of the essential elements of a wider framework of measures to enable companies to offer substantially lower prices in poorer countries. The Government continue to work with the United Kingdom and industry internationally to take forward the proposals in the report.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken in collaboration with the Secretary of State for International Development to combat the illicit resale of drugs provided by pharmaceutical companies at cost to African countries into European markets. [89939]

  Mr. Lammy
  The working group on access to medicines, chaired by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for International Development, included in its discussions possible measures for preventing discounted medicines destined for poorer countries from being diverted to the European Union and other developed markets. A copy of the report, published on 28 November 2002, is available in the Library.

  There are a range of measures that could help—for example, effective control of distribution within the developing country; border measures in developed country markets; and differentiation of product packaging. These issues are under discussion as part of the follow-up to the working group report. In addition, the European Commission has published a draft Regulation to strengthen customs controls in this area. It is still under discussion among EU member states.

  Regardless of these possible measures, any suspected sales in the United Kingdom of medicines that do not comply with the licensing requirements of the Medicines Act 1968 can be reported to and investigated by the Medicines Control Agency.

  E. Coli
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have for the implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force report on E. coli 0157. [88945]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has welcomed the report of the task force on E. coli 0157and has accepted its recommendations. Many of the recommendations have already been implemented. These include research into the epidemiology of E. coli 0157 infection, steps to increase the awareness of both the public and the medical profession of the risks of this infection and how to avoid them, and the production of guidance for farmers, schools and others at risk from recreational activities.
  124W
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the Government plan to reduce the number of cases of E. coli 0157; [88946]

  (2) what plans the Government have for improving the speed of detection of E. coli 0157 bacterium; [88948]

  (3) what plans the Government have for the introduction of a standard testing protocol for the bacterium E. coli 0157 across the UK. [88949]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) undertakes microbiological and epidemiological surveillance of E. coli 0157 infections and has given a high priority to work on Vero cytotoxin-producing E. coli 0157.

  Research by the PHLS has led to significant improvements in laboratory methods for the detection of E. coli 0157 from clinical specimens as well as animals and foods. They produced guidelines on the testing of samples for E. coli 0157 in 2000. These guidelines include advice from the advisory committee on microbiological safety of food that all diarrhoeal stool samples submitted to public health laboratories for testing should be examined for E. coli 0157. Shared protocols for testing E. coli 0157 are being developed with the veterinary laboratories agency to ensure consistency in both animal and human diagnostics. In addition to providing full identification and typing for all E. coli, the PHLS reference laboratory also subtypes E. coli 0157 using a range of methods, and is currently evaluating a simple non-invasive test for antibodies to E. coli 0157 in saliva. Molecular methods for the detection of E. coli 0157 are now used routinely.

  The Food Standards Agency has set itself a target of reducing foodborne disease by 20 per cent., by April 2006. This includes foodborne cases of E. coli 0157. The strategy for achieving this target, which was published on the Agency website (www.food.gov.uk) in July 2001, involves a range of measures to reduce microbial contamination of foods and to improve food handling and preparation. Laboratory reports of E. coli 0157 in the UK fell from 1,139 cases in 2000 to a provisional figure of 1,049 in 2001.

  The Department has taken steps to increase the awareness of both the public and the medical profession of the risks of this infection and how to avoid them. The Department has worked with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Scottish Executive, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Education and Skills in producing guidance for farmers, for schools and for those at risk from recreational activities. The Department, together with the HSE, is also planning to undertake a renewed educational and public awareness campaign on the risks in the agricultural environment.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to set up a central data base on the incidence, diagnosis and treatment of E. coli 0157 to assist in the treatment and diagnosis and long term monitoring of the effects of infection from E. coli 0157. [88987]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) is developing plans for a central database on the incidence, diagnosis and treatment of E. coli 0157. All
  125W
  food-borne incidence of confirmed E. coli 0157 is already recorded by the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will consult the charities and voluntary organisations concerned with the issue of infection from E coli-0157 on the future development of services for research, diagnosis and treatment of E coli-0157 related conditions; [88992]

  (2) what plans the Government have for research into the causes, prevention and treatment of the infection by E coli-0157 and the long-term care of those suffering from the consequences of infection; [88991]

  (3) what research the Government have undertaken into whether the use of certain types of antibiotics can help spread the E coli-0157 bacteria in patients; and what action is planned as a result. [88947]

  Ms Blears
  There are a number of research projects in progress that are directed at both providing a better understanding of the virulence mechanisms of E coli-0157 and leading to improved typing methods for application in epidemiological investigations. A number of case-control studies have already been conducted in the UK and have helped to define the risk factors for E coli-0157infection.

  Enhanced surveillance of E coli-0157 infections has been co-ordinated by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). A study of childhood haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) is also being conducted by the PHLS in association with the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit, the British Association of Paediatric Nephrologists, the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health and the Royal Hospitals Aberdeen national health service trust.

  The use of antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated diarrhoea is discouraged. The Department has issued specific advice to medical personnel to ensure that they are aware that the use of antibiotics for the treatment of E coli-0157 may increase the risk of severe kidney disease.

  The task force on E coli-0157 consulted widely with relevant charities and voluntary organisations. Officials representing both the Department and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) regularly meet representatives of HUS charities to discuss matters including research, diagnosis and treatment. The FSA has regular meetings with stakeholders to discuss its policies and their implementation.

  Elective Surgery
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are in place to ensure that expenditure on elective surgery on NHS patients in the private sector is minimised, and the use of NHS services is optimised. [91502]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health Service Circular 2000/007, "Securing Service Delivery: Commissioning Freedoms of Primary Care Trusts", issued in April 2002, made clear that primary care trusts should feel free to commission care from wherever they can obtain the best 126W
  services for patients. Commissioning decisions should be judged against the twin tests of high clinical standards and good value for money.

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89920]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government believe it is important for consumers to have choice in financial products, including the availability of 'ethical' products. However, it would not be appropriate for the Government to exclusively support the development of one specific group of financial service providers. It is for individual consumers to decide the attributes they most value from their financial services and for financial services firms to be transparent about their use of funds and investments.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90507]

  Mr. Lammy
  Expenditure by the Department (excluding Agencies) on external consultants in 2002 was £6,800,521.

  Fitness
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what local action to tackle obesity and increase physical activity entails, as mentioned in his Department's press release of 12 December 2002, Improving the Nation's Health: Government to produce food and action plan. [89354]

  Ms Blears
  Local action to tackle obesity and increase physical activity is being taken forward as part of the national service framework for coronary heart disease (NSF CHD) and the NHS Plan.

  Standard One of the NSF CHD required all national health service bodies to have agreed and be contributing to the delivery of a local programme of effective policies on increasing physical activity and reducing overweight and obesity, and have quantified data on the programme. Examples of local action to tackle obesity and increase physical activity include initiatives in the primary care setting such as weight management clinics, exercise referral schemes, workplace interventions, and school based projects on diet and exercise which are being taken forward through the healthy schools programme.

  Together with Sport England and the Countryside Agency, the Department is developing a £2.6 million programme of local exercise action pilots to investigate effective approaches to increasing physical activity, the results of which will inform and lead action on exercise across the NHS.

  Foundation Trusts
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the financial duties for NHS foundation trusts will include the requirement to achieve a rate of return on assets. [87817]

  Mr. Hutton
  The financial duties of National Health Service foundation trusts will be set out in forthcoming legislation.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what method he will adopt to test whether local people support the establishment of a foundation trust; who will be consulted; and whether local people will be able to reject the establishment of such a trust. [91361]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is up to applicants for national health service foundation trust status to decide how best to consult local stakeholders ("A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts" paragraph 7.11). Second-stage applicants will need to provide evidence that both the NHS trust board and key stakeholders—for example primary care trusts, staff, partner organisations and local people—have been consulted and support the application and the strategic vision. Each application will be assessed individually based on the evidence provided ("A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts" paragraph 7.12).

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which key shareholders he plans to consult on proposals to establish a foundation trust; by what means such consultations will be conducted; and whether organisations will be required to consult their staff before replying. [91362]

  Mr. Hutton
  The process for assessing national health service foundation trust applications is described in paragraph 7.12 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". The assessment will take account of evidence provided in support of the application as set out in paragraphs 7.9–7.11 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". In this evidence, applicants will need to show that their key local stakeholders have been consulted and support the application and strategic vision.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which representatives of partner organisations will be eligible to become members of foundation trusts; how the number of representatives from each partner organisation will be determined; and whether it will be a requirement of membership that representatives of partner organisations live in the area served by the trust. [91363]

  Mr. Hutton
  It will be up to individual applicants to develop proposals on the size and composition of the Board of Governors to suit local circumstances, subject to demonstrating that the proposals meet the minimum requirements as set out in "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts" (paragraphs 2.17–2.18).

  General Practitioners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner vacancies there were in each primary care trust in the last two years. [83289]
  128W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested was not collected at primary care trust level in the last two years.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his target is for the number of general practitioners per head of population. [90297]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan implemented a commitment to increase the overall number of general practitioners (GPs) by 2000 in England between 1999 and 2004. Based on the latest available statistics, the number of whole-time equivalent GPs per 100,000 weighted population is 54.5. To meet the national target entails an increase to an average 55.7 GPs per 100,000 weighted population.

  We want to see GP numbers expand further. Guidance to primary care trusts (PCTs) set out three parameters within which all PCTs should be aiming to recruit additional GPs during 2003–04:
  those PCTs which are below the existing average 53.2 should aim to recruit sufficient GPs to raise their GP numbers by at least 6 per cent., or to at least 55.7,with the aim of achieving at least the lesser of these aims;
  those PCTs which are more than the existing average of 53.2, but below the projected average of 55.7, should aim to recruit up to 6 per cent. more GPs. In some appropriate circumstances—and where it is possible—PCTs may exceed this; and
  those PCTs at or above the projected average of 55.7 should aim to recruit up to 3 per cent. more GPs. In some appropriate circumstances—and where it is possible—PCTs may exceed this.

  Health and Social Services (Rural Provision)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure the delivery of(a) health care and (b) social services in sparsely populated rural areas, in particular pockets of rural deprivation; and what resources he is making available for this. [87708]

  Mr. Hutton
  Resources to both local National Health Service bodies and local authorities take account of variations in local circumstances, while leaving these bodies to decide the best distribution of services in response to those circumstances. A number of recent initiatives in funding allocations have recognised the need to take account of remoteness.

  The NHS revenue allocations for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 announced on 11 December were made using a new formula. The new formula provides a better measure of health need in all areas. In calculating health need in rural areas, it takes account of the effects of access, transport and poverty.

  The NHS confederation is currently negotiating a new general medical services (GMS) contract with the general practitioners committee of the British Medical Association. The two sides have commissioned York University to develop a GMS allocation formula that will take account of the costs and pressures of delivering high-quality primary care in different areas, including those associated with rurality and remoteness. The current timetable envisages that this work will be completed early in the New Year, when general practitioners will be balloted on the detailed and costed framework.
  129W
  For social services funding, we will be increasing the sparsity factor in the older people's social services funding formula from 2002–03 onwards, in response to new evidence on travel effects in the provision of domiciliary care commissioned by the county councils network.

  Improving access to services, especially in rural and other areas which are currently under-served, was identified as a priority in the cross-cutting spending review on health inequalities. The review also recognised that there are pockets of deprivation right across the country and that health inequalities will need to be tackled in all these areas if the national health inequalities targets are to be met. The results of the review are being fed into a cross-government delivery plan on action to tackle health inequalities and meet the targets. The delivery plan will be published in the New Year.

  Health and Social Services Performance Review
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the information collected as part of the Health and Social Services Performance Review. [88559]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health and Social Services Performance Review is a quarterly document which monitors the progress of programme areas and strategic health authorities towards key indicators in the delivery of the Department's public commitments. The document also reports on patient activity and provides a concise overview of financial performance. At the end of the financial year the Department publishes an annual report which includes details of progress against public service agreement targets.

  Hillingdon Hospital
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in each of the last 10 years Hillingdon Hospital has been closed for admissions; and what the length of time involved was in each case. [89662]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally. Accident and emergency closures at Hillingdon Hospital have been kept on record by the London Ambulance Service (LAS) since December 1996. The LAS records indicate one full closure in June 2002 for five hours ten minutes due to flooding.

  Hospital Projects (Funding)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new hospitals or hospital reprovision projects have been commenced since 1997; and what proportion of these have been financed through(a) PFI and (b) PPP schemes. [91594]

  Mr. Hutton
  114 hospital schemes have been given the go ahead since 1997, of which 104, or 91 per cent., have been or are to be financed through private finance initiative or public private partnership, subject to approval of their full business case.

  Hospital Treatment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what restrictions are applied by(a) regulation, (b) his policy and (c) regional policies on primary care trusts' decisions on where patients should be sent for hospital treatment;[90684]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the standards required for the accreditation of non-NHS hospitals for the provision of NHS services (a) as contractors with primary care trusts and (b) as sub-contractors of hospital trusts; and whether the standard for a particular procedure varies between (a) and (b) [90683]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no regulations which impose restrictions on decisions by primary care trusts (PCTs) on where patients should be sent for hospital treatment. Such decisions are up to each PCT in the light of all relevant factors including available resources and the clinical needs of the person.

  Health Service Circular 2000–07. Securing Service Delivery: Commissioning Freedoms of Primary Care Trusts, issued in April 2002 made clear that PCTs should feel free to commission care from wherever they can obtain the best services for patients. Commissioning decisions should be judged against the twin tests of high clinical standards and good value for money. This applies to decisions to commission services from both National Health Service hospitals and non-NHS hospitals. NHS trusts are similarly free to commission services from such non-NHS hospitals as they consider appropriate, against the same tests of high clinical standards and good value for money.

  In their commissioning role, PCTs will, when appropriate, need to collaborate with neighbouring PCTs and work as part of consortia. However the consortium is set up, the decisions made by that consortium will be binding on all members.

  Hospital-acquired Infection
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the establishment of a mandatory national surveillance scheme to measure the extent of hospital-acquired infection; and what reduction in the rate of infection has been achieved.[90278]

  Ms Blears
  The first phase of the national mandatory surveillance system for hospital acquired infection on methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood stream infections was introduced in April 2001.

  The results for the first year of this scheme, from April 2001 to March 2002, for every national health service acute trust in England were published in the Communicable Disease Report (CDR) Weekly on 20 June 2002. These are available on Public Health Laboratory Service's website at www.phls.co.uk/pubications/cdr/PDFfiles/2002/cdr2502.pdf.

  This first year's data provides a baseline from which progress can be measured and a MRSA improvement score has been included in the NHS performance management system for 2002–03.

  The second phase of the surveillance system will be implemented shortly.

  Health Protection Agency
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the organisational structure of the HPA after 1 April 2003;[90050]

  (2) what proportion of senior management positions in the HPA have been filled;[90085]

  (3) when he expects to announce the location of the headquarters of the Health Protection Agency. [90080]

  Ms Blears
  We aim to establish the Health Protection Agency as a special health authority from 1 April 2003. The HPA Board will be responsible for agreeing the organisational structure and other organisational issues such as the location of the headquarters. Until a Board is established and is in a position to take these decisions, there will be interim organisational arrangements. These were publicised in a newsletter to the staff and organisations affected by the HPA changes on 13 January 2003. A copy of the newsletter has been placed in the Library. These interim arrangements do not pre-empt either the Board's consideration of permanent structures or the filling of substantive posts under equal opportunities policies or the change management protocol agreed between management and trades unions which govern the changes.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is a register of the outputs and capabilities provided by the component organisations of the HPA. [90066]

  Ms Blears
  Our plans for establishing the Health Protection Agency (HPA) were set out in my reply of 7 January 2003 to the hon. Member,Official Report, column 190W.

  The outputs and capabilities of the Public Health Laboratory Service, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research and the National Radiological Protection Board are described in their business and corporate plans and in their annual accounts, which are placed in the Libraries of the House. Information for other elements intended for transfer to the HPA, which are currently part of broader national health service organisations or other bodies, are not held in a similar form.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which individual on the HPA Executive will be responsible for the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. [90068]

  Ms Blears
  Under the interim arrangements set out in my answer to the hon. Member today, Dr. Roger Gilmour, the current chief executive, will continue to be responsible for the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  Junior Scholarship Scheme
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the first batch of Junior Scholarship young people will begin working within the NHS; and if he will make a statement; [88068]

  (2) how many young people are expected to take part in the Junior Scholarships scheme as part of the NHS University; and if he will make a statement. [88067]
  132W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has recently launched a development plan for the National Health Service University entitled "Learning for everyone". The plan contains a range of proposals, options and questions on how NHSU could support learning for staff working in and for the NHS.

  NHSU is currently undertaking a period of consultation with the NHS, with clinical teams, staff and managers, and with stakeholders including higher and further education institutions on what role NHSU should play in supporting learning and what its priorities should be.

  One proposal in the development plan is to offer junior scholarships to young people aged 14, 15 and 16 years. The aim of these scholarships is to encourage people from communities that are under-represented in our health services to consider 'earning and learning' opportunities in the NHS.

  The operation of junior scholarships will build on existing development within the NHS being led by work force development confederations. The scheme will require local partnerships between schools, NHS work force development confederations and trusts, parents and the young people themselves.

  An indicative number of 100 places per year per work force development confederation (around 3,000 places nationally) has been proposed.

  The details of the scholarships will be developed following the period of consultation, which concludes in February next year, taking into account comments and feedback received. The scheme is likely to be piloted in 2003.

  King Edward VII Hospital
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what NHS contracts have been carried out by the King Edward VII Hospital Midhurst since May 1997;[89934]

  (2) what part he plans to play in facilitating a rescue plan to enable the King Edward VII Hospital Midhurst to continue operating; [89935]

  (3) what discussions he has held with the King Edward VII Hospital in Midhurst on the appointment of a provisional liquidator. [89933]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ministers and departmental officials have received a number of representations regarding the situation at the hospital. Discussions with the liquidator are currently ongoing. In view of that, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to comment further, although these discussions will of course focus on the continuing provision of appropriate care for national health service patients.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the effect on waiting times at St. Richard's hospital, Chichester of the impending closure of King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst; [90142]
  133W
  (2) what budgeting constraints prevent orthopaedic treatment provided by the NHS in hospitals abroad from being provided in King Edward VII hospital Midhurst; and what the cost differential is. [90141]

  Ms Blears
  Overseas treatment is one of the options open to national health service commissioners seeking to increase the number of patients treated and reduce waiting times. Any NHS body can commission treatment abroad for its patients and a relatively small-scale pilot was undertaken to establish good practice. It is up to local commissioners to decide, in the light of capacity constraints across their local health economies, and taking into account the different commissioning options available to them, whether or not to refer patients overseas for treatment.

  At present a liquidator has been called in to King Edward VII hospital and discussions are now taking place to secure health provision for the local-community. The West Sussex health community is working to ensure that any adverse impact is kept to a minimum.

  London Agency Project
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the London Agency Project. [89654]

  Mr. Hutton
  The London Agency Project has been developed by national health service trusts in London to improve both the quality of temporary agency workers supplied to the NHS from commercial agencies and to achieve value for money for public services.

  Phase one of the London Agency Project was implemented on 1 September 2001. 29 agencies were awarded a place on the phase one London framework agreement to supply specialist nurses to London trusts. Phase two of the London Agency Project was launched in April 2002 for the procurement of all other nurses and midwives and health care assistants. As a result, 72 commercial agencies have been awarded a place on the phase two framework agreement that comes into effect on 1 April 2003.

  Medical Practitioner Registration
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what treaty provisions the European Commission has jurisdiction over the registration of medical practitioners. [88177]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Treaty establishing the European Community guaranteed the freedom for every European citizen to work, set up business or provide services in any member state. Subsequent Directives set out the provisions for automatic mutual recognition of qualifications in many health professions and other professions, such as veterinary surgeons and architects. Member states must implement these Directives into their domestic legislation.

  The registration procedures used by a member state to regulate medical practitioners remains a responsibility of the individual member state, not of the European Commission. In the United Kingdom, the General Medical Council is the body responsible for registration of medical practitioners.

  Medical Staff Recruitment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses from Ethiopia are employed in the NHS. [89361]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect data on nationality, as requested. The number of national health service hospital doctors and general medical practitioners by country of primary medical qualification is shown in the table.

  The data for country of qualification by individual countries are far from complete. There are large numbers of doctors who qualified outside the United Kingdom, for whom we cannot ascribe an individual country.

  NHS doctors and nurses in England whose country of primary

  medical qualification is Ethiopia; 2001

  Numbers (headcount)

  HCHS doctors

  8

  General medical practitioners

  0

  Nurses

  —

  Note:

  Data on nationality are not collected, only country of primary medical qualification. This does not extend to nurses however, about which no such data are collected. Data as at 30 September 2001

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Information on the number of nurses employed in the NHS from Ethiopia is not collected centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with medical staff recruitment agencies about recruitment of doctors and nurses from Ethiopia; [89362]

  (2) what his policy is on recruitment of doctors and nurses from Ethiopia. [89363]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department published the code of practice for National Health Service employers involved in the international recruitment of healthcare professionals in October 2001. The code provides a detailed explanation of the processes that must be carried out when recruiting internationally to ensure that developing countries and those countries suffering significant staff shortages of their own are not targeted.

  The Department has established a list of agencies who are operating in line with the code of practice and information about the list has been conveyed to NHS employers who are strongly advised to refer to the list when establishing new contracts The Department has written to all commercial agencies it is aware of, asking them to provide references from both NHS and other customers confirming compliance with the code of practice. The code states that developing countries should not be targeted for recruitment.

  Ethiopia is classed as a developing country. The active recruitment of healthcare professionals from the country is therefore against the Department's code of practice.
  135W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what agreements he has reached with the Ethiopian Government about recruitment of Ethiopian doctors and nurses by the NHS. [89393]

  Mr. Hutton
  There has been no contact between the Department and the Ethiopian Government at Ministerial or any other level.

  Modernisation Agency
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the role of the Modernisation Agency is in delivering best practice in the NHS; and what its budget is for this in 2002–03. [87536]

  Mr. Hutton
  The role of the Modernisation Agency is to support the National Health Service in making radical and sustainable changes to services for the benefit of patients and staff. The Agency's focus is delivery. Their work programme is closely aligned with achievement of NHS Plan targets.

  The budget for the Modernisation Agency for 2002–03 is £121 million.

  Mortuary Facilities
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals have had recourse to the use of refrigerated lorries to provide mortuary facilities in the past year. [88421]

  Mr. Lammy
  Guidance to national health service trusts on the need for temporary body storage facilities to be of a standard which respects patients' dignity was issued in 2000. This made explicit that refrigerated vehicles were not acceptable. The Department is not aware of any NHS trust failing to comply with this guidance.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made on the prescription-plus-monitoring scheme for disease-modifying drugs for MS; [89819]

  (2) if he will list the centres that have been authorised to prescribe beta interferons through his Department's prescription-plus-monitoring scheme; [89820]

  (3) how many people he estimates will receive beta interferons under the prescription-plus-monitoring scheme; [89817]

  (4) how long he estimates it will be before all people who may benefit from beta interferons have been assessed by a neurologist for the prescription-plus-monitoring scheme. [89818]

  Mr. Lammy
  The designation of centres is a matter for local agreement. A list of centres is maintained by the scheme co-ordinator, Sheffield University's School of Health and Related Research, who should be approached for up to date information.

  Health Service Circular HSC 2002/004, which introduced the scheme, stated the intention to complete recruitment of patients within 18 months of the scheme being initiated by centres.
  136W
  It has been estimated that up to 9,000 patients in England and Wales may be eligible for treatment under the scheme.

  We understand that the majority of centres are now recruiting patients under the scheme.

  National Service Framework for Older People
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to assess the implementation of the national service framework for older people in England. [91150]

  Jacqui Smith
  Monitoring the implementation of the national service framework for older people is ongoing and draws on a variety of processes. Information on meeting the 2001 and 2002 milestones has been collected from health and social care organisations. Less formal information gathering takes place regularly through a network of national health service and social services older people leads. A two-year progress report is due to be published in March 2003.

  NHS Targets
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the baseline date was for the 24 and 48 hour access targets set out in the NHS plan; and what proportion of GP practices in England met the 24 and 48 hour access targets at that date. [83717]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan primary care access target was informed by the results of the 1998 National Patient Survey, which found that 53 per cent. of patients had been able to get an appointment with their general practitioner within two days of their preferred date. Both the baseline data and the target are expressed in terms of the access available to patients rather than the performance of practices.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the national targets adopted by the NHS. [88169]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan set out the Government's vision for the national health service and makes clear the commitments that we have made for improving services. A copy is available in the Library.

  We also recently published "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: Planning and Priorities Framework 2003-20056 (PPF)" which sets out the health and social care priorities for the next three years.

  A copy of the PPF is available in the Library.

  NHS Trusts (Foundation Status)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why he will not disclose the names of the NHS trusts which expressed an interest in foundation status. [89541]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: 31 national health service trusts expressed an interest in foundation status in June 2002. A number of these 31 NHS trusts did not retain their three star status in the performance ratings published in July 2002 and are no longer eligible to apply for foundation status so this list is out of date.
  137W
  Following publication of "A Guide to NHS Foundation trusts" on 11 December 2002, applications have been invited from current three star acute and specialist NHS trusts to become NHS foundation trusts. The application process has now begun and the closing date for preliminary applications is February 2003. In March 2003, we intend to announce a shortlist of candidates once the preliminary applications have been assessed.

  Overseas Doctors (Language Requirements)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the relationship between the change to the English language requirement for overseas doctors as outlined in the Medical Act 1993 Amendment Order 2002 and the provisions of Article 49 of the European draft directive on medical qualifications. [88173]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is desirable that a doctor should have to satisfy the General Medical Council that he or she has the necessary knowledge of English before he or she can be registered. Our recent changes to the Medical Act and our position on the Commission's proposal both express this principle. We have also made it clear that we expect employers to ensure that all staff have the knowledge of English necessary for the work to be done, regardless of their registration status.

  Overseas Doctors
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the proposed 16 week rule for doctors coming to work in the UK from elsewhere in Europe; and what representations he has made to the EU about the proposed 16 week rule for doctors;[88170]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the draft EU directive on the recognition of professional medical qualifications. [88175]

  Mr. Hutton
  The aim of improving mobility of workers in the European Union is one we fully support. Exchanges of professional staff bring mutual benefits to this country, the national health service and other member states. However, free movement provisions must be balanced with proper safeguards for service quality and public protection and this view has been represented in European Union working groups and council debates on the Directive by both the United Kingdom and other member states. We shall ensure that this concern, including reservations about the 16-week provision of services, is addressed in ongoing negotiations on the Directive.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors who are citizens of(a) Pakistan and (b) India are working (i) in NHS hospitals and (ii) in general practice. [88958]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect data on citizenship, as requested. The number of national health service hospital doctors and general medical practitioners by country of primary medical qualification is shown in the table.
  138W
  The data for country of qualification by individual countries are far from complete. There are large numbers of doctors who qualified outside the United Kingdom, for whom we cannot ascribe an individual country. Information for country of primary medical qualification is derived from data supplied by the general medical council.

  NHS Hospital Doctors and General Medical Practitioners' by

  country of primary medical qualification-2001

  Number (headcount)

  India

  Pakistan

  NHS Hospital Medical Doctors

  5,783

  1,106

  GMPs

  2,768

  374

  1Includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para. 52 SFA), PMS Other and GP Retainers.

  Note:

  Data as at 30 September 2001.

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Overseas Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition his Department uses of undue delay when assessing rights of NHS patients to access treatment in continental European hospitals. [89932]

  Mr. Hutton
  The concept of undue delay applied by the European Court of Justice in Case 157/99 GeraetsSmits and Peerbooms was concerned with the conditions for the grant of authorisation for treatment in another member state.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on 2 November 2001, Official Report, column 895W.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of the pilot scheme to send NHS patients for treatment in continental Europe; and when he plans to extend the availability of treatment in continental European hospitals of all NHS patients. [89931]

  Mr. Hutton
  The evaluation report of the overseas treatment pilot carried out by York University Health Economics Consortium was published in August. Copies are available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at http://www. doh.gov.uk/international/evaluationreports.htm.

  Overseas treatment is an option open to national health service commissioners seeking to increase the number of patients treated, and reduce waiting times. Any NHS body can legally commission treatment abroad for its patients. However, it is up to local commissioners to decide, in the light of capacity constraints across their local health economies, and taking into account the different commissioning options available to them, whether or not to refer patients overseas for treatment.

  The Department has advised any trust wishing to refer patients overseas to contact one of the two "lead commissioners" who are responsible on behalf of the

  139W
  NHS in England for selecting overseas providers and contracting with them for treatment for NHS patients. These lead commissioners are based in Guy's and St. Thomas' Trust, and Kent and Medway Health Authority.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risks that those public health laboratories transferring to NHS trusts will lose their accreditation with United Kingdom Accreditation Services or with Clinical Pathology Accreditation; and what action has been taken to minimise these risks. [90093]

  Ms Blears
  Our assessment is that transfer to national health services trusts does not affect the accreditation status of transferring laboratories with either Clinical Pathology Accreditation or United Kingdom Accreditation Services.

  Polish Health Care Staff
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on progress towards the recognition of qualifications and accreditation of dentists trained and qualified in Poland with a view to their being allowed to practise in the United Kingdom on Poland's accession to the European Union; [89859]

  (2)if he will make a statement on progress towards the recognition of qualifications and accreditation of (a)surgeons, (b) doctors and (c) nurses trained and qualified in Poland with a view to their possible recruitment to the NHS on Poland's accession to the European Union. [89860]

  Mr. Hutton
  Once ratified, the Accession Treaty, which is currently being finalised following the agreement in Copenhagen, will provide for the recognition of Polish health professional qualifications on the same basis as for those awarded by other member states. Qualifications awarded following training begun after accession will comply with minimum Community requirements and be automatically recognised. In other cases, evidence of recent and substantial experience in Poland may be required. Arrangements for the recruitment of health professionals to the national health service are currently the subject of separate discussions between the Department and the Polish authorities.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the primary care trusts which have been classified as being in under-doctored areas on the basis of the number of general practitioner principals, or equivalents, per weighted head of the population; what funding is being targeted at these primary care trusts in order to aid general practitioner recruitment; and if he will make a statement. [89828]
  140W
  Mr. Hutton
  A list of the primary care trusts which have been classified as under-doctored areas have been placed in the Library. The following strategic health authorities have no PCTs with under-doctored areas:

  North Central London

  North West London

  Avon Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  South West Peninsula

  Thames Valley.

  The average PCT budget will grow over the next three years by 30.8 per cent. No PCT will receive an increase in funding over the next three years of less than 28 per cent. None of the growth money has been identified for specific purposes. PCTs will be able to use these extra resources to deliver on both national and local priorities.

  The Department has a series of measures to enhance general practitioner recruitment and retention. These include 'golden hello' payments, a returners campaign, a flexible career scheme, a retainers scheme, international recruitment and delayed retirement payments.

  In the 50 per cent. of PCTs with the lowest numbers of GPs per 100,000 weighted population, 'golden hello' payments of up to £12,000 are available rather than a maximum of £5,000 for other areas.

  To date, 1,988 GPs have received a 'golden hello' payment, 993 of which by GPs taking up posts in under-doctored areas.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the funding allocated to primary care trusts for 2003–04 according to their distance from target funding.[90953]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trust revenue allocations for 2003–04, ranked by their distances from targets as determined by the weighted capitation formula, have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to primary care trusts on their freedom to use private contractors as suppliers in the provision of health services. [91353]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health Service Circular 2000/007, "Securing Service Delivery: Commissioning Freedoms of Primary Care Trusts", issued in April 2002, made clear that primary care trusts should feel free to commission care from wherever they can obtain the best services for patients. Commissioning decisions should be judged against the twin tests of high clinical standards and good value for money.

  Prostate Cancer
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to implement the prostate cancer public awareness programme proposed as part of the NHS Prostate Cancer Programme launched in September 2002. [89656]

  Ms Blears
  The national health service prostate cancer programme stated that an education programme for the public, patients and professionals on the risks associated with individual testing for prostate cancer will be introduced. This has been achieved through the prostate
  141W
  cancer risk management programme, which sent out evidence-based primary care resource packs to all general practitioners in England from 23 September 2002 to aid them in counselling men who are worried about prostate cancer. This ensures that men make an informed choice about whether or not to have a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test based on an information leaflet developed specifically for men about the advantages and disadvantages of having a PSA test.

  The Department of Health is funding a Section 64 grant to the Prostate Cancer Charity to increase further information about prostate cancer. This is supporting the creation, review, provision and dissemination of a range of awareness material, supported by £135,000 over three years.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he estimates that the prostate cancer five year survival rate in England will reach the current European average. [89659]

  Ms Blears
  The actions set out in the National Health Service Cancer Plan will mean that England will have the fastest improvement in cancer services across Europe over the next five years and eventually a reduction in the death rate from cancer among people aged under 75 years by at least 20 per cent. by 2010. The NHS prostate cancer programme sets out the specific action proposed for prostate cancer.

  European comparisons of cancer survival rates require careful interpretation, especially for prostate cancer, where differing levels of prostate specific antigen testing affect the numbers of men identified with the disease and where a significant proportion of men with prostate cancer will die of another cause.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to improve the five year survival rates from prostate cancer in England; and if he will make a statement; [89680]

  (2) what progress has been made towards the achievement of the Government's NHS prostate cancer programme; and if he will make a statement;[89669]

  (3) what plans he has to encourage men to make more use of (a)traditional prostate cancer tests and (b) PSA tests; [89657]

  (4) what action he is taking to encourage (a) more charitable funding and (b) more Government funding for research into prostate cancer.[89658]

  Ms Bears
  Good progress has been made since the national health service prostate cancer programme was launched on 6 September 2000, setting out the Government's approach to improving prostate cancer services in England and Wales.

  As part of the prostate cancer risk management programme (PCRMP), evidence-based primary care resource packs were sent to all general practitioners in England from 23 September 2002 to aid them in counselling men who are worried about prostate cancer, ensuring the men make an informed choice about whether or not to have a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test.
  142W
  Other elements of the PCRMP include ensuring that a systematic and standardised follow-up pathway is available for individuals whose test result is above the PSA threshold and action to improve the quality of laboratory testing of PSA samples. Primary care and laboratories were informed of recommendations from the scientific reference group which supports the PCRMP in September 2002.

  By 2003–04 the Department of Health will be directly funding £4.2 million of research a year on prostate cancer. This is a 20-fold increase compared with 1999–2000. Two National Cancer Research Institute prostate cancer research collaboratives have been established in Newcastle and London. Funded research includes studies on various treatments for prostate cancer, improving the PSA test and ethnic differences in prostate cancer incidence. The National Cancer Research Institute considered prostate cancer as part of its Strategic Analysis in 2002, but made no specific recommendations.

  The Department of Health is funding a Section 64 grant to the Prostate Cancer Charity to increase further information about prostate cancer. This is supporting the creation, review, provision and dissemination of a range of awareness material, supported by £135,000 over three years.

  92.4 per cent. of patients with suspected urological cancers (including prostate) were seen for their first outpatient appointment within two weeks of their general practitioner deciding they should be urgently referred, and the hospital receiving the referral within 24 hours, in April to June 2002.

  The cancer services collaborative is modernising cancer care, including prostate cancer, by reducing unnecessary delays in the system for patients throughout the cancer journey.

  The number of consultant urologists grew from 382 in 2000 to 427 in 2001, and is set to grow to 504 in 2005. There may be around an additional 100 trained specialists available to take up consultant posts in urology.

  The National Institute of Clinical Excellence's guidance on urological cancers, including prostate cancer, entitled 'Improving Outcomes in Urological Cancers: The Manual', was published in September 2002.

  Psychotherapy (Doctors in Training)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for the change in the number of hospital doctors in training for psychotherapy since 1997. [90045]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Royal College of Psychiatrists changed training arrangements after the introduction of the specialist registrar grade so that trainees spend more time at senior house officer (SHO) level, and less time as specialist registrars. Changes of this type take time to filter through. There has been an increase in SHO numbers but not at a sufficient rate to compensate for more experienced specialist registrars moving on to become consultants.
  143W
  The table shows the number of doctors in training within the specialty of psychotherapy since 1997.

  Hospital medical doctors in training with the psychotherapy

  specialty

  England at 30 September

  numbers (headcount)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Doctors in training of which

  50

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Registrar Group

  40

  40

  30

  30

  30

  Senior House Officers

  1-

  10

  10

  10

  20

  House Officers

  1-

  1-

  1-

  1-

  1-

  1 Denotes five or less than five

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Registered GP Patients
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a) people over 18, (b) people under 18 and (c) the total population were registered with a general practitioner in (i) England and (ii) each NHS region in each year since 1996. [83799]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is contained respectively in the primary care trusts' lists of populations registered with a general practitioner and in the national Office of National Statistics census resident population. These two data sources are different and do not allow the requested comparison to be made.

  Reservists
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of(a) general practitioners, (b) consultants, (c) nurses and (d) other NHS staff who will be required to serve overseas in the event of a conflict with Iraq (i) from the West Midlands (South) Strategic Health Authority area and (ii) from the NHS.[90347]

  Mr. Lammy
  At this stage, we do not know how many national health service staff in the Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire Strategic Health Authority area or in the NHS as a whole might be required to serve overseas in any possible action against Iraq.

  Roaccutane
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Medical Control Agency will complete the review of the safety of Roaccutane; and what independent sources of information have been used by the Medical Control Agency in the assessment of the side effects of Roaccutane; [90766]

  (2) what research has been undertaken into those suffering the most serious side effects of Roaccutane to identify those who may be vulnerable; and if he will review advice given to doctors and patients regarding the side effects of Roaccutane; [90767]
  144W
  (3) how many reported cases of patients suffering side effects of Roaccutane there have been in each year since it was first prescribed.[90768]

  Mr. Lammy
  Roaccutane (isotretinoin), a vitamin A derivative for the treatment of severe acne, was launched on the United Kingdom market in 1983. The table provides a breakdown of the number of reports of suspected adverse reactions received each year through the Yellow Card Scheme for oral isotretinoin.

  Year reaction occurred

  Number of reports

  1983

  10

  1984

  36

  1985

  59

  1986

  89

  1987

  75

  1988

  64

  1989

  36

  1990

  56

  1991

  44

  1992

  60

  1993

  57

  1994

  75

  1995

  56

  1996

  57

  1997

  64

  1998

  100

  1999

  82

  2000

  97

  2001

  65

  2002

  43

  A report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the medicine. The number of reports received should not be used as a basis for determining the incidence of a reaction as neither the total number of reactions occurring, nor the number of patients using the drug is known.

  The safety of all medicines on the UK market is continuously monitored by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) with independent expert advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The sources of information used in this process include UK and foreign reports of suspected adverse reactions, published literature and unpublished studies, information on the level of drug prescribing, information received from other regulatory authorities throughout the world as well as information received from the marketing authorisation holder. There is a substantial body of published research on the safety of isotretinoin and a list of relevant publications has been placed in the House Library.

  Warnings about risk factors are included in the summary of product characteristics (SPC) for prescribers and the patient information leaflet (PIL). The product information for oral isotretjnoin products states that it should not be used in patients with the following risk factors for side effects: known hypersensitivity (allergy) to the product, liver and kidney disease and in patients taking certain antibiotics

  145W
  (tetracyclines). In addition, isotretinoin should not be used during pregnancy because of the risk of major foetal abnormalities and should not be given to breast feeding women. Warnings are also present about a possible increase in the risk of side effects in patients with a history of depression, patients with diabetes, obesity, alcoholism or lipid metabolism disorders and asthmatic patients.

  Advice about the side effects associated with the use of isotretinoin and the risk of teratogenicity (birth defects) has been issued to all doctors and pharmacists in the MCA/GSM bulletin "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" in October 1983, December 1997 and August 1998 as well as in the British National Formulary which is issued to health professionals twice a year.

  The MCA is currently leading a European-wide review of the product information of isotretinoin products including Roaccutane, with the aim to ensure that up-to-date and consistent information is provided to health professionals and patients to optimise its safe use. This review is likely to take some months to complete. Any new advice will be communicated to health professionals and patients.

  Romford (New Hospital)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the

  Financial year

  Applications received

  Total grants paid

  Voluntary organisations receving grants

  Total amount of grants paid £ million

  Average grant £000

  1995–96

  —1

  595

  416

  19.9

  33.4

  1996–97

  629

  581

  450

  20.8

  35.8

  1997–98

  627

  612

  440

  21.4

  35.0

  1998–99

  784

  643

  469

  21.1

  32.8

  1999–2000

  717

  643

  410

  22.2

  34.5

  2000–01

  713

  579

  373

  22.6

  39.0

  2001–02

  764

  583

  397

  21.5

  36.9

  1 Not available

  Note:

  Column 2 shows the total number of applications for separate grants received for each financial year Records are not kept, however, of the number of voluatary organisations applying. Variation in the total amount of grants paid in column 5 reflect in-year transfers of funds for particular grants or initiatives.

  Sterile Service Facilities
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations his Department has had(a) within and (b) outside the NHS about the (i) provision of sterilisation services and (ii) proposals for a new network of centralised sterile service facilities for the NHS in England. [90618]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has not organised any formal consultation exercise about the provision of decontamination services. We did, however, organise a series of roadshows on decontamination for the national health service in 2001. Officials have also had numerous discussions with individual NHS trusts and other NHS organisations.

  The Department is actively seeking to develop the market in sterile services and is encouraging new entrants as well as existing suppliers to participate in
  146W
  NHS Trust in Havering regarding the building of a new hospital in Romford; and if he will make a statement. [90299]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have had no discussions with the national health service trust in Havering regarding the building of a new hospital in Romford.

  Barking Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust is making good progress with the development of the private finance initiative solution for the new hospital. It has selected a preferred bidder and the full business case (FBC) is now with the Department of Health. Subject to approval of the FBC, it is anticipated that contracts will be signed by March 2003.

  Section 56 Grants
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of organisations applying for section 56 grants have been successful in each of the past 10 years; and what the average grant given was in each of those years. [88995]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]The Department's Section 64 General Scheme of grants is its main support of national voluntary organisations working in the health and social care fields. Grants may be awarded for up to three financial years. In each application round, on average, only one in three or one in four applications for new/renewal grants are successful.

  During 1996–97, a new database was set up to control records and the table shows the data held.

  procurements. To that end, officials have met existing and potential suppliers on over 100 occasions: in specially arranged conferences and workshops, private meetings with individual companies, visits to reference sites and meetings with trade associations.

  Student Nurses
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average value is of the bursary for students of nursing degrees in terms of pounds per hour. [88659]

  Mr. Hutton
  Nursing degree students are required to complete a minimum number of training hours over the whole of any course. The number of actual hours of study in an academic year will vary considerably. There
  147W
  are also significant variations in the levels of bursary degree students receive to take account of individual circumstances.

  For these reasons it is not possible to provide an average value of nursing students' bursaries in terms of pounds per hour.

  Thames Gateway
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extra resources required to support the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway area; what discussions he has had with other Government Departments in relation to supporting the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway; and what resources he has allocated to support the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway. [90424]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service organisations covering the Thames Gateway area, in North East London, South East London, South Essex and North Kent, are actively working with a range of partners on developing plans for the Thames Gateway. The aims are to ensure new communities are sustainable, and both enjoy good health and have access to high quality health services.

  The Department is ensuring that there is a strategic overview and will analyse the outcome of this local planning in the form of a 'Health Scenario' for the Thames Gateway as a whole. This work will detail the additional health and social service provision needed to support the development of new sustainable communities. It is anticipated that this work will be finalised in the spring.

  Planning for the Thames Gateway is led by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and co-ordinated by the Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership. I represent the Department on this partnership.

  Funding for services in the Thames Gateway will be allocated in the normal way through primary care trusts. Those PCTs covering the Thames Gateway area will see an overall increase of 34 per cent., or nearly £705 million, in monies available to them over the next three financial years. Some PCTs will see a much bigger

  Name of strategic health authority in England

  Total attendance at major A&E

  Percentage of patients who spent less than four hours in A&E

  England

  3,095,650

  77

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire HA

  106,095

  83

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire HA

  86,041

  76

  Essex HA

  84,375

  72

  North West London HA

  160,240

  74

  North Central London HA

  101,049

  77

  North East London HA

  116,966

  63

  South East London HA

  118,576

  72

  South West London HA

  91,844

  68

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear HA

  88,259

  89

  County Durham and Tees Valley HA

  71,301

  93

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire HA

  87,462

  83

  West Yorkshire HA

  176,184

  85

  Cumbria and Lancashire HA

  120,115

  89

  148W
  increase, including Barking and Dagenham PCT, whose resources will increase by 42.5 per cent. This increased level of resource, along with additional capital building programmes in the Gateway, including a new £230 million, 860 bed hospital at Romford, will result in an expansion in the services available to the residents of the Thames Gateway.

  The increased growth in population resulting from promoting the Thames Gateway as an area of population growth is expected to take place beyond 2006–07. The resources needed to support additional health and social care provision in the Thames Gateway will therefore need to be identified in future Spending Reviews.

  Ukrainian Health Care Staff
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on the recognition of qualifications and accreditation of professional medical staff, including surgeons and nurses, in the Ukraine with a view to possible recruitment to the NHS. [89861]

  Mr. Hutton
  We welcome the contribution made to the national health service by overseas qualified professionals. Practitioners must be registered to work in the NHS. The assessment of applications for registration is the responsibility of the General Medical Council for doctors, and of the Nursing and Midwifery Council for nurses.

  Waiting Times
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards meeting the four hour maximum waiting time target for accident and emergency departments in(a) England and (b) each NHS region. [91128]

  Mr. Lammy
  The NHS Plan set the target for accident and emergency (A&E) departments to reduce the maximum wait in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge to four hours by December 2004.

  In quarter two 2002–03, 77 per cent. of patients spent less than four hours total time in A&E in England.

  The table shows this figure broken down into strategic health authorities.
  149W

  Name of strategic health authority in England

  Total attendance at major A&E

  Percentage of patients who spent less than four hours in A&E

  Greater Manchester HA

  214,486

  77

  Cheshire and Merseyside HA

  179,833

  75

  Thames Valley HA

  101,727

  71

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight HA

  78,699

  79

  Kent and Medway HA

  88,867

  71

  Surrey and Sussex HA

  155,325

  75

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire HA

  118,453

  78

  South West Peninsula HA

  76,484

  79

  Somerset and Dorset HA

  57,018

  84

  South Yorkshire HA

  95,108

  90

  Trent HA

  127,945

  83

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland HA

  59,710

  68

  Shropshire and Staffordshire HA

  72,812

  73

  Birmingham and the Black Country HA

  176,872

  83

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire HA

  83,804

  82

  Winter Vomiting Virus
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have been closed for admissions in each of the last 10 years as a result of winter vomiting virus. [89661]

  Mr. Hutton
  Detailed information over the last ten years in the form requested is not held centrally. It would be very unusual for a hospital to be completely closed to admissions. However, partial restrictions on some admissions may be applied for a range of reasons including winter vomiting virus. These restrictions usually apply for very short periods until operational pressures have eased.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Child Care
  Caroline Hint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time child care places are provided through Sure Start programmes. [87966]

  Maria Eagle
  The first 260 round 1–4 Sure Start local programmes plan to have created 10,000 new full time childcare places by 2003–04. The programmes approved continues to grow towards the target of at least 500 programmes. Programmes beyond the first 260 will create further childcare places.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to improve access to child care for working parents. [91056]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: We have funded an unprecedented expansion in child care provision throughout the country through the National Childcare Strategy. Since 1997, 553,000 new places have been created benefiting more than one million children.

  A new Unit, led by my colleague the Minister for Sure Start (Baroness Catherine Ashton) and accountable for delivery to both the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions, will administer a budget of £l. 5 billion a year by 2006. This includes more than doubling child care spending.
  150W
  By March 2004, new child care places for 1.6 million children will be created, with further new places established for 450,000 children by 2006. Specific initiatives, such as the establishment of Children's Centres and Neighbourhood Nurseries, will expand high quality, safe child care in disadvantaged areas, increasingly provided alongside early education and family support.

  Substantial help with child care costs is provided to lower income families through the child care tax credit element of the Working Families Tax Credit. This assistance will continue in an improved and more flexible form as part of the new Working Tax Credit from April 2003.

  Departmental Consultation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what his arrangements are for consulting the governors of(a) community schools, (b) foundation schools and (c) voluntary schools on changes to regulations; and if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which such consultations have been undertaken through an intermediary body in the last 12 months; [91242]

  (2) what his arrangements are for consulting the trustees of voluntary schools (a) in the trusteeship of dioceses and (b) in other trusteeships on changes to regulations; and if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which such consultations have been undertaken through an intermediary body in the last 12 months. [91243]

  Mr. Miliband
  The arrangements for consulting the groups in question on changes to regulations are in line with the arrangements that we have for consulting schools more generally in England on proposed changes to regulations.

  The Department follows the code of practice which was issued by the Cabinet Office in November 2000. In planning distribution and coverage we take a number of factors into account including (a) the likely impact and burden of bureaucracy on schools in automatically being sent mailings from DfES; (b) the likely time resource that is required at the school end to respond in

  151W
  a full and effective way to consultation documents within the specified time and (c) the type of regulation, or changes to regulations, proposed.

  With these factors in mind documents are sent to a randomly selected and representative cross sample of schools within a particular school type category. Simultaneously consultation documents are routinely placed on the DfES public website and recorded in the DfES publication "Spectrum" which allows all types of schools and other bodies to access and view consultation documents as they see fit.

  As well as the random cross sample of schools to which consultation documents are sent, a number of organisations and bodies external to schools also receive them. These will generally include intermediaries such as dioceses who are sent paper copies of consultation papers about school matters. The following list shows the consultations of relevance to schools that have taken place in the past 12 months to which, through a variety of means, intermediary bodies will have had access.

  Consultation title

  Consultation on Accessible Schools: Planning to increase access to schools for disabled pupils

  Revised Guidance on Exclusion from School-Draft for Consultation

  Quinquennial Review of Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)

  Consultation on Raising Standards-Training and Development for Leaders and Managers

  14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards (Adults) National Centre for Excellence in Science Teaching

  14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards (Young People)

  Consultation title

  Consultaion period if less than 12 weeks

  Consultation on Accessible Schools: Planning to increase access to schools for disabled pupils

  10 weeks

  Revised Guidance on Exclusion from School—Draft for Consultation

  Quinquennial Review of Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)

  6 weeks

  Quinquennial Review of Investors in People UK

  4 weeks

  Consultation on Raising Standards—Training and Development for Leaders and Managers

  14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards (Adults)

  National Centre for Excellence in Science Teaching

  The Adult Common Basic Data Set

  Early Years and Childcare Regulation

  14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards (Young People)

  Investors in Children Consultation Paper

  Publication of School and College Performance Tables in 2002 Consultation

  9 weeks

  Proposals to introduce a mandatory requirement for first-time headteachers to hold the National

  Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH)

  Electronic Communications in Education: an Order under the Electronic Communications Act 2000

  STRB report on teacher workload

  8 weeks

  Performance Pay Progression: Reconsultation on Revised Special Grant Report

  4 weeks

  Together From The Start—Practical guidance for professionals working with disabled children (birth to 2)

  and their families

  Developing Early Intervention/Support Services for Deaf Children and their Families

  The Department for Education and Skills—Race Equality Scheme

  Supporting the cost of home-based child care

  Success for All: Reforming Further Education and Training

  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Recognition of Professional

  Qualifications

  Investment to Support the Provision of New Pupil Places in Schools

  152W

  Publication of School and College Performance Tables in2002 Consultation

  Proposals to introduce a mandatory requirement for first-time headteachers to hold the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH)

  Electronic Communications in Education: an Order under the Electronic Communications Act 2000

  STR B report on teacher workload

  Performance Pay Progression: Reconsultation on Revised Special Grant Report

  Investment to Support the Provision of New Pupil Places in Schools

  Consultation on the Constitution of School Governing Bodies

  Consultation on School Organisation Proposals by the Learning and Skills Council under the Education Act 2002

  Teachers Pension Scheme: Amendments to the Teachers' Pensions Regulations 1997

  Extending the National Curriculum for England to Include the Foundation Stage

  Consultation on Revised School Admissions and Admission Appeals Codes of Practice and Accompanying Regulations

  Consultation on Acoustic Design of Schools

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the consultations undertaken by his Department in the last calendar year, indicating those which did not comply with the good government guidance on consultation. [91245]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  A list of the public consultations undertaken by my Department, which commenced after 1 January 2002 and closed before 31 December 2002 is in the following table. The Department has complied with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation, in each case applying exemptions where appropriate, especially where for the conduct of efficient business and in the public interest my Department was required to take urgent action. I have indicated where my Department applied an exemption to the 12 week minimum period for a consultation, as specified in criterion 5 of the Code.
  153W

  Consultation title

  Consultaion period if less than 12 weeks

  Consultation on the Constitution of School Governing Bodies

  Consultation on School Organisation Proposals by the Learning and Skills Council under the Education Act 2002

  Teachers Pension Scheme: Amendments to the Teachers' Pensions Regulations 1997

  9 weeks

  Extending the National Curriculum for England to include the foundation stage

  7 weeks

  Consultation on Revised School Admissions and Admission Appeals Codes of Practice and Accompanying Regulations

  3 weeks

  Consultation on Acoustic Design of Schools

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total expenditure of his Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90544]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  During the 2001–02 financial year the Department spent £294,000 on the purchase of books, newspapers, magazines and periodicals. This figure includes expenditure incurred before some functions transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions and other departments. It is not possible to separate costs further without disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the distribution of his Department's wholetime equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to him, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90478]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 609W.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in(a) the Department and (b) each of the agencies it sponsors; and what the equivalent figures were for 1997. [90676]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 697W.

  Education Business Links
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what role Education Business Links play in facilitating work-related learning placements with small and medium sized enterprises. [90929]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Education/business links have an important role to play in providing experiences of the world of work for young people. We are providing £25 million in 2002–03 to promote closer links between schools and business. Education/business links organisations work with many small and medium sized enterprises to provide opportunities for work-related learning for young people, including work experience placements undertaken by 95 per cent. of pupils at Key Stage 4.
  154W
  In addition, through our "Increased Flexibility for 14–16 Year Olds" programme, we are making available £38 million which will create over 30,000 part-time placements per annum in 2002–04. This programme will give many young people at Key Stage 4 the chance to pursue vocational courses in colleges, with training providers and with employers. Early indications are that education/business links organisations and small and medium sized enterprises are involved in the local delivery of the programme.

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89949]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government believe it is important for consumers to have choice in financial products, including the availability of 'ethical' products. However, it would not be appropriate for the Government to exclusively support the development of one specific group of financial service providers. It is for individual consumers to decide the attributes they most value from their financial services and for financial services firms to be transparent about their use of funds and investments.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90506]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  For 2001–02 £5.7 million1 was spent on administrative consultancy costs and for 2002–03 £2 million has been spent to date. This figure excludes programme consultancy costs which are currently not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. From April 2003 arrangements will be made to collect centrally expenditure information for programme consultancy costs.
  1This figure includes consultancy spend incurred by central functions that subsequently transferred to other Government Departments under Machinery of Government changes.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what fair trade criteria he sets when deciding upon what suppliers to use. [8996]
  155W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by the Chief Secretary on 9 December 2002,Official report, column 92W which read as follows.
  "There is no Government-wide approach to the procurement of Fair trade products. Each Government Department is responsible for making its own decisions on such products, against the background of the Government's value for money policy, the EC procurement rules and the Department's objectives. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made clear, the Government are committed to supporting ethical trading wherever possible and provide significant support to the Fair trade Foundation's efforts in promoting the supply and marketing of Fair trade products".

  In line with Government procurement policy the evaluation of tenders is based on value for money considerations having due regard to propriety and regularity. The use of fair trade products was given due consideration alongside other requirements during the recent catering service procurement with a subsequent clause included within the contract requiring that, wherever possible, fair trade beverages are offered for sale in all DfES Head Office restaurants.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [90867]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department promotes and supports the use of a range of flexible working patterns including job sharing, to enable staff to balance home and work responsibilities. Flexible working options for staff include part-time work, a flexi-time system, compressed hours, part-year working and home working. Internal vacancies in the Department are open to all staff, irrespective of their working arrangements or pattern of work. Applicants for external vacancies are also invited to apply on a full time, part time or job share basis.

  The Department does not keep a record of the number of people specifically employed on job share contracts. 12.5 per cent. (569) of staff are employed under a range of part-time work patterns.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2003, ref. 89323, if he will give details of each ministerial visit during 2002 on departmental business to(a) Belgium, (b) France, (c) Slovakia, (d) Italy, (e) Australia and (f) the United States, including (i) the purpose of the visit, (ii) the Ministers involved, (iii) the number of officials accompanying the Minister, (iv) the number of advisers accompanying the Minister and (v) the cost of the visit. [90443]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The Government publish an annual list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas costing more than £500, and
  156W
  the annual cost of all Ministers' visitsoverseas. For details of visits overseas during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24 July 2002, Official Report, column 1375W. Similar details for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

  Post-16 Funding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the budget is for school sixth form and college access funds for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [87956]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]The Department for Education and Skills has allocated £129.38m in 2002–03 for Learner Support Funds (access funds) and £159.68m in 2003–2004.

  Funding is distributed via the Learning & Skills Council to colleges, external institutions, school and college sixth forms in the further education sector.

  Public Bodies
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the present appointees of the(a) Centre for Information on Language Teaching, (b) Construction Industry Training Board,(c) Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, (d) Equal Opportunities Commission, (e) Funding Agency for Schools, (f) Further Education Funding Council, (g) Further Education Funding Council Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Committee, (h) Higher Education Funding Council for England, (i) Investors in People UK, (j) Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, (k) REMPLOY, (l) National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities, (m) National Disability Council and (n) Teacher Training Agency. [90987]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Current Teacher Training Agency—Board Members

  Executive Members

  Sir Professor Clive Booth

  Chair

  Dr. John Crater

  Director and Chief Executive Edgehill

  College of FE

  Carole Evans

  Retired Primary Head

  Professor David Reynolds

  Dept of Education Loughborough University

  Maggie Semple

  Chief Exec: The Experience Corp

  Professor Eileen Baker

  Principal and Chief Exec, Bishop

  Grosseteste College

  Prof Barbara Mac Gilchrist

  Dean of ITT, ULIE

  David Kershaw

  Head Coundon Court School and

  Community College

  Victoria Nye

  Director, Association of Unit Trusts and

  Investments Funds

  Christopher Baker

  Freelance Consultant

  Non Executive Member

  Ralph Tabberer

  Chief Executive TTA

  157W

  Investors in people Uk—Board Members

  Tim Melville-Ross

  Chair

  Hans Reismann

  Scotland

  Sheila Drury

  Wales

  Geraldine Keegan

  Northern Ireland

  Martin Henry

  CBI-SMEs

  Samantha Gemmell

  Small Business Council

  Michael Stark

  LSC

  Lord Tom Sawyer

  Ex Gen Sec Labour Party

  Sue Thomas

  Redwood

  Garry Hawkes

  Accord PLC

  Ed Sweeney

  Tu-UNIFI

  Norman McLean

  National Mentoring Consortium

  Hugh Try

  DfES interest

  Janice Shiner

  DfES Assessor

  Stephen Marston

  DfES Assesor

  Ruth Spellman

  liPUK

  John Rhodes

  DTI(Observer)

  Centre for Information on Language Training—Board of

  Governors

  Mr. Stephen Jones

  Chair

  Mr. Jim Beale

  Mr. Richard Bunker

  Mr. Jonathan Day

  Head of Languages, The Lord Grey

  School, Milton Keynes

  Mr. Peter Downes

  Ms Anne Farren

  Richmond LEA

  Mr. Colin Flint QBE

  Mr. Terry Lamb

  Department of Educational Studies, The

  University of Sheffield

  Mr. Ian A. Lamont QBE

  Rector, Alva Academy

  Dr. Peter Lehmann CBE

  Energy Saving Trust

  Mr. Anthony Lunch

  Managing Director, Business Link

  Mr. Hugh Morgan-Williams

  Canford Audio plc

  Dr. Susan Price

  Pro-Vice Chancellor, University of East

  London

  Mr. Mike Short

  Barclay School, Stevenage

  Professor Eric Sunderland

  Mr. Peter Thompson

  Business in the Community

  Higher Education Funding Council for England—Board Members

  Chair:

  Mr. David Young

  Chief Executive:

  Professor Sir Howard Newby

  Members:

  Dr. John Taylor QBE

  Professor Sir Ron Cooke

  Mrs. Jackie Fisher

  Dr. David Potter CBE

  Professor Sir Gareth Roberts

  Ms Dorma Urwin

  Mr. Stephen Bundred

  Professor Peter Scott

  Mr. Richard Coldwell

  Mr. Peter Saraga

  Professor Nigel Savage

  Mrs. Ann Lloyd

  Sir Richard Sykes

  In April 2001 the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) replaced the Further Education Funding Council. Current members of the LSC National Council are as folows.
  158W

  Members

  Bryan Sanderson

  chair

  John Harwood

  Chief Executive

  Chris Banks

  Chief Executive, Big Thoughts Ltd.

  Vincent Watts

  Chair, East of England Regional

  Devolopment Agency

  Jane Drabble QBE

  Former Director of Education, BBC

  lmtiaz Farookhi

  Chief Executive, National House

  Building Council

  Professor Bob Fryer CBE

  Chief Executive, National Health Service

  John Merry

  Deputy Leader, Salford City Council

  John Monks

  General Secretary, Trade Union

  Congress

  Lynne Morris

  Principal, Joseph Chamberlain Sixth

  Form College, Birmingham

  Sir George Sweeney

  Principal, Knowsley Community

  College, Merseyside

  Alexandra Burslem

  Vice Chancellor, Manchester

  Metropolitan University

  Giles Clarke

  Chair and Chief Executive ATL Telecom

  Digby Jones

  Director General, Confederation of

  British Industry

  Shirley Cramer

  Chief Executive, Dyslexia Institute

  Engineering Construciton Industry Training Board—Board Members

  Chair:

  Jim Rowland CBE

  Employers:

  Barbara Rider

  Mike Hockey

  Douglas Walker

  Louise Ferguson

  Chris Lloyd-Jones

  Richard Leamon

  Brian Rogan

  Colin Barnes

  William McLean

  Employer Association officials:

  Brenig Williams

  Clients: (Two posts)

  Jeffrey House

  Dr. Alix Thorn

  Trade Union representatives:

  Paul Corby

  Neil Moore

  HE representative:

  Prof Ron McCaffer

  FE representative:

  Rae Angus

  Construction Industry Training Board—Board Members

  Chairman:

  Sir Michael Latham

  Deputy Chairman:

  Peter Rogerson

  Employers:

  Stewart Tilley

  John Milne

  Malcolm Harris

  Michael Fitchett

  159W

  Trevor Gamble

  Howard Baggaley

  Roderick Tait

  Neil Telling

  Maurice Denyer

  Geoffrey Snow

  Geoffrey Lister

  Margaret Sullivan

  James Wates

  Clients:

  David Adamson

  Trade Union representatives:

  George Brumwell

  Robert Blackman

  HE representative:

  Prof Brian Lee

  FE representative:

  Mrs. Sadie Walton

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority—Board Members

  Sir Anthony Greener

  Chair

  Ian McAllister

  Deputy Chair

  Ken Boston

  Chief Executive QCA

  Anne Duke

  Headteacher, Southwater County Infant School

  Jenny Fitton

  Principal, Taunton's College

  Ed Gould

  Master, Marlborough College

  Terry Morgan

  Chief Executive, Tube lines

  Dennis Richards

  Headteacher, St. Aiden's C of E High School

  Ray Shostak

  Director of Children, Schools and Families

  Service

  Nick Stuart

  Vice President, National Institute of Adult

  Continuing Education

  Ted Wragg

  School of Education, Exeter University

  The Funding Agency for Schools

  The Funding Agency for Schools was responsible for grant payments to Grant Maintained Schools, and associated planning issues. Following the reversion of GM schools into the LEA sector in 1999, the agency (which was a Non-Departmental Public Body) was wound up on 1 November 1999 under s.132 of the School Standards and Framework Act.

  The Department for Education and Skills does not have responsibility for the following organisations:

  REMPLOY

  Department for Work and Pensions

  National advisory Council on

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Employment of People with Disabilities

  National Disability Council

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Department of Trade and Industry

  School Fires
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had over the past year on measures to reduce arson attacks on schools; and if he will make a statement. [91310]

  Mr. Miliband
  Officials from this Department sit on the Arson in Schools Working Group. This comprises experts representing the insurance industry, the fire and police services, local authorities and Government Departments. The group meets regularly to review new 160W
  data on school fires and advises on ways of reducing the risks of arson in schools through seminars and publications. One of its outputs has been the publication of the guide "How to Combat Arson in Schools", copies of which have been sent to all maintained schools in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had on measures to mitigate the effects of fires in schools; and if he will make a statement. [91311]

  Mr. Miliband
  If a fire should happen in a school, the Department's primary concern is for the safety of pupils, teachers and other users. Regulation 17 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 requires that every part of a school building, and of the land provided for a school, shall be such that the safe escape of the occupants in case of fire is reasonably assured. Schools are also covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and by subsequent related regulations. These include aspects of fire safety.

  To help schools manage fire safety, the Department published Managing School Facilities Guide 6, "Fire Safety", in 2000. This offers guidance on how to minimise the risk of fire, including identifying hazards and carrying out risk assessments. It also gives advice on training and on fire detection and alarm systems.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for(a) issuing guidance and (b) making it a statutory obligation that newly built schools should have fire sprinklers installed. [91313]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since April 2001, all new construction work at schools has been subject to approval under the Building Regulations. Projects will not be approved unless they are designed in accordance with the 2000 edition of Approved Document B (Fire Safety), which accompanies the regulations. The Building Regulations do not require the installation of fire sprinkler systems in new school accommodation and the Department does not intend to seek such a change.

  The Department's guide "Fire Safety" includes information on fire sprinklers. It states that, though expensive to install, their use may be worthwhile in schools where the risk of arson is high. In these circumstances sprinkler systems can help minimise the loss of valuable course work and teaching materials through fire, and prevent major disruption to the life of a school.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the estimated cost of arson attacks in schools in each of the past five years. [91314]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect these figures.

  School Laboratories
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information the appraisal of asset management plans generated on the condition of accommodation and equipment in secondary school science laboratories. [90955]
  161W
  Mr. Miliband
  The condition data that have been collected from local education authorities in connection with their asset management plans do not separately identify the condition of science laboratories or the equipment they contain. To have asked for spaces to be separately identified would have placed an undue burden on authorities.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to ask OFSTED to monitor spending on schools' laboratories and equipment supplies in more detail than at present. [90956]

  Mr. Miliband
  OFSTED as part of its general remit assesses the suitability of school buildings for delivery of the National Curriculum, including the sciences. There are at present no plans to ask OFSTED separately to monitor the spending on schools' laboratories and equipment supplies. Generally, we do not monitor details of capital investment at LEA level because of the bureaucratic burden that this would impose. An evaluation report of £60 million capital funding that was allocated to LEAs for the School Laboratories for 21st Century scheme in 2000–01 and 2001–02, covering a sample of 149 participating LEAs will be prepared over the next 12 months.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provisions will be made for schools with unsatisfactory or worse science accommodation that did not benefit from the funding made available through the School Laboratories for the 21st Century scheme. [90957]

  Mr. Miliband
  The central Government funding available for investment in school buildings will rise from £3 billion this year, to £3.8 billion for 2003–04, and will rise further to over £5 billion by 2005–06. The bulk of this funding is allocated by formula to schools and to local education authorities (LEAs) to support investment in their priority needs. LEAs have Asset Management Plans (AMPs) to prioritise these needs locally in a rigorous, open and consultative process, based on a full survey of the building needs of all their schools, including for science teaching and learning, and reflecting government priorities such as our aim to improve the provision of laboratories. Schools now receive substantial direct capital funding, to give them a direct stake in investment in their buildings, including in laboratories. A secondary school of 1,000 pupils will in 2003–04 receive about £75,000 of direct capital, and this funding can be rolled over for up to three years to allow major projects to be addressed.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many working days were lost due to illness in his Department in(a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding five years. [90746]
  162W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The overall sickness absence rate in the Department for Education and Skills for 2001 was 8.4 days per staff year.

  The overall sickness absence rate in the former Department for Education and Employment for each of the years from 2000 to 1997 was:

  2000—11.3 days per staff year

  1999—11.0 days per staff year

  1998—11.6 days per staff year

  1997—12.6 days per staff year.

  The figures are taken from the report 'Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service', published annually by the Cabinet Office. The figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  My Department is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and to maintaining its efforts to try and meet the 2003 target for reduced sickness absence as set out in its Service Delivery Agreement.

  Study Support
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the Answers to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) of 18 December 2002,Official Report, column 832W, when he expects to announce detailed plans for the funding of study support activities. [90783]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We announced at the end of December our plans for increased total spending on the main study support programmes over the next three years: £85m in 2003–04; £115m in 2004–05; and £159m in 2005–06. The bulk of this money will go to schools and local education authorities, with additional funds targeted on Excellence in Cities areas, and in support of our national Key Stage 3 strategy to raise standards in the early secondary years. We will also provide extra funding to expand the Playing for Success scheme with more study support centres; and funding for national organisations which provide advice, training and project support to those delivering study support activities. We will announce further details in due course.

  Teachers
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost was to(a) local government, (b) central Government and (c) both local and central Government of employing (i) teachers, (ii) deputy head teachers, (iii) head teachers and (iv) all teachers in each year since 1997. [91521]

  Mr. Miliband
  Expenditure by local education authorities in England on teaching staff in each year since 1997 was as follows.
  163W

  Expenditure on teaching staff—England, 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Expenditure (£ million in cash terms)

  1997–

  9,859

  1998–99

  10,249

  1999–2000

  12,236

  2000–01

  13,214

  Employment costs for teachers at maintained schools are not met directly by central Government but by the LEAs and schools which employ them. No figures are held centrally on the breakdown of these costs between heads, deputies and other teachers.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his definition is of a High Level Teaching Assistant; and what the(a) minimum qualification levels, (b) training requirements and (c) salary scales are. [91584]

  Mr. Miliband
  The term "higher-level teaching assistant" has been used in my Department's recent consultation document "Developing the role of support staff" to describe individuals without Qualified Teacher Status who could assist classroom teachers with higher-level tasks directly associated with teaching and learning. Details of their training and qualifications will be developed following the end of the consultation period on 22 January 2003, but the consultation document proposes that they should be trained to a level between that of the existing NVQ level 3 qualification for teaching assistants and the level of Qualified Teacher Status. Decisions about pay for all school support staff are made at a local level by schools and LEAs but the consultation document also indicates that my officials will work with local government employers and support staff unions to ensure that greater responsibilities are reflected in pay.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regarding the introduction of university top-up fees. [90018].

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend meets the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from time to time in the course of normal business. There have also been specific discussions during the higher education review, including on the issue of top-up fees.

  Unused School Rooms
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what incentives he gives to local education authorities to find alternative uses for unused rooms in schools. [85555]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: Through the Asset Management Planning process, we encourage local education authorities and schools to make best value use of school buildings. For example, as part of the development of Asset Management Plans, we are currently surveying all school buildings to give schools and authorities up-to-date information on their school buildings, including the split of space between
  164W
  teaching and non-teaching areas and space not used directly for education. We also plan shortly to advise all headteacher and governing bodies on best practice in estate management. We encourage schools and authorities to develop community use of school buildings.

  Youth Crime
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to educate young people about the penalties for shop theft. [90263]

  Mr. Miliband
  Pupils learn about the penalties of crime as part of Citizenship education—now a statutory subject in secondary schools—and as part of the national framework for Personal, Social and Health Education and Citizenship in primary schools. Detailed guidance sent to all schools by the QCA includes specific units to help teachers to develop pupils' understanding of issues of crime, including the role and operation of the criminal and civil justice system. For example, the unit 'Respect for property' helps pupils in KS 1 and 2 (age 5–10) to discuss and learn about the consequences of crime and the concept of taking responsibility for property in the community. In another unit 'Crime' pupils in KS3 (age 11–14) build on what they have learned in primary schools to explore how crime affects young people, victims of crime and their communities.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he last met the Home Secretary to discuss crimes by schoolchildren. [90264]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about this and other relevant issues.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Private Letting
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what legal advice, in addition to that provided by the Citizens Advice Bureaux, is available to tenants whose landlord breaches the letting agreement. [90999]

  Mr. McNulty
  Tenants can seek legal advice from a solicitor in all legal matters. Advice is also available from community law services such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, Law Centres, or the local authority's housing advice centre.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will establish an official body responsible for tenants' deposits and able to act as an authoritative third party in private letting contracts. [90997]

  Mr. McNulty
  Currently the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to intervene in the contractual relationship between private landlords and their tenants by legislating for a third party to intervene and adjudicate in their disputes. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has issued a consultation paper "Tenancy money: probity and protection", in which views were requested on whether to move to a mandatory system for the protection of tenancy deposits; and, if so, what arrangements should provide
  165W
  for it. The deadline for responses is 28 February. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consider whether and how to legislate in the light of responses received.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many PSA targets the Audit Commission has. [91510]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Audit Commission has no PSA targets. However, the work of the Commission contributes to the achievement of my Department's target of improving the delivery and value for money of local services.

  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether people who work for the Audit Commission are required to declare other jobs. [91511]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Audit Commission's code of conduct requires employees to obtain prior approval for external work for which they will be paid, for other work which they will undertake in the Audit Commission's time or which is connected with their work for the Commission.

  Consultation Exercises
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings; and whether in each case this is a statutory requirement. [916251

  Mr Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sponsors a range of executive, advisory or tribunal non-departmental public bodies. Of these:

  (a) the Audit Commission, English Partnerships, Housing Action Trusts, the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions and the Rent Assessment Panels hold public meetings. This is a statutory requirement for the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions and the Rent Assessment Panels;

  (b) the Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils, Audit Commission, English Partnerships, Housing Action Trusts, Housing Corporation, the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions and the Standards Board for England conduct public consultation exercises. This is a statutory requirement for the Audit Commission in some cases, the Housing Action Trusts and the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions;

  (c) the Audit Commission, English Partnerships, Housing Corporation and the Rent Assessment Panels conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests. This is a statutory requirement for the Audit Commission in some cases;

  (d) the Community Forum, English Partnerships, Housing Action Trusts, Housing Corporation, Parliamentary Boundary Commissions, Rent Assessment Panels and the Standards Board for England publish
  166W
  aregister of members' interests. In addition the Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils, Audit Commission, Building Regulations Advisory Committee and the Property Advisory Group also keep a register which can be made available on request. This is not a statutory requirement for any of these NDPBs;

  (e) Housing Action Trusts and the Housing Corporation publish agendas for meetings, expect where items may be of a confidential nature. This is not a statutory requirement;

  (f) Housing Action Trusts publish minutes of meetings except for confidential items. This is not a statutory requirement.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the distribution of his Office's whole-time equivalent staff including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to him was in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90480]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established following machinery of Government changes in May 2002. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 15 January 2003,Official Report. column 609W, which sets out the number of staff for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's predecessors bodies.

  English House Condition Survey
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the results of the 2001 English House Condition Survey. [91065]

  Mr. McNulty
  The report is currently being drafted with an aim to being published in spring 2003.

  Fire Deaths
  Adam Price
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many deaths there were due to fires in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years between(a) 10.00 pm and 6.00 am, (b) 6.00 am and 2.00 pm and (c) 2.00 pm and 10.00 pm. [91895]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest data for the information requested on the number of deaths due to fires in the United Kingdom broken down by the times requested are in the following tables.

  These data indicate the importance of fire prevention. The Government believe that each household should have a properly considered escape plan and working smoke alarms; this is key to reducing deaths and injuries while people sleep.
  167W

  Primary fires1 and deaths, UK 1997–2001

  Yearly totals

  Number

  Fires

  Deaths

  Death rate per 1,000 fires

  1997

  200559

  723

  3.6

  1998

  199928

  656

  3.3

  1999

  218404

  623

  2.9

  20003

  219535

  623

  2.8

  20004

  -

  595

  -

  20013

  228136

  627

  2.7

  20014

  -

  606

  -

  Emergency call received between 10 pm and 6 am2

  Number

  Proportion of yearly total (Percentage)

  Fires

  Deaths

  Fires

  Deaths

  Death rate per 1,000.fires

  1997

  58855

  283

  29

  39

  4.8

  1998

  60089

  246

  30

  38

  4.1

  1999

  67957

  207

  31

  33

  3.0

  20003

  70076

  237

  32

  38

  3.4

  20004

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  20013

  73753

  226

  32

  36

  3.1

  20014

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Emergency call received between 2 pm and 10 pm2

  Number

  Proportion of yearly total (Percentage)

  Fires

  Deaths

  Fires

  Deaths

  Death rate per 1,000 fires

  1997

  92455

  205

  46

  28

  2.2

  1998

  92519

  192

  46

  29

  2.1

  1999

  101109

  199

  46

  32

  2.0

  20003

  101616

  191

  46

  31

  1.9

  20004

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  20013

  105396

  215

  46

  34

  2.0

  20014

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1A primary fire is any fire in a building or vehicle and/or a fire which involved casualties or rescues.

  2 The time of the fire is denoted as the time the emergency call was received by the local authority fire brigade.

  3 Provisional

  4 The 2000 and 2001 data for fatalities are estimated to account for the revisions as later information is received. Calculations are based on the provisional total of deaths.

  Historic Environment Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the Historic Environment Scheme Notification within the European Community. [89469]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand from the Department for Trade and Industry that the United Kingdom responded in November 2002 to the European Commission's most recent request for information on the various heritage aid schemes. The Commission is still considering this response. The DTI believes the Commission has been given sufficient information to reach an early decision. Officials from the United Kingdom Permanent Representation are in contact with the relevant desk officer in the Commission and are monitoring progress.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average grant entitlement increase awarded to county councils for the forthcoming financial year has been; and what the percentage increase provided for Essex was. [91396]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's proposals for the funding of local authority revenue expenditure, as set out in the provisional local government finance settlement 2003–04 announced on 5 December 2002, provide for an average formula grant increase for county councils of 5.7per cent. The increase for Essex is 3.7per cent.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what average domestic rates were paid to local councils in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and what the average amount of rates paid in Essex was in the same period. [91398]

  Mr. Leslie
  The average council tax in England in 2002–03 for a Band D dwelling (occupied by two or more adults) is £976.

  The average council tax in Essex (including Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock) in 2002–03 for a Band D dwelling (occupied by two or more adults) is £965.

  Local Government Finance (London)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for(a) London Borough of Waltham Forest, (b) London Borough of Redbridge and (c) London boroughs as a whole (i) the amount of grant received in the 2002£03 settlement and what percentage this was of the overall national settlement; and (ii) the amount of grant received in the 2003–04 settlement and what percentage this is of the overall national settlement.[91094]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table shows the amount of Revenue Support Grant, nationally redistributed non-domestic rates and principal formula Police Grant received in 2002–03, and the proposed amount for 2003–04. The House will have the opportunity to debate the final amounts for 2003–04 in due course.

  2002–03

  2003–04

  £ million

  Percentage of total

  £ million

  Percentage of total

  Waltham Forest

  203.903

  0.5

  216.753

  0.5

  Redbridge

  175.930

  0.4

  190.573

  0.4

  London boroughs

  6.228.817

  15.4

  6728.282

  15.3

  England

  40323.132

  100.0

  43892.049

  100.0

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which London local authorities have received the floor level of grant in the recent local authorities financial settlement; and if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying the decision in each case. [91095]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following authorities had the minimum 3.5 per cent. like-for-like increase in grant (excluding capital adjustments) in the provisional settlement: Barnet, Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Havering, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond-upon-Thames, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth and Westminster.
  169W
  The principal reasons for these outcomes are substantial losses of population in many boroughs arising from the 2001 Census and relative reductions in wage levels in the outer eastern boroughs affecting their area cost adjustment. There are many other factors affecting these authorities, both positively and negatively.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) have a statutory base, (b) publish their advice to Government, (c) publish an annual report and (d) lay an annual report before Parliament; and whether this is a statutory requirement in each case. [91624]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sponsors a range of executive, advisory and tribunal non-departmental public bodies. Of these:

  (a) the Audit Commission, Building Regulations Advisory Committee, English Partnerships, Housing Action Trusts, Housing Corporation, the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions, the Rent Assessment Panels and the Standards Board for England have a statutory base;

  (b) the Audit Commission, Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils, Advisory Panel on Standards in the Planning Inspectorate and the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions publish their advice to Government. This is a statutory requirement for the Audit Commission and the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions;

  (c) All NDPBs sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister publish an annual report. This is a statutory requirement for the Audit Commission, English Partnerships, Housing Corporation and the Standards Board for England;

  (d) the Audit Commission, English Partnerships, Housing Action Trusts, Housing Corporation and the Standards Board for England lay their annual report before Parliament as a statutory requirement.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which of his Department's non-departmental public bodies the Government are required to(a) consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) publish their response to advice from. [91626]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government consults with relevant NDPBs prior to legislative proposals and publishes their response to any advice given by NDPBs as appropriate.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; which of those bodies(a) admit members of the public to all board and committee meetings and (b) hold open meetings for the public; and whether in each case this is a statutory requirement. [91627]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sponsors the following executive non-departmental public bodies; Audit Commission, English Partnerships, Housing Action Trusts, Housing Corporation and Standards Board for England, all of which have a statutory base. Of these (a) Housing Action Trusts 170W
  admit members of the public to all board and committee meetings except where items are of a confidential nature and (b) Housing Action Trusts, Audit Commission and English Partnerships hold open meetings for the public. These are not statutory requirements for any of these bodies.

  Regional Assemblies
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many representations he has received from electors living in(a) the south-east region, (b) Hampshire and (c) the New Forest East constituency in favour of the establishment of an elected regional assembly for the south-east. [91399]

  Mr. Raynsford
  "Your Region, Your Choice", the White Paper on Regional Governance, was not a consultation exercise, except on the issue of stakeholder involvement with elected regional assemblies. It therefore did not invite views either for or against the principle of establishing assemblies. Representations in response to the White Paper have been received by letter and by e-mail. It is not possible to identify the region, county or constituency of origin of many of the e-mailed responses. However, between the dates of 9 May 2002, when the White Paper was published, and 30 November 2002, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recorded 18 respondents from the south-east who were in favour of an elected regional assembly in the region, of whom two were from Hampshire. Our analysis of responses did not record respondents' parliamentary constituencies.

  Social Housing (Solar Heating)
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with housing associations about developing solar heating and photovoltaic applications for social housing; and if he will make a statement. [91112]

  Mr. McNulty
  Responsibility for photovoltaic solar heating development and deployment programmes for which housing associations can apply are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  The Housing Corporation promotes the sustainability of social housing owned by housing associations through its Regulatory Code. Housing associations are expected to demonstrate a commitment to effective protection of the environment and the prudent use of natural resources. The Housing Corporation is funding a "Generating Solar Homes" project, through its Innovation and Good Practice programme, to encourage housing associations' active involvement in the Government's photovoltaic programme.

  South-east Region
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the advantages of subdividing the south-east region so that Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex and Surrey comprise one new region. [91534]
  171W
  Mr. Leslie
  The current regional boundaries are now the most widely accepted and used regional boundaries. A large number of regional bodies, including the Government Offices, Regional Development Agencies and other parts of Central Government, operate to these boundaries, and all regions now have recognised voluntary regional chambers. The current regions are of a sufficient spatial and demographic size to support the work of these organisations.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister believes that any debate on regional boundaries would generate no obvious prospect that more practicable or more widely acceptable boundaries would result.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol (Minors)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of incidents of minors purchasing alcoholic beverages(a) in Lancashire and (b) in the UK in the last 12 months.[90723]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of incidents of minors purchasing alcoholic beverages in Lancaster, or in the UK as a whole, is not collected centrally. However, some information is available from the Department of Health's annual, nationally representative school survey looking at smoking, drinking and drug use among young people aged 11 to 15 years old in England. Questions were last asked about purchasing alcohol in the 2000 survey. The results are shown in the table. All information relates to England. Estimates for Lancashire are not available.

  Where children usually buy alcohol

  Percentages

  11 to 15 year olds

  In a pub or bar

  9

  In a club or disco

  7

  From an off-licence

  17

  From a shop or supermarket

  9

  From a friend or relative

  17

  From someone else

  8

  I never by alcohol

  46

  Base N (all pupils who drink now)

  3,952

  Note:

  Percentages total more than 100 because pupils could give more than one answer.

  Source:

  The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does contain statistics on the number of prosecutions and convictions for offences of buying and selling intoxicating liquor to underage. However, due to the small numbers of incidents proceeded against, it would not give an accurate picture of minors purchasing alcoholic beverages.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government intend to 172W
  implement the recommendations of the House of Lords report on the use of animals in scientific procedures. [91308]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government's response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on animals in scientific procedures was published on 20 January 2003 (Cm 5729). Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Government welcome the Select Committee's report and notes in particular, and endorses, its finding that animal experiments are currently necessary to develop human and veterinary medicines and to protect humans and the environment. We have reaffirmed our commitment to the fullest possible application of the 3Rs—the refinement of scientific procedures, the reduction in numbers of animals used and their replacement wherever possible—and to greater openness regarding the use of animals in scientific procedures, subject to safeguards for personal and confidential information. We have also accepted that the administrative burden imposed by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 must be kept to a minimum without compromising the welfare of the animals used. We will pursue these issues and a number of other actions arising from our response to the Select Committee's report over the coming months.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that a welfare assessment of new strains of animals, including genetically modified ones, must be made as a matter of course. [91309]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  It has long been policy to assess and satisfy the welfare needs of animals bred and used under the licensing controls of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. All such animals have to be housed and cared for according to standards set out in published codes of practice. There is not at present a practical and universally accepted assessment system as regards genetically modified animals, but discussions are progressing with funding bodies to try to develop one that can be widely applied.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for (a) asylum and (b) naturalisation were received by the Home Office in each year since 1997; and how many are still outstanding for each year. [90849]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the number of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom which have been lodged since 1997.

  Year

  Applications received 1.2

  1997

  32,500

  1998

  46,015

  1999

  71,160

  2000

  80,315

  20013

  71,700

  Jan-Sept 20023

  62,480

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January

  1999 and March 2000.

  3 Provisional figures.

  173W
  Statistics on the total number of applications for British citizenship received, in 1997 to 2001, the latest available, are given in the table.

  Year

  Applications received

  1997

  66,000

  1998

  68030

  1999

  67,400

  2000

  62,4.75

  2001

  109,005

  Information on the number of asylum applications lodged in each year since 1997 which are still outstanding is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  At the end of September 2002, there were a total of 37,200 asylum cases awaiting an initial decision, including work in progress. This figure relates to the number of cases i.e. the number of principal applicants. On the same date, there were an estimated 47,000 appeals lodged with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) that had not yet been sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority. This figure includes non-asylum appeals.

  Information on the number of applications for British citizenship outstanding for each year is not available.

  Information on asylum and citizenship is available from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http:/www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers, broken down by year of initial application, are in each stage of the process towards admission or deportation. [91254]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of asylum applications outstanding by year of application is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  The number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision has been reduced from a peak of 120,000 to 37,200 at the end of September 2002. This includes work in progress and relates to the number of cases i.e. the number of principal applicants. On the same date, there were an estimated 47,000 appeals lodged with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) that had not yet been sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority. This figure includes non-asylum appeals.

  Information on the number of cases outstanding in other divisions of IND is not available. Information on the number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision is published quarterly on the Home Office website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Capita Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by his Department. [89970]
  174W
  Mr. Blunkett
  The list of contracts awarded to the Capita Group by the Home Department since 1997 is as follows:

  Contract

  Capita1

  Designing and Managing Building Projects

  Capita EC

  Environment/Space Planning

  Capita Business Service

  Recruitment of General Managers

  Capita Training

  Conferences and Training

  Capita Business Service

  Consultancy Support

  Capita Business Service

  Productions of Purchase Manual Efficiency Review

  Capita Business Service

  Her Majesty's prison Blakenhurst Bid Team

  Capita Business Service

  Quantum Project

  Capita

  Criminal Records Bureau

  Capita

  Recruitment

  Capita

  Recruitment

  Capita

  Management Recruitment Scheme

  Capita

  Civil Service Short Answer Test

  Capita1

  Finance related work2014;Central Police

  Training and Development Authority

  Capita1

  Provision of Human Resources Staff

  Capita Group Contract

  Multi-Disciplinary Term Commission

  1 Contracts for which Capita was not the prime contractor

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many departmental Christmas cards he and his 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. [88115]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]A total of 971 cards have been sent by Home Office Ministers at an approximate cost of 68p each. An approximate £211 was spent on postage with 21 hours of staff time involved in processing. A copy of the official Christmas card has been forwarded to the Library.

  All expenditure incurred in the purchase and despatch of official Christmas cards is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [881301]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 December 2002.]: A breakdown of expenditure as requested could be supplied only at disproportionate costs.

  However, any expenditure incurred on decorations, entertainment and any other festive activities is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  Community Support Officers
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what Government support is
  175W
  available to police authorities that are considering introducing community support officers or accredited community safety organisations; [89479]

  (2) how many accredited community safety organisations have been established in England and Wales, broken down by local authority area. [89481]

  Mr. Denham
  On 23 September 2002 my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, announced a fund of £19 million for the recruitment of more than 1,000 community support officers (CSOs) in England and Wales this financial year. All 27 forces who made bids for this funding were successful. We are committed to the development of CSOs throughout England and Wales and continue to work with all interested parties to drive forward this important strand of the police reform programme. General guidance on issues relating to CSOs, including the powers available to these officers, was placed on the police reform website on 2 December last year.

  Police forces who recruit CSOs under this year's funding initiative will receive full salary and direct on costs from the Home Office during the next financial year and substantial assistance for the following two years. We are also planning to invite all forces to bid for a share of a further tranche of CSO funding available in the next financial year as the next step towards reaching our target of 4,000 CSOs by the end of 2005.

  Under Section 40 of the Police Reform Act 2002, the Chief Officer of any police force may establish a community safety accreditation scheme in their force area for the purpose of accrediting suitable individuals with certain low level police powers to deal with antisocial behaviour and environmental problems in the local communities in which they work.

  No accreditation schemes have been established yet but we have commenced discussions with individual forces and the Association of Chief Police Officers to take this forward.

  Coquelles Refugee Centre
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received on the (a) establishment and (b) capacity of the residential refugee centre in Coquelles, France. [91991]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no residential refugee centre in Coquelles. A detention centre with 80 places was opened in Coquelles on 2 January 2003. This is to hold people who have already been through French proceedings and are in the process of being removed. This expansion in capacity has been planned since June 2002. It forms part of French improvements to their asylum and immigration procedures, which we welcome.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the correspondence from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 29 May, 9 September and 6 November on Mr. A. Cobbinah, ref. 18289/2. [88719]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 16 January 2003.
  176W
  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 Miss H. U. Abdi. [89238]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 January 2003.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East will receive responses to his letters of 6 June, 6 August, 4 October, 4 November and 4 December 2002 regarding the case of Mr.Siraj Ismail Patel (HO ref P386124). [90628]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]I wrote to my hon. Friend on 16 January 2003.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to measure (a) the effects that the Criminal Records Bureau has had on local volunteer development agencies and (b) costs caused by delays. [87250]

  Hilary Benn
  From the outset of work on the development of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), we have been anxious to involve the voluntary sector in the process in order to ensure that the arrangements were appropriate to the needs and circumstances of those within the sector. In order to take this further, now that the CRB is operational, we have established a Voluntary and Community Sector Working Group to provide a specific forum for discussion between the sector and the CRB. The Group has already begun to address issues identified by the sector, including ensuring that there are appropriate and cost-effective arrangements to access the Disclosure service.

  The Criminal Records Bureau has a settled policy on the payment of compensation, and, where appropriate, claims for compensation are resolved by an ex gratia payment. Such payments will not be made as a result of delays in processing applications. There must be an element of maladministration in dealing with an application. Ex gratia payments will be made only to applicants and not to employers, potential employers or others.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been assessed by the Criminal Records Bureau; and how many applications are pending. [88522]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]Since 11 March 2002 the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has received 1,164,784 disclosure applications and has issued over 938,981 disclosures. Many of the total number of applications outstanding, currently 225,803, were returned to applicants to provide missing information. Over the last six full weeks before Christmas the CRB has been averaging around 45,000 disclosures per week, which is over double the weekly output issued by the police under the previous arrangements.
  177W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the proportion of Criminal Record Bureau checks(a) carried out and (b) awaiting completion, broken down into the five most frequently active areas. [88703]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: The information is not available in the form requested as there are no information technology (IT) procedures at present to extract this data from the Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) database. It is expected that this capacity will become available in future IT upgrades to the CRB computer system. Since 11 March 2002 the Criminal Records Bureau has received 1,164,784 disclosure applications and has issued over 938,981 disclosures. Over the last six full weeks before Christmas the CRB has been averaging around 45,000 disclosures per week, which is over double the weekly output issued by the police under the previous arrangements. Approximately, 80 per cent. of applications for standard disclosures are now being issued within three weeks and 70 per cent. of applications for enhanced disclosures within six weeks.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)if he will make a statement about the Criminal Record Bureau's organisational preparedness to introduce basic disclosure; [90112]

  (2) what recommendations have been presented to him by Patrick Carter in his interim report into Criminal Records Bureau checks; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library;[89992]

  (3) when he expects to publish the final report by Patrick Carter into the Criminal Records Bureau; [89981]

  (4) when he will publish the interim report from Patrick Carter regarding the performance of (a) Capita and (b) the Criminal Records Bureau. [89986]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appointed Patrick Carter to lead a team of three to conduct an independent review of the Criminal Records Bureau so as to identify the longer-term measures needed to ensure that the Bureau is able to meet the demand for Disclosures. The team provided some initial oral feedback to Ministers in September and reported their final conclusions and recommendations at the end of the year. These took the form of advice to Ministers, including advice on matters that are commercially confidential; as such they are not in a form suitable for publication. We shall be considering the review team's findings and recommendations very carefully and are minded to publish a summary document, together with the Government's response, in due course. A judgment will be reached on Basic Disclosures in the light of the team's findings.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment(a) his Department and (b) the Criminal Records Bureau have made of the gaps in coverage by umbrella registered bodies. [90114]

  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Records Bureau maintains a record of umbrella registered bodies by geographical area which shows that there are good numbers of such bodies in each, with the exception of mid and north Wales where numbers are lower. Up to 10 January, a total of 1,199 bodies had so registered, included 520 178W
  who are prepared to act as "open" umbrella—i.e., countersign applications at the request of others outside their own circle or sector (but, in some cases, subject to a geographical restriction stated by the umbrella body on registration). Organisations seeking the services of an umbrella body are not restricted to using those in their own area. Any organisation needing to find an umbrella body should access the Bureau's website www.disclosure.gov.uk which has a search facility. or contact the CRB direct on 0870 90 90 90 811.

  Criminal Records Bureau Checks
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate how many persons caring for(a) children and (b) vulnerable adults will not have Criminal Records Bureau checks. [89989]

  (2) when his Department will publish guidance to registered bodies about the postponement of Criminal Records Bureau checks as set out in the announcement of 1 November 2002. [89983]

  (3) if he will estimate how many (a) children, and (b) vulnerable adults will be cared for by adults who had not received a Criminal Records Bureau check following the announcement of 1 November 2002. [89933]

  (4) how many (a) nurses supplied by nurses agencies and (b) staff supplied by domiciliary care agencies he estimates will no longer have to have Criminal Records Bureau checks. [89979]

  (5) how many care home staff who would have required Criminal Records Bureau checks before 1 April have had checks postponed until (a) 31 March and (b) 2004. [89985]

  (6) when he expects the Criminal Records Bureau will be able to cope with the demand associated with implementing the protection of vulnerable adults list. [90139]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 4 November 2002,Official Report, column 99W. in the light of a review of the projected likely capacity of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) against projected demand for its service, it has been necessary to take temporary measures not to increase the level of demand by postponing certain requirements for mandatory checks.

  In care homes for adults, only providers and managers were subject to checks prior to 1 April 2002. An estimated 100,000 new staff per year will continue to be subject to CRB checks, as will providers and managers. But an estimated 300,000 staff who were already in post on 1 April and who have not already applied for checks will not need to be checked for the time being. These checks will now be required during the course of 2004.

  Both new and existing nurses supplied by nurses agencies, and staff supplied by domiciliary care agencies, will also not need to be checked for the time being. A requirement for all such personnel to be checked in the current financial year would have entailed up to an estimated 200,000 in each group.
  179W
  Thereafter, it is estimated that some 50,000 staff supplied by nurses agencies and 60,000 staff supplied by domiciliary care agencies would have needed to be checked each year. Nurses supplied as new staff to establishments where requirements for mandatory checks are in force (including adult care homes and children's homes) will continue to be subject to checks. So will providers and managers of nurses agencies and domiciliary care agencies.

  Finally, school governors will also not be required to have CRB checks for the time being. Such checks would have generated an estimated 70,000–90,000 applications per year.

  We remain firmly committed to introducing requirements for CRB checks, and to the implementation of the protection of vulnerable adults list, at the earliest opportunity.

  The CRB issued guidance to all registered bodies detailing these changes on 4 November 2002; the guidance is available on the CRB's disclosure website at 222.disclosure.gov.uk. The Department for Education and Skills also issued guidance to Local Education Authorities on 29 November (available on www. teachernet.gov.uk).

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to ensure that prison service staff who come into contact with juvenile offenders in adult prisons have been subject to a Criminal Records Bureau check. [91203]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service has arrangements in place instructing governors to undertake a check on all those who have regular contact with children under 18 years of age using the Criminal Records Bureau.

  The arrangements apply to all staff, fee-paid, contractors, agency staff, researchers/research students, volunteers and project workers who will come into regular contact with children and those who supervise or manage such staff.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the relative effectiveness of(a) community specialist services and (b) residential rehabilitation for drug addicts. [87840]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The diagnostic criteria for entry into different types of drug treatment are not directly comparable. The needs of individuals and the background to their substance misuse will have an effect on the type of treatment most appropriate for them. Comparisons between the relative effectiveness of the two types of treatment are therefore complex and potentially misleading. The National Treatment Outcome Research Study, funded by the Department, reported that around half, or 47 per cent., of drug users who have gone through residential programmes and more than a third, or 35 per cent., of those from methadone programmes are still abstinent from opiates at four to five years.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Drug Treatment and Testing Orders have been made by the courts; how many have been breached; how many have been revoked; and how many revocations have resulted in a custodial sentence. [91010]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  10,070 Drug Treatment and Testing Orders were made during the period 1 October 2000 to 30 November 2002. Of these, 4,330 were revoked, including 226 for good progress. Figures on breach are currently available only for the period 1 November 2001 to 30 April 2002. During this time, 2;175 breach proceedings were instigated; and in about 40 per cent. of these cases, the order was revoked. Information as to re-sentencing in respect of revoked orders is not available.

  Female Prisoners
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the proportion of female prisoners who will be(a) offenders in respect of cannabis, (b) class A drug offenders and (c) housed in hospital wings in each of the next five years. [90269]

  Hilary Benn
  There are no estimates of the proportion of female prisoners who will be(a) offenders in respect of cannabis, (b) class A drug offenders and (c) housed in hospital wings in each of the next five years.

  At the end of October 2002, the female sentenced population for drugs offences was 1,314 (39 per cent. of the total sentenced female population), and the female remand population for drugs offences was 179 (18 per cent. of the total remand female population).

  The total number of women prisoners recorded by establishments as having been admitted to prison health care centres between June and September 2002, the last quarter for which statistics are available, was 1,225.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of female prisoners are mothers to children aged under l0 years. [90272]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no routinely collected data on the proportion of female prisoners who have dependent children, irrespective of age group. However, a Home Office study of a large sample of imprisoned women ands mothers, published in 1997, found that 60 per cent. of female prisoners, sentenced and unsentenced, had dependent children under the age of 18. (There were no research findings relating specifically to children under 10). Another smaller, but more recent, study of women prisoners and their work in custody, published in 2000, found broadly similar results (out of a sample of 567 sentenced women, 66 per cent. had dependent children under the age of 18).

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mothers with responsibility for children were serving sentences in prisons in England and Wales for the period January 1992 to December 2002, broken down by prison and what estimate he has made of the numbers of mothers
  181W
  with children who will be serving sentences in prisons in England and Wales for the period January 2003 to December 2013. [90488]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no routinely collected data on the number or proportion of female prisoners who have dependent children (nor are there any projections of such numbers for future years). However, a Home Office study of a large sample of imprisoned women and mothers, published in 1997, found that 60 per cent. of female prisoners had dependent children under the age of 18. Another smaller but more recent study of women prisoners and their work in custody, published in 2000, found broadly similar results (out of a sample of 567 sentenced women, 66 per cent had dependent children under the age of 18).

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken by his Department to ensure a decrease in the numbers of mothers with children serving sentences in prisons in England and Wales. [90489]

  Hilary Benn
  The increase in the female prison population, and the wider consequences of this in terms of disrupting families and the lives of children, supports the need to respond specifically to the particular needs and characteristics of women offenders if there is to be a reduction in offending by women and the numbers ending up in custody with child-care responsibilities.

  We are taking forward the 'Women's Offending Reduction Programme' over the next three years to respond to the range of factors that have an impact on why women offend, and encourages joint working between departments, agencies and other organisations to tackle those factors. A primary focus will be on improving community-based interventions that are better tailored to the needs of women. Childcare facilities in the community, is one of the issues being looked at. Greater use of such interventions will be encouraged to ensure that custody is only used for women offenders who really need to be there.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mothers in prisons in England and Wales have responsibility for babies (a) under nine months old and (b) under 18 months old. [90490]

  Hilary Benn
  On 6 January 2003, there were 34 mothers in Prison Service mother and baby units with babies under nine months old and 16 mothers with babies between nine and 18 months old.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners who were addicts of(a) heroin and (b) cocaine continued their habits after serving their sentences in each of the last five years; and what proportion died from drugs misuse in the 12 month period after leaving prison. [90266]
  182W
  Hilary Benn
  There is no routinely collected data on the proportion of female prisoners who were addicts of heroin or cocaine and who continued their habit after their sentences. However, the Home Office has commissioned the Office for National Statistics to examine the extent and causes of drug-related mortality among prisoners recently released from prison in England and Wales. The findings, which are due to be published later this quarter, will examine mortality rates among a sample of the general ex-prisoner population (though mainly not differentiating between males and females).

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce reforms to assist women prisoners through(a) improved accommodation and (b) delaying sentencing orders. [90249]

  Hilary Benn
  Helping women leaving prison to find appropriate accommodation is one of the key factors in effective resettlement, and we are continuing to improve the range of housing advice available in women's prisons, including prisoner-led schemes. Alongside employment, improving accommodation outcomes for released prisoners forms part of the Prison Service's Custody to Work initiative, in which we are investing £14.5 million a year from April 2003. A proportion of this will be allocated shortly to the women's estate and will be available to support the further development of housing advice services. We have no plans to allow courts generally to defer commencement of sentences, but the new sentence of intermittent custody planned in the Criminal Justice Bill will enable offenders to maintain activities, such as child care, while serving their prison time during certain parts of the week. Additionally, although intermittent custody begins immediately it is imposed by the court, the court can defer the first custodial period. This would enable the offender to make child care arrangements.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most recent per capita figures are for the use of neuroleptic drugs in each women's prison; and what percentage of prisoners in each women's prison are users, at least weekly, of(a) tranquillisers and (b) pain killers. [90271]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not available in the form requested. A survey of mental ill health in the prison population of England and Wales, undertaken in 1997 by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), showed that 26 per cent. of women prisoners were taking painkillers, 16 per cent. hypnotic and anxiolytic medication and 10 per cent. anti-psychotic medication.

  Immigration
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were received for asylum in each quarter of the last five years; how many failed; and how many of those who failed(a) have left or been removed, (b) have been granted leave to remain, (c) remain in the legal process and (d) have disappeared. [91247]
  183W
  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the number of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom lodged between Quarter 4 1997 and Quarter 3 2002, and initial decisions made in the same periods. However, data on

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions1,2

  Number of principal applicants

  Initial decisions3,4

  Cases considered under normal procedures5

  Backlog clearance exercise6

  Quarter

  Total applications7

  Total

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum4

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Refusals

  Granted exceptional leave under backlog criteria8

  Refused on non-compliance grounds under backlog criteria9

  1997 Q4

  8455

  8380

  1 535

  720

  6125

  -

  -

  1998 Q1

  8710

  9170

  1485

  1045

  6640

  -

  -

  1998 Q2

  9820

  7555

  1345

  880

  5325

  -

  -

  1998 Q3

  13090

  8015

  1420

  1270

  5320

  -

  -

  1998 Q4

  14400

  6835

  1095

  715

  5030

  -

  -

  1999 Q1

  13945

  4925

  200

  580

  2290

  1845

  10

  1999 Q2

  16405

  1.3,510

  6480

  910

  2670

  3330

  120

  1999 Q3

  20910

  7800

  620

  365

  2510

  3560

  745

  1999 Q4

  19895

  7485

  515

  610

  3550

  2410

  400

  2000 Q1

  18900

  23245

  995

  2070

  14985

  4965

  225

  2000 Q2

  20125

  31420

  5375

  5495

  16225

  3690

  635

  2000 Q3

  20435

  25750

  1725

  2285

  19595

  1675

  470

  2000 Q4

  20855

  28795

  2275

  1640

  24875

  -

  -

  2001 Q 1

  18905

  46.6

  3940

  6645

  36015

  -

  -

  2001 Q2

  15895

  27845

  2760

  4540

  20550

  -

  -

  2001 Q3

  18860

  23095

  2235

  4140

  16720

  -

  -

  2001 Q4

  17705

  21475

  2245

  4525

  14705

  -

  -

  2002 Q1

  19520

  23105

  2085

  6060

  14965

  -

  -

  2002 Q2

  20400

  19625

  1860

  5205

  12560

  -

  -

  2002 Q3

  22560

  20415

  2080

  4540

  13795

  -

  -

  1Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2Data for 2001 and 2002 are provisional.

  3Initial decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  4Based on decisions implemented for in-country cases and on decisions made for port cases until April 2000. The Asylum Casework Information Database (A-CID) has been the source of data on decisions since May 2000.

  5Cases considered under normal procedures after Q3 2000 may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

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

  7May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between QI 1999 and Q1 2000.

  8Includes cases where asylum or exceptional leave has been granted under the backlog criteria.

  9Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  It is not possible to determine the number of these applications which remain outstanding as this information is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records. At the end of September 2002, there were a total of 37,200 asylum cases awaiting an initial decision, including work in progress. This figure relates to the number of cases ie the number of principal applicants. On the same date, there were an estimated 47,000 appeals lodged with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) that had not yet been sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority. This figure includes non-asylum appeals.

  Of those persons who have been refused over this period, it is not possible to determine how many have subsequently been removed as this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records. Asylum applicants do not always inform the Immigration Service prior to leaving the United Kingdom, so information is not available on how many refused persons have left the country or have disappeared.
  184W
  initial decisions are independent of applications data, and do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  Information on asylum applications, initial decisions, appeals and removals is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period October to December 2002 and will be available from 28 February 2003 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were admitted in return for the closure of the Sangatte Red Cross camp and under what power; and under what power were they issued with work permits. [91249]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Red Cross centre at Sangatte was emptied by 14 December 2002. by 14 December 2002, 1,018 individuals had been admitted to the UK. Four further individuals were brought to the UK having previously been in hospital. One further individual is still currently in hospital and will be brought to the UK when discharged. This will bring the total number of individuals to be admitted to the UK from Sangatte to 1,023.
  185W
  These individuals have all been granted leave to enter pursuant to section 4(1) of the Immigration Act 1971. Their leave to enter does not restrict their employment and so they are free to seek and take employment.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers came from each country in the last 12 months. [91250]

  Applications1 for asylum,received in the UK excluding by nationality Quarter 4 2001 to Quarter 3 2002

  Q4–2001

  Q–2002

  Q2–2002

  Q3–2003

  Total

  Europe

  Albania

  250

  265

  335

  330

  1,180

  Czech Republic

  120

  80

  595

  620

  1,410

  FRY

  545

  580

  685

  635

  2,445

  Poland

  155

  235

  310

  275

  975

  Romania

  310

  220

  320

  315

  1,165

  Russia

  110

  80

  65

  70

  320

  Turkey

  810

  650

  730

  700

  2,885

  Ukraine

  100

  90

  80

  90

  360

  Other former USSR

  390

  475

  445

  510

  1,820

  Other former Yugoslavia

  210

  125

  120

  85

  540

  Others

  85

  100

  95

  70

  350

  Total

  3,080

  2,890

  3,780

  3,695

  13,450

  America

  Colombia

  130

  140

  110

  80

  460

  Equador

  75

  85

  75

  75

  305

  Others

  210

  235

  305

  365

  1,115

  Total

  415

  460

  485

  520

  1,880

  Middle East

  Iran

  680

  600

  525

  725

  2,535

  Iraq

  1,800

  2,840

  3,420

  4,300

  12,365

  Others

  230

  225

  240

  295

  990

  Total

  2,715

  3,665

  4,185

  5,325

  15,885

  Africa

  Algeria

  190

  260

  305

  240

  1,000

  Angola

  295

  405

  355

  330

  1,380

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  430

  570

  475

  565

  2,035

  Ethiopia

  140

  105

  165

  220

  635

  Gambia

  20

  20

  25

  35

  105

  Ghana

  45

  45

  60

  90

  245

  Ivory Coast

  55

  45

  35

  35

  170

  Kenya

  85

  90

  70

  80

  320

  Nigeria

  305

  265

  270

  270

  1,110

  Rwanda

  125

  170

  180

  180

  655

  Sierra Leone

  420

  355

  370

  210

  1,355

  Somalia

  1,360

  1,295

  1,455

  2,095

  6,205

  Sudan

  90

  80

  120

  200

  485

  Tanzania

  10

  10

  10

  15

  45

  Uganda

  165

  185

  165

  150

  665

  Zimbabwe

  780

  1495

  1345

  2105

  6,725

  Others

  800

  865

  910

  1235

  3,810

  Total

  5,315

  6,260

  6,315

  8,050

  25,945

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  2,225

  2,350

  2,130

  1,555

  8,255

  Bangladesh

  125

  140

  180

  160

  605

  China

  790

  915

  960

  955

  3,620

  India

  425

  505

  405

  530

  1,870

  Pakistan

  705

  645

  615

  615

  2,575

  Sri Lanka

  1,410

  1,240

  900

  615

  4,165

  Other

  465

  410

  375

  490

  1,740

  Total

  6,140

  6,210

  5,570

  4,915

  22,835

  Other and unknown nationalities

  40

  35

  60

  50

  190

  Grand total

  17,705

  19,520

  20,400

  22,660

  80,185

  186W
  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that reliable information on the entry routes of asylum seekers from their country of origin to the United Kingdom (UK), is not available. The table shows the nationality of applications for asylum in the UK, excluding dependants, received between October 2001 and September 2002.
  187W
  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period October to December 2002 and will be available from 28 February 2003 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at:

  http://www.homeoffice.govuk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) Canada, (b) Australia and (c) New Zealand have failed to leave the UK in each of the past five years (i) on the expiry of a limited leave to enter the UK and (ii) after having been granted temporary admission at a port of entry to the UK. [91340]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that information on the number of people who fail to leave the UK upon expiry of their limited leave to enter or temporary admission is not routinely available. However, I can confirm that very few nationals of these countries abscond having been given temporary admission. For each of these nationalities there were less than five individuals who absconded during the first six months of 2002.

  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2002,Official Report, column 988W, on immigration, when the evaluation was completed, and by whom; who was consulted; and when she expects to be in a position to write to the hon. Member for Woking. [91894]

  Beverley Hughes
  The evaluation was completed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Intelligence Section (INDIS) on 20 September 2002 and submitted to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) senior managers for consideration. Recommendations were put to Home Office Ministers on 23 December 2002 following a review by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Board.

  The consultation process for the preparation of the evaluation report included INDIS, the Immigration National Enquiry Bureau (INEB) who were responsible for handling all incoming calls, and enforcement officers who assessed the allegations received for local action.

  I have remitted the recommendations of the evaluation back to officials for further details on cost and application. I will write again to the hon. Member once these details have been considered.

  Immigration and Nationality Telephone Enquiry Bureau
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone calls were made by the public to the Immigration and Nationality Telephone Enquiry Bureau in each year since 1997; and what the average response time was for each year. [90850]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau answered 959,812 calls from members of the public during 2002. Data are not available prior to 2002 because the telephone equipment in use at that time was not able to provide data that differentiated between calls received from members of the public and those from Members of Parliament or other Government Departments and agencies.
  188W
  The average response time during 2002 for those held in the queue was four minutes and 44 seconds for callers on the General Enquiry line, 25 seconds for callers on the Application Forms line and five minutes and nine seconds for those on the National Asylum Support Service line.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of staff worked at the Immigration and Nationality Telephone Inquiry Bureau in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002; and what the average level of days absent was in each year. [90988]

  Beverley Hughes
  Records are available for the years from 2000. The number of full-time equivalent staff employed in the Immigration and Nationality Telephone Enquiry Bureau was 127 in April 2000, 101 in April 2001 and 110 in April 2002.

  Data are not recorded in terms of absenteeism. Sickness absence for the Home Office is recorded and published by the Cabinet Office.

  Immigration Reception Centre, Oakington
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants are resident at the Immigration Reception Centre at Oakington. [89798]

  Beverley Hughes
  In order to maximise the impact of the non- suspensive appeal provisions, Oakington has since 7 November 2002 taken only claimants from the 10 EU accession states (Cryprus, the Czech Republic, Eatonia, Hungary, Lativa, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia) listed as 'safe in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002'. Claims from these countries will be refused and certified as clearly unfounded, generating a non-suspensive appeal (NSA) right, unless the Home Secretary is satisfied they are not.

  In these cases, applicants are detained at Oakington for their decision and until removal, unless it is judged necessary to transfer them to secure detention. The daily intake at Oakington has so far been dependent on claims from persons entitled to reside in these 10 countries. Numbers dropped significantly in December 2002 and have so far remained low in January 2003.

  As a result, from 12 January 2003 Oakington has resumed a level of intake from the list of 40 previous nationalities from the Oakington suitable list. This will enable us to make best use of Oakington while retaining the flexibility to give absolute priority to the 10 nationalities at present covered by the NSA process and to wider use of that process at present under consideration.

  On 10 January 2003 32 people were detained at the centre.

  Operation Street Cred
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his assessment is of Operation Street Cred on the Wirral.[90897]

  Mr. Denham
  Further to my answer to my hon. Friend of 19 September 2002, I am advised by Merseyside Police that a formal review of Operation
  189W
  Street Cred will be undertaken shortly. I understand that local feedback from the public has been positive and Merseyside Police believe Operation Street Cred has contributed to a significant decrease in reported youth disorder since its introduction in June 2002.

  Over-stayers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many over-staying visa-holders have been given exceptional or other leave to remain in each of the last five years; whether such leave implies a right for dependants to join them; and what call on public funds such persons are entitled to make.[91251]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no data available on how many over-staying visa-holders have been given exceptional or other leave to remain. The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Where a person is granted exceptional leave to remain, family members would normally qualify to join them only after that person has been in the United Kingdom for four years. Applications may be considered before that point, but entry clearance for dependants will only be granted where there are compelling compassionate circumstances.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons who do not have leave to remain in the United Kingdom are resident in each county in England. [91253]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information is not available on the number of persons unlawfully present in particular counties in England (nor is there any information available about the total number in the UK as a whole).

  However, the Home Office has commissioned a study which considers methods of estimating the size of the illegal population. At present, there is no defined method for estimating the size of the illegally resident population in the UK.

  Police Authority Funding
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of funding will come from(a) the precept, (b) Government revenue settlement, (c) other Government grants and (d) other income for each police authority in England and Wales in the financial year 2003–04.[91101]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]The overall provision for policing that will be supported by grants in 2003–04 is £9,683 million. This is an increase of 6.2 per cent. or £566 million over the provision for 2002–03. The proportion of funding from the police precept, Government grants and other income is not yet available. Police authorities have until 1 March 2003 to set precept levels for 2003–04.

  Police Retirements
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the expected retirement rate is for uniformed officers in each Police Authority area over the next five years.[91079]
  190W
  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally. Overall retirements from the police service are expected to rise, reflecting historic patterns of recruitment to the service.

  Postcodes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for(a) the collection and publication of data, (b) devising formulae for the distribution of grants and awards and (c) the delivery of services; and when such usages were last reviewed.[87744]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information held centrally is set out as follows:

  (i) Collection and publication of data

  The Home Department uses a postal address file in major surveys conducted by the Home Office such as the British Crime Survey, Home Office Citizenship Survey and Crime and Justice survey. This involves sampling at postcode sector level (or sometimes in segments of postcode sectors). Sampling is undertaken by independent survey companies and the Home Office is not informed of which areas/addresses have been selected to ensure that the anonymity of respondents is preserved but they do attach other data to the survey datasets using the postcode link (eg indices of local deprivation).

  Also, statistics showing the area of residence of asylum seekers supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) are currently published for NASS-defined administrative regions and cluster areas. Recent analysis of postcode information recorded on the Asylum Seekers Support System (ASYS), the administrative system maintained by N ASS, has allowed provisional statistics to be compiled for standard administrative areas (Government Office Regions and Local Authorities). In the case of those asylum seekers in receipt of subsistence only support, this provides much greater geographical detail than is currently available. These statistics are currently being quality assured and are intended for publication once this process is complete.

  (ii) Formulae for the distribution of grants and awards

  The Home Department is responsible for devising formulae to allow for the effective distribution of police grant and geographic information (such as postcodes) are used. These data form part of an annual assessment of population within Force and Basic Command Unit (BCU) boundaries (based on estimates of population movement and of changing boundaries within or between Forces).

  The information is based on the most current estimates of population and demography available, and is updated at least every year. In addition the forthcoming analysis of the Census will lead to a more substantive revision than is normally the case, as these figures will be used to re-normalise estimates. In addition to the Police Funding Formula, these population changes within Basic Command Units contribute to the crime rates for certain offences. For example Robbery is commonly quoted as a rate per

  191W
  1,000 (resident) population, as boundaries change and populations change this is therefore reflected in the rates calculated.

  Each year based (in some part) upon the demography within a BCU, the home department also revise the so-called BCU families. These families group BCU's in clusters, this grouping uses many variables, and again as boundaries change the characteristics of each BCU changes and this can be reflected in a change of grouping. These groups are currently used for comparison of performance and identifying exceptional performers such that this 'good practice' can be shared.

  (iii) Use of postcodes in the delivery of services

  In certain instances the Home Department and its agencies work with police and Criminal Justice System (CJS) agencies on special operations which have a specific geographic location such as a specific crime 'hot spot'. Special Home Office funding is often used to support these operations. In these cases the postcodes are more incidental than proactively driving the delivery of services.

  The Home Department used postcode data for the locks for pensioners scheme. To be eligible for the scheme the house had to be in a BCU with an above average burglary rate; the Home Department had to translate BCU areas into postcodes so that the scheme managers could tell whether applicants were eligible.

  The scheme officially ended in June 2002—ie that was the last day that applications were accepted—but surveying and installation work continued after that date. Most, if not all, should be completed this month.

  We also used postcode data on the Crime Reduction Website (www.crimereduction.gov.uk) to provide a facility for people to check if they were eligible for the scheme. Now that the scheme has finished, the facility has been removed.

  Prison Overcrowding
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons were overcrowded in(a) 1992, (b) 1998 and (c) 2002; and by what percentage each was above optimal occupancy; and what definition of overcrowded he uses. [89548]

  Hilary Benn
  A prison is overcrowded when the number of prisoners held at the prison exceeds its total in use certified normal accommodation (CNA). The CNA of a prison measures its capacity to accommodate prisoners in uncrowded conditions. Operational Capacity is defined as the total number of prisoners that an establishment can hold without serious risk to good order, security and the proper running of planned regimes.

  Those prisons where average population for the year exceeded the average CNA for the periods 1992–93, 1998–99 and April to November 2002 are shown in the table.

  At no time during the periods 1998–99 and April to November 2002 was the average population in any prison
  192W
  At no time during the periods 1998–99 and April to November 2002 was the average population in any prison above its operational capacity. Comparative data on operational capacity is not available for 1992–93.

  1992–1993

  1998–1999

  April—November 2002

  Albany

  Altcourse

  Acklington

  Bedford

  Bedford

  Altcourse

  Birmingham

  Belmarsh

  Ashwell

  Bristol

  Birmingham

  Aylesbury

  Brixton

  Blakenhurst

  Bedford

  Bullwood Hall

  Brinsford

  Belmarsh

  Canterbury

  Bristol

  Birmingham

  Cardiff

  Brixton

  Blakenhurst

  Chelmsford

  Bullingdon

  Blundeston

  Dorchester

  Bullwood Hall

  Brinsford

  Durham

  Camp Hill

  Bristol

  Elmley

  Canterbury

  Brixton

  Exeter

  Cardiff

  Buckley Hall

  Feltham

  Channings Wood

  Bullingdon

  Glen Parva

  Chelmsford

  Bullwood Hall

  Hindley

  Cookham Wood

  Camp Hill

  Hull

  Doncaster

  Canterbury

  Lancaster

  Dorchester

  Cardiff

  Leeds

  Downview

  Channings Wood

  Leicester

  Drake Hall

  Chelmsford

  1992–1993

  1998–1999

  April—November 2002

  Lewes

  Durham

  Cookham Wood

  Lincoln

  East Sutton Park

  Dartmoor

  Liverpool

  Eastwood Park

  Doncaster

  Low Newton

  Elmley

  Dorchester

  Manchester

  Everthorpe

  Durham

  New Hall

  Exeter

  Eastwood Park

  Northallerton

  Feltham

  Elmley

  Norwich

  Glen Parva

  Erlestoke

  Pentonville

  Gloucester

  Everthorpe

  Preston

  Guys Marsh

  Exeter

  Shepton Mallet

  Haverigg

  Featherstone

  Shrewsbury

  Highdown

  Garth

  Stafford

  Highpoint

  Glen Parva

  Styal

  Hollesley Bay

  Gloucester

  Swansea

  Holme House

  Guys Marsh

  Wandsworth

  Hull

  Haverigg

  Wetherby

  Huntercombe

  High Down

  Winchester

  Lancaster Farms

  Highpoint

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Leeds

  Hindley

  Leicester

  Holme House

  Lewes

  Hull

  Lincoln

  Lancaster

  Lindholme

  Lancaster Farms

  Littlehey

  Leeds

  1992–1993

  1998–1999

  April—November 2002

  Liverpool

  Leicester

  Low Newton

  Lewes

  Maidstone

  Lincoln

  Manchester

  Littlehey

  Moorland

  Liverpool

  Mount

  Low Newton

  New Hall

  Manchester

  Northallerton

  Moorland

  Norwich

  Mount

  Parkhurst

  New Hall

  Pentonville

  Northallerton

  Portland

  Norwich

  Preston

  Nottingham

  Ranby

  Pentonville

  Reading

  Portland

  Risley

  Preston

  Shepton Mallet

  Ranby

  Shrewsbury

  Reading

  Stocken

  Risley

  Swaleside

  Shepton Mallet

  Swansea

  Shrewsbury

  Swinfen Hall

  Stafford

  Usk

  Stocken

  1992–1993

  1998–1999

  April—November 2002

  Verne

  Stoke Heath

  Wakefield

  Styal

  Wandsworth

  Swaleside

  1992–1993

  1998–1999

  April—November 2002

  Wayland

  Swansea

  Wealstun

  Usk

  Winchester

  Verne

  Woodhill

  Wandsworth

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Wayland

  Winchester

  Wolds

  Woodhill

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Wymott

  193W

  1992–1993

  1998–1999

  April—November 2002

  Verne

  Stoke Heath

  Wakefield

  Styal

  Wandsworth

  Swaleside

  1992–1993

  1998–1999

  April–November 2002

  Wayland

  Swansea

  Wealstun

  Usk

  Winchester

  Verne

  Woodhill

  Wandsworth

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Wayland

  Winchester

  Wolds

  Woodhill

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Wymott

  Prison Population
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have occurred in the(a) numbers and (b) percentages of (i) women and (ii) men imprisoned in each of the past five years; and what his estimate is of the likely changes in the next three years. [90265]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of people in prison in England and Wales in each of the last five years is given in the table.

  Prison population as at 30 June

  Year

  1Male

  1Female

  2Male

  2Female

  1998

  62,194

  3,105

  95.2

  4.8

  1999

  61,523

  3,247

  95.0

  5.0

  2000

  61,252

  3,350

  94.8

  5.2

  2001

  62,560

  3,740

  94.4

  5.6

  2002

  66,824

  4,394

  93.8

  6.2

  1 Number

  2Percentage of total population

  Projections of the male and female prison population are given in Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Projections of Long Term Trends in the Prison Population to 2009", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Prison Suicides
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people committed suicide in prisons in each of the past five years; of these, how many took place in safe cells; and if he will make a statement. [90362]

  Hilary Benn
  The following table covers the 422 apparently self-inflicted deaths between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2002. There have been six deaths of prisoners located in safer cells in the last five years.

  Number of self-inflicted deaths between 1 January 1998 and

  31 December 2002 and self-inflicted deaths in safer cells

  Year

  Total self-inflicted deaths

  Total self-inflicted deaths in safer cells

  1998

  83

  0

  1999

  91

  0

  2000

  81

  0

  2001

  73

  2

  2002

  94

  4

  Total

  422

  6

  194W
  Note:

  The Prison Service employs the term "self-inflicted death" which includes all those

  deaths where it appears the person may have acted specifically to take his/her own life.

  The Prison Service has "safer cells" that can complement a regime providing care of at risk prisoners. The design of these cells has several features which can assist staff in the task of managing those at risk from suicide, such as specially designed furniture and fixtures which are manufactured and installed to make the attachment of ligatures very difficult, and access to window bars prevented via non-opening windows with integral ventilation grills.

  The Prison Service is half way through a three-year programme to develop policies and practices to reduce prisoner suicide and self-harm in prisons. This work includes increasing the numbers of safer cells and making safer cell furniture more easily available to establishments. To date installations have been carried out to provide 2100 adult male and 610 juvenile and young
  offender safer cells. In addition a further 880 adult male safer cells are planned to come on line in 2003–04. Prototypes for large-scale production of safer cell furniture aim to reduce the current cost of safer cell furniture installations by approximately one third.

  Prisoner Costs
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost is of maintaining a prisoner in(a) Class A, (b) Class B, (c) Class C and (d) open prison. [89547]

  Hilary Benn
  The average cost per prisoner for 2001–02 by category of prison is given in the table.

  These figures are establishment costs only, expressed in resource terms and exclude any share of headquarters overheads. Establishment cost per prisoner figures cannot therefore be compared with the overall Prison Service cost per prisoner figure, which includes all expenditure.

  Category

  Average establishment cost per
  prisoner 2001–2002 £

  Dispersal (Cat A) prisons

  42,443

  Category B prisons

  24,059

  Category C prisons

  18,828

  Open prisons

  21,267

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of (a) male and (h) female prisoners tested positive for illicit drugs in each British prison in the last year for which figures are available.[90267]

  Hilary Benn
  Mandatory drug testing (MDT) is part of the wider Prison Service drug strategy. It was introduced with three objectives: to deter prisoners from misusing drugs through the threat of being caught and punished; to supply better information on patterns of drug misuse to improve the targeting of treatment
  195W
  services and to measure the effectiveness of the overall strategy; and to identify individuals in need of treatment.

  The table sets out the percentage of prisoners who tested positive under random mandatory drug testing MDT in the last financial year (2001–02) in each prison in England and Wales. The names of the female prisons are highlighted in italic:

  Random Mandatory drug Testing Figures 2001–02

  Establishment

  Percentage positive

  Acklington

  15

  Albany

  0

  Altcourse

  10.6

  Ashfield

  13.7

  Ashwell

  12.6

  Askham Grange

  4.8

  Aylesbury

  7.9

  Bedford

  21.9

  Belmarsh

  12.7

  Birmingham

  16.2

  Blakenhurst

  27.5

  Blantyre House

  2.3

  Blundeston

  7.5

  Brinsford

  9.2

  Bristol

  15.8

  Brixton

  9.7

  Brockhill

  9.3

  Buckley Hall

  19.8

  Bullingdon

  13.2

  Bullwood Hall

  8

  Camp Hill

  13.1

  Canterbury

  12.9

  Cardiff

  20.8

  Castington

  7.8

  Channings Wood

  5.8

  Chelmsford

  16

  Coldingley

  11.7

  Cookham Wood

  2.2

  Dartmoor

  5.9

  Deerbolt

  9.1

  Doncaster

  10.5

  Dorchester

  22.8

  Dovegate

  14.9

  Dover

  16.6

  Down View

  5.2

  Drake Hall

  14.4

  Durham

  13.4

  East Sutton Park

  1.7

  Eastwood Park

  8.8

  Elmley

  11.9

  Erlestoke

  18.9

  Everthorpe

  13.9

  Exeter

  17.8

  Featherstone

  11.5

  Feltham

  13.4

  Ford

  7

  Forestbank

  18.8

  Foston Hall

  1.8

  Frankland

  7.6

  Full Sutton

  6

  Garth

  10.9

  Gartree

  3.9

  Glen Parva

  13.7

  Gloucester

  13.5

  Grendon

  3.5

  Guys Marsh

  21.1

  Haslar

  0

  Hatfield

  14.6

  Haverigg

  23.4

  Hewell Grange

  10.4

  Highdown

  12.8

  Highpoint

  14.2

  196W

  Random Mandatory drug Testing Figures 2001–02

  Establishment

  Percentage positive

  Hindley

  13.8

  Hollesley

  9.9

  Holloway

  13.2

  Holme House

  11.8

  Hull

  8

  Huntercombe

  15.5

  Kingston

  6.4

  Kirkham

  18.6

  Kirklevington

  1

  Lancaster

  16.2

  Lancaster Farms

  3.9

  Latchmere House

  1.9

  Leeds

  15.3

  Leicester

  22

  Lewes

  31.6

  Leyhill

  13.8

  Lincoln

  9.7

  Lindholme

  11.9

  Littlehey

  7.5

  Liverpool

  12.4

  Long Lartin

  7.6

  Low Newton

  17.6

  Lowdham Grange

  7.9

  Maidstone

  4.1

  Manchester

  13.6

  Moorland

  3.7

  Morton Hall

  2.1

  Mount

  7.9

  New Hall

  6.8

  North Sea Camp

  14.4

  Northallerton

  11.5

  Norwich

  17.1

  Nottingham

  20.2

  Onley

  4.3

  Parc

  10.5

  Parkhurst

  6.4

  Pentonville

  20.7

  Portland

  7.3

  Preston

  16.5

  Ranby

  7.2

  Reading

  8.8

  Risley

  23.9

  Rochester

  3.7

  Rye Hill

  8.7

  Send

  8.3

  Shepton Mallet

  15.5

  Shrewsbury

  16.8

  Spring Hill

  7

  Stafford

  17.9

  Standford Hill

  10.3

  Stocken

  15.8

  Stoke Heath

  2.3

  Styal

  13.6

  Sudbury

  8.2

  Swaleside

  13.1

  Swansea

  16.1

  Swinfen Hall

  1.3

  Thorn Cross

  13

  Usk/Prescoed

  3.6

  Verne

  2

  Wakefield

  1

  Wandsworth

  8.6

  Wayland

  5.9

  Wealstun

  14.3

  Weare

  10.4

  Wellingborough

  9.7

  Werrington

  8

  Wetherby

  5.5

  Whatton

  1.9

  Whitemoor

  13.7

  Winchester

  20.9

  Wolds

  3.3

  Woodhill

  13.8

  197W

  Random Mandatory drug Testing Figures 2001–02

  Establishment

  Percentage positive

  Wormwood Scrubs

  17.0

  Wymott

  7.1

  All Prisons

  11.6

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent in each of the past three years in prisons to deal with misuse of(a) illegal drugs and (b) alcohol; and what has been the cost of the monitoring of illegal drugs in prisons in each of the last three years. [90268]

  Hilary Benn
  The centrally-committed funding to deal with the misuse of illegal drugs in prisons for each of the last three years is:

  £ million

  2000–01

  26.3

  2001–02

  52

  2002–03

  61

  Details of locally-committed drug funding, funding to address alcohol misuse and the costs of monitoring are not held centrally.

  Teacher Vetting
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of the vetting of teachers by the Criminal Records Bureau is; and what the average time has been for a case to be dealt with by the Bureau. [89339]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not available in the form requested as there are no Information Technology (IT) procedures at present to extract this data from Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) database. It is expected that this capacity will become available in subsequent system releases.

  Since 11 March 2002 the Criminal Records Bureau has received 1,164,784 Disclosure applications and has issued over 938,981 Disclosures. Over the last six full weeks before Christmas the CRB has been averaging around 45,000 Disclosures per week, which is over double the weekly output issued by the police under the previous arrangements. Many of the total number of applications outstanding, currently 225,803, were returned to applicants to provide missing information.

  On average Disclosure applications are taking five weeks to complete.

  Thames Gateway
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extra resources required to support the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway area; what discussions he has had with other Government Departments in relation to supporting the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway; and what resources he has allocated to support the growth and development of new communities in the Thames Gateway. [90425]
  198W
  Beverley Hughes
  The assessment of extra resources for the Thames Gateway and the decisions regarding policies for the support of new communities in the Thames Gateway are being progressed with the support of officials from the Government Office for London.

  The Home Office is committed to supporting the effort to regenerate the Thames Gateway area. The Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership was established by the Government in October 2000. My noble Friend (Lord Rooker), Minister for Housing and Planning, chairs the Partnership. Its membership comprises six Government Ministers, including the Home Office. Our policies on reducing crime and the fear of crime, tackling drug abuse, and supporting strong and active communities will ensure that sustainable and viable communities are created.

  In addition, the Home Office is working with colleagues in other Government Departments to ensure that sustainable and viable communities are created. In particular, officials from the Home Office's Active Community Unit have been liaising with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) to take forward work arising from the ODPM's Communities Plan.

  Youth Crime
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's guidelines are to young offenders institutions in England and Wales regarding formal child protection procedures for juveniles in prison, what his estimate is of the number of young offenders institutions in England and Wales that implement formal child protection procedures; and if he will list the young offenders institutions in England and Wales that have formal child protection procedures for juveniles in their care. [90485]

  Hilary Benn
  In January 2002, Her Majesty's Prison Service published Prison Service Order 4950 which revised child protection protocols and policy; a copy can be found in the Library. It instructs governors as to the steps to be taken when instigating formal child protection procedures for juveniles held by the Prison Service.

  In accordance with the Department of Health's 1999 guidance "Working Together", a child protection committee has been established within each young offender institution (Y0I).

  In consultation with the local area child protection committee, a local policy has been developed detailing arrangements for acting on allegations or concerns that a young person may have suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm.

  The 18 YO1s in England and Wales that implement formal child protection procedures are:

  Male

  Ashfield

  Feltham

  Lancaster Farms

  199W

  Stoke Heath

  Werrington

  Brinsford

  Hindley

  Onley

  Thorn Cross

  Wetherby

  Castington

  Huntercombe

  Pare

  Warren Hill

  Female

  Bullwood Hall

  New Hall

  Brockhill

  Eastwood Park

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Hereditary Peerages
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what official record is maintained of holders of hereditary peerages of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. [91081]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A record of all hereditary Peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom in possession of a Writ of Summons to the House prior to their exclusion pursuant to provisions of Section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 is held by the Crown Office in my Department.

  The Crown Office also maintains a list of those Peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom who have formally established their succession to the Peerage since the enactment of the House of Lords Act 1999.

  30-year Rule
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason the replies to HRH Prince Philip from Prime Minister Harold Wilson were not released by the Public Records Office under the 30-year rule at the same time as HRH Prince Philip's letters to Harold Wilson were made public. [89806]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Harold Wilson's letter to HRH Prince Philip dated 15 July 1967 discusses details of an audience with HRH Queen Elizabeth II, unlike the letter of 11 July 1967 from Prince Philip to which Mr. Wilson was responding. In accordance with recently approved guidelines on the release of records relating to the Sovereign and the Royal Household's records relating to Ministerial audiences with the Sovereign should be closed for 40 years or until the death of the Sovereign whichever is later.

  7/8 Royal Enniskillen Fusiliers
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason the papers, including Courts Martial papers,200W
  relating to the members of the 7/8 Royal Enniskillen Fusiliers found guilty of Mutiny on the 15 April 1918 and sentenced to five years penal servitude, suspended, are not available for public inspection; and if he will make a statement. [89805]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Most records relating to mutiny are held in two PRO series: WO 213 Judge Advocate General's Office: Field General Courts Martial and Military Courts, Registers (1909–1963) and WO 71 Judge Advocate General's Office: Courts Martial Proceedings and Board of General Officers' Minutes (1668–1992).

  Details of the charges made against individual members of the 7/8 Royal Enniskillen Fusiliers, and subsequent sentences, are contained in the register WO 213/21(folios 94–98). Individual Court Martial papers, if they have survived or have been selected for preservation, are found in WO 71. This series does not contain all Court Martial papers. Of the files for the period since 1914, only those relating to more serious offences, resulting in the imposition of a custodial sentence of five or more years for mutiny and insubordination, have been selected for permanent preservation. Given that members of the 7/8 Royal Enniskillen Fusiliers were handed down the lesser sentence of five years penal servitude suspended, it is unlikely that individual Court Martial papers have survived and are held by the Public Record Office.

  Contractual Obligations
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the Government's position is on the European Commission's adoption of a Green Paper on the Conversion of the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument; what proposals the Government will be putting forward; what consultation the Government have had with(a) the Bar Council, (b) the Law Society and (c) equivalent bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland: and if she will make a statement. [91749]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The European Commission's consultation paper on the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations has not yet been published; this is expected in the next few weeks. Before taking a position on any issue raised in that paper the Government will consult the Bar Council, the Law Society and other interested individuals and organisations. Similar consultation will take place in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the running costs of(a) the Department and (b) each of its sponsored agencies were in (i) 1997 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [90708]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Detailed information on administration costs for my Department and its agencies, going back to 1998–99 and with projections to 2003–04, is set out in Table A4 of the 2002 departmental report (Cm 5408). Data for years before 1998–99 are not available on the same basis. Provisional outturn for
  201W
  gross and net administration costs limits were published in Public Expenditure 2001 plans to 2005–06, will be published in the 2003 departmental report in the spring.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in(a) the Department and (b) each of the agencies it sponsors; and what the figures were for 1997. [90670]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 697W.

  Divorced Parents
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what procedures are in place to give effect to court orders permitting divorced parents access to their children. [90995]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2001 there were 55,030 contact orders granted in England and Wales. Deliberate refusal to obey a contact order is a contempt of court and may be punishable by a fine or imprisonment. In cases that involve the care of children those remedies might not be in the interests of the children at the centre of the parents' dispute. In recognition of this my Department asked the Children Act Sub-Committee on Family Law (CASC) to consult on the issue. Their report, "Making Contact Work", was published on 8 February 2002 to which the Government responded on 6 August 2002. As part of that response, a stakeholder group has been established to look at the facilitation and enforcement of contact. The group comprises members from the judiciary, legal professionals, CAFCASS, other Government Departments and the voluntary sector. As well as considering how parents may be assisted to reach workable solutions, the group will be looking at alternative enforcement mechanisms. It is due to report in the summer.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in the Department. [90869]
  202W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  2,407 staff currently work reduced hours in my Department, a large proportion of whom are engaged on a job-share or job-split arrangement (which are available to all grades, including the Senior Civil Service).

  A number of other flexible working patterns are available under my Department's successful work-life balance package, launched in 2001, including flexi-time, homeworking and compressed and reduced hours options. The flexibility of the pattern is decided in conjunction with local management to suit an individual's need and the needs of their work.

  When advertising vacancies, business areas are encouraged to welcome applications from people working different patterns. However, there are some instances where this is not possible due to the nature of the work.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when he expects to publish his autumn departmental reports on public service agreement targets; and if he will make a statement. [91004]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I expect the autumn performance report for my Department to be published by the end of January or shortly thereafter.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many days were lost clue to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90529]

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many working days have been lost due to illness in the Department in(a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding five years [90971]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of days lost to sickness absence is published annually in the "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" report published by the Cabinet Office, the most recent of which (for calendar year 2001) was announced by Ministerial Statement on 19 December 2002, and copies placed in the Libraries of the House. The 1999, 2000 and 2001 reports are available on the Cabinet Office website at: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/publications/ sickness/index.htm.

  The figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  The Department is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and to meet the 2003 target for reducing sickness absence in our Service Delivery Agreement.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Balance of Funding Review
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  In fulfilment of the commitment that we made in the December 2001 White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", we are establishing a review to examine the balance of funding between locally raised and centrally provided sources of revenue for local government.

  The review will consider what are the key issues associated with the balance of funding, review the evidence and look at reform options.

  The Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions, will chair the review steering group. The first meeting of the steering group will be in April 2003. We will announce the membership of the steering group, which will include ministers, senior figures from local government and others able to make a strong personal contribution to the discussions, ahead of the first meeting.

  We expect the review to last for about a year. We envisage that the final report of the review will summarise the main issues discussed by the steering group and will set out the pros and cons of a range of options for changing the balance of funding.

  I am placing a copy of the review's terms of reference in the Library of the House of Commons.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animals (Scientific Procedures)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth)
  The Government have today published their reply to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on animals in scientific procedures published on 24 July 2002. Copies of the Government's response (Cm 5729) have been placed in the Library.

  The Government welcome the Select Committee's report, which deals with important and sensitive issues concerning the use of animals in scientific procedures. The Select Committee's report is comprehensive, makes an important contribution to the ongoing debate, and provides a credible basis for all concerned to consider where we should be going from here.
  2WS
  The Government notes in particular, and endorses, the Select Committee's finding that animal experiments are currently necessary to develop human and veterinary medicines and to protect humans, and the environment. We also welcome the Select Committee's recognition of the progress that has been made since 1987 in reducing the number of animals used in scientific procedures and in establishing a culture of care in establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is widely regarded as the most rigorous piece of legislation of its type in the world. The Government also accepts that more needs to be done and we reconfirm our commitment to the fullest possible application of the 3Rs—the refinement of scientific procedures, the reduction in numbers of animals used and their replacement wherever possible. We also agree that the case put forward by the Select Committee for a United Kingdom centre for the 3Rs focused largely, but not exclusively, on toxicity testing, as a complement to other initiatives in this area, is worth exploring further. At the same time, we remain firmly of the view that the development of the 3Rs must continue to be an integral part of mainstream research programmes and toxicity work, and should not be seen as a separate activity.

  The Government also notes the Select Committee's view that the United Kingdom should aim to have the best regulation of animal procedures, properly enforced, rather than the tightest regulation. The Government already strives for the most efficient and effective regulation. However, we believe that it is right that the 1986 Act imposes stringent criteria to be satisfied before licence authorities are granted. We further believe that this approach is essential to generate and maintain public confidence in the regulatory system. At the same time, we accept that the administrative burden must be kept to a minimum without compromising the welfare of the animals used. We will revisit this matter with the research community, with a view to the production of a revised application form/licence that all concerned accept is as simple and short as it can possibly be to meet statutory requirements.

  The Government also shares the Select Committee's view that there is a need for more open and better informed debate about the use of animals in scientific procedures. Government departments, industry, the scientific community and funders of such research all have an important role in explaining their legitimate use. We also believe that more good quality information should be made available to the public explaining the scientific work that is done using animals and the reasons for it. Subject to safeguards for personal and confidential information, we are, therefore, proposing to publish summaries of project licences as part of the Home Office publication scheme. However, we are conscious that there remains a significant level of concern in the scientific community about the implications of repealing section 24 of the 1986 Act, as the Select Committee recommends. We, therefore, intend to consult further with the scientific community before reaching final decisions on its future.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Recruitment of a new Chair for the Commission for Racial Equality has been completed and I am pleased to announce that Mr. Trevor Phillips has today been appointed.

  Trevor Phillips is currently an elected member of the Greater London Assembly, Chair of the Assembly and Managing Director of Pepper Production. The appointment is for four years initially.

  Trevor Phillips was selected after a rigorous and thorough process. He has a clear understanding of the challenges of race equality and how they link to a wider diversity, community cohesion and regeneration agenda.

  I am confident that he will provide the leadership that the Commission needs to play an active role in the race relations agenda, while strengthening and focusing its internal organisation.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Horticulture Research International
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  We are grateful to the Quinquennial Review team for their detailed and incisive report published on 23 September on which we have now consulted widely. The review team have considered the responses to the public consultation exercise which concluded on 18 November and produced an addendum to their report, which I am placing in the Library of the House.
  4WS
  We understand the importance of reaching early conclusions from the viewpoint of HRI's staff, their customers and other stakeholders. This interim announcement, pending further detailed study and negotiations, sets out our intentions.

  The Government broadly accept the general tenor of the review team's analysis and recommendations. There is a clear need for skilled and strategic horticultural science to underpin our policies and industry needs. HRI is a substantial asset of horticultural science excellence. In its present form, however, HRI is not viable and needs to be rationalised.

  DEFRA will now enter into detailed discussions with HRI and other parties, in particular the University of Warwick and the East Malling Trust for Horticultural Research, to establish whether the scenarios recommended by the review team are achievable and affordable, and whether any further Government investment is necessary.

  We hope to reach detailed decisions in principle about the future of HRI by the end of March 2003. Matters for consideration will include the remit and research capacity of the successor arrangements; ownership of land and buildings; staffing and pension matters; and income sources. Subject to satisfactory negotiations, the plan would be to put in place the new arrangements for HRI's future by 1 April 2004.

  In the meantime, HRI will continue as currently constituted. A programme of research is in place from DEFRA, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and other funders. We shall take steps to ensure that any transfer to successor organisations occurs as quickly and as seamlessly as possible in a way that enables HRI to meet all of its commitments.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

EU Acceding States: Immigration
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be their policy towards immigration from the 10 acceding member states of the European Union and whether United Kingdom policy differs from that of other European Union countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, under accession treaty terms, citizens of the new EU member states will have full free movement rights for all purposes apart from work from the date of their planned accession on 1st May 2004. The treaty allows current member states to restrict freedom to work for up to seven years from accession. On 10th December 2002, the Foreign Secretary announced that these citizens will gain the same full rights to work in the UK as existing EU citizens from accession. Denmark, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden have also extended free movement for workers on accession.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that Britain is the only large state in the European Union which has not decided to retain its right to delay extending working rights to new members for seven years? While immigration may have many economic advantages, does it not have to be borne in mind in this situation: first, that the newly acceding countries are not yet receiving anything like the same amount of help as Ireland and Greece received at the time of their accession; secondly, that unemployment is much lower in this country; and, thirdly, with France, Germany and Italy restricting immigration in this way, will not Britain inevitably become the number one destination for legal immigration, just as it already is for illegal immigration?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, no, that is not our assessment of the situation or of the risk as described by the noble Lord. Of the large states that he mentioned, a number have not made the decision as to what they will do. The United Kingdom assessed the situation very carefully indeed. We took advice from a range of research studies, and looked at experience when Spain and Portugal joined the European Union. All of the evidence pointed to the assessment that it would be extremely surprising if there were to be a large Flood of people to cause any particular problems to the United Kingdom. The reverse is the case. We expect to benefit from the migration of selected
428
workers to meet some of the skills gaps that we presently have. Reserve measures will also be in place to protect the situation should that not turn out to be the case.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the claimed advantages for membership of the European Union is that it will assist the countries that will accede in 2004 in terms of investment to develop their own economies and to get more of their own people into work? Is it not the case that most of the economies of the present EU members face substantial labour shortages in important areas to sustain economic development?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as often, my noble friend is correct. There is clear evidence from the European Union's first phases that the extension of the free trade area has significantly benefited weaker economies. One has only to look at what has happened to the economies of Spain and Portugal during the period to see how access to wider markets, including wider freedom of labour mobility, has significantly closed the gap between their economies and others. We very much hope that the same will happen with the eastern European states as they join the European Union, and that considerable benefits to European peace and cooperation will flow from this.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while we welcome the decision announced on 10th December and believe that an inflow of workers might well have a beneficial effect on the United Kingdom economy—and while we agree with the assessment of the benefits to the eastern European economies, which will be similar to those that accrued to other countries that joined the EU, such as Spain and Portugal—what did the Minister mean when he talked about selection of the workers who might come here? Surely anyone from the accession countries will be free to enter the United Kingdom and to take up employment, and we shall not have the ability that we may have had in the past to select those whom we want to fill particular posts.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. There is no selection. I sought to indicate that there is a range of areas where we presently have serious labour shortages; for example, in hospitality, seasonal agricultural work and others. My noble friend will no doubt mark some of the shortages in healthcare. Therefore, there will be no selection process. One should also mark that, while other countries might choose to put in place phased arrangements, there is nothing stopping EU accession citizens having freedom of travel to any of those areas, irrespective. As citizens, they can come and go as they please.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, has not this Question to be looked at in the context of the almost complete collapse of immigration control during the years of this Government? Under this Government, hundreds of thousands of people have entered the country in the past

429
few years—legally, illegally or under the guise of being asylum seekers. Why do not the Government say that another few hundred thousand from the acceding states is neither here nor there? What about the decision of Spain to admit a million people from South America? Were the British Government consulted about that? What do the Government have to say about its significance for immigration into this country?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong. There is not, nor has there been, anything resembling a complete collapse of asylum policy or processes in this country. We are facing, along with many other members of the European Union, substantial pressures of illegal immigration and of people some of whom use the asylum route to seek to penetrate the United Kingdom. Without boring the House with a repetition of our debates on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, noble Lords will be well aware of the very serious measures that we put in place to crack down on abuses while ensuring that those who had genuine claims still had the opportunity to have a place of refuge. To summarise, we have closed Sangatte. We have put in place a range of measures in European Union ports to detect illegal entrants in lorries. We are confident that that will have a significant impact.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that, when Portugal and Greece were about to join the European Union and the same concession was opened to them, many—not least the tabloid press—expressed fear that we would be overrun by poor immigrants from those countries? Nothing like that happened. People came to where there were jobs and vacancies.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my noble friend is exactly right. One understands why the Germans might be slightly more apprehensive, given the length of their border. But, our view is that there should not be a problem generally in the European Union or in the United Kingdom. Rather, benefits should flow from the changes.

Night Courts
2.43 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the system for bringing alleged offenders immediately to overnight courts is to be continued.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the final decision has yet to be made, and the evaluation report is currently being considered by the criminal justice Ministers responsible. Proposals to take forward the lessons learnt will be announced by my honourable friend Yvette Cooper in another place in the near future. However, the pilots were established to find the most cost-effective means of extending court hours, and, in the event, the night courts have
430
proved to be disproportionately expensive while, on the other hand, the early-morning sittings were useful and need exploring further.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's reply. When the night court system was announced originally, much publicity was generated by Downing Street, so why are the Government now considering dropping it? Is it because there is no longer enough space in police station cells?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords. Noble Lords will know that it was one of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Auld when he reviewed the modernisation of criminal justice. It was thought right that we test the market to see whether night courts were needed and how they could operate. We have now done so and are in the process of analysing the results. I have given noble Lords our provisional view on the working of night courts.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on making a decision, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that having night courts would be a costly excess of zeal and would coincide with the late opening of pubs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will certainly bear that in mind. I reassure the noble Lord that we looked carefully at cost; at whether the system was fit for the purpose and whether there was a real need for night court sittings. The pilot seemed to indicate that the utility of night courts is not justified, although, as I said, early-morning sessions have proved far more successful.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if the early-morning or night courts decide to send people with alcohol or drug problems to treatment centres rather than prison, will there be enough places for them?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness's question about disposal on sentencing. I assure her that, before anyone is charged, their fitness to be charged is assessed. That affects how much court capacity is needed. I shall undertake to obtain a proper answer to the noble Baroness's question.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, as regards expediency, does the evaluation of the pilot scheme indicate whether quality of justice has remained the same, or has it been sacrificed for speed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we would never sacrifice quality for speed. We wanted to discover whether there was, first, a capacity need for night courts and, secondly, how it would be managed. I congratulate everyone who helped us with the pilot, including probation officers, judges and magistrates. They worked incredibly hard and enabled us to get a good pilot, which demonstrated that quality can be delivered at other times and we do not need night courts.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, quite apart from any decision the Government take about the future, why was it not possible to predict that night courts would be disproportionately expensive? As the noble Baroness said, the pilot involved hard work for many people. Why could that not be foreseen?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the whole point of exploring the issues was to do just that. Lord Justice Auld recommended that the exploration should be made. Noble Lords will know that we promised not only to take Lord Justice Auld's recommendations seriously but to explore and implement them if they proved necessary. That was precisely why we took the pilot seriously. We have canvassed it fully and now we can work on the results.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, now that we know that night courts are unnecessary, what further steps do the Government plan to take to reduce the time between charge and appearance in court, especially with young offenders?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have worked hard on that. The noble Lord will know that the times have decreased dramatically. We shall continue to assess needs. I indicated that early-morning sittings are being looked at. All issues affecting young offenders will be considered.

Taiwan
2.49 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are giving to Taiwan's application to join the World Health Organisation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, Taiwan's relationship to the World Health Organisation was last discussed at the World Health Assembly in May 2002. There was no consensus in the general committee for the matter to be discussed in the main assembly session. The Taiwan authorities have not informed us of the details of any application this year.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. She will know that Taiwan's application is supported by the United States Congress and the European Parliament. Is she aware that one consequence of Taiwan being denied membership as an observer is that in times of emergency, such as during the enterovirus attack, which killed 78 children on Taiwan, and the earthquake in 1999, its people are denied any help from WHO officials? That is a large gap in the network of help that the WHO is able to offer to countries. How can it be right that entities such as the PLO, the Holy See and Liechtenstein all have access to the WHO, but
432
Taiwan, which is a stable democracy of 23 million people and a valued trading partner of this country, is denied the same access?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend be aware that the countries that he mentioned have observer status to the World Health Organisation. We hope that Taiwan can submit an application that all World Health Organisation parties can accept. However, we should stress that we cannot offer a view on any possible application until it has been made and its full details are known and until we have an agreed EU common position. We have supported Taiwanese applications to international organisations in the past, such as to the WTO, which is a membership organisation not based on states. However, we could not support any application from Taiwan if statehood was a prerequisite.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, are the Government prepared to hear the case for Taiwan and its 23 million people? Surely the Government's position, which the Minister has described as being of no view, must mean that they keep an open mind. Are they doing anything actively to help put the matter of observer status on the agenda?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat that there has been no application from Taiwan this year. There was an application last year, which was not accepted by the majority of the members of the WHO. The Government's position is that we are ready to consider an application if it is made on a basis that all WHO parties can accept. Only 27 countries recognise Taiwan. The WHO is a specialist organisation of the UN.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness think of any of the attributes of a sovereign state that Taiwan lacks?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we do not recognise Taiwan. The majority of countries in the UN also do not recognise Taiwan. Therein lies the problem with respect to WHO membership.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we all appreciate that because of respect for the "one China" policy and our relations with the People's Republic of China, we do not accord Taiwan full diplomatic status. Can we at least be assured that we give Taiwan representatives in our country and the sort of causes that we are discussing in this Question the same support and encouragement as are given by our neighbours, particularly France and Germany, in their dealings with Taiwan? Are we as effective as they are in maintaining good relations with this remarkable democracy?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is an EU common position on Taiwan, to which all EU member states adhere. As the noble Lord will be aware, there are unofficial links at a number of levels. UK Ministers have visited Taiwan to discuss issues of interest. The same has happened the other way round. However, I repeat that we do not recognise Taiwan as a state.

Student Suicides
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to implement the recommendations in the report Reducing the Risk of Student Suicides.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the recommendations outlined in the report are aimed at the higher education sector as a whole and at individual higher education institutions. It is an extremely useful report. My department will encourage the NHS to offer support to higher education institutions in taking the recommendations forward.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Given the tragic loss when there is a student suicide, and the risk of copycat suicides, does the Minister feel that there should be a central database to collect data on suicides by full-time and part-time students? Data are not currently collected on part-time students. Such a database would allow the sharing of good practice. Does the Minister also agree that there should be a statutory requirement for all higher education institutions to provide student counselling services? Their provision is currently patchy in some institutions, whereas in others they are of a very high standard and have been developed with the student body as a whole.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree that there should be a statutory requirement. It is a matter for each higher education institution to consider the report and take action appropriately. The collecting of statistics is a matter for the higher education sector, although the NHS stands ready to help. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness and very much endorse Part 5 of the report about good practice on how higher education institutions should respond to student suicides and attempted suicides.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the interests of joined-up government, has the Minister considered the increased financial pressures on students foreshadowed by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills recently? What representations will he make to the Secretary of State?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my right honourable friend will no doubt address the issue shortly in relation to university finances. The biggest contribution that the National Health Service can make is to ensure that at local level NHS mental health services work hand in hand with higher education institutions to offer appropriate support.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister have any figures on whether finance or the lack of it for individual students figures highly among the reasons for suicide or attempted suicide?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any such evidence. Interestingly, the major reason given for student drop-outs is dissatisfaction with the course rather than the financial issues.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK, which produced the report. Does my noble friend agree that the universities are committed to tackling the problem highlighted in the report? Does he also agree that adequate support, including funding, is essential to ensure that the training of personal tutors and other staff involved becomes central to their continuing professional development?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that the training of staff is very important. Personal tutors and counselling services have a big role to play in universities. The points made in Part 4 of the report on training and awareness-raising are particularly appropriate. I commend that to individual institutions.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I have an involvement at a distance in the issue. Does the Minister agree that one problem in this sad area is that, after a suicide, the reasons remain incomprehensible to everybody involved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is an apposite point. That is why the report's recommendation encouraging the training of staff in awareness identification is so important. I understand that 80 per cent of higher education institutions have set up working groups to look at their policy in relation to mental health studies. I am sure that they will wish to examine that point and take it forward.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, what resources will the NHS dedicate to deliver the Government's national suicide prevention strategy? If the Minister cannot answer that, how can he be sure that the strategy will be delivered?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course the strategy is important, and one expects it to be funded out of the allocation given to the National Health Service. As for mental health services generally, we intend that £329 million be invested over three years to 2003–4. Since the introduction of the National Health Service Framework, there has been considerable development in our mental health services. That

435
includes development of assertive outreach teams, counselling services, helplines and an increase in the number of spare beds.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question, as there is time? How much have suicides in further education institutions gone up in the last few years?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the figures given in the Universities UK report show that in 1994–95 there were 174 full-time student deaths. That rose to 178 by 1997–98, although I do not believe that the increase is statistically significant. What it seems to show is that the number of suicides in universities is not particularly out of line with the number among young people generally. That does not mean to say that universities ought not to give particular focus to the problem.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, later this afternoon, between consideration of the Licensing Bill and the Courts Bill, my noble friend Lord Bach will repeat a Statement: Iraq, further contingency preparations.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 20,

Schedule 1,

Clause 21,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 22 to 26,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 27 and 28.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Corn mittee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 157 [Orders to close premises in area experiencing disorder]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 420:
Page 85, line 30, leave out from "disorder" to "may" in line 31 and insert "in the area of a licensing authority, the licensing authority"
The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to the other amendments in my name in this group.
The powers to close premises when there is disorder or expected disorder, or when public nuisance has been caused by noise coming from the premises, purport to be an important counterweight to the general emphasis on the grant of all applications come what may. However, as drafted, the provisions in relation to closure are limited and not exercisable by the authority best placed to determine whether the power should be exercised—namely, the licensing authority.
The amendments to Clause 157 would allow the licensing authority to make an order requiring premises to be closed for a period not exceeding 24 hours on the application of the police rather than the magistrates' court. The role of the magistrates' court should be to deal with appeals against such an order.
The amendments are consistent with the existing provisions in relation to the misuse of drugs in premises licensed for public entertainment. Under those provisions, the police may request a licensing authority to suspend a public entertainment licence when it is necessary to prevent the misuse of drugs on licensed premises. Those provisions have operated and worked well in Westminster, where collaboration between police and the city council under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has been excellent. Were the framers of the Bill aware of that productive collaboration when they drafted it? Westminster is not under such tight control as to crime that we can jettison effective methodologies.
Amendments Nos. 421 and 422 are consequential on what I have just said.
Amendments Nos. 423 and 424 to Clause 158 would permit the licensing authority, as well as the police, to exercise the powers to make a closure order for identified premises. As the power to make a closure order is exercisable in the interests of public safety or because closure is necessary to prevent a noise nuisance, the licensing authority is the more logical authority.
On Amendments Nos. 425 and 427, along with Amendments 423 and 424, it is not clear whether the police are the appropriate party to deal with noisy premises. It would be better for the local authority, with its infrastructure in place in this respect, to take on responsibility and for the police to focus their resources on serious crime. I emphasise the difficulties that the police have in dealing with crime in inner London simply because of shortage of resources. When the job could sensibly be done by others, it would be a sensible economy. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that I am not aware of the particular circumstances in

437
Westminster to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, refers, but I shall inform myself of them. If there is anything that I need to write to him about, I shall certainly do so.
There seems to be an element of misunderstanding about the nature of these closure provisions. Clause 157 provides:
"Where there is or is expected to be disorder in any petty sessions area, a magistrates' court … [on the application of a police officer who is of the rank of superintendent or above] … may make an order requiring all premises—

(a) which are situated at or near the place of the disorder … and

(b) in respect of which a premises licence or a temporary event notice has effect,

to be closed for a period, not exceeding 24 hours".
Clause 158 allows a senior police officer to make a closure order when he believes that there is likely to be disorder,
"on, or in the vicinity of and related to, the premises"—
that is, a single premises—
" … in the interests of public safety".
A similar order can be made in the case of noise nuisance.
Amendments Nos. 420 to 422 to Clause 157 would transfer the power to require the closure of all licensed premises in a particular area from the magistrates' court to the licensing authority. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that the restriction on the powers of the licensing authority was undesirable. The courts have similar powers now, under the Licensing Act 1964, although that Act uses the delightful phrase, "riot and tumult". It is a significant power, but not one that is used often. Recently, it has invariably been used in response to concerns about the behaviour of fans attending football matches.
I put it to the Committee that there are good reasons why the Bill should leave this power with the magistrates' court rather than transfer it to the licensing authority. First, although a closure order could be made in advance, it is designed to be made in an emergency. The police and local authority might be aware that a demonstration is taking place some weeks before and be content with arrangements for it. They might then get intelligence on the day before the event; for example, that a particular group known for causing trouble intends to turn up and cause trouble. To decrease the risk of crime and disorder, they decide that a closure order should apply to premises in the vicinity of the demonstration route. If the magistrates' court believes that a strong enough case has been made, it can sit in emergency session to provide the police with that closure power at short notice. A licensing authority would not be able to do that, so there could be a failure to deal with disorder of which there is intelligence in advance.
Secondly, we have to recognise that an order of this kind restricts people's freedom. Those running licensed premises on the route of a demonstration will almost certainly be free of blame themselves. It will be no fault of theirs that the police judge that there is a risk of disorder, but they could suffer financially from
438
it. It could have serious consequences for innocent people. These powers should therefore rest with the court rather than with the licensing authority.
Amendments Nos. 423 to 425 and 427, in Clause 158, would allow the licensing authorities as well as the police to order the closure of a particular premises where there are concerns about disorder or noise nuisance. These powers simply carry on from the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which amended the 1964 Act. These are reactive powers designed to allow the control of disorder or nuisance. The police will have to think about the likely reaction of customers and where they are going to go to. If, for example, there were football fans from two clubs, the police might decide that, rather than close the premises, they should remove the fans of one of the clubs and leave their opponents there. However, that is a decision that can be made only by a senior police officer. It is difficult to see how a licensing authority can make that type of operational decision. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am most grateful to the Minister for his graciousness in saying that he would look at the particular co-operation between Westminster and the police to which I referred. I acknowledge that I was speaking primarily about crime and drugs, an ever-present problem in central London, rather more than about the type of disorder to which he was alluding—perfectly properly in the circumstances—in his response. He has been gracious enough to say that he will look at what I said about Westminster's collaboration with the police. It would be ungracious of me not to say in return that I shall look closely at what he said in reply. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 421 and 422 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 157 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: Is it not the case that the obligation to close will apply automatically to all licensed premises in the area in question, including hotels, so that if there were expected to be a very serious and dangerous demonstration in Piccadilly, for example, the Ritz and the Meridien and so on would be forced to close in addition to ordinary pubs? If I am wrong in this, perhaps the Minister will reassure me on the point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It sounds like a very good idea to me. However, I cannot think that it is as simple as that. It is up to the police to determine what would be the scope of this power under Clause 157. I think that the definition of "at or near the place of the disorder" could safely be left to the judgment of the police who are in operational charge at the time.
Clause 157 agreed to.
Clause 158 [Closure orders for identified premises]:
[Amendments Nos. 423 to 425 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 426:
Page 86, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) specify whether the premises must close in its entirety or simply cease the sale of alcohol."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 426, I shall be touching on a very similar point to that just raised on Clause 157 by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Amendment No. 426 raises a particularly significant issue. Subsection (4) of Clause 158 states the specifications that must be included in a closure order: the premises to which it relates, the period for which the premises should be closed, the grounds for the closure, and the effects of it. Amendment No. 426 provides an extra specification and is aimed specifically at accommodating supermarkets.
Although it is commendable to amalgamate the current numerous licences into one piece of legislation, I have yet to be persuaded of the effectiveness of this approach. Surely flexibility is the key. If the Bill must cover both the on and the off trade, it needs to ensure that the rules are able to vary in response to the different situations faced by, for example, a Tesco store and an inner-city nightclub.
Closure orders are a pertinent example. A supermarket sells alcohol. Therefore, it could be subject to a closure order under the Bill. Yet, it seems absurd that, whatever the reasons for the suspension of the sale of alcohol, the supermarket could not continue selling anything else but would have to shut down entirely With the closure of a premises comes the attendant loss of revenue, not to mention, in the specific case of a supermarket, the inconvenience for those relying on the store for their daily needs. Supermarkets receive precious little concession in the Bill. I ask only that we appreciate the need to acknowledge and respond to the off trade. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: In rising to support the amendment, I make my customary declaration of interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread plc. It is important to bear in mind that we are considering a variety of different premises—not only the supermarkets, but a whole range of restaurants which may have only a small sale of alcohol. Indeed, at a good many pubs in the country, the sale of food is more important than the sale of alcohol. If, as seems likely in most cases, the closure orders result from problems arising from the misuse of alcohol, it is important that the closure order should state whether it applies to the whole premises or only to those concerned with the sale of alcohol. That would not only give a certain amount of flexibility, but meet the problem outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In my view, it would also make the whole proposal more logical and more suited to the actual circumstances. This is perhaps not the most important amendment before us. If we were allowed to give it a title, this might be called "the pub with no beer" amendment. None the less, I think that it is necessary
440
to take account of the very different circumstances and not to get ourselves in the situation of thinking that we are dealing only with alcohol-selling pubs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When I first looked at Amendment No. 426, I was rather attracted to it. Although I was not aware at the time that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was going to refer particularly to supermarkets, I thought that the idea of allowing, for example, a play to continue in a theatre while closing the bar was quite attractive. Then, however, I looked at what Clause 158 provides and I was persuaded that the amendment was not necessary.
Clause 158 provides that a senior officer can make a closure order in respect of a premises if he believes either that there is, or is likely to be,
"disorder on, or in the vicinity of and related to, the premises",
which is much more limited than just "the area"; it means "just around"—or that,
"a public nuisance is being caused by noise",
emanating from the premises.
This power has existed for licensed premises, particularly for those selling alcohol, since implementation of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The police have found the power very useful as a deterrent although closure orders have been issued on only a handful of occasions. It is possible that a crowd who were inclined to disorder or to making sufficient noise to constitute a public nuisance would be more of a threat if they were allowed to remain together but prevented buying alcohol at a place where they would normally expect to do so. So, if the circumstances are sufficiently serious to require the issuing of a closure order, then, subject to the views of the police, the normal practice must be to close the premises and disperse the crowd. That is what Clause 158 provides.
Let us consider the situation of supermarkets. Is it really likely that there are circumstances in which the police would be able to impose a closure order on premises of that nature as a result of disturbance or disorder emanating directly from those premises? I cannot imagine it. The only such circumstances I can think of are where a crowd of looters are on supermarket premises as a result of an event happening elsewhere. Under those circumstances surely it is right to close the premises completely rat her than merely to stop selling alcohol.
I understand the motivation behind the amendment but when one considers the circumstances in which it is likely to be used I do not think that it will apply to supermarkets except in the very extreme circumstances when the provisions of the Bill should apply.
Lord Avebury: When the Government have used the term "the vicinity of" in previous amendments they have been unable to give us any definition except, as the noble Lord has done today, by saying that it is smaller than a locality. Can he give us some practical examples? If one takes, for example, the area between Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square—with which many of us are familiar—would the vicinity of establishments there embrace the whole of Leicester

441
Square and the streets which lead out of Leicester Square towards Soho? It would help the Committee to have some idea of the dimensions of the vicinity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But the Bill does not just use the term "vicinity". It states,
"in the vicinity of and related to, the premises".
Therefore, it is clear that the vicinity would include the car park or the pub garden rather than the areas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply. He is probably right that the circumstances in which the measure we are discussing could be used would be fairly extreme. That said, in extreme cases there may be a problem in relation to the selling of alcohol. If a large supermarket that is almost the size of a hypermarket is affected, it may seem unnecessary to close the entire premises. However, I appreciate that such a possibility is unlikely.
It is good to have this debate. The amendment indicates the broad spectrum of premises licences that will be affected by the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, we are discussing hotels and all different kinds of premises. Much of our debate to date has focused on the pub trade as opposed to off trade. It has been worth airing this matter. I shall revert to those involved in the supermarket trade who have held discussions with us to ensure that they are happy with the Minister's response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 427 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 158 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: Before we leave Clause 158, will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, assure us that subsection (3) provides adequate protection for a licensee who does everything in his power to run an orderly pub but is overwhelmed by circumstances totally beyond his control? For example, he may be the victim of a vendetta. A business rival or someone else with a grudge against him could telephone the police anonymously every Saturday morning and say, "I hear that there will be a big riot tonight at the Horse and Hounds", or suggest something similar. The police would close down the premises and the licensee would lose a tremendous amount of business. However, the fault would lie entirely with someone else. The licensee would not be to blame. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, can assure me that subsection (3) provides adequate protection to a licensee under such circumstances, I should be very grateful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I certainly agree that subsection (3) is written in legislative language—what you might call hieratic rather than demotic speech. However, if I am wrong about its meaning, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. But I am sure that I understand exactly what it means.
Clause 158 agreed to.
Clauses 159 to 63 agreed to.
Clause 164 [Review of premises licence following closure order]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 427A:
Page 89, line 31, at beginning insert "Upon the application of either the responsible senior police officer or the holder of the premises licence"
The noble Lord said: This is a short and simple probing amendment. We seek to test the Government's opinion on subsection (2) of Clause 164. We should like to insert at the beginning of subsection (2) the words,
"Upon the application of either the responsible senior police officer or the holder of the premises licence".
As I say, the purpose of the amendment is to test the Government's thinking as regards who would initiate a review of the premises licence. At present subsection (2) states:
"The relevant licensing authority must review the premises licence".
It gives no indication of the circumstances under which such a review would be initiated. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I can help. Under the Bill as it stands there is a straightforward sequence of events. The police make a closure order. The appropriate magistrates' court then considers the order and any extension of it. The court has to decide whether the closure order should be revoked, whether the premises should stay closed—in other words, the order should be confirmed—until the authority has reviewed its licence order, or make a similar order unless specified conditions are satisfied. The court could state that the premises should stay closed or could open subject to certain conditions. In either of those cases the authority has to carry out a review.
The point of the review is to decide, in the light of the circumstances which gave rise to the closure order in the first place and any other relevant history, whether the authority needs to take any action in relation to the licence; for example, by adding a condition relating to door supervision or by revoking it. The review will not just consider the circumstances which gave rise to the closure on a single night. The review may look at the history of the licence since it was issued and consider any matter which is relevant to the promotion of the licensing objectives. There may have been a steady build-up of problems which came to a head on the night of the closure. Those would be important considerations for the licensing authority and the matters should be addressed whether or not the police or the licence holder want them to be. The licensing authority's role is to promote the licensing objectives.
If the court decides that the premises should stay closed for the time being, the licence holder will, of course, want the authority to carry out a review. The effect of the Bill is that the premises will stay closed until such a review has taken place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will consider that that is right. I also acknowledge that, if the police have

443
concerns about the continuation of the licence as it stood before the closure order was made—in other words, if there are more long-standing problems—they too will want the authority to review that licence. But I do not think that that adds up to a case for accepting this amendment. Indeed, I do not think that that was the intention. If taken literally, the amendment would add to the bureaucracy of the licensing scheme. Under the Bill as drafted the authority has to undertake a review and reach a decision on the licence within 28 days. Under the amendment, someone has to write an extra letter seeking a review. I hope that that explanation is satisfactory.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I accept his definition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 164 agreed to.
Clauses 165 to 168 agreed to.
Clause 169 [Relaxation of opening hours for special occasions]:
3.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 428:
Page 93, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) Where the local licensing authority considers that a period ("the celebration period") marks an occasion of exceptional local significance, it may make a licensing hours order."
The noble Lord said: Clause 169 permits a relaxation of opening hours only by the Secretary of State. Where such relaxation is justified by an occasion of exceptional local significance, the amendment argues that the power should be exercisable by the local authority as the licensing authority.
I should like to give an example local to my own experience. My wife and I live within three miles of the tallest maypole in the country. The village in vicinity celebrates that record on May Day. Alcohol always enlivens the dancing, which in that particular context goes back centuries. I do not suggest that we are given to Saturnalia in rural Wiltshire, but it is a proper celebration. It is an annual event, so it is not exceptional in terms of chronology, but it will be exceptional until some other village or community erects a taller maypole.
I realise that, as with New Year, the annual nature of the event might give rise to an annual dispensation, but in other regards it seems that such a matter could frankly be left to the local authority. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I rise to support the amendment, as it gives a degree of flexibility for a very local event.
Baroness Buscombe: I also rise to support the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The amendment has been presented with the noble Lord's customary affability. I recognise the strength of the case, but we seek to resist the amendment.
I think that the noble Lord's illustration applies to a place of fairly modest population. The likelihood is that, across the length and breadth of our country, a very large number of small local communities have good cause for celebration at least once a year. On a range of occasions not as frequent as once a year, local opinion may feel that a celebration merits an extension of the licence. The result would be very significant inconsistencies across the country, in terms of the application of licensing hours orders. As the noble Lord clearly recognised, the clause already provides that the Secretary of State can make allowance for an exceptional event in a locality.
Although the main thrust of the Bill is deregulatory, it is important to maintain some consistency in the way in which licensing authorities administer the new regime. Despite the noble Lord's strong presentation of the case, we feel that there is sufficient flexibility in how the Secretary of State operates dispensation for local celebrations of significance.
The key point is that Parliament must always have to approve some relaxations, because the order may be made only by an affirmative resolution. Relaxing hours in London would raise significant issues for the Metropolitan Police. Therefore, we think that the proper forum for such decisions is Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise the strength of that case.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his reply. Curiously, the note that he read out at the end of his speech—it was delivered to him during the course of it—appeared to belie the rest of his answer. The previous stance, which he adopted until dispatches arrived from elsewhere in the Chamber, implied that there were any number of events of particular local significance and that it would be quite wrong to take the privilege of looking after them away from the Secretary of State. The Minister did not use precisely those words, and produced other arguments in relation to that point. He now tells us that any such order actually requires endorsement by Parliament. If that is the case, the Minister has reinforced our argument. It would seem extraordinary if every event such as that involving the maypole that I described required an order. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, indicated that the problem would apply to many other small local events, but the Minister himself corroborated that parliamentary action would be required on every occasion.

445
Before I agree to withdraw the amendment, it would be prudent to give the Minister a second chance to respond when he has got his ducks in a row, which happens to be peculiarly apposite in relation to my maypole example.
Lord Davies of Oldham: How could I resist such an invitation? However, I am a cricketer, so getting ducks in a row is not always as attractive to me in those terms as it is in terms of shooting.
Let me re-emphasise what I sought to point out in my earlier argument. I commented on the small population of the area to which the noble Lord made reference. He also said that an annual dispensation might be required. We are talking about a limited community, and we have a very large number of limited communities across the country. If the amendment were agreed to, the dispensations that would go on would be legion. They would be such as to transform the nature of the Bill. For that reason, I sought to emphasise that we needed some consistency across the country.
I also emphasised that such consistency would be subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, and an affirmative order would be required for emendations to the Bill. The House will have seen such orders on the likes of New Year's Day and, of course, last year's Golden Jubilee. They are exceptional circumstances. That is the position at present, which I am seeking to sustain within the framework of the Bill.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise for pressing the Minister further. Is he saying, as I could readily understand, that the parliamentary order would apply only if something was an annual event such as New Year or May Day? Would it apply to all the cases of exceptional local significance? I think the sensible thing for me to do is to wait for an answer, and then respond.
Lord Davies of Oldham: No, what I am indicating is that we think that exceptional occasions across the country will be few and far between. The noble Lord will recognise that the instances that I gave are the only two that I could bring to my mind from last year. Orders appear before the House each year in relation to, I think, the extension of licences at the New Year's celebration. On all other occasions and in all other circumstances, the existing licensing laws apply. Although the Bill is of course deregulatory—it devolves a great deal to the local licensing authorities—we suggest that extensions should properly be reserved to the Secretary of State.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I think that we have teased out during the course of the short debate the fact that the Secretary of State will be extremely severe in terms of the number of exceptional local celebrations that he is prepared to allow.
I acknowledge that there is an argument in favour of the case that the Minister made. He would obviously wish to limit the number of cases with which his civil
446
servants have to deal. Members of the Committee who can recall the St Trinian's films will remember the cameo performance by Richard Wattis as a civil servant in the then Ministry of Education, dealing with complaints about St Trinian's. If the provision were extended across the country, the life of a whole host of civil servants would be rendered disagreeable in the way that his character's patently was.
Although it is not for me to comment if the Government choose to be extremely tight and restrictive in terms of events of such local significance, we have had a decent opportunity to debate the issue back and forth. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 429:
Page 93, line 42, after "licences" insert "and club premises certificates"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 430 and 431.
Amendment No. 429 amends Clause 169 so that it applies, as of course it should, to club premises certificates as well as to premises licences. That would allow clubs as well as other licensed premises to take advantage of any relaxation of opening hours for special occasions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendments Nos. 430 and 431:
Page 94, line 7, leave out ", in relation to a premises licence, means" and insert "means—

(a) in relation to a premises licence,"

Page 94, line 9, at end insert ", and

(b) in relation to a club premises certificate, the times during which the premises may be used for qualifying club activities in accordance with the certificate"

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 169, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 170 [Activities in certain locations not licensable]:
[Amendment No. 431A not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 431 B:
Page 94, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) at premises in respect of which a licence under the Gaming Act 1968 (c. 65) is in force and the premises are being used wholly or mainly for the purposes of gaming to which Part 2 of that Act applies,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 448A.
The amendments relate to a concern—it is really a technicality—about casino and bingo clubs. We believe that the concern would be overcome by the amendments, which seek to avoid duplication and contradiction arising from the creation of a separate licensing system for casino and bingo clubs in the Licensing Bill and the proposed gambling Bill.
Casinos and bingo clubs have always been subject to separate but complementary regulations from other places of entertainment. Gambling regulations are intended to prevail over other regulations where they apply t o casinos and bingo clubs. It is for precisely that reason. for example, that the British Casino Association succeeded in obtaining an exemption for casino and bingo club staff from the Private Security Industry Act 2001, very late in the day. The exemption was not granted to leave staff outside the law; it was simply realised by the Government, after discussions with the gaming industry, that they were already covered by tighter legislation under existing gaming law.
The Government have signalled their intention to maintain that separate and distinct but complementary regime for casinos and bingo clubs by proposing a new gambling Bill, which we understand is scheduled to be introduced in the 2003–04 Session and which has been widely consulted on. Given that the gambling Bill will introduce a new licensing regime for casinos and bingo clubs, it appears appropriate at this stage to exempt casinos and bingo clubs from the proposals for liquor premises licences under the Licensing Bill to avoid the possibility that casinos and bingo clubs will have to reapply for licences under two different regimes, or that the Licensing Bill will have to be amended at a later stage to accommodate the demands of the gambling Bill.
Introducing some minor amendments to the Gaming Act 1968 would allow for the continued regulation of all activities in bingo clubs and casinos under existing gaming legislation, by virtue of the grant and annual renewal of gaming licences, until such time as the new gambling Bill comes into force.
The Government have already accepted that it is now proposed that existing liquor licences for all establishments selling alcohol will "roll over" to the new regime in April 2004, without the need for fresh applications. Thus, the Government clearly recognise the need lo avoid duplication where possible. As the Licensing Bill is presently drafted, therefore, casinos and bingo clubs will, we believe, be the only organisations that will have to bear the cost of applying for duplicate liquor and gaming premises licences. One of the objectives of the Bill, as we know, is to reduce the financial burden on industry and streamline the licensing process, but in the case of the gambling industry it will achieve exactly the opposite. In so far as casinos and bingo clubs are concerned, that is a clear case of over-regulation where it is not necessary. Indeed, it is contradictory and will lead to confusion and conflict. The Government's thinking, so far as casinos and bingo clubs are concerned, is clear, as set out in the White Paper on gambling reform, A Safe Bet for Success. That report states:
The government does, however, accept that it would not be appropriate to give local authorities unfettered discretion to determine whether or not a premises licence should be issued or on the conditions attached to licences … government agrees … there will be a need for clear statutory criteria against which all premises licensing decisions should be made".
448
Clearly, therefore, the Government have anticipated that casinos and bingo clubs will be subject to specific statutory guidance under the gambling Bill when it comes to consideration of their licences. It would therefore be very odd for the Government to set down one set of guidelines for all licensed premises from the moment that the Licensing Bill passes, only to change it for casinos and bingo clubs once the gambling Bill passes.
In practical terms, that means that the gaming industry would face the following situation: first, existing liquor licences would be "rolled over", pending the gambling Bill; secondly, new licences for new premises or for redevelopment would be granted by local authorities under the licensing legislation; thirdly, identical casinos and bingo clubs will therefore operate under different licensing criteria depending on whether their licence was granted before the Licensing Bill or after it; and, fourthly, new premises applications would have to be re-submitted once statutory criteria are laid down in the gambling Bill, which means that the original application has in essence to be made for a second time.
In Scotland, we are already experiencing the effects of a "dual regime", where local authorities seek to attach conditions to liquor licences that conflict with gaming legislation and the statutory advice of the Gaming Board. We could therefore have a position in England and Wales where local authorities exercise discretion during the interregnum between the Licensing Bill, once it has been enacted, and the gambling Act, in direct contravention of existing gambling legislation.
A solution would be to make some simple amendments to the existing Gaming Act 1968, by way of the current Bill, to permit all activities conducted in casinos and bingo clubs to be controlled under the current gaming legislation, until such time as the gambling Bill is passed.
It is worth noting that an almost identical amendment was put through Parliament this year to allow casinos to offer live entertainment. The regulation of such entertainment is now therefore governed by the gaming licence for the premises under the Gaming Act 1968. An example of a similar practice exists in relation to the Casino Act of the Isle of Man, which, by Section 8, authorises the licensing authority—the Isle of Man Gaming Board of Control—to grant a liquor licence to the holder of a casino licence. By contrast, other licensed premises in the Isle of Man—or should that be "on the Isle of Man"?—are required to obtain their liquor licences from the licensing court chaired by the high bailiff. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: We support the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: The amendments in some respects anticipate the gaming Bill and the noble Baroness will not be surprised when I tell her that I can give no firm commitment about when that Bill will be introduced.

449
Once local authorities are responsible for licensing premises in their areas—not just as the licensing authority for alcohol, entertainment and late-night refreshment but also for gambling—in principle, it certainly makes sense to envisage a single licensing procedure for casinos and bingo clubs. We envisage that the licensing committees which will be set up under the Bill would in due course be empowered also to deal with gambling licensing matters. Bingo clubs and casinos would therefore be able to make one application to one body. Such a streamlining of the present arrangements could bring about substantial savings for business, and also for the police, local residents and others with an interest. However, it would be wrong to pre-empt the future reform of gambling licensing through piecemeal provision in advance of a full and detailed consideration and proper debates in this House and another place about what will be appropriate for that future position.
I am afraid that the amendments would be a rather unsatisfactory short-cut to that future position. In the first place, the amendments would leave the magistrates with responsibility for alcohol licensing in relation to one group of premises, when they would no longer have it for any other group. Therefore, we would need administrative systems and expertise would have to be maintained for that purpose. Magistrates would have to acquire a new responsibility in relation to entertainment licensing which they might eventually have to relinquish to local authorities.
We cannot treat licensing functions as a kind of "ping-pong" between magistrates and local authorities. That would be unfortunate. Worse than that, the provisions of the Licensing Bill would not apply and thus the criteria and safeguards that we have spent such a long time debating would not extend to bingo clubs and casinos. If the amendments were made to the Bill, the provision of licensable activities in those clubs would not benefit from the in-built protections in the Bill of expert scrutiny and representation but would, in effect, be at the magistrates' discretion. If that was no longer considered the right approach in licensing all other premises, why should it be so for bingo clubs and casinos?
The Government readily acknowledge the case that the noble Baroness made for rationalising licensing responsibilities but we believe that it needs to be done properly. The amendments do only half a job and therefore we cannot support them. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 431B.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her reply. I believe that the immediate response from the gaming industry will be that the Bill does only half the job. I hear that the Minister is unable to confirm and give reassurances today that there will be a gaming Bill. But there appears to be every probability of such a Bill and certainly that industry hopes very much that it will appear in the next Session.
450
I believe it fair to say that the Bill we are currently debating puts the gaming industry in a difficult position—that of being between a rock and a hard place. Without the amendments, the industry will be subjected to a dual regime. Some 850 individual premises will be involved and therefore the issue is not negligible. It should be stressed that, by exempting casinos and bingo clubs, the Government would not be leaving other establishments, such as, for example, pubs with fruit machines, outside the law. With great respect, I do not believe that it is a good argument to say that that would be the only group remaining to be reviewed in terms of licensing applications by the magistrates' courts. Magistrates' courts will have to be maintained in order to hear appeals from all other licensed premises. Indeed, because of the current system, magistrates' courts are already blessed with people who are entirely competent, able and, I am sure, perfectly willing to carry out their current role in relation to all licensing applications.
I do not want to detain the Committee but I believe that the Minister's response will prove disappointing to the gaming industry—that is, to those involved with casinos and bingo clubs. I shall talk to them further and gauge their response to the Minister's reply. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 170 agreed to.
Clause 171 agreed to.
Clause 172 [Exemption for raffle, tombola, etc.]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 432:
Page 95, line 41, after first "prize" insert "in excess of £100, or the total of all money prizes exceeds £250,"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 432, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 433. These are innocent little amendments, designed to carry out the wish and will of the Government in a way that I hope and believe is fairly inoffensive. As the Committee will see, they relate to the exemption for raffles and tombolas. Clause 172 is already constructed to have within it protections against misuse of the probing amendments that I am putting forward because a raffle must be promoted as an incident of the exempt entertainment.
In responding, perhaps the Minister can cast more light on what is meant by the phrase "incident of an exempt entertainment". For example, if a rugby club holds a dance and, arising from that knees-up and in order to raise substantial funds for the club, it decides to have a raffle which will be drawn at the dance, would that raffle, even though it was extensive, be an incident of an exempt entertainment?
Whereas in the old days raffles were homespun affairs with the tickets often sold entirely at the fete, match or lecture, these days that is rarely the case. That is partly due to the fact that our communities are now far more dispersed. One cannot rely on people being at an event when the tickets are sold and one wants to tap other sources of sale. Without the amendments I

451
propose or ones that strike at the same problem, the exemption here will be less useful than the Government may believe.
Therefore, as the Committee will see, in Amendment No. 432 I say that if there are money prizes, which would normally be sufficient to knock a raffle out of the exemption, the exemption will apply if those prizes are not more than £100 for any single prize or £250 in total. Those figures are perhaps too large, but noble Lords will see the point, if there is a single money prize of £5—I know of several raffles with small money prizes—one is sunk and has to enter the whole business of obtaining a licence, giving temporary notice to the police and the licensing authorities, filling in a questionnaire and doing so 10 working days before the event—all the regulatory burden that causes a headache for small organisations.
The second amendment is designed to overcome the problem to which I have just referred; that is, unless every single ticket at a raffle is sold at the event, again, one is taken out of the exemption. I put it to the Committee that these days there are extraordinarily few raffles of any kind where a few tickets are not sold beyond the portals. Indeed, the opposite is true for several of them because they aim to raise money for charity. I hope that that is sufficient to explain the purport of the two amendments and I hope that the Government will smile upon them. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: We support the amendments. The sums referred to in Amendment No. 432 are very modest. We should be interested to hear from the Minister the rationale for a complete ban on money prizes. If the Minister opposes the amendment, what detrimental effect could these modest money prizes have on the licensing objectives? We question whether it can seriously be argued that such modest money prizes would in some way be detrimental to the licensing objectives.
We support Amendment No. 433 because there must be many functions where a raffle is held and where raffle tickets are sold before the function takes place. There will also be events when tickets are sold at the function but when the result is announced on another occasion. Surely, that is irrelevant as regards the promotion of the licensing objectives if the raffle or lottery is a relatively modest one. If the expenses of the lottery are less than £2,000, I should have thought that that could be regarded as modest. Such a raffle or lottery is hardly likely to offend against the licensing objectives.
Lord Monson: I, too, believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has made a very good case for the amendments. As he said, the amounts could possibly be reduced slightly. I am not sure about that, but I hope that he will stick to his guns and, if he gets no satisfaction today, return to the matter at the next stage.
Baroness Blackstone: Under the existing law, the provision of alcohol as a prize in a raffle at a village fete constitutes a sale and, for that reason, an occasional
452
licence is required. The Government recognise that that is a silly position and that is why this exemption has been introduced.
However, in introducing it, it is necessary to ensure that certain conditions are fulfilled in order for the exemption to apply. The alcohol offered must. for instance, be in sealed containers in order to prevent unscrupulous individuals or clubs from running raffles where every prize might consist of a pint of beer and in that way get round the normal requirements for a licence to sell alcohol.
Inevitably, we have had to define what is a small lottery or raffle and what should be properly within the normal law. In doing that we have tried to be consistent with the existing law covering lotteries and not to introduce anomalies. The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 defines "small lotteries" incidental to bazaars, sales of work, fetes, dinners, dances, sporting and athletic events and other entertainments of a similar nature.
It goes on to establish certain parameters, 'which include that no money prize be offered. If money prizes are offered, the lottery would be unlawful unless it meets the general provisions of the 1976 Act and one of the permissions available under that Act can be granted. I think that there would have to be a lottery permit.
For the sake of consistency, we have adopted those criteria as the characteristics of a small lottery. Charities are aware of those rules and tailor their lotteries to meet the criteria. For that reason I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, thinks that money prizes are still offered for those kinds of events or raffles. It makes sense to mirror the lottery rules in the Bill. The Bill should not be a back door way of circumventing the requirements of the 1976 Act.
The first of the amendments would allow the exemption to apply even where cash prizes are available. Admittedly the sums are not very high; I accept that they are modest. Nevertheless, in the light of what I have said I am surprised that raffles and tombolas still provide cash prizes.
On the face of it, the amendment does not seem unreasonable in that it allows the offering of alcohol and cash prizes with no requirement for a licence under the system. However, I stress that the purpose of the exemption is to benefit small events such as village fetes and charity fundraisers. As I have explained, conflicting exemptions under different provisions in different laws could produce confusion.
The second amendment provides that a lottery could benefit from the exemption even where tickets were sold or issued or the result declared other than at the appropriate premises so long as the total expenses incurred did not exceed £2,000. My objection to the amendment is on similar grounds to the first. The requirements reflect the requirements of gaming law, and to amend them would lead to confusion. The issuing of tickets and declaration of the result must take place at the same premises as the entertainment in order to ensure that only the small events of which I have spoken are included. I believe that the example of

453
the rugby club mentioned by the noble Lord would be caught. Larger lotteries, including those where tickets are sold prior to the event, should be caught.
Furthermore, £2,000 might pay for the supply of a considerable amount of alcohol if the exemption was misused by unscrupulous people to get round the licensing system.
In my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, following Second Reading, I promised that I would check that the Bill did not conflict with provisions in gaming legislation. I hope that he will now be assured that it does not but that his amendments would result in such a conflict.
I see no reason why the conditions that the amendment seeks to remove should cause concern to any of the many charities and individuals which have written to my department on this subject in recent months. I do not believe that any have written about this issue. In the light of my comments and my explanation as to why we have set the proposals for raffles and tombolas in the way we have, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for her full reply. I confess, although one should not, that I was rather persuaded by her comments on Amendment No. 432, and shall take them away and carefully read them.
The reason the Minister has not received many letters regarding Amendment No. 433 may be that if the general public took as long as me to understand Clause 172, they might still be pondering it. It contains a triple negative, which is not quite a record for legislation but is pretty good going. Indeed, I was touched by her concern for the confusion which might result from the amendments being accepted, given that the whole world is in a state of abject confusion about such matters now, let alone with Clause 172 included. The noble Baroness may reflect on the effect of Amendment No. 433; I certainly shall. If she sends her officials on to the highways and byways she will find that a great many such raffles are now being held as part of the existing law with sales outside and beyond the event at which prizes are announced. However, reflection is a good habit, and that I shall do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 433 not moved.]
Clause 172 agreed to.
Clause 173 [Prohibition of alcohol sales at service areas, garages etc.]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 434:
Page 96, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 434 to 436 relate to Clause 173, which prohibits the sale of alcohol at service areas, garages, and so forth. I have no problem with the prohibition of alcohol sales at motorway service
454
areas. However, I have concerns about the wider implication for the garage ban. Bearing in mind that the Government have repeatedly stated that this is a deregulatory Bill, this provision increases regulation. It shows an unfair and unnecessary bias against small, independent businesses.
Local shopping facilities are under pressure. All political parties accept that, agree with it and believe that that is a shame. The village shop is under pressure from the local supermarket. The local post office is under pressure because of the ending of benefit payments through post offices. The petrol station is under pressure because of the pitiful margins on the sale of petrol, and the garage is under pressure because modern technology means that new units are replaced rather than repaired. The decline of all that has led to what is called by the Social Exclusion Unit "shopping deserts".
In order to survive, as many as possible of such functions need to be combined together to provide an economic unit, which would include the ability to sell alcohol. It is because of that that many forecourt stores have emerged in the past 10 years.
What can be the argument against allowing garages with shops attached to sell alcohol? There can be really only one; that is, that it increases the likelihood of drinking and driving. However, that is so marginal as to be irrelevant. If we consider the reality, who goes to a garage to buy a bottle of alcohol and then sits in his or her car and drinks it? What happens is that they might go home, in which case they can do what they like, or they might go on to a party. If they become inebriated at a party, they would probably do so whether or not they bought a bottle at their local garage. Furthermore, practically, there has been no evidence of an increase in this problem since the law permitted a wider range of alcohol sales in forecourt stores in the 1990s.
There are two further aspects to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee. What is the logic of enabling an off licence to be set up in a village street 25 yards away from the village garage? As far as I can see, that could happen under these proposals. The result will be that one will have two shopping units in the village and probably both will be forced to close because they are uneconomic.
Even worse is the position of the local supermarket. In one's local newspaper, Tesco, Sainsbury's or Safeway will often advertise petrol as a loss-leader as a reason to shop with them. We now have a situation where one can go to Tesco and fill up one's car tank with petrol and its boot with booze but one cannot buy a six-pack of beer in one's local garage shop and thereby support the continuation of a shop in one's village or locality. Where is the fairness in that? It is one law for the big boys and another for the small ones.
We have already dealt a blow to local garages. As the noble Baroness kindly confirmed to me in writing, if they have so much as a microwave or offer a hot cup of coffee after 11 p.m. they will need a licence. That blow has increased the regulations they will face as a result of the Bill. The Labour Party has shed crocodile

455
tears about village shops. If the Bill is not changed, it will help to hasten their demise by prohibiting the combination of services and units in the way that I have described.
Amendment No. 434 seeks to leave out the words,
"premises used primarily as a garage or which form part of premises which are primarily so used".
That is an extraordinarily wide definition and will mean that no village garage will be able to sell alcohol.
Amendment No. 435 seeks to leave out another—if I may so call it—Lord Davies of Oldham type clause, where,
"the Secretary of State may by order amend the definition of excluded premises".
Therefore, later on we may find that an already strict interpretation can be made even stricter if the definition is changed in regulations. Amendment No. 436 is consequent on the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will support me in striking a blow for the village shop, the village garage and the village off-licence.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendments of my noble friend, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. This subject caused a considerable amount of debate among colleagues. Some felt quite strongly that the exemptions were right and others felt that my noble friend's amendments were right. It was interesting that the more we asked people whether alcohol is sold in garage forecourts, the more we realised that most people think it is already. Can the Minister tell us whether there are pertinent examples to exempt the selling of alcohol in garage forecourt stores? Some of my noble friend's illustrations emphasise why in practice it does not make sense to have this exemption for licensed premises.
The effect of the amendments is to allow the sale by retail or the supply of alcohol from premises used primarily as a garage or which form part of such premises without a premises licence. I emphasise those last few words. The amendment would not permit the sale of alcohol from garages without a premises licence. A licensing authority would still have to decide whether to grant a premises licence in respect of those garages.
We believe that the decision whether to grant a premises licence for a garage, thereby permitting the sale of alcohol, should be left to the relevant licensing authority, rather than this absolute prohibition in the Bill. There may be circumstances where it is acceptable that alcohol could be sold from a garage, to which my noble friend has already referred, particularly—we stress "particularly"—in rural areas.
We appreciate that it would rarely be acceptable for alcohol to be sold from a garage. The obvious reason is the assumption that people will get drunk while driving. But surely a licensing authority is best placed to consider the individual circumstances of each case. A blanket ban imposed by Parliament would have an unwarranted effect on garages where it is appropriate that a premises licence should be granted.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has made out an overwhelming case for the amendment. However, if the Government resist—as I fear they might—perhaps I may suggest a compromise. My compromise will not go as far as the Minister, or I for that matter, would like but it would be better than nothing. In doing so, I shall revert to a point I made at Second Reading. As the Minister is, I am sure, aware, Scandinavian governments are traditionally very strict about alcohol sales to the point of being positively puritanical. They have relaxed a little in recent years, but nevertheless their rules and regulations are still much stricter than those in this country.
However, a certain type of alcohol, known as light beer and light cider, which contains less than 2.2 per cent by volume, is treated much more benignly and. can be sold at many outlets where sales of stronger beers, wines and spirits would be totally forbidden. There is a logical reason for that, which is that this beer is so weak that it is almost impossible to get drunk on it. In a nutshell, the more one drinks the quicker one excretes it.
Clause 186 provides that drinks containing less than 0.5 per cent alcohol can be sold anywhere. Not many people find that particularly appealing. Although the 2.2 per cent beer is not as pleasant to drink as the 3.5 per cent or above, it is still better than nothing. Many people greatly dislike—for example, if they want to have a picnic—sweet fizzy drinks that are full of artificial flavouring and colouring and so on.
So I think that that would be a perfectly reasonable compromise. I know the Government cannot give a snap answer, but perhaps they might like to reflect on it before the next stage.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment. I speak to the issue raised in Amendment No. 436, which seeks to leave out subsection (c)(i), which is the retailing of petrol. The noble Lord made the point that local shops and garages are under pressure. I know that for a fact because I used to own a petrol station, which unfortunately went out of business last year because petrol margins were so short and we were making more out of the shop sales. It might have helped if the shop had sold alcohol.
I am not convinced by the argument that sales of alcohol on forecourts would lead to drink driving because anyone in a car can drive to an off-licence. However, one issue I wish to raise is that there seems to be a slight dichotomy in the Bill, which is that one reason many local garages are going out of business is that most people in rural areas shop in superstores. They will drive 30 to 40 miles to go to a superstore and at the same time fill up with much cheaper petrol. I know this is the case throughout the country.
Can the Minister give an indication whether any of the big superstores, such as Tesco or Sainsbury's, will be affected by subsection (c)(i)—the retailing of petrol—because most superstores have a garage attached to them? At what point do those garages come under that provision? It seems unfortunate that

457
forecourts will be penalised. However, the very arguments that have been made against garages selling alcohol could also be applied to these superstores which sell alcohol until late.
Lord Crickhowell: I support my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and seek clarification. I confess that I buy my whisky at the Sainsbury store on the other side of the river here and fill up at the same Sainsbury—as, I dare say, do other Members of the Committee. However, my questions arise from the situation in a little village that I know near my home in Wales. I am not sure what constitutes premises that are primarily a garage. There is a village store that has some petrol pumps on one side. The chap comes out of the store to sell the petrol and frequently, while he is filling my tank, I go into the shop to buy goods. At exactly the same distance on the other side of the store is the village pub. So if anyone wanted to occupy the time while the tank was being filled, he could pop into the village pub and buy some drink.
However, without looking at the accounts of my friend who runs that operation on a monthly or annual basis, I could not begin to know whether he is selling more goods in his shop or petrol, or whether that varied from year to year or month to month. Exactly how are the garages to be affected defined? Finally, if I owned a garage in a village and the village shop next door decided to establish separate companies and called one "Village Shop Ltd" and the other "Village Garage Ltd" but continued to operate them alongside each other, would I get round the provision or not? We are in jungle territory, and I should like to know exactly how we get out of the jungle.
Baroness Blackstone: The prohibition as it affects garage premises does not prevent licensing authorities, as at present, from licensing the sale of alcohol at garages at which the primary use of the premises—in effect, the intensity of their use by customers—is not as a garage. The clause defines use as a garage if the premises are used for the retailing of petrol or derv, or the sale or maintenance of motor vehicles.
Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and others suggested, we have made the provision in recognition of the fact that the garage shop often plays a vital role in rural communities, where it may be the only store in a locality. We therefore do not intend to remove the special provision, which currently allows around 550 garages in England and Wales to sell alcohol. Indeed, if the garage owned by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was making more profit from items sold other than petrol, it could almost certainly have obtained an alcohol licence and could continue to do so under the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord will consider buying back the garage in the light of that. However, to respond to the noble Lord's point about superstores, they will be able to continue to sell petrol if they want to.
The Government do not believe that all garages should be able to sell alcohol, as that would undermine hard-won gains in combating drink-driving. As I have
458
implied, we recognise that in certain rural areas the garage shop may also be the only convenience store, so it is not practical to ban its sale from garages entirely where most of the premises' customers use its services for purposes other than buying petrol. However, after careful consideration, our view is that it would be inappropriate to allow sales of alcohol from all garages—which would be the effect of the amendments—for exactly the reason that I mentioned a moment ago: it would undermine the hard-won gains in combating drink-driving achieved during recent decades.
Baroness Buscombe: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for intervening at this point, but surely the principle in relation to drink-driving would apply whether or not the premises were used primarily as a garage.
Baroness Blackstone: I recognise that the question posed is perfectly reasonable, but it is a matter of considering the balance of different issues. It would be unreasonable for the Government to prevent a shop that was the only local shop from selling alcohol because it happened also to sell petrol on the side. That is entirely different from a motorway service station selling bottles of whisky or other alcohol to people who are about to set off down the motorway. It is a question of using common sense in making decisions about where such sales are appropriate.
Before the noble Baroness intervened, I was about to say that we can be pleased that there were about 480 alcohol-related fatalities in Great Britain in 2001, compared with more than 1,600 in 1979. So there has been a substantial reduction, and it would be unfortunate to put that at risk by giving out the kind of mixed messages about alcohol and driving that allowing widespread sales of alcohol from all garages would undoubtedly represent.
Perhaps I should remind Conservative Members of the Committee that the provisions linking the right of garages to obtain alcohol licences were introduced relatively recently by a Conservative Government. Road safety organisations and those concerned about drink-driving would be surprised if there was a complete volte face on the part of Conservative Members.
Lord Crickhowell: Perhaps the Minister will answer my question. Is the distinction made on grounds measured by turnover? What constitutes premises that are primarily garages? In the example that I gave, I have not the faintest idea whether that premises is primarily a village shop or a garage. Is that clearly understood and laid down?
Baroness Blackstone: I think that I am right to say that that is measured by turnover, but if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord to let him know.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying that I found that a most extraordinary reply. I began by saying that

459
it was never my intention to deal with motorway service areas. My amendment does not affect motorway service areas, which clearly should not sell alcohol. People drive down motorways to travel, not for local purposes.
Secondly, then to say that Sainsbury and Tesco, which sell hundreds of millions of pounds worth of alcohol a year, will be let off the restriction but that local shops will not seems extraordinarily biased. I f the Minister wants to argue, as she has, that we should not be able to buy booze because of the danger of alcohol-related accidents, driving to Tesco is just as dangerous as driving to a local shop.
Thirdly, as my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, the Bill is supposed to give power to people to reflect the circumstances of their areas. As she said, why cannot we let the local licensing authority have discretion to decide whether that suits it or not? That seems to be the way to deal with the matter, rather than this blanket ban.
Finally, the Minister said that an exclusion would continue for 450 or 550 garages. I do not read that in the Bill. The Bill appears to exclude,
"premises used primarily as a garage or which form part of premises which are primarily so used".
It does not state, "excluding the 450 that are currently allowed".
We shall not take the matter further now, but the Government are being extraordinarily cavalier 'with both local licensing authorities and local shops, about which they have previously expressed so much concern. We shall return to the matter, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 435 and 436 not moved.]
Clause 173 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 174 [Rights of entry to investigate licensable activitiec]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 437:
Page 97, line 27, at end insert "unless a constable or an authorised person has reasonable cause to believe that there are activities being carried on at the premises which would require a premises licence to be in force at the premises"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 437. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 438. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 437.
Clause 174 enables constables or authorised officers of the licensing authority to enter premises if they believe that the premises,
"are being, or are about to be, used for a licensable activity"
Such officers can do so only,
"with a view to seeing whether the activity is being, or is to be, carried on under and in accordance with"
a premises licence, a club premises certificate or a temporary event notice. Subsection (7) provides that that right of entry does not exist in respect of premises where only a club premises certificate is held. That would mean that, if the holder of a club premises
460
certificate allowed public entertainment on the premises that would require a premises licence in addition to the club certificate and he failed to obtain that premises licence, the police and local authority would not be able to enter the premises to ascertain whether such unlawful activity was being carried on.
I turn to Amendment No. 438. Clause 174(1) provides for police officers or other authorised persons, such as licensing authority officers, to enter premises if they have reason to believe that a licensable activity is being, or is about to be, undertaken. That power is conferred for the purposes of investigating licensable activities.
Clause 175 provides a similar power for the investigation of licensing offences if it is believed that an offence under the Bill,
"has been, is being or is about to be committed".
However, Clause 175(1) restricts the rights of entry and search in such circumstances to police officers. Both sets of rights have attached to them additional rights to force entry, if necessary, and it would be an offence, in both instances, to obstruct entry by a person authorised under Clauses 174 or 175.
The distinction between investigating licensable activities and the investigation of licensing offences is an academic one. There is no reason why licensing officers or authorised persons should not be given rights under Clause 175 relating to the investigation of licensing offences to match those conferred by Clause 174 relating to licensable activities. Local authorities already exercise such rights in respect of public entertainment licensing. It would be absurd not to use their resources and rely entirely on the already overstretched police.
It is likely that, without the amendment, many serious offences—some related to safety—would go uninvestigated. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 437 would enlarge the powers of the police and the licensing authority officers to enter qualifying clubs. It would, for example, allow a licensing authority officer to enter a club to check whether entertainment not covered by its club premises certificate was being provided. Clause 174 needs to be read in conjunction with Clause 175. Clause 174 is all about investigating and checking. It does not require reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been, or is about to be, committed. In contrast, Clause 175 deals with a case in which the police have reason to suspect the commission of an offence under the Bill. The later clause confers on the police a power of entry to the premises, which may be premises of any kind, including club premises.
The Government believe that Parliament should be cautious about extending rights of entry to qualifying clubs, especially if, as in this case, the power to enter carries with it the power to use reasonable force, if necessary. Qualifying clubs are, by definition, private premises not open to the general public, and there is a long tradition of responsible and law-abiding operation in the club movement. We do not have a serious problem of abuse. Of course, from time to time,

461
with thousands of clubs across the country, things may go wrong, and rules may be bent or broken. But it is possible for the law to be enforced without going so far as what is suggested in the amendment.
If the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that offences under the Bill are being committed, Clause 175 comes into play. The powers of entry and search provided in Clause 95 may also be relevant. Those responsible may be prosecuted, and the club will be at risk of losing its premises certificate. The amendment would give the police and licensing authorities a right to enter club premises without having any reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence there. They could do so simply in order to check whether everything was in order. In the absence of real evidence of widespread abuse, that would be a step too far and would undermine an important distinction between clubs and licensed premises that are open to the public. We cannot support Amendment No. 437.
Amendment No. 438 would substantially enlarge the powers of local authority licensing officers—and, indeed, other officials—in a way that cannot be justified. As I said, Clause 175 gives the police the power to enter any premises, using reasonable force, if necessary, if they have reason to suspect that an offence under the Bill is being committed. It is a far-reaching power, but we believe that it is right to enable the police to act promptly if they encounter circumstances that give rise to reasonable suspicion—for example, if private premises are being used in practice as an unlicensed pub or disco. However, it is one thing to confer the powers on police officers but quite another to extend them to officials whose training and responsibilities probably relate only to licensing or environmental health law.
The amendment would mean that a local authority licensing officer could break down someone's front door and enter his home if the officer reasonably suspected that alcohol was being kept there with a view to its unlawful future sale. Leaving aside the point that that has nothing to do with environmental health, I invite the Committee to consider whether that is something that we want licensing officers to do. It is fairly obvious that we do not. It is a matter for the police. If the argument is that, in practice, local authority licensing officers would not use powers of entry in such cases, the case for conferring such powers in the first place falls away.
Local authority officers are not equipped to use the far-reaching powers conferred by Clause 175. If they come across circumstances that lead them to believe that such powers should be used, they should tell the police and co-ordinate follow-up action with them. If local authority staff tried to use powers of forcible entry on their own, they would risk creating incidents of violence or disorder with which the police would have to deal.
I hope, in the light of my explanation, that Amendment No. 438 will not be pressed.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full response. I shall read in Hansard what she said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 174 agreed to.
Clause 175 [Right of entry to investigate offences]:
[Amendment No. 438 not moved.]
Clause 175 agreed to.
Clause 176 [Appeals against decisions of licensing authorities]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 438A:
Page 98, line 6, leave out from "may" to end of line and insert ", in exceptional circumstances, make an order as to costs"
The noble Lord said: If magistrates were able simply to award costs without it being clearly understood that such costs were to be awarded only in exceptional cases, it would act as a deterrent to objectors who wished to appear before them, for whom the existing deterrence is already considerable.
The subsequent amendments in the grouping are not in my name. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 439, 441ZA and 443, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke. In relation to Amendment No. 439, Clause 176 allows applicants for and holders of licences and club premises certificates, applicants for provisional notices and interim authority notices and applicants for temporary event notices, responsible authorities and interested parties, rights of appeal to a magistrates' court against decisions of a licensing authority. The appeal mechanism is set out in Schedule 5 to the Bill.
Clause 176 sets out the powers of the magistrates in determining such appeals. However, it does not currently direct them as to the factors that they should take into account in determining such appeals. As the licensing authority is required to formulate, state and review its licensing policy under Clause 5 and have regard to it in exercising its licensing functions, it appears self-evident that in assessing the adequacy of a licensing authority's decision on appeal, the court should be obliged to have regard to the authority's licensing statement.
Amendment No. 441ZA stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who is unable to be in his place today. It is largely dependent on whether fees will be subject to variation by licensing authorities. We shall know more on that issue in the near future when guidance is issued. Does the right of appeal against fees mean that every applicant will claim that they are being over-charged for their premises license? I would suggest that the answer is "not necessarily". There is much to be said for the right to question a decision on fees. If the holder of the premises is prepared to go through the administrative process of appealing, it is likely that they would have a legitimate claim. We believe that the matter should be discussed.

463
In relation to Amendment No. 443, licensing committees on Benches are usually no larger than 20 in number at present. They develop specialist knowledge in licensing law. Perhaps I may add that this amendment has been developed in conjunction with the Justices' Clerks' Society. Schedule 5 allows the appeal to be heard by any magistrate. That would have severe implications on training resources and development of expertise.
With an average Bench of 200 justices, the licensing committee would currently be no more than 20 justices. That would provide for a small, coherent unit whose members can be trained in this specialist area of law. The number of justices means that they will frequently sit on licensing matters. If all 200 justices have to be trained, that will be both time-consuming and expensive. It will also mean that any justice will sit on a licensing appeal only infrequently and thus not develop any level of expertise. Our amendment seeks to remedy the situation while keeping in line with the current position regarding justices' involvement in licensing matters.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: It is of course only right that all parties involved in the licensing process have available appropriate remedies and freedom to challenge decisions, where appropriate. However, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary.
Amendment No. 438A would allow a magistrates' court that had heard an appeal to award costs only in exceptional circumstances. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I do not agree with that principle. Courts should be allowed to award costs to any party involved in an appeal as they see fit. That is not a novel idea peculiar only to this Bill. It is the way in which the courts operate in the vast majority of cases.
Amendment No. 439 would compel a court considering an appeal against a decision made by a licensing authority to have regard to the authority's statement of licensing policy when making its decision.
Clause 176 concerns the mechanism of appeals. It sets out the three courses of action that a magistrates' court may take when hearing an appeal against the decision of a licensing authority. These courses of action are to dismiss the appeal; to substitute a decision for the original decision; or to remit the case to the licensing authority to dispose of in accordance with the direction of the court.
What the clause does not seek to do is to tell the court, or those who are parties to the appeal, how to conduct their case. The licensing policy may be the main focus of the appeal—for instance, if an appellant believes that a decision made under it is wrong because the policy itself has not been made with proper regard to the Bill or its guidance. Neither party in an appeal may refer to the policy to support its argument. That is entirely proper.
However, perhaps we may take an example of how the system might work in certain circumstances. Let us say that a licensing authority takes a decision based, as
464
is required by the Bill, on its statement of licensing policy. Although the licensing policy would have been prepared in consultation with a range of interests, again as required by the Bill, there is a chance perhaps even a likelihood—that some of those affected by licensing decisions would disagree with aspects of the policy. It would be open to anyone with a grievance over a decision made by the licensing authority to exercise their right of appeal to the magistrates' court.
If the magistrates' court were required to take into account the licensing policy, its discretion would, in effect, be unfairly fettered. It would have little choice but to uphold any decision made by the licensing authority that was reasonably based on the licensing policy. It would deny appellants the opportunity to air their grievance that the aspect or aspects of the licensing policy on which was based the decision against which they were appealing. Furthermore, it must be right that the court considers the case before it on its individual merits, taking into account the normal rules of admissibility of evidence.
I do not believe that the Government should interfere with the work of the magistrates' courts in the way that this amendment seeks to do. It would be to the detriment of all involved, particularly appellants.
I have stated before that fees will be set centrally by the Secretary of State, following consultation. There will be no scope for variation by the licensing authority and, as a result, no need for an appeal against them. As I have explained previously, while the exact level of the fee is yet to be decided, we currently estimate that the one-off fee for a premises licence would range from £100 to £500, depending on the size of the premises. In the majority of cases, fees will be smaller than under the present systems. There will of course he only a single licence to apply for. In the majority of cases, there will be no need for a costly legal hearing just to obtain a licence.
With fees set centrally, there will be no scope for the enormous variations that the industry faces at present. The principle that fees will be fair and proportionate would be undermined by Amendment No. 441ZA.
In tabling Amendment No. 443, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has in mind that given the transfer of licensing functions to local authorities, we should preserve a role for licensing justices, with all their experience and specialist knowledge, as the appeal body. However, they will not have any experience of the new system set out in the Bill. That would require training by the Magistrates' Association and the Lord Chancellor's Department, in the same way as anyone coming new to the system and serving on an appeal body.
Furthermore, the amendment would inject a degree of inflexibility into the system. It was largely for this reason, as well as for reasons of cost and accessibility, that so many stakeholders and individuals who responded to the White Paper asked for a change in the proposal that appeals against licensing decisions would be heard by the Crown Court. We were persuaded by the responses received that it would be quicker, cheaper and just as effective for those appeals

465
to be heard by a magistrates' court. The Government's efforts to consult and involve all interested parties have continued throughout the past two years, and we have not heard calls for this change to be reversed. If only a certain number of magistrates were able to hear appeals, that would slow the process and make it less responsive. Therefore, for broadly the same reasons of speed and costs, I cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who introduced Amendment No. 438A, will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Buscombe: I accept what the Minister says in relation to Amendments Nos. 439 and 441ZA. However, I urge her to reconsider her response to Amendment No. 443. We believe that it would make a great deal of sense to have a panel of justices. As I have already suggested, that would be a small coherent unit which could be trained in this specialist area of law and its number mean that members would frequently sit on licensing matters. They would therefore have a good understanding, they would be focused and they would have a developing expertise in the subject. That would make for speedy and cost-effective justice. I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider what we said in relation to the amendment put forward by us in conjunction with the Justices' Clerks' Society.
Lord Avebury: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the Minister said that it was normal for the magistrates' court to have a total discretion to grant costs in any other case and that therefore there was no reason for making an exception in the case of licensing appeals. What happens at the moment? In a system in which the first application is to the magistrates' court, presumably no costs are awarded at that stage. When appeals are made to the High Court against a decision of the magistrates, would the High Court normally make a costs order against the residents' association or group of residents who are objecting to the award of the licence by the magistrates?
Let us try to compare like with like. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could say a little more about how costs may be awarded, or are customarily awarded under the current procedure.
Baroness Blackstone: I have no figures about what happens under the existing system and therefore I cannot directly answer the noble Lord's question. I imagine that the position will vary substantially from case to case, but I shall see whether I can provide the figures which the noble Lord would like to see and write to him if they are available.
My real concern is that the amendment would—or could—encourage licence applicants to appeal decisions which they knew they had little chance of winning. Residents and others could make appeals on the most tenuous of grounds. Both would be relatively secure in the knowledge that they were unlikely to have costs awarded against them.
466
That would not make for a less bureaucratic system, which is what we are trying to achieve through the reforms in the Bill, but it would make for one in which decisions might be challenged as a matter of course. That would not be helpful.
Lord Avebury: That would make it even more essential that the Committee should have this information. If the purpose of allowing the courts the power to award costs against residents' associations is to deter them from making what the Minister believes to be frivolous applications, we need to know whether that happens at the moment. If the magistrates allow an application and the residents appeal that it is not to their advantage, are they at the moment deterred by the award of costs from making an appeal to the High Court? That is the question that I asked and it is reasonable that the Committee should require an answer to it.
Baroness Blackstone: I have given an answer. I do not have the figures to hand but I will make them available to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and copy them to the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the searching questions which he asked her on my behalf. I understand the Government's position but I am not sure whether they are aware of the sense on the part of potential appellants that matters are weighted heavily against them, which in turn affects their sense of injustice about the Bill. However, I understand what the Minister said in response to my amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 439 not moved.]
Clause 176 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Appeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 440 to 443 not moved. ]
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 178 and 179 agreed to.
Clause 180 [Provision of information]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 443A:
Page 99, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: At the start of the business on Thursday, I said that I would seek to be brief and that any exception to that would be the one that proved the rule. I am afraid that this amendment will be the exception. Also on Thursday, in speaking to Amendment No. 211 I alluded to a future amendment relating to human rights. The letter which was then referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, arises from matters brought to the attention of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26th November by a former constituent of mine in Soho on behalf of his residents' association.
Two days later, my former constituent wrote a letter on the same subject to the Government which ran to 13 well-argued pages and was copied to the Secretary of State at the DCMS. He alluded to human rights questions in this Bill at Clauses 13(3); 18(2); 34(2); 68(3); 71(2); 83(2); and to the effect of Clause 30(2) taken with Clauses 18(2) and 18(6)(d). I moved Amendment No. 211 in relation to Clause 30 and it is perhaps fortunate that his letter did not fall into my hands earlier, or we might have prolonged the earlier sittings on the Bill in that regard. He finally alluded to Clause 180, which now absorbs us.
Some of the matters were treated on in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights issued before Christmas on 16th December. The chairman wrote to my former constituent on 13th January telling him that she had written to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and was awaiting a reply. I gather that one of the noble Baroness's ministerial colleagues did reply and that is the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred on Thursday. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, promised to ensure that it was released to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and to this House. I am delighted to say that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was as good as his word and that I have seen the letter.
The letter is from the noble Baroness's colleague, Mr Howells. Its final words are:
"representations have been received from the Musician's Union in relation to Article 10 rights"—
the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred on Thursday—
"from one Resident's Association about Article 8".
That is the 13-page letter to which I have referred. Of the eight clauses in the Bill on which the residents' association letter treats in connection with Article 8, the letter from the noble Baroness's colleague Mr Howells to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights alludes only to two and neither of those is Clause 180 about which I am speaking. Therefore, this is a new matter.
The first of the issues mentioned in the letter of 13th January from the chairman of the Joint Committee to my former constituent is the compatibility with ECHR Article 8 of provisions which would appear to take account of representations from residents about the impact of granting a licence on residents' Article 8 rights. The issue in Clause 180 is the right to information.
I shall now quote from the letter which my former constituent sent to the Government on 26th November. It states:
"Clause 180 of the Bill appears to prevent 'responsible parties' including the police and environmental health officers from making disclosures of information relating to crime and disorder and nuisance from licensed premises to parties other than other responsible parties and licensing authorities.
In a cluster, a significant proportion of crime and disorder, nuisance, social and environmental issues are related to the impact of the entertainment premises on residents and legislation provides for disclosure of relevant information. For example the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires disclosure of crime and disorder data to sector committees, consultative committees,
468
publication of crime and disorder audits, safety plans so that people who live and work in an area may give their views on policing issues. Similar provisions apply in the Local Government Act 2000 with respect to environmental control. The effect of Clause 180 will be to prevent disclosure of the most important elements of information under these provisions and effectively therefore it neuters these provisions.
"This creates problems with respect to the need for public authorities, under the decision in Guerra v Italy'—
to which an earlier reference had been made—
"from making disclosures to those who are likely to be affected by the nuisance, crime and disorder and nuisance. It thereby (1) deprives them of the opportunity to decide whether to continue to live in the area (2) it deprives them of information to be able to make relevant representations and (3) it deprives them of the ability of bringing judicial review proceedings against bodies which have failed to exercise their powers properly under the licensing regime that is proposed. This is a violation of the principles set out in Guerra v Italy".
My former constituent dilated on the case of Guerra v Italy elsewhere in the letter, where it stated:
"in the case of Guerra v Italy, the Court ruled there was a breach of article 8. In that case the applicants lived near a chemical factory which was classified as 'high risk'. The Court found a breach of article 8 on the basis that, once the authorities became aware of essential information about the dangers inherent in the running of the factory, they delayed for several years before passing that information to the applicants and therefore prevented them from assessing the risks they and their families ran by continuing to live in the vicinity of the factory. The public authorities had positive obligations to disseminate the information and had failed to do so".
It is important that people—particularly those living in town centres—should know about the crime, disorder, nuisance and safety impact on them of these problems, whether or not they come from licensed premises. This is required under the Crime and Disorder Act and under the Convention. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We are in deep waters here and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not refer back to the previous occasions during the passage of the Bill on which these issues have arisen but concentrate on Clause 180, which the noble Lord seeks to amend.
Throughout the Bill there are balances and safeguards offering protections and ensuring that those bodies responsible for enforcement have the information they need to act quickly and effectively when necessary.
Clause 180 provides that information held by licensing authorities and responsible authorities for the purposes of the Bill may be shared with other licensing authorities or responsible authorities where necessary to enable the discharging of licensing authority functions. It is perfectly reasonable that licensing authorities and bodies such as the police, fire authority and health and safety bodies should be able to share such information.
What would not be reasonable, however, is for such information to be widely shared or shared for purposes other than the proper administration and enforcement of the licensing regime. The noble Lord's amendment would remove the protections for licence holders,

469
applicants and other individuals. They could not be sure to which other organisations or individuals their personal information or data had been passed, or for what purpose.
There is a requirement on all licensing authorities to keep a register of information about licences and notices, and Clause 8 provides the right level of disclosure of information about licensing decisions for inspection by the public. But in discharging licensing functions or the functions of a responsible authority, the licensing authority or responsible authority may well have in its possession information to which issues of confidentiality and so on will attach. It is right therefore that information which is not kept on the public register—which is, in fact, a considerable range of information—should be available only for limited purposes for restricted classes of person.
I have listened carefully to the case for the amendment presented by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I understand entirely the example he gave about the dangers to the public of a lack of knowledge in regard to a chemical factory capable of emitting noxious substances, but the kind of premises we are seeking to licence—which, without doubt, may occasionally arouse anxiety in the public in terms of potential law breaking and difficulties with disturbances—do not present the same kind of threat to the life and welfare of individuals. Although I respect the case made by the noble Lord—as he rightly indicated, we in the department are fully aware of the deployment of this case across the range of the Bill—the amendment is not justified against the position I have described of how Clause 180 will work in association with Clause 8. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with my response.
Lord Avebury: The Minister's reply is all very well but it does not address the main thrust of the amendment, which is concerned entirely with the human rights aspects of the matter. This leaves the Committee in some difficulty. There has been important correspondence between Miss Jean Corston, the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the responsible Minister, Mr Kim Howells, who has replied at not quite as great a length but his letter runs to five pages. The noble Lord promised the Committee on Thursday that copies of the letter would be placed in the Library of the House, but it became available only at lunch-time today and I have not had adequate time to study it properly and to arrive at a definite conclusion. I notice that the date on the top of the letter is 10th January. Considering its relevance, can the Minister say why the letter was not made available to the Committee earlier? That is one point he should perhaps have explained in his reply.
A second matter the Minister has to explain is why, notwithstanding the fact that the writer of the original letter to Jean Corston, from which this correspondence arose, went into some detail about the provision of information under Clause 180—I would be out of order if I referred to the other matters dealt with in this correspondence—Mr Howells did not
470
mention the provision of information. So, even if one accepts everything the noble Lord said about there being good reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of certain information provided in connection with the licence, if there is a conflict between the Human Rights Act and the data protection aspects of information that is given in confidence in connection with a licence, that needs to be thoroughly explored—and we have not had an opportunity to do so.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We have done our best in regard to the letters. The Committee will know that the issue cropped up quite late in the debate on Thursday. In fact, if we had not adjourned when we did on Thursday evening there would have been no opportunity to get the letter to the Committee prior to the discussion of Clause 180. So we have tried to move with dispatch.
Let me explain why the letter was not in the public domain before. We had interpreted the representation from the Human Rights Committee as an issue between the Human Rights Committee and Ministers. Representations were made by the chair of the Human Rights Committee and our response was to the chair, Jean Corston, a Member of another place. At that stage we believed we were being helpful to the committee and that an aspect of private communication was involved. When representation was made on Thursday that in the consideration of the Committee the contents of the letter should be made widely available, we did our best on that basis to make it available for today's debate. I recognise the difficulty of internalising the contents of lengthy letters on difficult issues when they have been available for only a short time. But that is the best explanation that I can give. It is offered in good faith. Given the background, it was the best we could do. The original intention was not to keep information from the Committee but for Ministers at that point to be engaged in direct communication with the chairman of the Human Rights Committee. The ministerial reply was drafted against the background of being of help to that committee. We had not thought, therefore, that the letter should be in the public domain—where it now is.
I recognise that I am taking a different view from that of the author of the original letter, accurately reflected with regard to Clause 180 by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I recognise that these are significant issues that we shall need to ponder further. I have given the Committee as much information as I can at this juncture, both in terms of the issues contained in the letter and in terms of the defence of Clause 180 as it stands as against the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. I have no doubt that if he is dissatisfied with the situation he will ensure that we continue these discussions. We recognise that they range further across the Bill than this immediate clause. But at this stage I press the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to the Minister and, as on the previous occasion, to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for putting helpful

471
questions on the present position. I should perhaps have said earlier that there is a remarkable tradition and reputation in Westminster in terms of the effectiveness, the openness and the candour of the police and community consultative groups. One of the reasons they work so well is their degree of openness—not merely between the police and the local authority but between the police, the local authority and the local community.
I am concerned that I did not hear the Minister seek to disprove my observation about powers under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 2000 which I suggested on behalf of my former constituent were endangered by Clause 180 of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will re-examine the provision to see whether such rights have been interfered with in the process.
I understand the Minister's position. I followed what he said, but I hope that he will forgive me if I remark that this is a fairly sweeping and comprehensive clause and that his response was also of a some what sweeping nature. I hope that, in the light of this debate, he will re-examine the implications that I have raised to see whether there can be modifications and concessions which will not move matters against and away from the community, as the community presently believes is happening following the two previous pieces of legislation I mentioned, in terms of the powers exercised in the police and community consultative groups.
I acknowledge that Guerra v Italy was very much a macro-case. I recognise that chemical factories are perhaps sui generis. But it was noticeable that in the same correspondence my former constituent also quoted Hatton and others v UK, which related to Heathrow airport. That brings us much nearer to home and returns to the issue of noise nuisance, which is of a similar nature.
I shall give one micro-example to indicate the view of the person in the street. It relates to an elderly Chinese woman living in Soho—a fair number of Chinese live there—who wished to make a complaint about what she regarded as excessive behaviour at a large night-club to which I shall not allude but which may be described as having a somewhat controversial reputation; so it was not wholly unexpected that she should have been disturbed by it.
She went first to the environmental health officer to find out her rights in terms of the conditions and conduct to which she was being subjected. The environmental health officer said that she should consult the police. When consulted in the street, the police said that she must go back to the environmental health officer; and the environmental health officer said that she must go to those who were carrying out the licensing procedure.
If you are an elderly Chinese and you have been passed from pillar to post in that manner, you are not likely to feel that your human rights are being reinforced when you are the person who is making the complaint in the first place and when you have certain personal reservations about being too up-front as a
472
member of your particular community in terms of making the complaint. I mention this example in order to set a framework for the manner in which the Government might examine the clause as drafted and reassure themselves that they are protecting the rights of individuals such as that elderly Chinese lady in terms of being able to get to the bottom of what is going on around her.
I realise that I made a long speech at a late hour on human rights—the single matter that has exercised us at length—but perhaps that is no had thing. The Government have said that they will re-examine the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Clause 180 agreed to.
Clauses 181 to 187 agreed to.
Clause 188 [Other definitions]:
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amenclment No. 444:
Page 103, line 27, leave out "place" and insert "building or open space for which a licence may be applied"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment stands also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. It is straightforward. It is designed to add a degree of clarity to Clause 188, dealing with definitions.
"Premises" suggestions a building or an enclosed space; and "place" does little to provide illumination otherwise. We believe that it is important to specify that under the Bill "premises" need not be an enclosed area but may be a building or open space. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness has indicated, the amendment raises an issue of definition. We happen to think that the word "place" is a pretty good English word, which certainly covers both the buildings and the open spaces referred to in the amendment. I think it will be clear that it applies as much to temporary structures as to permanent ones, and to places on land as well as on water. We do not want a restrictive interpretation of the location at which licensable activities will be carried on, and "place" is a broad and suitable word for this purpose.
The amendment raises some interesting issues. It would remove the reference to,
"a vehicle, vessel or moveable structure".
I think it important that boats on which drink is served and entertainments staged are covered by the Bill in the interests of public safety and the prevention of nuisance in particular. I am slightly concerned that by defining "premises" as buildings or open spaces, doubt would be cast on this. So the amendment raises rather more problems than it sets out to solve—and I dc not believe that there is a problem that needs solving. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I had rather hoped, given that I was so brief, that he might respond warmly and accept the

473
amendment. However, I agree with him that "place" is a good English word. I thank him for the clarification of the meaning of that word in the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 445 not moved. ]
Clause 188 agreed to.
Clause 189 [Index of defined expressions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 189 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brightman: I applaud the Minister's drafting team for including Clause 189, on page 104, which is an index of specially defined words and expressions used in the Bill. It is of great convenience to the reader. By referring to the left-hand column of the index, the reader can discover at a glance whether a word or expression has or has not a special statutory meaning. If so, the right-hand column tells the reader at a glance where the meaning is to be found. Once rarely found in Bills, an index is becoming a feature of a number of well drafted Bills.
The health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, at a closing stage of the Adoption and Children Bill last October, said that,
"having an easy-to-understand glossary is of use to a Minister as it is to every other Member of your Lordships' House. I commend that very good practice of my own department to other government departments".—[Official Report, 30/10/02; col. 251.]
I hope that, in time, every long Bill will have an index of defined expressions to help the reader.
Lord Avebury: I would more readily join the noble and learned Lord in applauding the index if it contained the word "vicinity". I apologise for returning to the subject. When I last raised it, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, told me that the "vicinity" of a pub meant only the pub itself, the car park and associated land in the immediate vicinity. Obviously, that is not the case, because "vicinity" includes places where residents have a right to object.
That is why the word is important—sufficiently so to be included in the index. A person living one street away from the premises to which a licence application pertains may wonder whether he has a right to object. If he lives two streets away, does he still have that right? The vagueness of the term "vicinity" and the absence of any direct way in which residents can ascertain whether they are within this mythical area may cause much trouble when the Bill becomes law.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must correct the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I did not set out to define "vicinity". I referred to the specific context in which the word was used in the clause we were debating at the time. Although I do not have the text in front of me, it referred to "vicinity" and another quality; therefore I did not define "vicinity".
I express the gratitude of the Bill team and the parliamentary draftsman to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his kind words about
474
Clause 189. We appreciate that he had to stay until quite late on Thursday in the hope of reaching this clause so that he could say his kind words.
Clause 189 agreed to.
Clause 190 agreed to.
Clause 191 [Removal of privileges and exemptions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 191 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have taken an interest in the matter of the Worshipful Company of Vintners in the City of London, referred to in this clause, since its affairs were addressed in the White Paper. That was partly due to a then constituency interest, and because the company's privileges date back to a royal charter under King James I of England and King James VI of Scotland. Intemperate interference with royal charters can send a shiver up the spine of larger institutions such as universities, which might fear not so much Henry VIII powers as Henry VIII policies.
Against those combined concerns, I took the liberty of bringing the Corporation of London into the matter. I am conscious that the company has been having constructive and productive conversations with the corporation, on one hand, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, on the other. I gather that the Government are minded to put into regulations an interpretation of these matters which is acceptable to the company. I raise the point at this stage only to secure an acknowledgement from the Government in Committee that my account is not at variance with their view and that they intend to include company-related matters discussed between the company and the department in regulations at a later stage.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am happy to confirm that that is the case. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I thought I heard for the first time in our debate the use of the word "intemperate" interference. We certainly do not intend to use that word with regard to this Bill.
Lord Monson: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would press more vigorously his opposition to the clause. I declare an interest as a Cambridge graduate, although I was unaware of the privileges and exemptions referred to in the clause before I saw the Bill. Why are the Government so intent on eliminating every minor, historical anomaly in this country? They harm nobody and give pleasure to many.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The Bill is about deregulation and modernising our provision for the good of the community. Modernisation would thwart certain exemptions and privileges that are at least 400 or 500 years old.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: It would be discourteous of me not to thank the Minister for his

475
response. In referring to "intemperate interference" with royal charters, I was harking back to the White Paper. I was not seeking to make it apply to the Bill.
Clause 191 agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 446:
After Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
"ANNUAL REPORT ON EFFECTS OF LICENSING POLICY ON PUBLIC HEALTH
(1) The Secretary of State shall publish each year a report on the effects on public health of the change in licensing policy introduced under this Act.
(2) In each report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall include—

(a) an assessment by the Chief Medical Officer of the public health advantages and disadvantages of alcohol and the licensing policy set out under this Act, including, specifically, the benefits of 24-hour drinking and the impact of the operation of the Act on young people between the ages of 16 and 21 and on children,

(b) a statement of the number of facilities in England and Wales offering 24-hour drinking, listed by the licensing authority,

(c) a statement of the number of fixed penalty offences, cautions and convictions for alcohol related offences in the preceding year, together with details of the number of recorded offences under Part 7 of this Act,

(d) an estimate of the number of days lost to work as a result of alcohol related absence,

(e) an estimate of the cost to the National Health Service of treating alcohol related illness,

(f) a statement by the Secretary of State as to whether the reform of licensing policy has had any effect on the factors in paragraphs (b) to (e),

(g) a statement from the bodies representing licensing authorities under section 3(1) setting out the costs of implementing licensing policy under this Act; whether those costs have been fully recovered through fees; and the impact, if any, of policy under this Act on the level and nature of crime, vandalism, nuisance, noise or other anti-social behaviour in England and Wales, and in compiling their report under this paragraph the local government representative bodies shall consult each of the licensing authorities which are members of their associations and shall, as appropriate, report on costs and effects in each licensing authority."

The noble Baroness said: I spoke about public health on the second day of the Committee when I sought to introduce "the protection of public health" as one of the licensing objectives. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, replied that,
"the wider area of the protection of public health",
was,
"not within the scope of the Bill".
If noble Lords disagree with the protection of public health being a licensing objective, they should concede at least a review to illuminate the health effects of the changes in licensing. The Minister claimed that,
"certain of the Bill's measures should have a positive effect on public health".—[Official Report, 17/12/02; col. 621.]
He quoted New Zealand as an example. Like New Zealand, the United Kingdom is expected to benefit from extended opening hours since binge-drinking will be reduced.
The Minister's view strikes me as naïve or overoptimistic. In this country, the culture, especially but not exclusively among the young, is to drink as much as possible until you are exceptionally drunk. The longer the hours, probably the more alcohol will be consumed. Binge-drinking will not necessarily be reduced. It will most probably be transported from 10.45 p.m. to 12.45 a.m. or whenever premises shut.
I do not need to describe to the Committee the adverse effect alcohol can have on health, not only on one's liver but of injury sustained as a direct result of alcohol consumption, including alcohol-related crime. The Bill is bound to have some effect on public health. We may share the Minister's optimism and hope that the effect is positive. No one can accurately predict the health repercussions of the Bill. It is not too much to ask the Government that we make it obligatory for the Secretary of State to publish an annual report to let us know the repercussions. The specific content of the report, which I have included in the amendment, is open to discussion. These are only suggestions about the detail that should be included. It may be an administrative burden for those in charge of collating the information and gathering the statistics, but that is not a valid reason for neglecting to monitor the effect of licensing on our nation's health. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: This is a worthwhile amendment and we should consider it carefully. A lot has been said in Committee on both sides of the argument about the extent to which the changes introduced by the Bill will increase the danger of alcohol abuse. The noble Baroness talked earlier this afternoon about the pride the Government have taken and the understandable pleasure we all take in the reduction in the number of drink-driving deaths. That information could also usefully be included. I know she is concerned about a few poor village shops selling a few beers and is prepared to ignore Sainsbury's and Tesco in the mean time.
My noble friend has made an important point. We need to monitor the effects of the laws that we pass; otherwise we are working in a vacuum and will have no way of monitoring the effectiveness of our decisions.
Lord Avebury: I support the amendment and urge the Government to undertake research that would enable us to form some opinions about these matters. To a large extent we are arguing in the dark. I referred earlier to a study undertaken by the Liverpool Royal Infirmary in collaboration with one of the biggest night clubs in Liverpool to ascertain how many of the casualties brought into the A&E department were a direct result of events that had taken place in—or in the vicinity of, to use an ill-defined term—the establishment concerned. That was a model of its kind. I would like more research to be undertaken by the owners of licensed premises, in collaboration with their neighbouring hospitals, to see to what extent the people being brought into the hospitals had had accidents or suffered injuries as a result of the drink that they or somebody else had consumed. The

477
Government's apparent unwillingness to look into the matter disturbs me. There is nothing about it in the Bill. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for moving the amendment, which I strongly support.
Quite apart from that, there seems to be deliberate myopia about the effects of alcohol on injuries in general. I am not just talking about road accidents. We know something about them, because the police collect statistics that show the extent of road injuries caused by alcohol. There are a host of other kinds of injury. In any area in which the late-night economy flourishes, large numbers of young people congregate in the neighbourhood of the establishments, behaving aggressively and on the verge of committing offences of violence against each other. Sometimes they break out into offences of violence, as we know from some notorious cases in which, for example, prominent footballers have been involved in the neighbourhood of these establishments. Why do we not undertake the research that would enable us to answer questions about the links between these establishments and the accidents and emergencies that are brought into our hospitals?
Lord Monson: If the Government are convinced that the Bill will reduce alcoholism and alcohol-related offences, far from rejecting the amendment, they should welcome it with open arms.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: We are coming towards the end of the Committee stage. I have prayed in aid experience in Westminster on a number of occasions. In support of my noble friend, I pray in aid a brief experience in the City of London. A month after I became a Member of Parliament, a surgical team at Bart's invited me to spend 24 hours in the hospital, parking my car at 8 o'clock in the morning in the great quadrangle devised by Gibbs and not removing it until 8 o'clock the next morning. I was to follow the surgical team wherever it went. It was an extremely good education. I went into the operating theatre on that Friday afternoon. We agreed that, although I was to sleep in the hospital, if the surgical team was called on by accident and emergency to go into the operating theatre again to repair people who had been cut up in drinking episodes in Islington—because Friday was pay day—I was to be summoned from my bed and go through the night with them. In the event, the team was lucky that night, although I was warned that the odds were rather worse than 50:50 that I would be required to come. I therefore join my noble friend and others who have spoken in saying that this is an admirable subject on which research might be done.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I recognise that the Committee has expressed keen interest in the matter. We had a substantive debate on Amendment No. 88, which referred to a possible report of this kind. Ensuring public health is one of the Government's key priorities. We hope the Bill will bring about a positive change in the drinking culture of England and Wales to complement the work of the national alcohol harm
478
reduction strategy. We believe that the abolition of permitted hours will decrease binge drinking, removing the pressure on customers to drink as much as possible before closing time. Of course, we have some international examples of beneficial effects resulting from the ending of unreasonable licensing hours.
The Government take these issues very seriously and we shall continue to monitor them. However, we do not need to set down in primary legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report every year on the matters covered by the Bill. The Government already publish much of the information proposed for the report. The Bill is about carrying on a range licensable activities, including the provision of entertainment and late-night refreshment, not just the sale and supply of alcohol.
The Bill is not about 24-hour drinking, as the amendment seems to imply. It is about giving applicants for premises licences the ability to determine their opening hours according to the preferences of their customers and taking the views of local residents into account. We expect a very small proportion of premises to want to be open for anything like 24 hours.
It seems unfair to saddle the representatives of licensing authorities—which I understand to mean the Local Government Association and its sister organisations—with the burden of producing a report on the impact of the policy on the level and nature of crime, vandalism, nuisance, noise or other anti-social behaviour. We should not underestimate the magnitude and difficulty of that task. As far as I am aware, the Local Government Association does not currently collect statistics that would enable such a report to be compiled. It would have to develop a reliable set of indicators that could demonstrate a correlation between the phenomenon cited and the reforms in licensing policy. The indicators would also need to be able to distinguish between the influence of licensing policy and other factors. For example, I am sure we all recognise that the overriding factor that determines the amount of alcohol that people consume is its price in relation to their disposable income.
The suggestion in the amendment is that we could isolate the impact on public health of the extension of licensing hours, in some cases. That is a very difficult burden to place on licensing authorities. We have other means of identifying the health of the nation, contained in other documents and presentations by the Secretary of State for Health. It is not needed in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister, although his response was disappointing. My amendment does not necessarily suggest that we are talking about 24-hour opening. I cannot find one publican who is in favour of opening his premises for 24 hours—far from it. I keep talking to publicans and others who cannot understand why the legislation is being changed, as it will put enormous pressure on the industry and local authorities.

479
There is genuine concern about the effects of alcohol on people of all ages, but especially on young people. The Government know from the debates that we have already had that one concern that I particularly have is in relation to unaccompanied children with unrestricted access. What will the effect be on them with regard to alcohol?
We are encouraged to believe that the Bill will reduce the incidence of binge drinking, but we are not convinced. We hope that the Minister is right. However, the sort of information that we want local authorities to provide the Secretary of State would be for the benefit of industry, local authorities and the consumers—of all of us. It would help all of us better to understand whether such radical, liberal legislation will work. There is no doubt that we all have in the back of our minds what Deputy Chief Assistant Trotter said before our debates began, that alcohol equals crime and disorder. We hope as much as anyone that the results of the Bill will not lead there to be more reason to believe that statement.
The Government are wrong to shy away from encouraging local authorities to collect these statistics. We are looking to the future. As for the argument that the Bill concerns entertainment as well as alcohol, we may not be so interested in entertainment in this regard. However, we are genuinely, sincerely and deeply interested in the effects that the Bill will have on alcohol. especially as it has an impact on our young people. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 192 to 195 agreed to.
Clause 196 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 447:
Page 107, line 19, at end insert "which may provide for some or all of the preceding provisions to come into force in different areas at different times"
The noble Baroness said: I will be as brief as possible. I was grateful to all Members of the Committee who supported me over the previous amendment. They may feel that this is another opportunity to stress to the Government that this legislation represents a radical leap in the dark, and perhaps one that should be taken with care.
The amendment offers the opportunity of a pilot scheme to ensure that the effects of the Bill might be introduced gently. We do not mean to be negative, but the amendment would provide the opportunity to draw back and reconsider, if the Bill did not work and it emerged from a pilot scheme that the impact was too great on local residents and placed pressure on the industry. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support my noble friend's idea of a pilot scheme—that would be fine. However, a rolling programme, working it out across the country, would be difficult to operate. It would make for extremely difficult operating conditions for companies if some operators of the many thousands of licensed premises were covered at one point and some were not covered until later. A pilot scheme that allows
480
us to see the practical implications on the ground of this very large deregulatory Bill is a very worthwhile idea, but I would not want there to be a rolling programme throughout the country.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I understand the sentiment that lies behind the amendment, but we are disinclined to accept it for two reasons. First, the amendment is unnecessary because the Bill already provides the Secretary of State with the power that it envisages. Secondly, notwithstanding the existence of the power, it would not be desirable that it should be exercised as the amendment suggests.
Clause 196(2) should be read in conjunction with Clause 192, which deals with regulations and orders. It provides for flexibility in making the administrative arrangements for the implementation of the legislation. Those powers already allow the Secretary of State to provide for commencement in different parts of the country at different times and for different purposes. The amendment is therefore redundant.
We would not want to leave Members of the Committee with the impression that we believe that allowing for commencement in different places at different times is a good idea, for exactly the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has given. The scheme that we propose to follow involves a transitional period that will begin soon after Royal Assent, during which existing licences of all types will migrate on to the new system and applications for personal licences will be processed.
At the end of the transitional period, all new premises and personal licences should come into effect on the same day. That is to prevent unfair competition, with one premises allowed extended hours and others still subject to restrictive permitted hours. The Secretary of State would need quite a lot of persuasion to use her commencement powers as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested. If two neighbouring authorities were to adopt the reforms months or years apart, it would not take long before businesses started to relocate from one area to the other. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment on that basis.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. As she said, the amendment has some difficult practical implications. We appreciate that it is a difficult matter, and we on these Benches discussed at enormous length what kind of scheme might allow us to see how the new provisions would work. The problem with rejecting the amendment is that, yes, there will be a transitional period, but the law will be passed. It will be enacted and enforced, and it will be too late to draw back the tide if we learn through experience that this is a Bill too far, or that some of the proposals in the Bill go too far. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 196 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 448 and 448A not moved. ]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitional provision etc. ]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 449:
Page 154, line 28, at end insert "and the day so specified shall be no earlier than the date on which expires the period of nine months beginning with the date on which section 5 of this Act comes into force"
The noble Baroness said: I shall attempt to be brief. It will be difficult, but this is an important area.
In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments under my name in this group, which all relate to Schedule 8. The schedule sets out the transitional arrangements that will operate immediately after the Act comes into force. Onerous duties will fall on local authorities during this time. Holders of existing liquor licences, public entertainment licences and night café licences will be able to apply to the licensing authority, seeking conversion of the existing licence to a new premises licence under the Bill. In theory, that should not cause too much difficulty to licensing authorities in respect of those operators who are content to carry on without altering the conditions of their licence. In those cases, there should be a smooth transition.
A good number of licence holders may want to seek variations to their existing licence, particularly so as to be able to take advantage of the relaxation of the licensing hours. As I said under previous amendments, we on these Benches do not anticipate, after talking to publicans and others, an enormous relaxation in licensing hours. A fair number said that they would probably want to be open for an additional hour or hour and a half. We shall see how that deals with binge drinking. In such cases, the licence holder would have to apply for a variation of the licence in the usual way, as set out in Clause 33. Such applications for variations can be opposed by representations. When relevant representations are made, hearings will have to be held to consider the applications. In areas where there are large numbers of licences—for example, in inner-city areas—and well-organised residents' groups, a large number of licensing hearings will take place during the transition period.
Schedule 8 sets out time limits for dealing with applications during the transitional period. We believe that, as currently drafted, these limits are too onerous for local authorities. Given that we are up against time constraints, I simply urge Members of the Committee to read our amendments in conjunction with the Bill as currently drafted. As they will see, we are looking for an extended time period for the transitional period. In essence, the applicant would still have the six-month period from the commencement date in which to make his application for conversion and variation. With the amendments, however, the licensing authorities would then have a further 18 months after the end of that six-month period in which to deal with the application.
Although one hopes that most applications can be dealt with in that period, there is potentially still scope for there to be such a backlog of hearings that the 18-month target is not achievable. In such circumstances, there is provision in the amendments to enable the licensing authority and the applicant to agree to an extension of the 18-month period. Obviously, if the applicant has become so frustrated that he would rather have the case dealt with by the magistrates, he would have the right to refuse to agree to the extension. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I speak to Amendment No. 461A, to which my name has been added. I support all the amendments in this group, but I especially support Amendment No. 461A. In certain local authorities, there could be difficulties during the short transition period. We have received representations about those difficulties from the Local Government Association, which would like an extension of the transition period. In the case of non-controversial applications, the amendments would allow licensed premises operators to assume that a licence has been renewed rather than require them to wait a further period. In the case of controversial applications, however, the onus would be on the licensing authority to make the applicant aware of the difficulties with licence renewal.
Baroness Blackstone: This group of amendments derives largely from the skilfully put views of a small section of local government. I do recognise, however, that Amendment No. 461 A comes from a somewhat different angle. I should therefore like to deal with that amendment first.
In the transition period, an application for the conversion of an existing licence to a premises licence may be accompanied by an application to vary the "new" licence. If the licensing authority fails to determine the application to convert to a basic new licence within two months, the application will automatically be granted. However, the Bill requires that if the licensing authority fails to determine applications for the variation of the converted premises licence within two months of receipt, the application for the variation would be rejected automatically.
Amendment No. 461A would reverse that position and result in the automatic grant of a varied licence where the licensing authority did not meet the two-month deadline. As I said earlier, the default position for the conversion of an existing licence to a basic premises licence is the grant of that licence. Consequently, businesses would largely be able to continue with the range of authorisations they enjoyed under the old systems. This amendment, however, concerns variation where we believe that it is right and proper that interested parties and responsible authorities have the opportunity to make representations and for there to be a hearing.
The overriding factor is the need to protect local residents and to further the licensing objectives. Granting the varied licence by default may expose the public to an unacceptable degree of risk and upset the

483
balance to be achieved under the new system. I therefore hope that Amendment No. 461A will not be pressed.
The remaining amendments in this group reduce the licensing authority's obligations by introducing extended time limits for processing applications. I shall speak to each of the amendments in turn, so this will take a little time. I should like to say first, however, that the Government have a duty not only to licensing authorities, residents and the industry, but also to the vast majority of ordinary people in this country who want to be treated like adults and are looking forward to the reforms. Indeed, most people think that change is long overdue, and they would not thank us for the further procrastination that would result from these amendments.
Amendment No. 449 would mean that the transitional period could not begin until nine months after Section 5—which relates to the development and publication of licensing policy—had come into effect. I sympathise entirely with the intention behind the amendment. It is clear that the licensing authority will have had to develop its licensing policy before determining applications. However, there is no reason why it should take nine months. Nor is there any reason why responsible licensing authorities cannot start as soon as the guidance has been issued—which, as a result of developments in Committee, is likely to be earlier than had originally been planned. We expect licensing authorities to have prepared at least draft statements of licensing policy well before the beginning of the transitional period. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will understand why the Government must resist the amendment.
Amendment No. 453 would lift the two-month time limit on the processing of applications where notification of an objection on the grounds of the crime prevention objective had been given by the police. Again, there is no reason why licensing authorities should need such a relaxation. We expect objections to be raised by the police in only a tiny fraction of cases. As we made clear in an earlier debate, we are committed to ensuring prompt handling of all aspects of the licensing regime—when it is fully up and running—by setting out time limits in secondary legislation. I think that the mood of the House was one of relief when that commitment was made. Agreeing to this amendment would completely undermine that principle. It would allow the licensing authority to sit on an application indefinitely, which is clearly not right. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Amendments Nos. 454 and 461 would increase the length of the period available to the licensing authority to process applications, from two months from the day of receipt to 24 months from the beginning of the transitional period. Again, there is absolutely no reason why it should take anything like that long to process applications, particularly when the vast majority should be handled administratively with no hearing and no involvement by members of the
484
licensing committee. These are predominantly existing licences which have been approved either by licensing justices or the local authority itself.
Local authorities already handle the processing of large volumes of applications across a range of areas. Some of the licensing functions will be new to licensing authorities, granted, but they do already process some 9,000 permanent and 37,000 temporary public entertainment licences. They are used to this work, and the Government believe that in most cases they should be able to cope.
Amendments Nos. 459 and 463 would allow the licensing authority to agree with an applicant an extension to the period during which an application may be determined. Although admirable at first sight, these amendments would have no other effect than to increase the burden on the licensing authority and applicants alike. Why spend valuable time running after deadline extensions—which, in many cases, licensees may not want, particularly when they see their competitors benefit before them from the reforms when the focus should be on processing applications? How would the "agreement" referred to be captured? Would a legal document be required? What if the licensing authority did not deliver by the new deadline? That approach truly is fraught with difficulty for very little, if any, gain. I therefore hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have not put my name to any of the amendments in this group. However, the thrust of the Minister's argument seems to be that my noble friend Lady Buscombe is asking for too long a period, but that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is asking for too short a period. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The period is either too long or too short. It cannot be both.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not think that the noble Lords opposite can have it both ways.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. However, her response did not take into account several aspects of the issue. We have to remember that the Government have remained inflexible regarding the number of those who can sit on licensing committees. There will be a good number of applications during the transitional period, and I think that there will be an enormous burden on those who have to sit on those inflexible committees. As the members will all have to be present, there is also a question as to whether they will even be able to meet. I believe that Rutland has 20 members in total. If it had to have between 10 and 15 on the licensing committee and all those members had to be present to process licensing orders, those members would sit ad infinitum over a period of months. That would be a problem.
Inner city areas will be inundated with huge numbers of applications for variations. I urge the Government to reconsider the matter between now and Report. We on these Benches have been approached not just by local authorities who fear the burdens that will be placed upon them but also by the

485
industry which wants to be sure that applications are dealt with speedily. There are problems for everyone who is involved. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 449A:
Page 154, line 45, leave out "disregarded" and insert "regarded"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 449A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 449B. These are two simple amendments that concern the "two in a bar" rule in the transitional period. We believe that the "two in a bar" rule should be regarded, not disregarded, through the transitional period. The amendment seeks to prevent any dislocation in the provision of live entertainment by groups such as folk singers in small pubs during the transitional period. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments, which do not change the current provision of live entertainment. Indeed, under the ruling, all live entertainment would have to stop at 11 o'clock. Although we do not support the "two in a bar" rule, we support it as a measure until a new licence is granted as the overlap period could last some time.
I thank the Minister for providing his reply to the Human Rights Committee. However, the conclusions the Minister reached with regard to Article 10 are not shared by these Benches. That matter is slightly wide of the amendment, but I considered that I should mention it.
The amendment indicates our concern over the future provision of live folk music and traditional music. We have deep concerns about the effect of the Bill on the provision of live entertainment. I very much hope that the Minister will take a different view from that expressed during earlier discussion on the Bill. If that is not the case, we shall have to return to this issue at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have before me a ferocious speech against the "two in a bar" rule which I should love to read out. However, I am totally disarmed by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that he was opposed to the "two in a bar" rule and that his amendment was concerned only with the transitional period. As the "two in a bar" rule will survive during the transitional period and will be abolished only on D-Day, I can only say that the two amendments are misconceived.
Lord Redesdale: I am delighted to hear that. Although we shall withdraw these two amendments, I am not sure that the fundamental problems associated with the removal of the "two in a bar" rule are being tackled. However, I do not want to argue with the noble Lord at this point in the evening. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 449B not moved. ]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 449C:
Page 155, line 16, at end insert—

"( ) the owner of the business where the current licence holder is in the employ of that business consents to the application being made."

The noble Baroness said: The amendment would allow a company to make the application for the premises licence without the need for its manager to make the application. The problem here is that under the licensing system a company such as Whitbread or Six Continents which operates its own businesses cannot currently own the licence as it has to be in the name of the manager. Hence every time a manager changes you have to re-apply for the licence under the name of the new manager.
In changing to the new system it would be much simpler if, say, Whitbread, who will be the holder of the new licence can apply for the new licence without obtaining the consent of the manager. It is slightly bizarre that a company would have to seek the permission of its employees to apply for the licence. What if he or she refuses? This could put the licence in jeopardy and mean that the company misses out on transition arrangements while the problem is sorted out. But, more importantly, it will be much more efficient for an operating company such as I have mentioned to process all its applications together without the need to obtain 2,000 or 3,000 consent forms. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: We on these Benches support the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: The amendment betrays a narrow focus on pubs and the off-licence trade rather than on all the premises potentially affected. The intention of the amendment is clearly to prevent the manager of a supermarket or a pub manager employed by a pub operating company making the application for the premises licence in his name unless his employer thinks that that is acceptable. In other words, the employers want to make sure that they have the decision as to whether they hold the premises licence or some other employee does so.
But I am afraid that that is not only what this amendment would do. There is nothing in the amendment that links the business in question to the licensable activities taking place on the premises. Does the Committee think that it would be appropriate that an employee of a computer company, who in his spare time is the secretary of the local village hall committee and holds the justices' licence for the hall, should have to ask his employer for consent to convert the licence? Of course not. It would be absurd and is clearly not what is intended. So my first point is that the amendment is not very well worded.
We do not in any event accept that the current wording presents any problems for employers. Indeed, the anxiety that the noble Baroness expressed is simply not in any practical terms real. Is it really being suggested that an employee would do anything other

487
than what his employer requires in this context? The owner of the supermarket or the pub operating chain can take action in respect of the individual under his employment contract if the employee acts against his instructions or seeks to damage his employer's business. So to all intents and purposes it is rather odd to suggest that the business would not make the decision as to who makes the application.
As the wording of the amendment clearly goes far beyond what is intended and could cause considerable confusion, and as the intention behind it is based on an unjustified anxiety, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that response. The problem here is that it is considered unacceptable that companies running managed pubs, supermarkets or off-licences—I appreciate that my remarks focused on pubs but we are also discussing supermarkets, off-licences and so on—will not be able to apply for their premises licences without obtaining the consent of all their managers. However, I do not wish to detain the Committee further. I shall read the Minister's remarks with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 451:
Page 155, line 30, at end insert—

"( ) an operating schedule in the specified form which includes a statement of the matters set out in section 17(4)"

The noble Baroness said: Under the transitional provisions, provision is made for the documents which must accompany an application for a conversion of an existing licence to a premises licence. One of the major requirements for a premises licence holder under the Bill is to have an operating schedule, yet the transitional provisions make no provision for the holders of existing licences to provide an operating schedule to the council on conversion of the licence. This amendment would require an operating schedule to be provided to the council when the application for the conversion is made. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 451 is unnecessary, and I suspect that it may stem from a misunderstanding of what the transitional provisions of the Bill set out to achieve.
The transitional process will have two distinct parts. The first is the conversion of existing licences into a new style premises licence. That involves the submission of all the licences held for a particular premises that an applicant wants to convert. Those licences may include justices' licences, a public entertainment licence, a licence under the Theatres Act and so on.
The process does not require the submission of an operating schedule, which would be the effect of the amendment, because all the relevant operating conditions will be set out in those existing licences, and
488
the incentive is to convert the old to the new. Except where the police object to the conversion of those existing licences, a new licence, reflecting the permissions and conditions in the existing set of licences will be issued automatically. There is absolutely no need for an operating schedule, because all the information is there already.
The second part of the transitional process, where businesses want to make use of it, involves the variation of the existing permissions and conditions. Examples include changing the hours of operation of the business or seeking permission to put on public entertainment. That process will take place entirely in accordance with the arrangements set out in Clause 33 for variation of a licence, with all the scope for representations from responsible authorities and interested parties that that would entail.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I am certainly satisfied by what she said to clarify the situation with regard to the transitional period, and I hope that those who urged us to table the amendment will also be satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 452 to 463 not moved.]
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 463A:
Page 161, line 13, leave out "have regard to" and insert "accept the conditions of"
The noble Lord said: The amendment takes us to Part 1 of the schedule, which concerns transitional provision. It deals with the issue of provisional licences that have been granted under the old regime, but not finalised by the time we switch to the new regime.
The arguments on the subject were made in another context on Clause 31 when we discussed further representations on provisional statements, which I described then as the second bite at the cherry. I want to rehearse those arguments briefly. If one seeks to build or develop a new public house, one would have to invest between £2 million and £3 million by the time the pub opens. Obviously, that is a big sum of money to put at risk, and the risk would be greater with the regime change in the middle.
In the schedule, the new licensing authority,
"must have regard to the provisional grant of the justices' licence".
That seems an insufficiently strong set of words. I believe that they should be replaced so that the licensing authority must "accept the conditions of' the provisional grant of the justices' licence.
The danger is that, apart from the unfairness of the matter, there may be a hiatus in either the development of new pubs or places of entertainment, or the reconstruction and refurbishment of old ones. Therefore, those who are putting their money at risk are entitled to a degree of certainty, and I believe that the new regime should not in the limited number of

489
cases be able to second-guess the old one. If the justices have made a grant under the old one, it is incumbent on the licensing authority that comes in under the new system to accept the decisions of its predecessors. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We discussed the issue in some detail when we considered Clauses 28 to 31, which were concerned with the provisional statements. I hope that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the reassurance that he sought, and think that I did so to some extent. He is raising a special point now about the transitional period, which is fair enough.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that the assurances that I gave for the permanent regime apply to the schedule as well. There are differences between "have regard to" and "accept the conditions of". The first phrase is very powerful. It means that it is not open to a licensing authority to disregard the grant of a provisional justices' licence. However, the second phrase means that the conditions attached to a provisional licence under the current law would have to be transposed intact into the new law.
That is actually impossible. The new law will express the conditions differently, and there will have to be a continuing role for the licensing authorities to interpret the conditions that have been imposed under the provisional licence into the new licence under the new law. If there were not, they would not have anything to do, which is a minor issue and does not concern those with whom the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has discussed the amendment. The major point is that the amendment would be impossible. The protection is still there. The provisions are not a second bite at the cherry of the kind that he fears.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Clearly, I am comforted by his assurance about the force of the words "must have regard to". I understand that "accept the conditions of" would present a constitutional problem of translating one regime to another regime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 463B:
Page 165, line 25, after "licence" insert ", or a person who has held a justices' licence for a period of not less than six months in the three years prior to the appointed day,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 464 to 465A. I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 463B and 465A. As the Bill is currently drafted, only those actively holding a justices' licence on the appointed day will be entitled to receive the new personal licence. We understand that anyone who has been in the trade, but not specifically responsible for a premises, will not get the benefit. That would be
490
grossly unfair on those who, through no fault of their own, were not currently listed as licence holders. There could be a number of reasons for that. A company may have gone into receivership and the manager may have lost his position, a supermarket manager may be in between positions, or a tenant may be in the process of acquiring a new tenancy.
The British Beer and Pub Association and all the other trade organisations have long argued that the transition should include those who, for whatever reason, are temporarily without a licence. They should be enabled to obtain a new style licence without the need to obtain the qualification. Some of those affected may have many years' experience in the trade. To those people, it would be more than insulting to have to sit such an examination. Many of them would of course also have obtained qualifications that are already available.
Amendment No. 464 relates to applications for personal licences during the transitional period. Holders of existing justices' licences are to apply for a conversion to a personal licence during the transitional period. One of the documents that must accompany the application is a photograph in the specified form. The amendment provides more detail as to the format of the photograph, and would ensure that the photograph was of sufficient quality to enable the holder to be easily identified from the licence once issued.
Finally, Amendment No. 465 would ensure that the licensing authority had sufficient proof of the applicant's home address when granting the converted licence. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: I support Amendments Nos. 463B and 465A.
Baroness Blackstone: I can see why the amendments have been tabled. However, two of them expose the public to an unacceptable degree of risk, and two of them are unnecessarily burdensome. Amendments Nos. 463B and 465A would extend the automatic "grandfather right" to a personal licence for existing holders of justices' licences for the sale of alcohol to cover anyone who had held a justices' licence for any period of six months during the previous three years.
The transitional scheme set out in the Bill contains this and other grandfather rights for one very good reason: it allows businesses and individuals to continue trading during and after the transitional period as they did under the old licensing system with as little difficulty as possible. The public can be assured that individuals who hold a justices' licence at the beginning of the transitional period have been assessed by the magistrates as being fit and proper persons to sell alcohol.
Extending the grandfather rights to anyone who has held a justices' licence for a period of six months in the previous three years is unacceptable for two reasons. First, if an individual does not hold a justices' licence at the beginning of the transitional period, the Government do not consider that he merits a

491
grandfather right of this nature. He will be able to make use of the open, transparent and administratively simple application process for a personal licence. Secondly, who is to say why those individuals no longer hold a justices' licence? If an individual no longer holds a licence, the public cannot be assured that he or she is judged fit and proper to sell alcohol and may therefore be automatically awarded a new personal licence with no risk.
Turning to the remainder of the amendments, the Bill makes it clear that the form of the licence will be set out in regulations. That satisfied the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I can give a clear undertaking that it will be the subject of consultation with all interested parties. However, I do not accept that the submission of four photographs is a reasonable requirement to place on applicants. In today's technological world, with electronic storage and transmission of data becoming the norm, I see no reason why—particularly in view of some of the comments we have heard about the setting up of IT systems by licensing authorities—photographs should not be stored and distributed in digital format. I hope that that amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment No. 465 is unnecessary. Those who wish to apply for a personal licence will be required to submit a number of documents, including their existing justices' licence. That licence will contain all the information necessary for the licensing authority to process the application. Placing a further requirement on applicants for more paperwork would be detrimental to the light touch that we all want. In the light of those explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. In relation to the first group of amendments, the industry will be disappointed because it has, I understand, long argued with the Government that the arrangement is unfair on those who, through no fault of their own, do not happen to have, for example, a licence at the time. However, I understand and appreciate the Minister's arguments in response to the amendment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 464 to 465A not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 466:
Page 168, line 10, leave out from second "of" to "premises" in line 11 and insert "existing licences (within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 8) in respect of"
The noble Lord said: This simple and uncontroversial amendment ensures that representatives of all those who are affected by the new licensing arrangements are properly consulted before the first licensing policy is prepared by each licensing authority.
As we have considered in relation to Clause 5, one of the first things that has to be done to get the new arrangements going is for the licensing authority to prepare a licensing policy. It needs to consult on that policy. When the first policy is prepared we will be in a transitional period and there will, as yet, be no licensees under the new arrangements. So the Bill needs to make it clear who for this transitional period needs to be consulted about the licensing policy from the point of view of licensees themselves.
The Bill as presented to the Chamber already provides for representatives of those who have just ices' licences and of registered clubs to be consulted. However, it is clear that that is not sufficiently wide. It does not cover the other kinds of licensees who exist under the present arrangements: for theatres, cinemas, some public entertainment licensees, and late-night-refreshment licence holders. Those who are representative of those licensees should be consulted too and the amendment has that effect. Rather than listing them all again, the amendment provides that representatives of all relevant existing licence holders should be consulted. Amendment No. 466 therefore employs the definition of "existing licence holders", which is already in place in paragraph 1 of Schedule 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 467:
Page 168, line 14, leave out "that" and insert "the 1964"
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment, which relates to the subject matter of the amendment to which the Committee has just agreed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Iraq
6.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence earlier today. The Statement was as follows:
"With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on further contingency preparations in relation to Iraq.
"It may be helpful to remind the House of the preparations announced previously. On 25th November and 18th December, I described the measures we were taking to ensure that our forces were prepared and had the training, equipment and support they might need, as well as the consideration that we were giving to the potential requirement for reservists and additional maritime deployments.

493
"In a Statement on 7th January, I announced the making of an order enabling the call-out of reservists, and the deployment of maritime forces including 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. I explained that it was likely that we would want to make further deployments in the coming weeks to be able to keep military options open, and that we were taking steps to ensure the readiness of units and equipment, and the availability of appropriate chartered shipping and air transport. In a Written Statement on 14th January, I described the details of continuing preparatory activity, involving the movement and deployment of enabling equipment, including tracked vehicles, exploratory visits and liaison with other military staffs in the region.
"When I made a Statement on 7th January, a number of honourable Members pressed me to say what other forces the Government intend to make available. In particular, I was invited to set out the nature of any land force that might be deployed. I explained at that time that I could not do so, for the simple reason that no decision had by then been taken.
"I am now in a position to be able to tell the House that we have reached a view on the composition and deployment of a land force package to provide military capabilities for potential operations against Iraq.
"This force will include Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division with support from 7th Armoured Brigade, 16 Air Assault Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade. Its equipment will include 120 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, 150 Warrior armoured personnel carriers, 32 AS90 self-propelled guns, 18 light guns and a number of reconnaissance and other vehicles. The total number of personnel involved in this land force will be approximately 26,000. In addition, we are already deploying 3 Commando Brigade with around 4,000 personnel, including their supporting elements.
"The House will not expect me to discuss the specific tasks that might be undertaken by our forces in the event of military operations. But this is a high-readiness, balanced and flexible force package, bringing together a wide range of capabilities. The Chiefs of Staff and I are confident that this is the right group of forces for the sort of tasks that may be necessary.
"The House will recognise that a force package of this size cannot be deployed without notice. As the written Statement on 14th January explained, to keep this option open, we have already started the movement and deployment of enabling assets, including logistics, engineering, signals and command vehicles and equipment. We will now begin to deploy the combat equipment and personnel of the formations comprising the land force package. This will involve significant movements from units in both the United Kingdom and Germany before their deployment by sea and air over the days and weeks ahead. Headquarters
494
and support staffs will also deploy to liaise with other military staffs in the region and to take forward planning and preparatory activity.
"In the coming weeks, we will also need to call out additional reservists in support of these land forces. The details of our overall reservist requirement are continuing to evolve, and I expect to be able to provide further information on this in due course.
"None of the steps we are taking represents a commitment of British forces to military action. These are measures necessary to provide a range of options which we may require. A decision to employ force has not been taken, nor is such a decision imminent or inevitable. But I must also emphasise, as all Members of this House will recognise, that the deployment of forces on this scale is no ordinary measure.
"While we want Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily, it is evident that we will not achieve that unless we continue to present him with a clear and credible threat of force. That is why I have announced these deployments in support of the diplomatic process to which we remain fully committed. It is not too late for Saddam Hussein to recognise the will of the international community and respect United Nations resolutions. Let us all hope that he does so".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the Statement that he has just made in connection with troop deployment to Iraq. On these Benches, we support Her Majesty's Government's position on the situation in Iraq. Your Lordships will no doubt be reminded that we have consistently backed a firm line against Saddam Hussein. I very much hope that the support of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will be made known to the Armed Forces.
There are some further questions to be asked concerning this deployment. It would be most helpful if the noble Lord could provide a little more detail to some of the points that he covered and give your Lordships some further assurances on the matters that I shall now touch on.
I am aware that on 18th December in a Statement in another place the Secretary of State said that Her Majesty's Government would continue to take appropriate steps to ensure that British forces were ready and had the training, equipment and support that they needed.
First, will the Minister say how much armoured and infantry warfare training, including NBC training and fighting in built-up areas, has been carried out by the regiments and battalions? The requirement to have some 19,000 troops available for fire-fighting duties due to the firemen's strike has interfered with units' primary training, especially in 16 Air Assault Brigade. Is he satisfied that sufficient training has been completed, that there are sufficient reserve tanks to replace broken-down tanks and that the units are now

495
at the appropriate battle standard? Will the NBC regiment be deployed to find NBC cover in view of the likely NBC threat?
Secondly, who will provide the reserve for 7 Brigade? In addition, perhaps the noble Lord will say where the individual battle casualty reinforcements will come from and who will provide them. If they are to be reservists, can the noble Lord confirm that they will all have received refresher training to ensure that they are at the required battle standard? Recently there has been comment that employers will not retain jobs for reservists who have been called up. What action has been taken to ensure that employers will retain jobs for those who are required for emergency military action?
I now turn to matters concerning equipment. Can the Minister assure your Lordships that the Challenger 2 tanks have now been successfully desertised for operations in Iraq and that sufficient main engines, gearboxes, air filters and track will be available when required? Have the faults experienced from deployment of the AS90 on Exercise Saif Sareea now been rectified? On the subject of communications, what technical modifications, if any, have been made to the Clansman radio communications system and how many spare radio sets are in stock? Your Lordships will be aware of the introduction of the short-range personal radio for dismounted infantry sections, but that is of little use in armoured vehicles. Is it now Her Majesty's Government's decision to buy the USA IFF system and have it fitted to our armoured vehicles? Are there now sufficient stocks of desert clothing and reliable desert boots?
Can the noble Lord also inform your Lordships whether improvements have now been completed to ensure that helicopters will be able to fly the required number of hours under desert conditions? Will the Apache helicopter be deployed in support of the force?
Turning now to the subject of logistical sustainment, can the noble Lord confirm that there will be sufficient stocks of major assemblies, rations, spare radio sets and reserve ammunition over and above the planned daily expenditure rates?
I now turn to medical matters. Can the Minister go into further detail as to how battle casualties will be cared for? Can he confirm the number of advanced dressing stations, field hospitals and general hospitals that will be deployed with the British force? Will he also assure the House that those medical units will be at full strength with the correct number of surgeons who are experienced in gunshot wounds and burns, anaesthetists and combat medical technicians? Presumably there will be a requirement to evacuate casualties to the United Kingdom. Which hospitals, in addition to the Centre for Medical Excellence at Birmingham, will have beds reserved for battle casualties from Iraq?
Will the noble Lord expand a little more on some aspects of the chain of command? For example, who and which formation will have command and control over the British land forces, and will 1st Division command 3 Commando Brigade and 16 Air Assault
496
Brigade, in addition to 7 Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade? Who will be the overall commander of British forces for this operation? I apologise to the noble Lord for asking so many questions. If he is not aware of all the answers, I should be grateful if he would write to me.
Finally, if conflict should break out, I am sure that all your Lordships would wish the troops being deployed all good fortune and a safe and speedy return and would hope that those with families bear this operational separation with their normal and customary fortitude.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we too, on these Benches, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Our thoughts are with those troops on their way to the Gulf and their families at this time.
Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient supplies are in place? I shall not go through the list raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. I simply ask whether the Minister is satisfied that enough supplies are in place for the long period of time that the troops might be in the Gulf. Only last week the Prime Minister said that international inspectors had spent only a week at their full complement undertaking weapons inspections. We on these Benches hope that he was sincere in his undertaking that they would be given as much time as was needed.
We are uneasy about the escalation that has taken place, as I believe are many people throughout the country. We understand the necessity for pressure to be put on Saddam Hussein to underline the responsibility he has for disarmament.
Under whose command will British forces be when they reach the Gulf? Will they be integrated into the US command and control or will they be under independent command? It will cause consternation if British forces are immediately integrated into the US command and control.
My final question harks back to the last Gulf War. Will troops be given proper counselling and guidance over the vaccinations and inoculations they are receiving at present? That is an issue to which we shall probably return. I hope that the Ministry of Defence undertakes proper guidance to troops this time round.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support and kind words about the British Armed Forces, which I know will get back to them. This is a significant announcement, but it comes in the context of our ongoing military contingency planning, designed, as I repeated in the Statement, to maintain a credible threat of force in support of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.
Both noble Lords asked a number of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, will forgive me if I do not even attempt to answer all the legitimate questions he raised. I shall do my best to answer some now; if others remain unanswered, I shall write to him in the normal way.

497
The first question raised related to whether sufficient training had been carried out and whether the Armed Forces needed for FRESCO somehow prevented that. I give the noble Lord the assurance I believe he seeks. We shall ensure that there is sufficient training for all those sent to the Gulf and for those who have to use the tanks to which he referred.
As regards employers, the noble Lord asked a question relating to reservists and the position in which they might find themselves when they return. I remind him of the terms of the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. Under that Act an employer is required, where it is reasonable and practicable to do so, to take into his or her employment former employees who made a written application at the end of a period of called-out service. If an employer terminates a person's employment without that person's consent and does so solely or mainly by reason of a liability to be mobilised for military service, that employer is guilty of an offence. I have checked, and that is not a civil wrong; it is an offence under criminal law. In such circumstances the reservist may apply to a reinstatement committee to hear the case.
As regards Challenger 2 and AS90, as the noble Lord knows work is being carried out now to ensure that they are desertised sufficiently. That work is ongoing and will continue when forces are in transit and in theatre as required. I give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks as regards clothing. In addition to our existing stocks, contracts are in place for the delivery at short order of 20,000 pairs of desert boots, 92,650 desert lightweight jackets and 89,700 pairs of desert lightweight trousers. We continue to work to ensure that our personnel are properly equipped to cope with the environmental conditions in which they may operate.
The noble Lord asked about the medical position. Again, I can give him the reassurance he seeks. I shall write to him in due course with more detail. To date the Defence Medical Services have met all the operational commitments placed on them. That was, we acknowledge, achieved with the compulsory mobilisation of a small number of reservists. There is no question of British forces deploying on military operations without appropriate medical support.
The noble Lord asked about command, as did the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Here, I have to choose my words carefully. I am sure that both noble Lords and the House will understand why. We do not think it appropriate at this stage to discuss command and control arrangements or, indeed, the individuals who may be involved. Headquarters staffs will liaise and exercise as appropriate with US staffs in the region and elsewhere. The next sentence is important to both noble Lords. We shall ensure that UK command and control is in place at the appropriate levels. I have no doubt that in the weeks to come I shall be able, I hope, to be more forthcoming with the House on those perfectly legitimate questions.
498
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about sustainability. I think that that was at the root of his first and major question. It is far too early to speculate about how long we might need to maintain this particular deployment or, indeed, when military action might become inevitable. We are deploying forces now because it is the right thing to do in support of the Security Council resolution and the weapons inspection process. We all hope that military action will not be necessary.
We consider this a balanced and flexible force which provides—I make no apology for repeating this—a potent and credible threat to Saddam Hussein. We are confident that UK Armed Forces will be able to fulfil their mission of ensuring Iraqi disarmament, however long that may take. As regards vaccinations, I give the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the assurance he seeks. Proper advice has been given to all those who are to be deployed to the Gulf.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord gave the House the figures for what is a considerable deployment of Her Majesty's forces. Can he give any figures with regard to the redeployment of other forces which will be necessary to cover the areas from which those who are going in the direction of the Middle East have gone?
Further, he failed to answer my noble friend's questions. That was entirely reasonable because my noble friend asked many questions. However, can he assure the House that we shall have an opportunity in the near future to debate all the questions raised today in a more relaxed atmosphere and over a longer period than has been possible? Perhaps I may follow-up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, concerning Gulf War diseases from previous conflicts. The noble Lord says that all is well. However, it would be helpful if he could give that answer more fully.
Lord Bach: My Lords, as far as a debate is concerned, that will be a matter for the usual channels. I can, however, venture the opinion, probably shared by all Members of the House, that this House will have—as will another place—ample opportunity to discuss these very significant matters at the right time. I agree with the noble Lord about the seriousness of the Statement. The noble Lord talks about debating in a more relaxed atmosphere. Given that the House is hearing a serious statement, it is in as relaxed an atmosphere as it can be. Certainly, we would need to spend longer than we are spending on the subject. I think that that is the noble Lord's point.
I shall go away and consider whether the answer I gave as to the medical position is adequate. If it is not, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, the Statement mentioned a large number of troops, some 26,000. Can the Minister give some idea of the time lag in this deployment? I ask because we are talking about a

499
credible answer to Saddam Hussein's sins and omissions. Obviously, it would be no good if troops were to arrive in May or when the hot season starts.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord in broad terms. The noble Lord can be assured that troops will arrive in good time in order to do what they have to do in the Gulf area. We hope that the fact they are being sent, along with armed forces from the United States, will show Saddam Hussein that on this occasion the United Nations means business. I can reassure the noble Lord that our troops will be there in good time for any conflict, if that is what happens.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, does my noble friend have information as to whether any other European member of NATO has plans to send troops to the Middle East as we are doing, if not on the same scale?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not have any information in front of me concerning that matter. My noble friend will know that requests have been made by the United States Administration in the terms of his question. The answers are of course matters for the United Nations Administration. At present, I cannot say more than that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I address my questions to the last part of the Statement and to the diplomatic process. Can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that if Dr Blix and Mr ElBaradei report to the Security Council next week that they may require some more time for inspection, Her Majesty's Government will support that request?
Secondly, does the Minister agree that, while a lot of focus is placed on the second resolution of the United Nations, every bit as important is whether Dr Blix and Mr ElBaradei are, before any force is contemplated, able to state whether Saddam Hussein is in full compliance with the Security Council's resolutions? Will that judgment be one of the key factors as to whether the United Nations and the international community are able to address this matter as toughly as they ought to?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has, as the House knows, vast experience of these matters. I cannot give him explicitly the reassurance he seeks as to his first question. But I remind him of something that he will very well know, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on more than one occasion that UNMOVIC must have as much time as it needs before we reach any decisive view on the matter. The Prime Minister has said that its report back to the Security Council next Monday, 27th January, is not in itself an event that will necessarily lead to the next action but is a passage in what is happening. I can go that far but no further on the matter.
As to the noble Lord's second question, I can give him the reassurance that we are thinking in the terms that he mentions.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what fixed-wing air cover will be provided for our
500
troops—not only our ground troops but also our naval forces—if they are deployed, and under whose command that will be?
My next question is not entirely frivolous, given the experience a previous government had in the Crimean war, but how will 20,000 pairs of boots equip 26.000 troops unless there is a complete fit?
Finally, arising from the Minister's reply to my noble friend about the Challenger 2 tanks, can he assure us that the work now being done will be completed before there is any question of any armoured vehicle moving in the desert— that they will be desertised before they are deployed— as he said the work, which was well in hand four months ago, is not yet complete?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord as to his last question. Of course the vehicles will be desertised by the time they are deployed.
As to the question about fixed-wing aircraft, the noble Lord will know that we have some aircraft in the region at present, which bravely enforce the no-fly zones. But, by their nature, aircraft can be deployed very quickly if they are required. The movements of enabling equipment, to which I referred, include some equipment and personnel, which would facilitate the deployment of additional aircraft in due course, if required. We do not see a need to deploy additional aircraft at present. But I give the assurance that we shall continue to inform the House—as I hope we have on various occasions on these matters— when such decisions are taken.
The noble Lord need not worry. There will be good and enough desert boots for everyone.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the no-fly zone. Can he confirm that over the past year or so the Iraqi anti-aircraft capacity has been directed rather aggressively towards those missions? Can he say whether in recent weeks the Iraqis have locked on to our aircraft to a lesser or smaller extent than in the past?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend understates the position. The Iraqis have behaved with great aggression during the period he talks about towards those operating in the no-fly zones. I remind the Ho use that the reason for those missions is to protect the minorities living in those parts of Iraq who have been the subject of appalling treatment by Saddam Hussein in the past.
I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's second question, but I shall write to him.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
6.58 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Commit tee on this Bill.

501
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The general duty]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from second "is" to "to" in line 6 and insert "a fair, efficient and effective system promoting confidence in the rule of law so as"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the first amendment is to try to ensure that this crucial clause, around which the whole of the Bill revolves, is more meaningful and provides more guidance to the Lord Chancellor, the courts, justices of the peace and those who run the courts.
It is obvious—many have said it—that the Bill centralises power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and the proposed national agency in a way that justice has never been centralised in this country. That being so, it is not just desirable but essential that the duty placed on the Lord Chancellor with regard to the running of the court system as a whole be as explicit as possible, without being too confining and inflexible. The Bill is littered with a panoply of powers and rights on the Lord Chancellor's behalf, so it is the more important that where there is an expression of his or her duty, it should be phrased in justiciable terms.
Clause 1(1) describes the Lord Chancellor's duty under the Bill as being,
"to ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on the business of",
the courts,
"and that appropriate services are provided for those courts".
One need not be Alice in Wonderland to think that the key words, "efficient", "effective" and "appropriate", are about as vague and empty of meaning as any three words could be. They are words that would appeal to the dictator and the tyrant as giving him about as much rope as he could ever require. Not for a second do I equate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with tyranny, but my point is obvious.
The insertion proposed by Amendment No. 1 is fairly modest, but takes the general duty considerably further by referring to fairness and promotion of the interests of justice. Those words are not mine, they are taken from the mission statement of the courts agency. What is good for the legislative goose is good for the gander. I should be disappointed—nay, suspicious—if such gentle words as fairness and promotion of the interests of justice should be in any way obnoxious to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 in the name of my noble friend, which are grouped with the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has moved. He is absolutely right; I agree with his introduction of his
502
amendment. This clause is crucial and we need to give more guidance to the public, the courts and the Lord Chancellor about how the statutory duty will operate.
The Bill's drafting makes us believe that local justice is under threat from the Government. Although they wax lyrical about the importance of devolving government to the regions and localities, the Bill comprehensively centralises power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Amendment No. 2 challenges the Government to make it plain on the face of the Bill that they will consider the needs of rural as well as urban areas in fulfilling the duty in Clause 1. As the noble Lord explained, the clause places a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that there is an efficient and effective courts system and that he provides the right services for the courts. Our amendment adds necessary clarity to that duty.
It is all too easy for a Lord Chancellor keen on streamlining a centralised system in which he is carefully paring down the budget to withdraw services from some areas despite the cost and inconvenience that that may bring to the public who use the courts. The Committee may be aware from a Written Answer given in another place on 29th October that since 1997, 96 magistrates' courts have closed, while only 14 new ones have opened. From Appleby to Ripon, from Windermere to South Molton, in Devon, courts have closed the length and breadth of the country. The victims of crime, witnesses and defendants on bail all have to travel longer distances. As Lord Justice Auld pointed out on page 301 of his report:
"In mid-Wales, Devon and Cornwall and Cumbria, for example, current closures can result in a 30 or 40 miles travelling distance to and from court, often without a choice of convenient public transport".
As the Deputy Chairman of the Magistrates' Association said:
"the closures now are seriously going to disrupt local and community justice because they will just put pressure on other parts of the justice system—the police, probation and social services".
Lord Justice Auld explained in his report how the closures are driven by the Government. As he states:
"In the case of closure of a magistrates' court, the decision is notionally that of the Magistrates' Courts Committee, but they are so bound by his"—
the Lord Chancellor's—
"guidelines as to usage, available modern facilities, accommodation for prisoners and budgetary restrictions that, effectively, closures are driven by his Department".
So it seems only right that the statutory duty that the Bill imposes on the Lord Chancellor should make it as clear as day that his responsibility must be to provide a system that serves both rural and urban areas well.
Amendment No. 4 develops the theme explored by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but I shall address a specific issue about the report to be issued. Clause 1(4) states that the Lord Chancellor must publish an annual report on the business of the courts. That implies that he does not have to address what is provided in the final line of subsection (1), line 10, which includes in his duty that he should ensure,
"that appropriate services are provided for those courts".
I table the amendment simply to ask the Minister to put on the record an assurance—which I hope that she can give with ease—that the report will cover not only details of the business of the supreme court, county courts and magistrates' courts but of the Lord Chancellor's performance in providing appropriate services. That would involve a statement of what he considers to be appropriate services and an assessment of how closely his provision has matched the ideal during the period of the report. If she is able to give such an assurance, she may want to consider some redrafting of the clause.
Lord Jones: The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, emphasised the centralisation of powers and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has shrewdly underscored the problems of rural areas. With local justice in mind, I first pay tribute to the work of countless magistrates throughout the nation.
The system of local justice is well proven. There is an army of voluntary citizens of repute and integrity—not least in Wales. In my 31 years in another place, I never once received a complaint about magistrates' courts in all my always voluminous mailbag. Magistrates are invaluable. They are known, tried and tested. They are successful, experienced and cooperative. They represent a very British tradition.
I am concerned about the loss of magistrates' courts in Wales, in her rural areas. Court closures in rural areas pose real problems, especially for those who are not comfortably off. No one can any longer be sure of the reliability of the rural bus services. A bus fare for a long distance can mount up to a king's ransom. Even in the urban area with which I am familiar in northeast Wales, real difficulties are faced by those who must place their trust in a bus service to get to a distant magistrates' court. For instance, to travel one-way by taxi from urban Deeside to the magistrates' courts at Mold—the county seat—might cost more than £6. That is a large amount for some and particularly for someone without a regular income who may face a fine at the magistrates' court. We have closed enough magistrates' courts. Rural Wales should take no more closures, and there should be no more closures in urban areas of Wales.
Lord Waddington: It is with some diffidence that I rise so early in the Committee stage, but there is a general point to be made that has a bearing on all the amendments that have been tabled to what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, described as a centralising measure.
Before we impose any new duties on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as the Bill and the proposed amendments would do, we should pause to consider the powers and duties that the noble and learned Lord already has and the great increase in those powers in recent years. I hope that we will receive some assurance that further changes in the responsibilities of the noble and learned Lord's department are not in the offing, with further powers to be conferred on the department. The answer to that question will cover my response to many of the proposals in the Bill and to many of the amendments.
504
The responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor's Department have been greatly expanded in recent years. Responsibility for the magistrates' courts, for instance, was transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department from the Home Office in 1992 by The Transfer of Functions (Magistrates' Courts and Family Law) Order. In 2001, there was a greater extension of the powers of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. According to The Civil Service Year Book, the Lord Chancellor is also responsible for,
"a number of constitutional policy matters, transferred from the Home Office in June 2001. These include Royal, church and hereditary matters and policy on fundamental marriage law, same-sex issues and transsexual people".
It goes on:
"The Lord Chancellor is the Privy Counsellor primarily concerned with the affairs of the Crown Dependencies of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man and is the channel of communication between the insular authorities and the Crown and the UK Government".
That is of interest to me. According to paragraph 839 of volume 6 of Halsbury's Statutes, the Home Secretary is the Minister responsible. I certainly thought that I was responsible when I was Home Secretary. If that change has come about, it has done so recently and must be noted.
The entry in The Civil Service Year Book goes on to say that the Lord Chancellor has,
"oversight of a wide programme of Government civil legislation and reform in such fields as human rights, freedom of information, data protection, family law, property law, defamation and legal aid and House of Lords Reform".
It cannot be doubted that there has been a considerable accretion to the powers of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in recent years. We must ask ourselves whether that is a desirable state of affairs.
Once, the Lord Chancellor's Department was a small department, staffed by lawyers. Now, it has a budget of nearly £3 billion and a staff of 12,000. Small wonder that a new House of Commons Select Committee is to be set up to oversee the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department. I read that the department is to have a new name: it is to be the Department for Justice, Rights and the Constitution. Is it not well on the way to becoming an all-powerful Ministry of Justice? Is that what we want? Is that the way that we are going? If so, we should be aware of it.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 may be seen as useful, but they should be seen against the background of a department under the leadership of a Lord Chancellor bent on increasing his empire. How can the Bill be read in a different way, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is putting civil servants in charge of the magistrates' courts, rather than locally accountable magistrates' courts committees? That is not done to ensure the best local service possible hut in the belief that more control by the department will yield cuts in costs. Anyone who doubts that should study the interview reported in the Daily Telegraph on 15th April last year. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to,
"vast opportunities for economies of scale".

505
Secondly, the Bill puts courts administration councils, which are advisory bodies, in the place of the magistrates' courts committees, which have real powers, are truly accountable and have ensured that magistrates' courts have performed at least as efficiently—more efficiently, many may say—as have the Crown Courts. The Bill takes from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster powers to appoint magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. Only two years ago, a similar proposal was put out to consultation; it received minimal support and had to be withdrawn by the Government. That proposal was made in the interests of uniformity for uniformity's sake. Goodness me, why would the Government reintroduce a proposal that was almost universally condemned only two years ago, unless it is because of the determination of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to concentrate more and more powers in his own hands?
I hope that everybody who will take part in the Committee stage will not just consider the wording of amendments but will ask themselves some serious questions about whether this is, in fact, an exercise in concentrating more powers in the hands of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his department, as we move inexorably towards a Ministry of Justice.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I must take issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has just said. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has become the member of the Government responsible for oversight of the constitution. However, critical as I am, from time to time, of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—we will certainly be critical of many parts of the Bill—I would slightly prefer that the constitution should be in his hands than in those of the Home Secretary. We need not go into that question to any great extent when considering this Bill.
I agreed with everything said by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and by the noble Lord, Lord Jones. The Bill loses sight of the importance of the principle of justice. As the House's Constitution Committee said, the Bill raises constitutional issues. It is unfortunate that we begin with Clause 1(1) referring to an efficient and effective system for the carrying on of business. The Bill is about justice. It is essential that not only should there be an efficient and effective system, but, as my noble friend's amendment points out, that it should be fair and should further the rule of law. That is why I am keen to support the amendment. Its significance may be largely symbolic, but symbols are sometimes very powerful instruments. I should feel much happier about this Bill if at the beginning it states that it is concerned with justice and not just with administration of the court system.
Lord Borrie: I want to address my remarks to one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I fully agreed with earlier points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, regarding the relationship between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I believe that the early 1990s transfer of power and the supervision of magistrates' courts from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department was not before time. Since the Beeching report of 1970, it has been exceedingly appropriate that the Home Office, with its huge range of responsibilities, including those for the police and the prosecution service, should not also be responsible for the administration of the courts. A start was made in the 1970s and 1980s towards the Lord Chancellor's Department having overall supervision of all courts, not just the superior courts. Taking the responsibility for magistrates' courts from the Home Office seemed to me to be highly appropriate, not before time, and certainly should not be questioned today. Probably, the Minister was pleased by the extremes of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he spoke in terms of the accretion of power to the Lord Chancellor—making it sound as though it was personal—and suggesting that in this Bill the accretion of power is going much too far.
I accept that there is plenty of room for argument during the course of debating the amendments and raising the issues of how the administration should be run, the management of magistrates' courts, and so forth. However, it would be inappropriate to examine this Bill against a background of feeling that there is an accretion of power which is wholly undesirable when, to my mind, it is logical and sensible that there should be one government department concerned with the administration of the courts as a whole.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I make a plea for rural areas to be taken properly into consideration in these matters. Whether a person is the victim of a charge or the victim of a burglary, access to justice is very significant. I come from Essex—Welsh noble Lords may not even recognise it as rural. However, decisions taken in the past, in the name of rationalisation, on access to magistrates' courts mean that even in Essex it is quite likely that a person may have to travel on public transport for over an hour and a half in order to get to a court. Most people in Essex have inevitably solved the problem in the environmentally unfriendly way—by owing a car. Even a car is not without its expense and troubles. If a person owns an old banger, it may not always guarantee to get a person to court in time. Therefore, the question of access is fundamentally important. Although it may fly in the face of efficiency and effectiveness, it should be considered.
In the light of what has just been said, the question of the powers of the Lord Chancellor should be addressed. The powers are spelt out in considerable detail in this Bill—I read them with considerable interest. I admit that I had somewhat peculiar feelings about them because if the Lord Chancellor were properly to spend his time on the responsibilities which this Bill gives him, when there is no process or

507
mechanism for those responsibilities to be undertaken or fulfilled on his behalf, the likelihood is that he would not have time to appear in this Chamber, as he formally and properly should. Under the Bill, the business of running the justice of this country, which is his and his personally, could not properly be undertaken unless it became virtually a full-time job. Therefore, I have somewhat ambivalent feelings on this matter.
Eighteen separate executive functions are listed in the Bill, some of which the Lord Chancellor executes at present under known processes, but no process is described on the face of the Bill as to how he should fulfil those functions. Those are functions which are totally and personally his responsibility. The Lord Chancellor has the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, as a very able assistant. He has a whole department full of civil servants who may well undertake much of this work. But the way in which it is to be described in the Bill is not set out. We have no knowledge of what is to happen. As drafted, responsibility is personally with the Lord Chancellor, in a way that is different and distinct from the ways in which I have usually seen ministerial responsibilities described in a Bill. That concerns me.
I have every faith in the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but when a tool is fashioned, it should be remembered that reasonable people may not always be the people who will use it. We should be concerned about that particular aspect.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I agree with what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said about the importance of close scrutiny of any powers which are conferred or added to at the hands of the executive. On reading the Second Reading debate again, one notes that time and again noble Lords perceive this measure as centralising. Time and again, the importance of local justice is emphasised and the two are really incompatible.
Therefore, it is right that in a Bill which greatly enhances the power of the Lord Chancellor, it should begin with a statement of general duty. I speak with great diffidence on any matter connected with parliamentary drafting in the presence of my noble friend Lord Renton who is a great authority on the subject. Purists cavil at statements of general duty; still more, at statements of general purpose. They actually come to very much the same thing.
We are now into a cult—and I do not believe that it is one that will be reversed—where Bills begin with very general statements of this character. I, for one, do not object to that in this Bill. However, I want to see a broader formulation of the general duty than the clause gives at present. I thought that I might venture, presumptuously, to offer the Minister a tiny bit of assistance in formulating her reply. I fear that at the foot of her brief there appears the word in capital letters "Resist".
I support Amendment No. 1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The Minister will notice that the words "efficient" and "effective" are common to both
508
the amendment and the Bill. Therefore, if she is looking for justification for objecting to the amendment, it must be on a ground other than the inclusion of "efficient and effective system".
Can the Minister really find it in her heart to object to the word "fair" being added to the general duty? It would be difficult to do that, it seems to me, but she is a person of great ingenuity. I know that she would not wish to find a way of objecting to that, so perhaps her mind will be concentrated on the last part, which is,
"promoting confidence in the rule of law so as to support the carrying on of the business".
Can one really object to a general duty having the objective of promoting confidence in the rule of law?
All Members of the Committee have spoken of the need for public confidence in the system of justice, and the reasons for that do not need reciting. I therefore hope that she will accept that analysis of the task which will confront her if she resists the amendment and concentrates on those two short points.
As regards Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, without repeating what has been said, I greatly support the importance of rural justice. One of the grounds for changing the administration of the magistrates' courts in the Bill is the wide variation in the performance of magistrates' courts throughout the country as against a particular target. Rural magistrates' courts are often singled out for adverse comment. One of the reasons for cases having to be adjourned must be that witnesses, let alone parties, find it impossible to reach court in time. They have to travel long distances on erratic bus services and sometimes find themselves unable to attend. What then happens? The court either has to dispose of the case in the absence of a witness, in which case justice is not done, or the case is adjourned, which plays havoc with target records. That is where the proposal comes in. I cannot for the life of me see how there can be a reasonable objection to adding the words,
"in both rural and urban areas".
We are greatly involved in annual performance reports, which is where Amendment No. 4 comes in. I welcome the proposal under Clause 1(4) that:
"The Lord Chancellor must, within 18 months of the coining into force of this section, and afterwards annually, prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report as to the business of the courts".
All that is sought to be added are the words,
"and the manner in which he has fulfilled his general duty in relation to the courts".
What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the noble and learned gander and I would find great comfort if those words were added. I hope that the Minister will accede at least to that.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: This is the first time I have intervened in any way on the Bill. In doing so, perhaps I should mention that I have had a lot of experience of the matters contained in it. I was a Home Office Minister for four and a half years, admittedly many years ago. In those days, I was puzzled by the idea that the

509
administration of justice should be divided between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. However, as regards magistrates' courts, we must be careful about over-centralisation when the Lord Chancellor, rather than the Home Secretary, assumes responsibility, as he will do under the Bill.
We have not yet been told, and we may not learn in detail, the precise administrative proposals that the Lord Chancellor has, or will have, for the administration of justice in the magistrates' courts. But I believe that the present system of enabling local influence and power to be exerted in the choice of magistrates is most useful. I do not see any need for that to change merely because the Lord Chancellor, rather than the Home Secretary, will be responsible when the Bill comes into force.
Furthermore, I assume that the magistrates' courts will be brought under the control of the Lord Chancellor. I do not believe that any Members on our side will go so far as to try to change that, but we should try to ensure that the change is made in a way that enables justice to be done locally, even if the Lord Chancellor has to answer to Parliament for the way in which it is done.
I hate talking about myself, but it happens that I became a Queen's Counsel a long time ago—nearly 50 years ago. I had a varied experience undertaking minor judicial work as a recorder, chairman of quarter sessions and so forth. Indeed, for a couple of years I was a relief judge at the Old Bailey. Therefore, I naturally want to draw upon my memories of legal experience—and I share much more important and recent memories with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and others who have already spoken. I believe that when making such a fundamental change in our law we must be most careful. We must ensure that the statute in which it is done puts the matter in a way which is lucid, in the public interest and places the necessary responsibility on the Lord Chancellor but does not go into too much detail.
I am sorry to have spoken so generally, but I now turn to the amendments. I agree with my noble and learned friend that we should favour the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—or at least something on those lines. He has it pretty well right. Strictly speaking, from the drafting point of view, in using the general expression "magistrates' courts" it should not be necessary to refer to the "rural and urban areas". However, in the circumstances, in order to draw attention to the rural court, I see no harm in making those words part of the drafting. Therefore, I favour that amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 4, put forward by my noble friends on the Front Bench, I wonder whether the use of the phrase,
"the manner in which he has fulfilled his general duty in relation to the courts",
will lead to some slight confusion. What kind of manner is required? Is it an administrative duty? Is it a political duty? "Manner" is a rather dangerous word to use, but if we can find a better word, the purpose of Amendment No. 4 is most worthy.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I never dreamt that we would have such an exciting start to the Courts Bill. "Tyranny" and "the end of justice as we know it" have been referred to. If only it were so exciting. The Bill is about justice—and justice is the most important issue.
Clause 1 deals with the duty placed upon the Lord Chancellor to ensure that there is,
"an efficient and effective system"—
these are the important words—
"to support the carrying on of the business of … the Supreme Court … county courts, and … magistrates' courts".
There is not a Member of the Committee who does not know that the business of the Supreme Court, the county courts and the magistrates' courts is justice.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for bringing forward, as he promised at Second Reading, the proposed amendment to Clause 1 because it gives me an opportunity to set out clearly what we aim to achieve. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for exposing so fully and exhorting the powers that the Lord Chancellor's Department now has. It is a little known fact and I am grateful to him for enumerating the burden that now rests so weightily on the shoulders of the Lord Chancellor and his junior Ministers. I thank the noble Lord wholeheartedly for that.
However, some of the burdens were transferred a while ago. Transfers of ministerial functions are made regularly to effect improvements in the delivery of government business and, in this case, improvements in the justice system. None of the burdens transferred to the Lord Chancellor has been ill-placed. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that no one in this Chamber should under-estimate the Lord Chancellor's capacity for work. If the 20-hour day was invented, it was probably invented for him if for no one else.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was concerned about the formulation of effective and efficient administration and the reason for the reform. The reform is intended to improve the management of the system. The unification of the management of the courts will enable better use of resources at national and local levels, including better use of the court estate. The agency will be flexible, matching resources to need, unhindered by organisational boundaries. It will be more efficient and provide better value through the sharing and pooling of resources and greater purchasing power, freeing resource for front-line operations.
The Committee will remember that in his report Lord Justice Auld identified the difficulties currently experienced as a result of the way in which the courts are managed. At page 290 of the report he stated:
"The present divided system leads to much waste of court and other accommodation. There is some sharing between the Crown Court and the magistrates' courts. But it is complicated by different ownership, funding and timing arrangements and Treasury Guidelines".

511
So the unified administration could provide wider opportunities for sharing accommodation, enabling greater flexibility and use of resources.
We have already identified about 70 county courts where there is potential for co-locating hearings with magistrates' courts, where joint use will make the courts more viable than maintaining separate, under-used facilities which might otherwise be under threat of closure. I heard what a number of noble Lords said about the need to keep justice local and to utilise the courts estate in a proper way. This measure is a way of doing so more efficiently and effectively.
There are examples of co-operation happening now. Co-location of county courts within magistrates' courts buildings already exists in a number of locations around the country—for example, Rotherham, Kendal and Ashford—and Altrincham county court has recently moved into improved accommodation in Trafford magistrates' court. But projects such as these are voluntary and the procedures are cumbersome. Where accommodation is shared, the agreement of three different organisations is required to get a project off the ground—the Court Service, the magistrates' courts committee and the local authority which is an area's "paying authority".
The improved access to local courts sought by my noble friend Lord Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other Members of the Committee can be achieved by unifying the courts administration—which will enable better management of the resources at our disposal—and not by a change in the wording of the clause. The import of what we are doing is very important. This is not a centralising measure but an opportunity to achieve real local accountability and local involvement.
Amendment No. 2, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is unnecessary. The general duty already requires that the Lord Chancellor provides support to the business of the Supreme Court and all county courts and magistrates' courts, regardless of whether they are located in rural, urban, or indeed semi-rural or suburban areas.
Amendment No. 4, which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke with her usual eloquence, requires that the annual report on the business of the courts under Clause 1(4) will include a report on the manner in which the Lord Chancellor has fulfilled his Clause 1 duty to ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the courts, and that appropriate services are provided for the courts.
Such a provision is unnecessary. Consistent with our intention to establish an executive agency to carry out the day-to-day running of the courts, the annual report of that agency will be laid before Parliament to satisfy the requirement in the clause. The annual report will give information about the business of all the courts and will, for the first time, present performance information about the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in a single annual report, available for
512
public and parliamentary scrutiny. It will also include corporate information about the agency itself, including its framework document. 'This report will provide the committee with all the information it seeks about the way in which the courts are managed.
The clause is in line with Section 1(12) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which currently requires the Lord Chancellor to report on the business of the courts and under which the Court Service annual report is laid before Parliament. I have noted the concerns of noble Lords about this subsection in general and I shall give further consideration as to how these concerns may be satisfied.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out, there is a variation in performance across the country and a real need for improvement. The Bill will make no changes to the system for appointing magistrates. It will retain the magistrates' local links and magistrates will be assigned to local justice areas.
At the moment it is not the Lord Chancellor who makes decisions in relation to closures but the magistrates' court committee. The Lord Chancellor becomes involved only if there is an appeal by the paying authority, the local authority. Guidance on courthouse closures issued to the MCCs by the CCMCC is being updated to include a rural proofing check list to ensure that any impact on rural users is taken into account. This move is in accordance with the report of Lord Justice Auld and will bring about the improvements that Members of the Committee very much want to see.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have been listening to the verbiage in which everything surrounding the Bill is steeped. What on earth is a "rural proofing checklist"? What on earth is an "internal and external stakeholder"—the phrase used in the letter distributed by the noble Baroness? What specifically in this context is meant by "local accountability"—a phrase used a short time ago by the noble Baroness? What does it mean? It certainly does not mean the power of hiring and firing staff; it does not mean the power of directing staff and telling them what to do; or conducting any managerial form. What does "local accountability" mean in plain English, so that we can all understand it?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It may be helpful to the Committee if I comment on the amendments standing in my name before the Minister responds. She may find it convenient to respond to both at the same time.
Perhaps I may begin with my Amendment No. 4. I listened carefully to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton. I always defer to him on drafting. I accept entirely what he said in regard to my use of the word "manner". I shall take the amendment away and examine it carefully.
I was disappointed to hear the Minister say that the amendment is unnecessary. I shall not press it at this stage, because I accept the view of my noble friend Lord Renton that it is not as well drafted as it might be. However, for the convenience of the Committee, I

513
should point out that I find the Minister's response to Amendment No. 2 disappointing, particularly in the light of the supporting comments by Members of the Committee regarding the importance of the Government's mind being focused on both rural and urban matters.
The Minister says that the amendment is unnecessary. It is my view that it is necessary. It would act as a simple aide-mémoire to future generations of Lord Chancellors. Earlier, the Minister referred to the personality—the person who currently occupies the office of Lord Chancellor. But we are talking about the office itself, as it will persist, we hope, for generations to come.
Therefore, Amendment No. 2 perhaps deserves more regard from the Government. It offers a practical and perhaps a right way forward to achieve greater clarity in Clause 1. On that basis, I give notice that if the Minister is unable to accept the amendment I may well be minded to press it when it is called.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister may prefer to answer those points before I make my comments on her response. It is entirely up to her.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am happy to respond to both points. In regard to the first set of comments, one has to examine the Bill clause by clause. I hope that in the letter I wrote in December I made it absolutely clear who the stakeholders are. Although I used the general term, I went on to specify that they are the court users, the agencies, the judges and all others engaged in work in the courts.
As I hope Members of the Committee will have seen both from my letter in December and from my further letter in January, the Lord Chancellor's Department intends to have a series of consultations right across the country. These will involve all those who currently use the courts in a discussion as to what the ambit of the council should be and what that of the agency should be.
We feel strongly that "local accountability" means just that—full engagement of the local users in the fashioning of the new system to make sure that it works. We understand absolutely that one size will not fit all. The kind of arrangements that will be necessary in urban areas may be significantly different from those in rural areas. We want the flexibility to be able to reflect those differences.
As regards the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in relation to Amendment No. 2, we are concerned that all county courts and all magistrates' courts should be involved. As I said in answer to her question, one goes from rural to urban, to semi-rural, and to suburban areas. The last thing anyone in this Chamber would want is those in a particular area believing they are not involved. The word "all" means just that—absolutely every court in England and Wales which is covered by the Bill. In due course we shall have programmes fashioned to the needs of individual areas, reflected in the councils.
514
We shall be examining the Bill clause by clause. I can rely on Members of the Committee to give attention to the fine detail that is merited. I shall be happy as we do so—rather than having, if I may respectfully say so, a Second Reading debate—to respond to particular clauses as they arise.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It would be helpful to have a dictionary before we begin. Who are the "court users"? Who are the "customers"? Do the customers sit in the dock? Are they the people who have to travel to the court? Who are the people referred to in all the jargon contained in the Bill?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for her full reply—so full that it seemed to extend across virtually all the key concepts in the Bill. I shall not respond to more than those that related to my amendment. I am sure the Minister will have noted the fact that all Members of the Committee who spoke—I am grateful for their support—were in favour of both my amendment and the two with which it is grouped. There was no contrary voice.
Perhaps I may prevail on the Minister at least to think more about the key words on which the whole of the Bill is founded. Her answer to my points was that one should not be concerned about the absence of a reference to justice or fairness or,
"promoting confidence in the rule of law".
As she said, the business of the courts is the business of justice. That is a fair point, and one I accept. I ask the Minister, in turn, fairly to accept, for reasons of symbolism and public understanding, if nothing else, that that implication should find a place on the face of the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Will the noble Lord give way? The effect of his remarks is implied in everything that is done by the courts and on behalf of the courts. Why does he insist on underwriting this provision?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Very simply, because one should not rely on an implication where a central duty of the Lord Chancellor under the whole of the Bill is expressed in other terms. If the noble Lord is saying the same as the noble Baroness—and I believe that he is—my argument is simply that what I have been discussing should be on the face of the Bill. It is bizarre that concepts of fairness, justice and public confidence in the law find no place here.
My final point is that what language there is in the Bill is the language of the Treasury. It is business-speak: "efficiency", "effectiveness", "the business of the courts", "appropriate services". I am afraid to say that too much legislation passing through this place in this era is Treasury driven. The great mantra of this Government seems to be "efficiency and effectiveness". They are meaningless words. They allow to be imported into them precisely what the Government want. I feel very strongly—as I sense do other Members of the Committee—that whatever else we do, we should start on the right foot and include the

515
words in my amendment, or others like them, on the face of the Bill. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert "in both rural and urban areas"
The noble Baroness said: I think it is appropriate that I test the opinion of the Committee. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 55.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Luke, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Barker, B.

McNally, L.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mar, C.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Patten, L.

Craigavon, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rennard, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Sandberg, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Elis-Thomas, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Fookes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Goschen, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kimball, L

Waddington, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gavron, L.

Ahmed, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Golding, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Goudie, B.

Bhatia, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Borrie, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hoyle, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Chandos, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jones, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

David, B.

Layard, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

[Teller]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dubs, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Eatwell, L.

Morgan, L.

Elder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Puttnam, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

516

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Varley, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the House be again in Committee at 9.11 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Charities
8.12 p.m.
Lord Patten Lord Patten rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to create a charities ombudsman.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to ask the Government why there is not a charities ombudsman. I make it clear at the outset of the debate that I do not like endless interference, over-regulation and regulators as a matter of principle, but, alas, they are part of the way in which we live now. It has long struck me as an oddity that there is an institutional asymmetry, in that there is someone who can act in the role of ombudsman over the actions of the Charity Commission in the person of the distinguished independent complaints reviewer, Mrs Jodi Berg, but there is no one to whom individuals may turn to complain or to seek redress over the actions of individual charities.
Mrs Berg points out in her most recent annual report that the Charity Commission is a regulatory body with wide and far-reaching powers but that the use of those powers would generally be disproportionate in most cases of complaint.
I had some valuable discussions with Mrs Berg about this issue in the autumn, and then later with the chief charity commissioner, Mr John Stoker, who was good enough to talk to me about it. He told me, to my pleasant surprise, that he had come to the same view that I had come to—that we needed an independent ombudsman concerned with charities—and that I should look out for an expression of this view in the commission's response to the Government Strategy Unit's report entitled, Private Action, Public Benefit.
Well, I duly looked out and not long before Christmas the response appeared. It said:
"The Commission believes that the opportunity should be taken to strengthen the accountability of charities … We believe in particular that there is a place for a charity ombudsman".
The commission went on to observe of its own powers:
"They are not designed, and they are not well-adapted, for use to give redress where a charity has fallen short of acceptable standards of administration in a single case or in its dealings with a particular individual".

517
I certainly say, "Hear, hear", to that. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will sense that my next sentence will be that there is a vacuum here that we are looking for him to fill.
Charities are an important part of our national life. Most charities do excellent work most of the time, but there have been well-reported lapses. Some charities, such as the NSPCC, have duties laid on them by statute. Some, such as the National Trust, have been set up by Act of Parliament. A number of charities—such as the National Trust, which is the nation's largest landowner—have become very big business. Others have become major campaigning bodies, sometimes with a covert or overt political slant. Many of the bigger charities receive substantial grants from public funds.
All that growth has meant that there are some big charitable bureaucracies as well. There are charities with large staffs and highly paid chief executives. Like all bureaucracies, alas, they can sometimes become a bit unresponsive—not all the time, but some of the time. That has led to a lot of frustration and complaints. The complaints fall into two categories: first, broad-brush complaints based on a dislike of a charity's national policies and, secondly, the complaints of aggrieved people who do not feel that they have an avenue of redress.
In the former class, with regard to the big issues that catch the public attention and have an impact on a charity's national perception, there have been several well-known scandals. The wise counsel of a charities ombudsman might, for example, have prevented the eccentric and unseemly shenanigans within the RSPCA over the recent appointment of a chief executive to that body or the extremely undesirable electoral practices of the National Trust.
The National Trust has already been widely criticised in that context by several speakers in your Lordships' House in previous debates. I am told that the corporate governance of the National Trust is going to be subject to a forthcoming report, which will be conducted inside the trust, come from the trust and report to the trust. Some people believe that it is going to be a whitewash, but I hope that that is not the case.
We might also cite the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, whose behaviour my noble friend Lord Blake, who cannot be with us this evening, has asked me specifically to tell the House gives him considerable cause for concern.
All three of the charities to which I have referred have been widely criticised for their attitudes to the countryside, to country people and sometimes to their tenants. They have also been criticised for their attitude to country sports—the last being an issue over which I really can take an objective view as I am not a participant in any of them.
At the local individual level, there are examples of charities allegedly behaving in an uncaring way to tenants or to neighbours of their properties and activities. With most charities being run from urban head offices, it has been difficult for country people in
518
particular to get their voices heard. We might take, for example, the local residents in and around the Golden Cap estate area in Dorset. In that case, and the scandal connected with it, the National Trust was remote and in London and behaved with an hauteur towards local people that was worthy of some 18th century Whig magnate. The trust did not understand the relationship between those people and the management of local land.
Having aired some criticisms, what can be done? First, the Government should listen to the advice that they have been given by the Independent Complaints Reviewer and the Charity Commission and set up as soon as possible an independent ombudsman scheme. A good model for that is the housing associations' independent housing ombudsman scheme for tenants.
The new scheme for the charities ombudsman should be a statutory one. It should be funded by a graduated de minimis levy, as is the case with the housing association scheme. That would enable it to look into complaints of maladministration exactly as though the charity were a public body, which is the right way of doing it. The ombudsman could thus provide an avenue of complaint and in some cases recommend a change of policy or order compensation.
Best of all, behind the scenes, by good advice, a body such as a charities ombudsman could give great help to those that have fallen below normal high standards in charities—to which I pay tribute—through oversight or inadvertence. Of course, I would also look to a charities ombudsman to report annually. It is worth while reflecting on what Mrs Berg told me. She wisely observed that responding to complaints can be a very good way for organisations to learn about themselves and how they behave and how they proceed.
In addition, I think that the charities world could usefully learn from the corporate sector in dealing with alleged abuses and governance issues. In the corporate sector, we have had the Cadbury report, the Greenbury report and the Turnbull report, as well as today's report into non-executive directors and their role issued by Mr Higgs. So we now have a combined code for how publicly listed companies should behave. Equally, charities should develop a combined code for charities themselves modelled on that process, so that there is transparency, regularity, predictability and certainty in their behaviour. On the farther horizons, the larger of our charities—which play such an important role in our public life, and all of which I hope seek to observe the crucial seven Nolan principles—may well have to come under the remit of a committee on standards in public life. They are effectively in public life and supported by public money and should behave in the best possible way.
As I come to the end of the 10 minutes allotted to me, I know that the Minister, with his reputation, will seek in the 12 minutes allotted to him to find at least a minute to answer one specific question. Do the Government intend to promote the concept of a charities ombudsman? If not, why not?
8.22 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, in the four minutes allotted to the rest of us, it is very difficult to say anything very coherent or compelling. However, I am sure that we will all be very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has raised this important topic.
I should declare some non-remunerative interests because I think that they are important to the way in which my argument develops. First, I am the chairman of the trustee board of two charities. One is a national charity, Centrepoint, which provides accommodation and services for homeless young people not only in London but across the country. More locally, I am chairman of the board of trustees of Hope, which raises money for research in Southampton University medical school. More importantly in this context, however, I have just finished five years as president of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, a job that I am very pleased to have passed over to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who is a member of the Front Bench opposite. I hope that she enjoys the job as much as I have.
Although I think that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, are impressive, I do not find them wholly convincing. I should like to try briefly to explain why, and this reflects many of the discussions that we have had in my time at the NCVO. I think we believe that, at least at this stage, a sharpening up of the role of the Charity Commission and the regulatory framework of charities, in addition to what is going on within the charity world and the voluntary sector themselves, is sufficient and that to go for an ombudsman is to go too far. Of course, it is the role of the Charity Commission as a regulator to pursue cases where a charity breaches charity law. In that context, we cannot see the benefit to the public of both a regulator and an ombudsman.
What would an ombudsman do? An ombudsman would monitor or intervene in "unacceptable standards of administration", a phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned. However, I think that there are lots of ways in which this can already be done without the ombudsman. I cite the various charities in which I am involved. If the medical charity gave money to a scheme that had not been externally peer reviewed, we would fall foul of the Association of Medical Research Charities, which is essentially the Kitemark of excellence in the medical field. If Centrepoint behaves badly towards its tenants and clients, they can present their case to the internal complaints procedure within Centrepoint, to the Housing Corporation or to local authorities with which Centrepoint has concluded contracts. All kinds of horizontal arrangements surround the behaviour of charities as opposed to a vertical arrangement with an ombudsman.
The NCVO has played a major role in the issue of transparency. When I was president of that body many discussions were held and various reports were produced to try to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the way accounts are delivered to boards of trustees and in the way they are publicised
520
and so on. We are keen to develop best practice in that field. We believe that it is possible to improve methods of regulation and fundraising, partly through greater transparency of accounts. The Institute of Fundraising has made some interesting proposals with regard to a co-regulatory mechanism for regulating fundraising which would comprise people with experience of fundraising but would be chaired by a lay person. Complaints could be made to that body.
The important point to emphasise is that the Charity Commission needs to be strengthened and to stick to its main function of regulating charities—that needs to be clear and obvious—and not be so much involved in advising charities. It has a slightly mixed role in that respect at present which does not do it a lot of good. I refer to the combination of an enhanced capacity for the Charity Commission and the reform that is already taking place in the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector has links with local authorities. I refer to the medical research charities in that respect. Such matters can impose constraints on the behaviour of charities. Given the intermeshing of the role of the Charity Commission and that of the voluntary sector, I do not think that we need an ombudsman at this stage.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for introducing the debate although I may go a little wider than the Question.
The charities sector is of tremendous importance to the country's economic and social well-being. It is a sector which is continuing to grow. I note that in the year 2000–01 the Charity Commission registered 6,000 new charities. I also note that about 2,000 applications did not proceed to registration. The reasons for that do not appear to me to have been recorded.
It seems to me of central importance that there should be an accessible, affordable and speedy means of appealing against the decisions of the Charity Commissioners or of registered charity trustees where the complainant reasonably believes that the decision is not in the best interests of the charity.
One accepts that historically there has been a culture of the Charity Commission paying inadequate attention to complaints against itself. That is brought out in reports of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. But in fairness to the Charity Commission, in the past two or three years there have been improvements, which have already been referred to. The Charity Commission has introduced an internal procedure to examine complaints and also an external review by the independent complaints reviewer.
I am also mindful that in addition there is the combined mediation service established by the Centre for Dispute Resolution and the NCVO to resolve disputes within a charity. To complete the picture, although I am not sure how each part of the picture fits together, we have a Parliamentary Ombudsman who is also authorised to examine complaints which fall within the limit of his authority.

521
A concern that has not been mentioned is the difficulty that arises where a charity or beneficiary believes that the commissioners have used or misused their powers. There is no means of reviewing that decision, except by the High Court route, provided that the authority of the commissioners or a Chancery judge has been obtained.
That arrangement gives rise to many complaints, because the overwhelming majority of registered charities have an annual gross income of no more than £10,000. That means that the path to court is closed for many charities, which tends to offend one's sense of fairness and justice.
For the reasons given by the previous speakers, it is important to consider where we go from here. The proposal that there be an ombudsman for charities certainly has its attractions. The Parliamentary Ombudsman already investigates some complaints, so there is precedent. However, I am not so sure that the ombudsman for charities would have the resources to examine the exceedingly complex issues sometimes involved in the commissioners' exercise of their statutory powers.
Nevertheless, I am among those who hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Government intend to introduce, possibly as part of the reform of the governance of the voluntary sector, a better way to resolve disputes within the charities sector. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the issue.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I too am most grateful to my noble friend for giving us an opportunity to look at this important issue. My interests are that I chair three charities, am a trustee of two others and am a member of a number of others and have been for some years.
There are two groups of problems. Smaller charities have problems in that the Charity Commission's rules can often be applied in too bureaucratic and intrusive a manner. Quite recently, I had a problem in one of my small charities, in that we wanted to take out indemnity insurance. As noble Lords will know, charity trustees have unlimited liability, unlike directors, so it seemed prudent and our professional advisers advised us to do it. The commission told us that that was an inappropriate use of charity funds.
That may or may not be so, but the reality is that it is a serious disincentive to trustees' taking on a charity, which is one of the most important things nowadays. It is difficult to get people to be trustees of very small charities and do enormous amounts of work. If they have to take huge financial risks for no pay, it will become even more difficult. There is a danger that the commission, by sticking too tightly to the very detailed rules on small charities, will hamper them. I would like to see a more supportive role from the commission.
That is not the same for some of the larger charities. My noble friend talked about the National Trust and the RSPCA, of both of which I am a member. They are important charities, because they are both virtually
522
national institutions and are in a great deal of trouble. They have been for some time, and there is nothing controversial about saying so.
Large charities can be very rich and therefore very powerful. Most of them are now democratic. Rather like most democratic institutions in the western world, their members or electors, as it were, are a little lazy. In charity terms, it is quite easy to get involved and take them over. Certainly, parts of the council and the chairman of the National Trust have manipulated the electoral process—perhaps with a very small "m"—to control it. In a way, they did so to try to avoid a political problem, but in that case they walked into another political problem. That is no way for a large national charity to behave. We have previously discussed that in your Lordships' House. I remember before that debate that those of us who were due to speak were all courted by the director-general: we all got telephone calls and letters asking whether we should like to meet. I very much wanted to meet the director-general of the National Trust as soon as the debate was over but I am afraid that the director-general declined to return my telephone calls. That sort of arrogance in a large institution is very dangerous and unattractive.
The RSPCA raises a rather different problem. It has an immense amount of money and, not unreasonably, it is allowed to lobby politically. It therefore became a target and a small group of activists has taken it over to the detriment of the central charitable objectives of the organisation and is leading it along a difficult and dangerous path. That is very worrying; it has caused splits in the council and between professional staff and the council and there has been much unhappiness about the choice of the new director-general, which was clearly an awful mess. That was a bad way for it to conduct its affairs. What is important is the fact that the Charity Commission knows that and has been approached but has seemingly been unable to do anything about it; it has been unable to deal with the problem.
I do not know whether the solution to those problems involves a charitable ombudsman or, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said, improving the abilities of the Charity Commission to take such actions. He may well be right; I was very interested in what he said, as I was by my the remarks of my noble friend Lord Patten. I make it clear that at the smaller and the larger levels there is a significant problem, which does not appear to be going away. Currently, whatever the Charity Commission can do, it is not doing it. The problem must be addressed. I look forward to the Minister telling us what the Government will do to address the problem.
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the debate and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for instigating it. I also declare an interest as the chair of the Andrea Adams Trust.
I speak with a background knowledge that I gained when working with those members of my union—MSF, now Amicus—who work in the voluntary

523
sector, including charities. The great strength of that sector is its diversity. Most who work in it do so because of their genuine commitment to their charity. Those workers are dedicated and hard working and are often among the lower paid in the workforce.
Those who work in the charity sector recognise that there is room for change in that sector. The need to modernise the way in which charities are managed and organised is recognised. Charities need constantly to renew standards, to become more accountable, more transparent and thereby more effective. Charity workers recognise that currently the Charity Commission, which gives such welcome support to charities, cannot cover all of the areas of complaint that arise. It may not be able to investigate complaints by individuals adequately. For example, it cannot investigate service users, user groups or supporters groups:, the policies of the charity or disputes about refusal or removal of membership; or the use of community facilities or the terms that apply to the use of a charity's facilities.
It is against that background that the appointment of an ombudsman to adjudicate when an individual believes that his or her complaint has not been satisfactorily resolved has arisen. Those who support an ombudsman believe that he or she would prove to be fairer, more accountable, more transparent and capable of redressing all complaints and thereby would be more effective. Those who oppose it believe that such an appointment would be unnecessary and that it would add no value to the current or future regulation of charities.
There are formidable organisations on both sides of the debate. As has been said, the Charity Commission supports the concept of an ombudsman, believing that such an appointment would be welcomed by the public, whose perception of openness and fairness of any procedure is vital. On the other hand, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations opposes the appointment of an ombudsman. It is the umbrella body in the voluntary sector, to which the majority of voluntary organisations belong, and it describes itself as,
"the voice of the voluntary sector".
The NCVO believes that it would act as a further layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. It cannot see the benefit to the public of having both a regulator and an ombudsman.
The NCVO stresses that it is committed to raising standards in the voluntary sector and to making charities more effective, more accountable and more transparent. To that end, the NCVO is undertaking a programme of work to develop performance management mechanisms, along with others in the sector, including the Charity Commission.
I suggest that some questions need to be answered. For example, are there enough complaints to justify an ombudsman; how much would such an appointment cost, and can the cost be justified; would an ombudsman be seen as more independent than the current procedure; and are there other ways of bridging the current gaps—for example, by extending the powers of the Charity Commission?
524
Whatever the decisions taken in the future, I ask the Minister to ensure that the views of those working in the voluntary sector are listened to so that any moves forward can be generally supported.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, like others. I declare interests, both as a former chairman of the Susie Lamplugh Trust and as a trustee and member of a number of other charities. I also have direct experience of ombudsman schemes, having chaired the independent council of one of them—that for estate agents—as a result of which I am a strong supporter of ombudsmen generally. I strongly support the call of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for an ombudsman in this area.
In my experience, legitimate complaints about the way that charities conduct themselves not unusually fall outside the remit of the Charity Commission. When that happens, redress lies either through the charity's own governance procedures, which have sometimes proved to be woefully unsatisfactory, or through the courts and litigation, which is a drain on the financial resources of the charity itself and may well be beyond the means of people with a valid complaint.
By contrast, an ombudsman scheme could provide an independent, relatively simple, inexpensive and swift alternative dispute resolution procedure. Additionally, by providing guidance through, for example, codes of practice, an ombudsman could do a great deal to improve standards of trusteeship generally.
Two of the charities of which I am a member, although not a trustee, have been mentioned. Both are examples which have led me to believe that there is a need for such an ombudsman. One is the National Trust, and something has already been said about what has happened there. It has taken five years of hard work by a group of determined members to expose the way that the electoral system of the trust was being, as I believe, misused by the chairman, who is shortly to retire. At the end of that time, the trust no longer seeks to defend that position and has set up a review of its own governance, of which we have guarded hopes.
But how much better, quicker and less damaging to the trust it would have been had there been an independent ombudsman. He would have been able to examine all the material concerning the complaints, including that which is still being withheld from members, despite continuing requests. The matter could have been resolved years ago had there been such a scheme in place.
I am also concerned, as others are, about the RSPCA, of which I am also a member. Britain's number one animal welfare charity has a history of superb work, with a vast amount that needs to be done. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the society's current campaign to ban hunting—it is little secret that, as a supporter of hunting and president of the Countryside Alliance, I do not—the way that the

525
council has begun to refuse membership to those who differ on that single issue of its policy, has expelled an acknowledged equestrian expert and former council member, Mr Richard Meade, from membership and has imposed increasingly stringent conditions for council candidature has caused the quality of those standing for council in terms of relevant experience and expertise, with some notable exceptions, to fall way below what is required by a charity of this importance.
The continued and, indeed, increasing emphasis on political campaigning contrasts unfortunately with the closure of welfare facilities, a worryingly small membership, damaging internal disputes and a major budget deficit. All that is causing serious concern to members and staff alike, not to mention the damage to the ability of the RSPCA to perform its essential role as effectively as possible.
The Charity Commission has so far proved either unwilling or unable to help. Surely, an ombudsman scheme for charities could be beneficial not only to ensure that complaints are properly investigated and upheld where justified, but also to enable charities to do a better job. Let us have one, and as soon as possible.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for bringing this subject for debate today. I declare my interest as chairman of the Ethnic Minority Foundation and as a trustee of a number of other charities in the United Kingdom.
I draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that within the charities sector there are mainly two divisions. The first is that of voluntary organisations which deliver services to the communities, and the second, those charities which provide grants and funding. These trusts and foundations are the main funders, along with local and central government, to the sector as a whole.
Having worked in the sector for over 20 years both as a grant giver and grant taker, I have come to realise that it is not a level playing field for those who seek grants. I have often debated in my own mind as to where the grant-giving charities would be if the grant takers decided not to apply for grants. The sole reason for existence of a grant-giving trust is to give grants for charitable causes. Therefore, their main or only customers are the other part of the charity sector which applies for funding.
The Charity Commission is a regulatory body which provides the legal framework for all registered charities and plays a useful part for the sector. It has no authority to interfere in the work of the grant-giving trusts and foundations, particularly as to which charities should be given grants. Unlike government departments such as the Active Community Unit at the Home Office or the community fund, which are both open to scrutiny by Parliament and are doing, perhaps I may be permitted to say, an excellent job in their grant-giving programmes, the trusts and foundations are a law unto themselves.
526
I approach this subject from the direction which says that the trusts and foundations are distributing part-public funding. All income from their fundraising or endowments is tax free. This means that some 30 or 40 per cent of their funding is public money.
I emphasise that there are many good grant-giving trusts and foundations which do an excellent job in their grant-giving work. They are open and transparent and have outside trustees and grant-giving committee members. But my experience has shown that there are some—I am glad to say not many—whose grant-giving processes are not fair, clear or transparent. In some cases the old boy network syndrome rides supreme. The words one occasionally hears are, "We are the grant-givers. Our decision is final and not subject to any review".
It is precisely for that reason and to remove that unfairness that there is a need for a charities ombudsman to whom complaints can be lodged by those grant applicants who feel that they have been treated unfairly. Currently, there is no redress for them. There may be other reasons why there should be an ombudsman. I hope that the Minister will respond to this particular requirement in the charities sector so that the trusts and foundations become more accountable.
8.49 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I join in congratulating my noble friend on introducing the debate. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that it seems entirely appropriate that this short debate takes place in advance of a two-day debate on Lords reform. It gives a quintessential illustration of the quality that this House can bring to a subject. It has been a great privilege to listen to the debate so far. The depth of experience among noble Lords has been impressive. I declare a modest interest as a patron president involved in certain charities.
I want to talk of my experience. As a Minister I had the responsibility of allocating funds to charities and voluntary bodies. It came as a slight shock sometimes to discover what was classified as a charity and the kind of people who were applying for funds. My noble friend referred to the "great bureaucracies". One got the impression from some of them that their main purpose was to keep themselves in employment and that public funds paid a major part in that achievement.
There has been a significant improvement in checking up on the amount of money used in the administration of some charities to try to ensure that the main body of funding goes to their objectives.
I am impressed by the work done by the Strategy Unit, which produced a very important document in connection with the debate, and the points that it made. It deals with the issue of bureaucracy. It deals also with the importance of need. I am inclined towards appointing an ombudsman, but I recognise that something needs to be done.
I saw one extreme example of how a charity can be misused during my time in Northern Ireland. I spent a great deal of time trying to tell decent god-fearing

527
Americans, who thought they were giving charitable funds towards helping decent god-fearing Irishmen, that in fact their funds were going straight into the procurement of weapons for terrorist activities. That is an extreme example, but it is a warning that unless there is proper control and monitoring of what happens, it is very easy for some of these charities to go badly off the rails.
It is particularly worrying because a substantial part of some charities' income comes from legacies and the donors are not in a very good position to ensure that the objectives are being properly observed.
I was interested that both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the RSPCA. I had some constituency involvement in that. I represented a constituency where the issues of hunting became quite strongly felt and in which the RSPCA were much involved. I had total support for the RSPCA. My understanding was that its objectives were to promote kindness and to prevent or suppress cruelty to animals. I became concerned to find that this admirable and long-established charity suddenly seemed to be taking a rather divergent path in certain areas. One noticed—rather parallel to some problems occurring in the Labour Party called "entryism"—that it seemed to have been infiltrated and, as I understand the current chairman, happy to be called Britain's leading animal rights activist.
We know that the animal rights connotation is rather different. Apparently, it was opposed to the keeping of pets and to animal husbandry. It is absolutely entitled to hold those views, but it is not entitled to receive donations from a lot of people on an entirely different agenda. Many pet owners are the biggest supporters of the RSPCA, which shows how far an organisation can diverge. It is certainly not entitled to receive tax relief.
This difficult subject illustrates, because it is the warning that must exist in many other areas in the charitable programme, that there needs to be better monitoring, whether by an ombudsman or by more active involvement of the Charity Commission, I certainly think that action needs to be taken.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for this "oh too brief" debate, and in four minutes I shall try to make a few useful points.
I was struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield—which were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen—that no clear case has been made for the ombudsman scheme for charities and that the Charity Commission might be given an additional remit to take up the slight vacuum that exists at present between the commissioners and the independent complaints reviewer.
One needs to proceed extremely cautiously before creating another piece of bureaucracy, however benign it is supposed to be and however much it is designed to help the sector. We forget at our peril that 99 per cent
528
of charities have no professional staff at all. Charities are the voluntary sector, which is astonishingly diverse. Comparisons with what is done in the private sector and reference to governance in the private sector are inappropriate in all but a few cases.
We should also bear in mind that a great deal of frustration is evident these days because of the rising tide of bureaucracy. Some of that was caused by the Charities Acts 1992 and 1993, but a great deal more is in the pipeline if the Strategy Unit's report is to be implemented, with its 31 proposals for new legislation. It is too easy for us, while being properly concerned with the tiny number of abuses and always wanting things to be better, to forget that sometimes, in trying to make things better, we make them worse.
With all the talk about better standards, trustee training, tests before people can become trustees and huge questionnaires to fill in and comply with before they can be registered, the evidence from the sector is that fewer and fewer people from what one used to call the lower classes are now thought fit to take their places as trustees of small charities. That is tragic. Many people now feel a sense of incompetence about doing the job of trustee. It is not a magic job. It requires knowledge of the problems, nearness to mother earth and compassion. That is one reason why I should proceed with the greatest caution towards a statutory scheme for an ombudsman.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, suggested that the Charity Commissioners should remain more the policeman and less the friend and advisor. I take issue with him on that; their dual role is essential to their balanced impact on the sector. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that there should be a better right to appeal. That is coming, if the Strategy Unit's proposal for a tribunal is implemented. Many people think that that would be an improvement.
I noted that a good deal of concern was expressed about the large charities engaged with hunting, such as the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. If the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, really think that an ombudsman would solve that problem, they should think again. Only if there was direct impropriety could such intervention take place.
If there is a membership battle royal, as some such charities have had, an ombudsman cannot come along, wave a little wand and say, "You have scored but they have not". It would be totally inappropriate for issues of policy, which are often keenly felt and strongly fought in membership charities, to be the subject of purported resolution by an outside referee called an ombudsman. Such things must work their way out organically and naturally.
So I do not rule out an ombudsman, but the case is not nearly proven. Much more work and consultation must take place before one could be established, bearing in mind that the independent complaints reviewer handled only 43 complaints in year one and 31 in the nine months to last August. As I said, it is not altogether out of the question to give the Charity Commissioners more scope.

529
Lastly, in this age of trustlessness, we should take note of the remarkable level of honesty, propriety and selflessness that continues to characterise the charity sector and be cautious about intruding on it.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I begin by joining other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Patten on having given us the chance to discuss this important matter and having laid out such a powerful case. That charities occupy a special place in all our minds is evidenced by the wide range of speakers from all parts of the House to whom we have had the pleasure of listening.
I have direct experience of establishing an ombudsman scheme, and there may be some read across to this debate. I was a founder director of the Securities and Investments Board, the first statutory financial regulator, and subsequently a director of the Securities and Futures Authority, which regulated City firms.
Although the main thrust of our work was to oversee firms, we received complaints from members of the public. Broadly speaking, the complaints could be seen as arising from three main areas: inadvertence, incompetence and malice aforethought. If there was malice aforethought—deliberate malfeasance—it was an issue for the regulator. The same applied, largely but not entirely, to incompetence. Such cases often required re-training, as opposed to punishment. Inadvertent errors were hardly part of the regulator's remit. "Errare humanum est", my Latin teacher used to tell me. That did not mean, however, that the individual concerned felt any less strongly about what had happened to him or her. It was out of that debate that the financial services ombudsmen were created. They have proved outstandingly successful.
What were the key elements in the success of the schemes? As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, they were quick. Taking too long a time meant that problems would fester. The systems were simple, non-legalistic and independent. As my noble friend Lord Patten said, the whitewash was always a danger. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, and to the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, that with an insider regulator, there is always that concern. Lastly, the schemes were cheap, in the sense that they were free to people who sought to complain. Sometimes, however, one wondered whether it would be better to have a small payment in order to deter the compulsive complainant.
Those are the powerful arguments in favour of an ombudsman. What were the points against? First, there was the problem of the interface with statute law, particularly as regards insurance and the vitiation of insurance. Many complainants look only for someone to say, "I'm sorry. We got it wrong". In the modern world, those are difficult words to utter because of the insurance implications. If someone admits a mistake and the complainant decides to sue, that person's indemnity insurance will almost certainly be nullified.
530
Secondly, there was the problem referred to by my noble friend Lord Mancroft—the "one size fits all" approach. The range in the scale of charities is vast, as was made clear in the Strategy Unit report. Can we devise a scheme that encompasses that range, without being too superficial, at one end of the scale, and too bureaucratic, at the other? Thirdly, finally and most importantly, many of the complaints to an ombudsman will come from the volunteers in the charities. They will have a close and, at times, emotion-packed relationship with the charity in question. Will they be prepared to accept the implications of an adverse decision by an ombudsman, no matter how reasonable or well founded?
I suspect that such points can be addressed in further debate. In the mean time, the House must be grateful to my noble friend for having initiated a discussion of this important aspect of an important sector of our national life. We look forward to hearing the Government's response.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I want to declare an interest that I failed to declare at the start of my speech. I am a solicitor in practice in the charity field and trustee of several charities.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in the approximately seven minutes left to me, I shall try to deal with what has been an excellent and important debate. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for initiating it. I should declare that I am a trustee of the Parliamentary Choir and a member of the RSPB.
The central question is the nature of the problem or problems. In one respect—perhaps in many—the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is right. We have about 19 ombudsmen, but none of them focuses specifically or solely on the charities themselves. That may be a problem, or it may not.
We have heard a lot about the RSPCA, the National Trust and the RSPB. I shall not go into details, as I am not knowledgeable about what has been happening in those organisations, but I mark a central issue with which we must engage. The Charity Commission looks into complaints about unconstitutional practice within charities, as well as breaches of charity law. Therefore, if any of those organisations appear to have acted in unconstitutional matters, it is rightly a matter for the Charity Commission to investigate. They have a power and locus to do so.
By comparison, ombudsmen are for complaints about poor administration causing harm or suffering to individuals. That is what they have always been, to date. I shall double-check, but I am sure that those are the terms of reference of the 19 ombudsmen that we have now. No doubt I shall reflect on this, but on first flush the complaints and issues raised concerning the RSPCA, the National Trust and the RSPB appear to fall into the first category—matters for the Charity Commission and whether there has been unconstitutional practice or not—rather than into the category of administration.

531
To put it another way, although I take no view whatever on the previous examples, it seems that charities are entitled to take up a policy position subject to it being within the terms of their constitution and n o doubt having had proper processes for reaching that position. Clearly, we shall need to reflect whether the examples which have been advanced fall within that ambit.
Although it may irk some members, the RSPCA can refuse membership to those who do not agree with its position. As I understand it, subject to that being legitimate in terms of charity law, a charity can exclude from membership people opposed to its policies. Again, those processes must be carried out fairly.
Where does this take us? First, we need to unpack the nature of the complaints we are discussing. Some complaints are clearly legitimate matters for the Charity Commission to investigate. Time does not allow rue to define their scope, but clearly it has power and locus for some of the issues raised.
Secondly, some complaints raised may get redress through other regulators—for example, through a whole range of bodies that regulate standards of conduct in public life. Again, time does not permit me to bore the House with more detail. There are a range of complaints which might be dealt with by other regulators in some cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is right in terms of his response to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. In essence, the Strategy Unit review recommends the creation of a tribunal for the purposes that he advanced. The Government are considering those recommendations as part of the whole consultation exercise that is coming to a conclusion.
Because we are debating ombudsmen, we should be concerned with issues of maladministration. The first question we should ask ourselves is: if there should be a case for an ombudsman to look at maladministration, not issues of policy with which we might or might not disagree, what are the options?
There are probably five options: a new charity ombudsman; to give the function to one of the existing ombudsmen; to extend the function of the Charity Commission; to extend the remit to the independent complaints reviewer; or to ask the charitable sector to set up its own ombudsman scheme. If a convincing case was made for the scale and volume of complaints, there could be pros and cons for each of those options.
There are other options available immediately. It is crucial that charities themselves have effective internal complaints procedures to deal with as many complaints as possible at source. That is a principle of basic good ombudsman procedure in the first instance. Clearly, trustees have a particular duty to act as long-stops in those processes and to take part in overseeing them.
My next point is that a range of existing ombudsmen also have scope over charities. The Local Government Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Health Service Ombudsman and the Independent Housing Ombudsman can all intervene in charities
532
when the charity is carrying out functions for local government, central government, in housing matters, and so forth. In certain circumstances, existing ombudsmen can investigate maladministration by a charity when it is carrying out functions for other bodies.
I cannot go into the debate concerning the Independent Housing Ombudsman because I have only one minute left. Clearly, that was a particularly interesting example. It was set up with the support of the sector. What is interesting about the housing ombudsman's role is the scale of the bodies we are discussing, dealing with 1.75 million tenanted dwellings a year and therefore a big service business.
I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on the point he made about grants. In conclusion, I shall instance where we would like to go forward on the matter. First, we have to obtain facts and evidence about the nature and scale of the problem. I say that in no criticism of the debate. We have to obtain some numbers in order to see the extent to which there are charities which are a legitimate discretion of the charity itself, although we might disagree with it. Secondly, we have to establish that they are legitimate and can be dealt with by the Charity Commission; thirdly, that other regulators can deal with the matter; and, fourthly, that other ombudsman can deal with it. When we have identified the scale of those categories, we are left with a fifth, which is the heart of the issue. How many are legitimate issues of potential maladministration which have no other home to go to? That is the nature of the reflections and analysis I shall be asking officials to undertake in conjunction with the Charity Commission.
In the light of those discussions and that analysis, which may take a period of time, I shall have further discussion on these issues and no doubt it will be a privilege to respond to questions from this House. In conclusion, I commend the House for the stimulus to government thinking that the debate has provided.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
9.12 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, after "services" insert "including information technology services"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. The purpose of these amendments is to make it clear that the appropriate services that should be provided for the effective work of the courts should include information technology services.
Lord Justice Auld, in Chapter 8, paragraph 93, of his review, made the point that:
"Modern information and communications technology could transform the ways in which each agency undertakes its separate function in the speed, reliability and efficiency with which data are processed and also in the manner of management of a prosecution from charge to disposal".
At paragraph 94, he states:
"That parts of the system are still, in the first decade of the 21st century, effectively relying,
"on manual systems to support some of their key tasks is a public disgrace.
At Second Reading, I listened with great care to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice. He said:
"Throughout England and Wales, courts are deprived of the technology which has been repeatedly promised and which should be at the heart of the civil justice reforms",
to which he had referred in the main body of his speech. He went on to paint a picture which will concern us all. He said:
"Those courts are struggling to provide an adequate service, relying on the loyalty of the judiciary and the staff. Whether they will be able to continue to achieve that is open to question".—[Official Report, 9/12/02; col. 28.]
Can the Minister therefore tell us where in the spending review of 2002 there is new money that is ring-fenced for the provision and development of IT in the civil justice system? I note that there is some new money on the criminal justice side, but even that seems to have been chopped. There is no money, it seems, for enabling applications, as they were called, despite the work undertaken on them.
The picture painted by a lawyer to me—I am very much the layman —was that a train set was going to be built without the engine or coaches. Is it not true that the current state of play is that even the criminal courts will be left with systems which are well past their sell-by date, such as CREST, and that there has been a scrabble to upgrade systems, such as XHIBIT, to do things they were never designed to do? That hardly smacks of efficient and effective guardianship of the system, which we are supposed to see in Clause 1, especially at a time when in the criminal justice system the Home Office legislation is adding to requirements for the use of IT systems; for example, in the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill which some Members of the Committee are suffering upstairs in Grand Committee. What consultations did the Lord Chancellor's Department have with the Home Office before clauses were inserted into the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill to extend the use of televisual links? What agreement has been reached about the resourcing of these?
What news does the Minister have of progress with Libra? I read the sorry story of this in the January edition of the Magistrate. Although I am no longer a magistrate, as a life member of the association I still receive the magazine. The Committee will be aware that Libra is an attempt by the Lord Chancellor's Department to develop case management and administration systems for England and Wales.
534
Apparently, the LCD cancelled the contract with its suppliers, Fujitsu, citing cost and timetable delays in developing new computer software. Can the Minister confirm that software development is now running nine months behind schedule and that the cost of the project is soaring? Has the LCD found a new developer for this software? If so, what is now the timetable for roll-out?
What reason can the Minister give the Committee for having confidence that IT can provide the method by which the criminal and justice communities can work together effectively under the provisions of the Bill? I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amendment is unnecessary. IT services will be included in the term "services". A reasonable interpretation of "appropriate services" includes information technology, and it is certainly our intention to provide such services.
Let me make a general point before I go on to deal with specific points. From both the start of the Committee stage and at Second Reading my strong feeling has been that all noble Lords wish to see the same kind of improvement and development. Whatever comments I may make in Committee, I wish to assure noble Lords that everything that is said will be taken into account and fully considered before we come back on Report. To do otherwise would not do justice to the import that everyone involved in the Bill wishes to achieve. I want to assure the Committee that we have that very much in mind.
The SR2002 funding settlement has been committed to the roll-out of a modern IT infrastructure across all Crown Court centres; the rollout of the LCD led, cross-CJS XHIBIT initiative, which uses modern technology to share, in real time, court hearing information across all in the criminal justice service who need to make use of it—the evaluation of the first pilot has shown very significant benefits across the CJS by allowing all the many parties involved in hearings to work more effectively together; and the roll-out of a national standard case management application across all magistrates' courts.
The noble Baroness asked whether this spending will be ring fenced. I can give her no such assurance. We are trying to ensure that all needs are fully met. A modern IT infrastructure has been rolled-out, through Libra, to more than 80 per cent of magistrates' courts, and this is on target for completion this year; work, which will be complete this year, is underway on the roll-out of prison to court video links to 30 of the largest Crown Court centres; and more than 50 per cent of all money claims through the civil courts are already issued electronically. So the Internet-based money claim on-line service, which has had a positive reception from many groups—including, for example, the Consumers' Association—allows all aspects of a money claim to be carried out on-line, all the way

535
through to the sending-in of bailiffs. Video links for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses are now installed and working in all Crown Court centres.
This is a very wide, comprehensive IT programme. We want to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that it responds to the new system that we hope will come into being as a result of the Courts Bill to make it more efficient and effective.
I know that reference has already been made to the use of the words "efficiency" and "effectiveness", but citizens of this country who go to the courts very much want to have an efficient and effective system that actually works. Those words are perfectly fine to describe the aspirations of what many individuals wish to see in terms of service provision.
Lord Renton: One always respects what the noble Baroness says, but we are dealing here with her description of "appropriate services". Is she prepared to say definitely that that would include information technology?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have said that it will include information technology. We want to develop the most appropriate services to meet the modern needs of courts. The noble Lord will know, for instance, that in the commercial court we have used IT extensively. We shall need to continue to do so, and to explore the use of IT more and more if we are to keep pace with competitors in the international market.
Lord Renton: That is how I understood the noble Baroness's opening remarks.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for her response, although I am somewhat disappointed with parts of it. I am grateful to her for saying that the Government will examine some or all of these matters seriously between Committee and Report. I shall certainly do so with regard to these amendments.
In response to my question about SR2002 with regard to ring-fenced money, the Minister said that no such assurance could be given because the Government wanted to ensure that all needs were met. I certainly wish to ensure that all needs are met. I believe that it can be done with ring-fenced money. The Minister did not answer my question in terms of directing me to where there is new money for this in the budget. Perhaps she will write to me on the matter between now and Report. She nods, and I am grateful to her for that.
I do not think that the Minister addressed all my questions on Libra. I shall read her replies carefully. Members of the Committee who have read the newspapers over the past months will have been concerned to see some of the loopholes in the provision of IT. My noble friend Lady Seccombe reminded me a moment ago of the issue at Peterborough court, where a case had to be adjourned to a magistrates' court where the IT was in place, whereas it was not in place in Peterborough court itself. There are indeed causes for
536
concern over IT in a world in which—the Minister is right—we have to show ourselves to be leaders. The judicial system must have credibility. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) For the avoidance of doubt, the report in subsection (4) shall include a report on the operation of the courts agency,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6.
As I pointed out at Second Reading, one of the biggest problems with the Bill is that many important matters are not written into it. We are being asked to write a blank cheque for the Lord Chancellor to do as he or she pleases at some future date.
So, although I can give a welcome to the objectives set out in Clause 1—although I believe that they need to be improved upon, as was explained earlier—I believe that a great deal is left out of the Bill that needs to be included in it before we cart possibly judge whether or not it will achieve the laudable objectives set out by the Government.
The most obvious example of the missing link is the failure to provide information about the courts agency which the Lord Chancellor intends to establish to take over the work of both the court services and the magistrates' courts.
I was grateful to the Minister for the letter that she was kind enough to write to Members of the Committee over the Christmas period. It was a lengthy letter and she had obviously applied a great deal of care and attention, as had her officials, to addressing as many of the questions as possible at that stage. I note that a couple of questions of mine were completely and utterly ignored. I have no problem with that. It means, of course, that I now have the greater opportunity to tease them out at a later stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House—be that as it may.
The Minister said in her letter that the Government would,
"publish guidelines as swiftly as possible after consultation".
The question we must ask is: will that be after the Bill has left this House? If the Minister can assure us that it will be before it leaves the House, that will be most welcome.
Amendment No. 5 simply requires an assurance from the Minister that the annual report will include a report on the operation of the courts agency. Without that, there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of the operation of the courts agency. Earlier this evening the Minister, in response to another group of amendments, indicated that the courts agency's operations would be within the operation of the report. So I hope that she can give us a straightforward assurance on those matters.
The new clause that I have set out in Amendment No. 6 tries to raise all the questions one might ask about how a courts agency will operate. I tried to fill the gaps that the Government have left and provided them with a clause listing as much as I can think of that a courts agency should do. The clause places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to set up a courts agency to cover the administration of all courts except the House of Lords. That reflects paragraph 1 of the note that the Government helpfully placed in the Library before Christmas. In the same vein, I have tried to follow through the Government's note to the House by paraphrasing or copying directly into the clause what they told us they would do. I hope that they find it acceptable.
So, from paragraph 5, I have copied the section on the chief executive, including in the clause that the Lord Chancellor can appoint a chief executive, and before doing so, consult those with the appropriate experience who may give him good advice. England and Wales will be divided up into areas managed by chief officers. They will work in partnership with the court administration councils, as set out in subsection (5). Subsection (6) states:
"Where there is a dispute over proposals to open, close or relocate court-houses, the issue shall be referred to the Lord Chancellor; and in resolving the dispute the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the views of the court administration councils".
That was pinched from paragraphs 21 to 23. I use the word "pinched" since the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is in his place, and I am trying to keep to straightforward language after his earlier treatise on the impenetrability of some words used by the Government in their drafting. I hope that what I have done so far represents good sense and good practice. Subsection (7) provides the obvious:
"The Lord Chancellor shall by order publish guidelines setting out the good governance principles under which the courts agency shall operate".
That was taken from paragraph 8 of the Government's document.
So, does the picture I have painted of the courts agency accord with what the Government think will happen? If not, what have I left out? Have I included something that they feel would not appropriately be the duty of the courts agency? If so, what is it?
I note that the letter the noble Baroness wrote to us over Christmas says that the new agency is non-statutory, and full details cannot be set out on the face of the statute. That is only because the Government have decided that is the case. Of course, I heed her words, so my amendment does not go into the detail of executive action or administration. What I have done, I hope, is set out wholly unobjectionable principles under which the Lord Chancellor and the courts agency shall act.
I do not see why any of this needs to wait until the Government have consulted on the detail of how the agency will operate. We could get the clause onto the face of the Bill now. If not, I look forward to a good
538
explanation from the Minister so that we can consider the matter between Committee and Report. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 6 is extremely important, and we on these Benches strongly support it. At present, we have magistrates' courts committees, which are statutory bodies. It is proposed that the administration of the magistrates' courts should now be turned over to the Court Service, reincarnated as the courts agency, which will have no statutory existence. That seems entirely wrong. Without any statutory reference to the courts agency, we have only half the picture. For instance, we now have the court administration councils. What will they do? We are told that the court administration council will liaise closely with the chief officer for the area for which it has responsibility. That chief officer will be part of the courts agency.
We are told that the court administration council will be consulted about what is to be done within the strategic plan for that area, but nothing in the Bill tells us by whom it is to be consulted. It merely says that it will advise and make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor—not, of course, to the people to whom it actually will make the recommendations.
We have nothing like the full picture here. We cannot have the full picture unless we have some statutory establishment of the courts agency. I see no reason why this should not be done. It is entirely a decision for the Government. It is perfectly practicable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has pointed out, to have a statutory authority for the operation of the courts agency. Without any statutory authority, we will end up with a situation as anomalous as having legislation for the collection of taxes that contains no reference to the Inland Revenue or legislation for the payment of benefits that contains no reference to the Benefits Agency.
If we are to have a Bill that properly provides for the administration of the courts, it should not simply pretend that the Lord Chancellor is doing it all on his own. We should give statutory recognition to the body that will be carrying out the duties that are nominally carried out by the Lord Chancellor. That body is the courts agency. For that reason, I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accepting the principle of the amendment, even if they do not accept the text of it.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I strongly support my noble friend on the Front Bench, particularly on Amendment No. 6. Last week in this Chamber we debated a report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform dealing with the problem of Henry VIII clauses. I took the opportunity of that debate to introduce the problem of skeleton Bills, which have almost no substance but create the power to legislate by regulation.
In this instance, we do not even have a skeleton. We know that there is to be a courts agency, but we know nothing about it. It does not exist in the Bill as drafted.

539
There is nothing to indicate what it is for, what it is to do or how it is to work. Last week I used the description, "flying blind with very few instruments". In this case we have no instruments at all. We know that there will be a situation, but we have no knowledge of what it will be. That is not in the best interests of the Government, of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or of this House. We should not pass legislation with that sort of lacuna in it. That is why I am happy to support my noble friend.
The courts agency should be mentioned on the face of the Bill. There should be some basic outline of its purposes and functions and how it is to work.
I hope that the Minister will find it possible at least to say that she will consider the principles of the amendment and whether they should be included in the Bill If she wishes to take a totally negative view of it, we would have to take that as an indicator of the Government's view as to the possibility of changing the Bill. However, it would be far better that the Bill should be amended to a satisfactory form by agreement than that "amateurs" on Opposition Benches, who are not parliamentary draftsmen, should put clauses into the Bill that may not be perfectly satisfactory.
The Bill is well intentioned, and I accept the intention, but there is not sufficient detail for us to pass a valid judgment on its acceptability and whether it will work. For that reason, the amendment should be supported.
Lord Waddington: It is a pity that the amendment should be debated so late in the evening. There is obviously a great deal to think about on the question of whether an agency such as the courts agency should have a statutory foundation. I freely concede that plenty of agencies have no statutory foundation, but that does not mean to say that we should follow that precedent now.
With regard to the terms of the amendment, most people would agree that chief officers of the agency should be responsible for delivery of service in a particular area, with a duty to work closely with the courts administration councils. So much concern has been ex pressed about the abolition of the courts committees and the substitution of merely advisory bodies that there must be a case, in this particular instance, for having some statutory foundation for the courts agency that would put a particular responsibility on that agency to work closely with the courts administration councils. The Lord Chancellor should also have a statutory duty to pay regard to the courts administration councils, for precisely the same reason— because they are thought by so many people to be a poor substitute for the magistrates' courts committees, which actually had administrative responsibilities.
As the noble Baroness must already fully understand, there is real concern about the disappearance of the magistrates' courts committees. There is a real risk that a courts agency that is not
540
accountable to a local courts committee will not have the local expertise and will not take advice from those who do.
The amendment is fully justified, although it may be said to be breaking new ground in giving some statutory foundation to the courts agency. It would allay the fears of so many people that public and local concerns will not always be taken into account by officials of an agency who may present themselves as being very remote, in the way in which the officials of magistrates' courts committees are not remote and clearly take account of local concerns.
Lord Borrie: Several of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has helpfully made are covered by Clause 5. Court administration councils will provide recommendations to the Lord Chancellor in relation to the various courts in,
"the area for which the council is established".
More importantly, from the noble Lord's point of view, the Lord Chancellor in discharging his duty must give due consideration to recommendations.
I do not have a very strong view on the amendment as such. However, this Bill does not seem very different from the many Bills we see which provide that, 'The Secretary of State shall do such and such", when in practice, as we all know, that means that, "The officials or executive agencies acting on behalf of the Secretary of State shall do such and such".
The Government have made it known that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor means to establish an executive courts agency. The duties which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has set out seem to me very reasonable and clear. I should be surprised if we learn from my noble friend the Minister that it is intended that they should be something entirely different.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: In our earlier debate, I noted that the Minister said that the Bill was not a centralising measure but—I think I heard this right—an opportunity to get real local engagement in the administration of the magistrates' courts. Would that it were so.
I disagree with my noble friend Lord Waddington only to the extent that he says that the amendment breaks new ground. I do not think that it does; I think that it is more accurately described as restoring already broken ground. We had local administration, and still have, in the magistrates' courts committees.
Lord Waddington: All I was saying is that to give statutory foundations to such an agency may be breaking new ground.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I accept that. However, the magistrates' courts committees which we currently have and which the Government find unsatisfactory do have statutory authority and backing. The courts agency is to be purely advisory. We do not know, and we are not told because it is to be non-statutory, anything about how it will work or who will be on it.

541
As the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees pointed out, that is a circular argument. Having decided that the courts agency is to be non-statutory, the Government then say, "Because it is non-statutory, we cannot include on the face of the Bill how it will work, what its composition will be, what its powers will be and so on". The answer to that is that it does not need to be non-statutory.
This may be regarded as heresy on my Front Bench, but still I shall say it. From time to time I have admired the present Government's commitment to transparency and to local devolvement of power. However, it is anything but transparent to treat the powers of the courts agency that they are about to create as non-statutory and to say, "Not even during the Bill's passage through Parliament shall we vouchsafe what its powers will be". As to local devolution of power, exactly the reverse is being achieved by getting rid of the magistrates' courts committees—which are locally based, locally empowered and locally legitimated—and replacing them with this shadowy substance.
I strongly support what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said in support of Amendment No. 6. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will at least undertake to consider the thrust of the argument. I do not think that anyone is saying that the wording is necessarily perfect, but it is a vehicle for a thought and a concept which seem to me to be entirely valid.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In the debate on Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he had placed in the Library,
"a statement on the principles that will form the basis of the agencies framework document".—[Official Report, 9/12/02; col. 15.]
One therefore turns to that document to see whether there is any clarity in it. Far from there being clarity, it is full of precisely the verbiage and jargon about which I was complaining earlier. One favourable view of all this guff is that it covers muddled thinking and indecision. An unfavourable view is that it conceals the Government's intention in regard to the question that we are discussing at the moment; that is, to what degree will the agency be accountable to local views and to local democracy in any way?
The statement of principles that I have before me states:
"Local areas will be managed by agency chief officers, responsible for the delivery of services in their area. They will work in partnership with the Court Administration Councils, which will bring magistrates, judges and representatives of the local community, and people with knowledge of the court system to the table, to ensure that the agency is focussed on its customers and is meeting local needs".
What nonsense that is. What table? What customers? What is the relationship to be? I continue:
"We are clear about the key features the agency must have—clear lines of accountability for performance through ministers to Parliament; but with a strong local element—delegation to the frontline, local accountability and flexibility. We made a commitment in the White Paper to producing a blueprint in partnership with our stakeholders".
542
Where did this language come from? I continue:
"That work on the detailed design has started, and involves staff drawn from the Court Service and the magistrates' courts, the judiciary and stakeholders from the magistrates' courts community".
I have never heard of the magistrates' courts community in my life. I have heard of other communities but never that one. It suggests an idea of all the magistrates' courts clustering together to exchange views. That is just a load of nonsense.
In answer to my earlier question, the noble Baroness mentioned magistrates and the judiciary in connection with the term "stakeholders". But who are the stakeholders? I repeat that question. Can we please have a clear statement of what the agency is to do and how it is to work with local people and can we please have that placed upon the face of the Bill?
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: First, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for not answering in my letter of December two of the issues that she raised. I must confess that I did not notice that we had left out anything. No discourtesy was intended. I am sure that we shall now trawl again to establish the lacunae and seek to plug them.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I do not wish to impose further trawling on the Minister and her officials. I shall contact her office tomorrow to let her know which of my amendments already tabled cover those lacunae.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am most grateful. We had hoped to be able to assist noble Lords by that letter and cover the points that had been raised.
I hope also that Members of the Committee will have received a copy of my letter dated 17th January in which I set out, with what I hoped was a degree of clarity, the reasons and need for change, how the proposals were developed, comments about the court administration councils and the alternatives that have been raised, the role of the magistracy in the justice system and consultation. I respectfully invite the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to that letter in which I set out who the local stakeholders are and those who will be consulted.
Of course, I heard what the noble Lord said in his charming way about guff and nonsense. If I may respectfully say so, the document is neither guff nor nonsense. The provisions are serious stuff indeed for the people who will be subject to them. It is our hope and aspiration that those who will work with us in partnership, and who have worked with us in partnership, will see the fruits of their labour. It does not befit any of us in this Chamber to deride or decry that partnership. Partnership is what it means; that is, working together with the groups who come before the courts, citizens advice bureaux, all those who work in the courts and courts' users by whom I mean representative groups together with members of the judiciary, members of the magistracy, members of the legal profession and all of those who regularly use the

543
courts. It is their view on which we have had the privilege to rely, to try to fashion something of utility for the citizens of our country. I would not describe it as guff.
I shall speak to the amendment with which we are seized this evening. Consistent with our intention to establish an executive agency to carry out the day-to-day running of the courts, the annual report of that agency will be laid before Parliament to satisfy the requirement in the clause. The annual report will give information about the business of all the courts, and will for the first time present performance information about the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in a single annual report, available for public and parliamentary scrutiny. It will also include corporate information about the agency itself.
I shall reiterate the point to reassure the noble Baroness about our intentions. I hope that she will find that the amendment will not be necessary. The clause is in line with Section 1(12) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which currently requires the Lord Chancellor to report on the business of the courts, and under which the Court Service annual report is laid before Parliament.
I commend the comments made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. If I may respectfully say so, he was absolutely right in how he responded to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in terms of Amendment No. 6, to which I shall move.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. It captures accurately the arrangements that we intend to establish by administrative means. I do not object at all to her pinching them from our letters, which simply shows that we are of one mind. An executive agency will be headed by a chief executive, who will be accountable to the Lord Chancellor for the day-to-day running of the court administration. Local chief officers in each management area are I o work in partnership with the local court administration council. For the avoidance of doubt, when I say partnership I mean working together and listening to one another. There will be clear procedures for making decisions about the court estate, decisions that are so important to users of the courts, and published guidelines will set out the requirements of good governance.
We agree, therefore, with the spirit of the amendment, but we do not believe that the details are necessary, or appropriate in primary legislation. If, however, Members of the Committee require further reassurance, we will give further consideration as to how that might be provided. We would, for example, be happy to debate the arrangements for the new agency when they have been developed further, if parliamentary time allows.
Let me comment on each subsection in turn. First, I shall deal with the obligation to establish an agency. Executive agencies are not creatures of statute. We have 127 UK agencies, none of which is a creature of statute. For instance, National Savings, Wilton Park conference centre, the Debt Management Office and the Benefits Agency—an agency of some considerable
544
size—are not based in statute. A statute-based agency would depart not in a small way, but very greatly from all common practice. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was himself doubtless responsible for setting up many of those agencies. What he said about the fact that we will be departing from common practice was well said.
When such agencies act, there is in law no delegation because the official's act or decision is constitutionally that of a Minister—the Carltona doctrine, as it is known. That is why the duty to give clue consideration to the views of councils is imposed in Clause 5 on the Lord Chancellor, although in practice, as I have explained, councils will work, as other Members of the Committee said, with local civil servants.
The new agency will be headed by a chief executive—a civil servant—who will be accountable to the Lord Chancellor for the performance of the agency. The amendment requires that the Lord Chancellor consults with persons having appropriate knowledge of the work of the courts before appointing a chief executive. There are established procedures for the appointment of senior civil servants which include consultation with interested parties. The appointment will also be governed by the Civil Service Commissioners' Rules, which require that a commissioner sit on the selection panel.
The amendment requires that agency chief officers be appointed to manage the courts in local areas and that those chief officers should be under a duty to work in partnership with the court administration councils. Local chief officers will, under Carltona, be under the same obligation as the Lord Chancellor: to give due consideration to the recommendations of the councils. In practice, they will work in partnership with them but—
Lord Renton: I apologise for interrupting but this is an important matter. Will those officers have any statutory obligations among their duties?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There will be guidance about how those officers will work, which will be developed. I cannot say that that guidance will be prepared before the Bill leaves the House but we could make further clarificatory statements in light of the partial consultation.
Those Members of the Committee who had the advantage of reading the letter and seeing the consultation that I outlined on page 4 will see that local consultation will be a key part of the overall consultation process. The process starts in earnest with a series of one-day discussion groups that the Lord Chancellor's Department has arranged across the country. Those groups will explore what a unified administration means and the administration in their part of the country, and representatives of courts users, the local magistracy—including MCC members—the judiciary and court staff will be invited to attend. The groups will consider issues such as how an appropriate local focus can be achieved on the councils. All of that consultation will go on but the

545
guidance that we will provide and its detail will await the outcome of those broad consultations. Our intent is to get it right so that it works.
I respectfully say that we will get it right only if we listen to local people, local agencies, local magistrates and local judges to find out from them what is right for them as opposed to what is right for us—those of us sitting in Whitehall or elsewhere.
Lord Goodhart: Does the Minister appreciate that the matter that concerns both Opposition parties is that the role of the court administration councils in the Bill is extremely weak? That is a matter of deep concern. We are told that the role of the court administration councils would be much more significant than it appears in the Bill and that they will be involved through partnership with the local chief officer in the way in which the administration of justice is carried out in their area. However, unless there is something in the Bill that explains that—one cannot explain it without reference to the courts agency—we will end up in the current position; that is, that the role that the Government intend the court administration councils to play is quite different from that given to them by statute.
10 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord says about the anxieties and about the need for clarity. An issue arises as to how we deal with that without, if I may respectfully say so, burdening the statute, which puts in place a rigid system that we would find difficult to use flexibly in the way that different local needs would demand.
I understand the Committee's concern on this matter. We are anxious to see what, if anything, can be done to ensure that whatever guidance and so on is produced gives voice to that concern. Therefore, I reiterate what I said earlier: we shall listen carefully to everything said during the Committee stage about this and other issues to see how we can assuage the concerns that are genuinely held by a number of Members of the Committee.
In practice, we shall have to deduce how the partnership will work. But the partnership will be created not by regulation but through the proper management of the organisation, its aims and objectives, its vision and its values and the training that it provides for staff.
We have already made clear that the court estate is a key area in which the Lord Chancellor will welcome recommendations from the council. He will, as required by Clause 5, give them due consideration. I believe that the amendment goes no further than that.
The agency framework document is the established means of setting out the agency's governance arrangements. It is a methodology that has proved its value in relation to the 127 other agencies that currently exist. There is no reason to believe that it will not be equally efficacious on this occasion.
546
As I said, I understand the Committee's concern to know more about the new agency at this stage. I have undertaken to make available further information as soon as possible. However, it is essential that the new organisation is developed with the involvement of our stakeholders—for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I say in parenthesis that those are all the people to whom I referred in my answer earlier—and anyone else who has a genuine interest in the courts and therefore a stake in the administration of them. Those conversations will be most important.
We have developed a series of events which are taking place between January and April to discuss these outstanding issues with the various parties. Those events will help us to develop a clearer picture of how the agency will be organised locally and nationally. I cannot emphasise how important—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has emphasised several times, in writing and in the House, that the Government are out to listen during the consultation period. What would happen if the consultees told the Government that they wanted the type of changes made to the Bill that are in this series of amendments?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As mentioned earlier, in deciding what we wish to achieve we have to take on board the recommendations made by Lord Justice Auld. Therefore, if, for example, the consultees said, "Actually, we want no change. We don't want a merging of the administration of the courts in the way that everyone has defined as being the best for the people of this country", it is unlikely that that would sway the Government to reject Lord Justice Auld's recommendations and to reject the comments made to us by many people who have to operate the system and who say that the system is crying out for unification.
However, we shall of course take into account decisions concerning how the local areas should be managed, what size the councils should be, whether there should be consultative groups, what the structure should be, what the function should be and whether there should be a variation for urban, rural, semi-urban, semi-rural or suburban areas. We wish to have a unified system which for the first time deals not only with magistrates' courts—as important as they undoubtedly are—but brings the magistracy and the magistrates' courts into the wider family. In that way, the criminal, family and civil courts will work together in union for the benefit of the people of their area. That will give us locally delivered solutions for local people. We do not have that local element in the way we would aspire to have it right the way across the board. This is our opportunity to do that, and we shall do that by listening.
10 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: When the noble Baroness admonishes me I feel like a recalcitrant pupil in the primary class. She explained much of the wording contained in the principles, as I would expect of her. However, I hope she does not think me cheeky if I ask

547
her a specific question, which is related to the amendment. Let us suppose that there is a dispute between the local area manager after he has been consulting at the table with the courts administration council about the opening, closing or relocation of court houses. What happens then?
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, relied upon Clause 5. However, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart pointed out, the only power which the court administration council has on the face of the Bill in this area is to provide the Lord Chancellor with recommendations about how he should discharge his general duty in relation to various matters. What happens if there is a specific clash?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We hope to fashion an appeals structure so that everyone within that system knows what happens if there is a clash between any two parties. That is essential. At present there is not a proper dispute resolution procedure. In normal circumstances the chief officers and councils will work in partnership. None the less, provision needs to be made for the situation described by the noble Lord: a difference of opinion between the local chief officer and the council on key issues. In those exceptional circumstances the issue will be referred to the chief executive for resolution. Important issues that cannot be resolved in that way will be a matter for the Lord Chancellor, who must give due consideration to the recommendation of the council.
We hope that we shall have a greater degree of clarity than there is at present as to what happens when there is a dispute. Unfortunately, at present when there is a dispute it is difficult to get resolution. We believe that this new structure will be able to solve a number of the problems with which magistrates and magistrates' courts committees currently struggle but which are difficult to deal with because there are not the necessary instruments to resolve them. We hope modestly to present them with a cure to those problems by the new structure.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The noble Baroness is as charming as ever and has shown that she is prepared to listen. We are not surprised at that but are grateful for it. She has shown that she recognises the validity of many of the concerns which we on this side of the Committee have tried to express. I wonder whether she would take another opportunity to demonstrate the same willingness to listen and to express an understanding of our concern. She said that she wants the magistrates to join the whole judicial family. I do not recognise that they feel excluded from that family at present. After all, they deal with 93 per cent of all criminal cases. They sit in the Crown Court to advise recorders and, I believe, Crown Court judges too, upon matters of sentencing. They are made much of, very properly, by visiting red judges. I do not think that they feel excluded.
One of the reasons they feel valued and esteemed is that under our present system they are accorded a substantial measure of self-government under the magistrates' courts committees. What will happen
548
now? We know that those committees are going and we know that the courts agency will appoint its local managers and that they will be answerable to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and will receive directions from him. What bugs some of us is that the Government have indicated some form of court advisory council involvement in the appointment of local managers. The arrangements then go on to say that this may not be practicable for initial appointments. Yet it is the initial appointments that will have quite disproportionate influence on the developing culture of these arrangements. Will the Minister think about how to overcome that matter?
The provisions of the Bill, which set up the CACs, might come into force before the provisions for the local managers. That would enable the CACs to express an opinion on who should be appointed as an area manager, and have that opinion taken seriously into consideration. Perhaps the Minister will think about that important aspect of these arrangements.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall certainly think about that matter. It is because the magistrates have such a powerful voice in the magistrates' courts that we want that voice to be heard more widely. The noble and learned Lord will know that they are part of the system, not just for the criminal courts but also for the family and other jurisdictions. There are many problems that do not stop at the magistrates' court; they go on to be heard in county and Crown Courts. We need just as clearly to hear the magistrates' courts' voice in those courts because the magistrates deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis.
In order to have a joined-up system we have to encourage the whole of the judiciary, which includes the magistracy, to come together so that they can listen to one another and, it is to be hoped, speak with one voice at the local level. I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord that the magistrates should not feel locked out; but I must say to him most respectfully that I should like to lock them in a bit further.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Because of the lateness of the hour perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I do not do proper justice to their contributions. I first put on the record that the Minister has satisfied me as regards Amendment No. 5. I shall not be returning to that matter.
The mainstay of the argument was on this crucial matter of the courts agency. I did bear very much in mind throughout the debate the point made by my noble friend Lord Waddington that of course it is the principal statutory foundation that really is at the core of the debate. At this stage it is clear that some Members of the Committee on this side and perhaps one or two on the other side occasionally too, have a difference of view on this matter of principle, given that we are moving into uncharted waters.
There is only one matter to which I shall refer at this late stage. The Minister has kindly said that she will look more carefully at the debate and the concerns

549
expressed by noble Lords and whether further clarification may be achieved. I am not sure that we can overcome our difference of principle, in particular because I was concerned about the Minister's reference to the nature of consultation about guidelines.
The Minister's definition of "consultation" is interesting. It seemed to be that, having talked to everyone, if they said something with which the Government did not agree or which was not in the Auld report, they would not accept it. The noble Baroness said they would choose Auld. I remind the Minister that the Government have not taken everything from the Auld report and put it in this Bill or indeed in the Criminal Justice Bill.
550
I shall look carefully at her words today. I shall consult further with those who have advised me from the real world, perhaps outside this Chamber and I shall return with a more carefully reasoned amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.

  UK Diplomatic Missions: Shared Facilities
  UK Diplomatic Missions: Shared Facilities
  Burglaries
  Burglaries
  Metropolitan Police Recruits
  Metropolitan Police Recruits
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Prisoners: Training for Employment on Release
  Prisoners: Training for Employment on Release
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 Review
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 Review
  Animals in Scientific Procedures
  Animals in Scientific Procedures
  Commission for Racial Equality: Appointment of Chairman
  Commission for Racial Equality: Appointment of Chairman
  World War Debts to US
  World War Debts to US
  Building and Roofing Industry: Insurance
  Building and Roofing Industry: Insurance
  Small Arms and Light Weapons: Export Control
  Small Arms and Light Weapons: Export Control
  North Sea Fishing
  North Sea Fishing
  Rural Transport Partnership Projects
  Rural Transport Partnership Projects
  Horticultural Research International
  Horticultural Research International
  Passive Smoking: Local Authority Guidance
  Passive Smoking: Local Authority Guidance
  Pensions Commission
  Pensions Commission
  Infectious Diseases: Welsh Strategy
  Infectious Diseases: Welsh Strategy
  NHS Revenue Resource Allocation
  NHS Revenue Resource Allocation
  Anthrax Vaccine
  Anthrax Vaccine
  Smoking-related Diseases
  Smoking-related Diseases
  vCJD
  vCJD
  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland National Museums and Galleries
  Northern Ireland National Museums and Galleries