Sitting of 27 January 2003

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

    Iraq
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What recent representations he has made to EU Defence Ministers regarding Iraq.[93168]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Before answering this question, I should be grateful for the House's permission to pay a brief tribute to one of my distinguished predecessors, Viscount Younger of Leckie, who died yesterday. George Younger was a well-liked and respected Member of this House for 28 years from 1964 to 1992. He served as Secretary of State for Scotland between 1979 and 1986 and was Secretary of State for Defence between 1986 and 1989. I am sure that the House will join me in sending our sincere sympathies to Lady Younger and other members of his family.
    I have discussed Iraq in the context of talks on a range of defence issues with a number of European counterparts. In particular, I met my French and German counterparts last November and my Italian counterpart earlier this month.
    Mr. Swayne: I thank the Secretary of State for his gracious words about Lord Younger.
    Given the different views that are now clearly emerging in European capitals, which are reinforced by the remarks of Mr. Solana, are not the emphasis and policy so different as to make nonsense of a common European defence policy?
    Mr. Hoon: I am not sure that I agree that there are such different views. The only country that has specifically ruled out the use of military force is Germany. There was an agreement at the Copenhagen summit to support United Nations resolution 1441, and I anticipate that at its meeting today the General Affairs and External Relations Council will again issue a unanimous declaration supporting resolution 1441, making it clear to the Iraqi Government that they have
    548
    a final opportunity to resolve the crisis peacefully. I do not detect the disunity that may be implied by the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that Britain's position is, far from being in the mainstream, quite isolated from the rest of European opinion, that nobody in Europe believes that resolution 1441 gives authority to take military action and that the overwhelming majority of public opinion in this country and throughout Europe is strongly against military action? Will he confirm that there is no question whatever of Britain, alongside the United States, taking unilateral action to attack Iraq and that instead he will listen to the voices of reason and peace that are so loud in Britain, Europe and the United States?
    Mr. Hoon: I believe that I have already answered the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I simply do not accept that Britain is isolated; moreover, in all the meetings and discussions that I have had with European counterparts there is a consistency of view about the need to ensure that Security Council resolution 1441 is implemented. If my hon. Friend looks at the terms of the resolution, he will see that it calls for further discussion by the Security Council before any further action is taken, and that is precisely the British Government's view.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: In wishing the Secretary of State well at this very difficult time, may I ask how many of his counterparts in the European Union have said that they would be prepared to place forces at the disposal of a coalition against Saddam Hussein?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not believe that all countries have yet made that announcement. They are all determined, as we are, to seek a political and diplomatic solution to the problem before resorting to military force. I refer hon. Members to the recent statement by President Chirac of France in which he said that it was necessary for French forces to be ready for any eventuality.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Did the Secretary of State discuss with Ministers the Pentagon battle plan "Shock and Awe", which in the words of the US military strategist Harlan Ullman would have a Hiroshima effect and take down the city, presumably killing thousands and cutting water and power? Is not such a plan a war crime, and will the Secretary of State tell his friends in the White House that we will have nothing to do with such barbarity?
    Mr. Hoon: As I have indicated to my hon. Friend on previous occasions very recently, no decisions have been taken about military force. Clearly there have been decisions about the contingencies necessary, and I hope that she agrees that it is necessary clearly to indicate our willingness to use force in order to support the diplomatic and political process at the United Nations, which is supported by this Government.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Given the widespread anxiety among people who are perfectly willing to be persuaded that there is a case for war against Saddam

    549
    Hussein, will the UN weapons inspectors, if they ask for more time to carry out their inspections, be given that time, and if so, how much more time will they be given? Who will decide how much more time they should be given?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman is patient and waits a few more minutes, the initial report by the weapons inspectors will be made to the United Nations Security Council in New York. We will be in a much clearer position to answer his questions when we see the nature of that report.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I first thank the Secretary of State for his extremely kind words about Lord Younger of Leckie, who was not only an esteemed statesman, but a great friend of many Conservative Members? The right hon. Gentleman's words will be of great comfort to Lord Younger's family.
    I question what the Secretary of State calls unity in the European Union on the matter of Iraq. Does he agree that the only person who gains from the present disunity is the dictator Saddam Hussein? No Government have done so much to sell the idea of a common EU defence than this one, but Europe is clearly more divided than ever. As he reads the words of the EU high representative attacking the Government's policy, does he agree with the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, that that is the old Europe speaking, or is it, indeed, the new Europe, which is more divided from the US than ever?
    Mr. Hoon: Again, I have dealt with unity. On one factual matter, however, the hon. Gentleman should look at the signature at the end of the Maastricht treaty, which first gave expression to the concept of developing European defence. To the best of my recollection, that was signed by a Conservative Prime Minister, presumably supported at the time by both a Conservative Foreign Minister and a Conservative Defence Secretary. He should have regard to that as a matter of historic record. However, I agree to the extent that it is important that there should be unity of purpose, as demonstrated by the unanimous vote of the UN Security Council on resolution 1441 and the Copenhagen European Council. I am sure that it will also be demonstrated by the General Affairs and External Relations Council today. All those bodies have given consistent support to the agreed international position adopted by all countries.
    Mr. Jenkin: I think that President Chirac would be surprised to hear that the Government believe that Europe is speaking with one voice on the issue. The Government clearly said this morning that Iraq's failure to make a full declaration in December and its failure actively to co-operate with the weapons inspectors is a material breach of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which says that serious consequences must follow. Even if we cannot get unity in Europe, is that the view of the whole Cabinet? Will the International Development Secretary express that view and stick to it when she appears before the House of Commons on Thursday?
    550
    How can the Government expect to win public support for their policy if there is any doubt that the Cabinet is united?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility to which all Cabinet members subscribe. I have no difficulty in pressing on him the various constitutional law text books that I used to read. I can even give him an old tutorial paper if he wishes to study the detail.
    On unity, I will not upset the hon. Gentleman further by quoting President Chirac again, but the President has made it clear to French forces that they need to be ready for military action should that be decided by the French Government. That is precisely the position of the British Government. If British forces are needed, they will be available to support the will of the international community.
    Paul Flynn: Whether he intends to amend the information, which he provided for the dossier on Iraq published on 24 September 2002.[93169]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The British Government's assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, published on 24 September 2002, was based on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee. The dossier provides a detailed assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, including chemical and biological weapons, as well as efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. There are no current plans to amend it.
    Paul Flynn: So much for the value of British intelligence. All the sites mentioned in the dossier have been visited by UN and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. The Government say that they have discovered no signs of any weapons of mass destruction and no evidence that those sites were ever used for their production. We also know that on the day on which the report was published, journalists visited the sites and found some of them derelict and the others used for benign purposes. Is it not crazy that the House took that piece of evidence from the Government in good faith, because we now know that it was a piece of vacuous propaganda? Would it not be greater folly if we continue to trust the intelligence that we have and make up more fairy stories about the threat from Iraq, so sending our soldiers to kill and be killed on the basis of further falsehoods?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend appears willing to believe the Iraqi Government before his own Government. It is perfectly likely that since the publication of the dossier of weapons of mass destruction the Iraqi Government have moved large quantities of material. Indeed, there is already some evidence of that. Before reaching the conclusions that my hon. Friend appears to have reached, he should at least have assessed the probability that Saddam Hussein has not co-operated entirely with the weapons inspectors—a matter that, I anticipate, they will make clear in the weeks ahead.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Defence Secretary take the opportunity to reissue that dossier,

    551
    fully taking into account the assessment of Hans Blix and the Security Council, and will he add to it his own assessment of the humanitarian cost and the cost to the civilian infrastructure of a war in Iraq so that people of this country can decide whether they support such an effort?
    Mr. Hoon: Of course, since the publication of the dossier, a United Nations Security Council resolution has been passed authorising the weapons inspectors to go about the task of investigating the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction, so it would not make sense at this stage to attempt to duplicate their work. They are doing that work on behalf of the international community and we support their efforts very strongly.
    Mr. Bill Olner: Does my right hon. Friend not connect the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein now has with the weapons of mass destruction that we know he used against his own people in the past?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, one of the significant omissions from Iraq's declaration before Christmas concerned its failure to account for large amounts of chemical and biological equipment recorded by UNSCOM way back in 1998. It has made no effort whatsoever to explain to the world what has happened to those items and, indeed, to a range of other materials that clearly fall into the category of weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. James Gray: The Government have produced a dossier on weapons of mass destruction, and have produced a separate dossier on human rights abuses in Iraq. The third string in their justification for what is happening at the moment is the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups, particularly al-Qaeda. Will the Secretary of State produce a dossier laying out precisely what those links are, as some people believe them to be a little thin?
    Mr. Hoon: We are aware that there are well-established links between the Iraqi regime and terrorist organisations. The links with al-Qaeda are much less strong, as I have made clear to the House over a period of time, and certainly the case for a connection with the events of 11 September 2001 is not at all persuasive. Nevertheless, it clearly can be argued that Saddam Hussein has consistently supported terrorist groups. Part of the concern, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the other day, is that at some stage his weapons of mass destruction may fall into the hands of terrorist groups willing to use them.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: One of the moral justifications given by Britain and the United States for contemplating war against Iraq in 2003 is that in the 1980s Saddam used chemical weapons obtained from us and other major powers against the Iraqi people. Is speculation that we may use nuclear weapons against the Iraqi people designed to demonstrate our moral or our military superiority?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend proceeds on a wholly false basis. The use of force against Iraq would be in support
    552
    of an agreed United Nations position once there had been a discussion in the UN Security Council on the proper course of action. I want to make it clear to my hon. Friend that efforts to bring Iraq into line are efforts of the international community—something with which I would have expected him strongly to agree.

    Defence Capabilities Initiative
    Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to NATO's defence capabilities initiative.[93170]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The United Kingdom has long supported and worked towards the improvement of NATO's capabilities. We have a good record among allies for implementing improvements related to NATO's defence capabilities initiative, and have made a significant contribution to the Prague capabilities commitment—a new initiative launched at the summit in November.
    Mike Gapes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that a world where one country spends the equivalent on defence of that spent by the next 15 added together is not entirely healthy? Does he agree that the best way that Europeans, particularly countries such as Germany, can exert more weight in current debates is not to cut their defence spending but to make a greater contribution to the collective defence of NATO, so that the European collective voice is backed up by capabilities and we are not always dependent on one hyperpower?
    Mr. Ingram: I agree with the general thrust of that question. Given this country's commitment to a substantial increase in our defence budget, we are setting standards that—hopefully—our European neighbours and allies will follow. To improve the capabilities set out in the various initiatives—whether that be the NATO capabilities initiative or one in the European Union—requires expenditure, but that must be properly targeted to deliver the broad range of capabilities that we desire.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister take this opportunity to set right a no doubt inadvertent error made by the Secretary of State at the previous Defence Question Time? In answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on the percentage of gross domestic product spent on defence, the Secretary of State said:
    "There were periods during the Conservatives' control of defence when the percentage was higher, but equally there were periods when it was lower."—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 4.]
    The House of Commons Library has published figures showing that the percentage is now much lower than at any time since the 1930s, and we are on the brink of a major war. Will the Minister please set the record straight?
    Mr. Ingram: I will study what the House of Commons Library has said and write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the decision taken in Prague to set up the NATO response force was indeed to make NATO more effective in changed circumstances. Does he believe, however, that decisions on that force acting out of area will be made by NATO and beyond the diktat of the United States?
    Mr. Ingram: NATO operates as a collaborative partnership; it can succeed only on that basis. That is why, increasingly, effort has been put into ensuring that capabilities are lifted progressively, so that we can deliver on the key objectives. As the contributions made by NATO allies will be part of that collaborative whole, the international response to any threat will be one that I know my hon. Friend would always want. That is clearly NATO's underlying principle, and one to which the Government strongly adhere.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: May I associate myself with the Secretary of State's comments about Viscount Leckie? When he was George Younger, I worked with him as a special adviser at the Ministry of Defence. He worked tirelessly on behalf of the armed forces, and the Secretary of State's comments will be much appreciated.
    We all agree that it is very important in any multinational military operation that any casualties from so-called friendly fire are prevented. Concern has been expressed by retired and serving soldiers that UK armed forces deployed to the Gulf do not yet have credible electronic identification friend or foe equipment. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) during last Monday's statement on Iraq: Further Contingency Preparations, the Secretary of State said:
    "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."—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 37.]
    Will the Minister tell the House whether that equipment is being procured from Britain, America or some other NATO country? Secondly and most importantly, when does he expect our equipment to be operationally effective with IFF in the next few weeks?
    Mr. Ingram: We are currently involved in a procurement process to enhance the technical capability of our equipment, but the matter is much more profound and complex than that. There is a range of other issues that need to be addressed. That procurement is not a matter that we discuss openly, nor do we clearly identify the equipment that we are putting in place. I know that the hon. Gentleman would expect such a rule to be rigorously applied. We do not divulge all our technical capabilities, for very obvious reasons.

    Iraq
    Dr. Nick Palmer: What assessment he has made of the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq. [93171]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We maintain regular contact with UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency about the
    554
    progress of inspections. Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei will be reporting to the United Nations Security Council later today. Dr. Blix had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 January at which he told the Prime Minister that, although the inspectors had encountered no direct obstruction in carrying out their tasks, the onus was on Iraq to be more proactive in its co-operation.
    Dr. Palmer: Polls consistently show that two thirds of the public are prepared to support the Government in military action if the inspectors report consistent obstruction and the Security Council endorses that. I have had that view confirmed by my own constituency poll. However, there is widespread concern that we will plunge in, regardless. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the inspectors ask today for more time to reach a conclusion, most people would want Britain strongly to support that request?
    Mr. Hoon: As I indicated to the House earlier, it is probably best that we should wait the relatively short time before Dr. Blix reports to the United Nations Security Council to see what, if any, requests he makes. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, namely, that the inspectors have
    "got to be given the time to do the job".
    That is the British Government's position. We want to see them complete the task set out by the Security Council, but we want them also to be allowed to carry out that task by the Government in Iraq.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the words of condolence to the family of Lord Younger. Does the Secretary of State agree that the weapons inspectors must be given the time to perform their tasks, and that it should be the United Nations, after listening to Dr. Blix, that should decide on the timing of such inspections? It was the strong view of many members of the armed forces whom I met last week in Kuwait, that any force should be UN-authorised, and that although there are concerns about climatic conditions in the Gulf, it should be the UN, not the weather, that determines the timing of any conflict. Can the Secretary of State confirm that British forces remain under US Centcom command and will stay under Centcom command if hostilities break out? What plans are there to redirect or withdraw British forces, should the US engage in military action in which the UK does not participate?
    Mr. Hoon: I would have been much happier with the hon. Gentleman's question if he had said not that the weapons inspectors require more time, but that they require to see disarmament. That is central to the United Nations Security Council resolution, around which there was a unanimous view on the part of the Security Council. We want to see the Government of Iraq accepting their responsibilities to disarm under Security Council resolution 1441. That is the position of this Government and of the other 14 members of the

    555
    Security Council, as well as of the European Union, NATO and every other responsible Government in the world.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Does the Secretary of State give any credence to the rumours that the United Nations inspectors have not been getting the level of information that they required from western intelligence sources? If that is the case, why is it the case?
    Mr. Hoon: I know that there are rumours to that effect, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assure the House, that this country in particular has co-operated fully with the weapons inspectors and has ensured that both equipment and information have been made available to them, which I believe has allowed them better to do their job.
    Glenda Jackson: What credence does my right hon. Friend attach to recent reports that the issuing of protective clothing to Iraqi troops is proof positive, despite denials, that Saddam Hussein has and intends to use weapons of mass destruction? Does that mean that the issuing of protective clothing to British troops means, despite denials, that we have such weapons and also intend to use them?
    Mr. Hoon: The authenticity of the report is obviously a matter for the BBC, which I think was first responsible for broadcasting it. That particular report is certainly consistent with previous reports that this Government have received and, indeed, with the dossier that we published last September. Obviously, it is a matter of grave concern to this country and other members of the international community that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, including the sort of chemical weapons against which it would be necessary for Iraq to protect its forces with the sort of equipment that the BBC has described. I can assure my hon. Friend that such chemical weapons are not part of the United Kingdom's arsenal.
    Ann Clwyd: Since the Kurds of northern Iraq are likely to be in the front line of any military action, and since chemical and biological weapons have been used against the Kurds in the past, has any consideration been given to providing the Kurds with protective clothing in the event of military action?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to express concern about the population of northern Iraq. That is precisely why British forces risked their lives in order to protect people in the area because of previous appalling attacks on the Kurds. Obviously, we do not control the ground in northern Iraq, which is a difficult part of the world. While it is arguably safer than many other parts of Iraq, it is still extremely dangerous territory.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: May I press the Secretary of State further on the question asked of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), which I think is one of the key questions? I believe that the Prime Minister is absolutely sincere in saying that Saddam has weapons of mass
    556
    destruction, and I understand that this is not a game of hide and seek. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that what the public do not understand is that while the Prime Minister is saying there is clear evidence, the UN is finding so little? May I press him further to reassure the general public and the House that all the information that he has that convinces him that Saddam is in possession of such weapons is passed to the UN inspectorate, so that we can get clear evidence in front of the British people?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not think that it is a great surprise to the weapons inspectors that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Weapons inspectors have been in Iraq over many years since the end of the Gulf war, bearing in mind that it was a condition of the ceasefire that Iraq should abandon its programmes for the development of weapons of mass destruction. I accept that the issue is convincing the present set of inspectors that they have found proof on the ground that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but, equally, I invite hon. Members to look carefully at the terms of the UN resolution. It is a question of ensuring the co-operation of Iraq with the terms of that resolution. There is an obligation on Iraq to produce the material that it has. Although it has made a declaration, it is already clear that that declaration is insufficient, but we certainly await the further report of the weapons inspectors to take the matter further at this stage.

    Wind Farms
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: What assessment he has made of the impact of wind farms on military radar; and if he will make a statement. [93172]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Trials conducted by the Royal Air Force in 1994 and 1997 found that a wind farm in direct line has a detrimental effect on civilian and military radar performance, as the rotating blades can be a source of interference. The turbines can appear as genuine aircraft targets that could either mask aircraft responses or desensitise the radar within the sector containing the wind farm, and they can also cause an unquantifiable general effect on radar.
    The Ministry of Defence is currently assisting with a Department of Trade and Industry sponsored study, which is being undertaken by Qinetiq, on the effects of turbines on radar systems. The aim is to identify ways in which adverse impacts can be reduced, including technical adaptations to turbine design. That study began in September 2001 and is due to be completed shortly.
    Mr. Thomas: Given the potential impact on military radar, I recognise the need for the Ministry of Defence to examine each planning application for a new wind farm, but does my hon. Friend acknowledge the anxieties of several wind farm developers about the Ministry's occasional lack of speed in deciding whether to lodge an objection to a wind farm? Given the wind farm industry's considerable potential to create new

    557
    jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, will he consider carefully further action to speed up the Ministry's consideration of such matters?
    Dr. Moonie: Yes, I shall. Every proposal to the Ministry of the Defence receives a full appraisal by at least seven separate technical advisers, each with their own specialism. The criteria for the case-by-case consideration are the effect of the development both on the ability to train our pilots safely and operational capability. We are members of a steering group on wind energy, which is considering ways to speed up the process. Between July 1996 and November 2002, our experts had to consider some 1,900 proposals from wind farm developers throughout the United Kingdom. In 2002, we were consulted on a total of 952 developers' proposals, to which we have objected to 248 so far.

    Defence Information Infrastructure
    Mr. Richard Bacon: What the budget and planned delivery dates are for the defence information infrastructure.[93173]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence currently spends approximately £500 million per year on its information infrastructure and related services. The defence information infrastructure programme, which will bring together all the Ministry's information networks in a single managed service, will be subject to competitive tender and is expected to deliver significant savings over current expenditure. The defence information infrastructure will be delivered incrementally, and current plans are for an initial operating capability by 2005.
    Mr. Bacon: The public sector's record in managing information technology projects over many years can best be described as chequered. Given that the Ministry of Defence recently had to write off costs relating to the defence management system, what special project management measures are being taken to ensure that the defence information infrastructure programme, which is so important to the UK's defence, is provided on budget and on time?
    Mr. Ingram: We are learning from the mistakes of the past all the time. The Office of Government Commerce is designed to capture such experiences and ensure that we identify the shortfalls and weaknesses in some big, expensive and important IT projects. As I said, the project will be provided incrementally. It has received a high level of oversight, and a McKinsey study has examined various aspects of it. We are alert to the problem of industry promises that are not always fulfilled. We are therefore putting better management resources and high-level oversight into the project. We are also keeping a close ministerial eye on it.

    Iraq
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assessment he has made of the military effects of bombing Baghdad.[93174]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There has been no decision to take military action against Iraq. It is still not too late for Saddam Hussein to decide to accept United Nations resolutions and thereby avoid the necessity for any kind of military action.
    Mr. Dalyell: I echo the tribute to George Younger.
    Do not we have to think things through? Are not there three horrendous scenarios? The first is bombing on a Dresden scale, which would create unthinkable reverberations in the Arab world and destroy one of the world's great cities. The second, heaven help us, is street fighting in the alleys and sewers of Baghdad. Only those who, like me, have seen them can imagine the horrendous task of British and American forces in that situation, where the opponents know the sewers and alleyways. The third is the siege of Baghdad and, presumably, starvation of the population. If the Secretary of State knows any other scenarios, he should tell us because such matters should be thought through.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, at least for suggesting that we should think things through. That is precisely the British Government's position. I invite him to think through Iraq's history and its failure to comply with a series of international obligations, going back to the ceasefire provision that I mentioned earlier. It gave Saddam Hussein 15 days in which to co-operate with abandoning his programme of weapons of mass destruction. The process continues. There were some 26 United Nations obligations before what was described as the final opportunity for Iraq in resolution 1441 to comply with the will of the international community. It therefore remains up to Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq to comply with the decisions of the international community. I am sure that my hon. Friend would strongly support that.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Given that our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people, but with their dictator, what discussions has the Secretary of State recently had with the Secretary of State for International Development to ensure that once the bombing of Baghdad has begun—and thereafter. we hope, quickly comes to an end—we can put in place an immediate humanitarian relief and rescue package to demonstrate our commitment to the Iraqi people?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people, and nor have we ever had. However, it is important that the regime in Baghdad accepts the will of the international community. We set out very recently the aims and objectives of our policy in relation to Iraq, which certainly include rebuilding and restoring in Iraq a degree of representative government, and that is something that we are determined to achieve. I do not want to go into details of aftermath planning of the kind that he mentions, because that implies the inevitability of military action. Military action is still neither inevitable nor imminent.
    David Winnick: Should not the Secretary of State bear it in mind that the dire warning given by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow

    559
    (Mr. Dalyell) used exactly the same words that he used in relation to the liberation of the Falklands, to Kuwait 12 years ago, and, much more recently, to Kosovo? On all those issues, he was wrong and was proved to be wrong. If military action is to be avoided, is there not a need for Iraq's criminal and murderous regime to be far more honest about weapons of mass destruction? How many Members of Parliament, if my hon. Friend had to hazard a guess—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough questions for the Secretary of State to be going on with.
    Mr. Hoon: I accept that there are those who are sincerely opposed to military action in any circumstances and those who are opposed to military action in most circumstances. I would put the Government into the second category. We want to avoid military action if at all possible. A political, diplomatic route remains available to Saddam Hussein, and we believe that he should take that route and comply with the wishes and decisions of the international community.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I pursue the point made by my friend and colleague of 40 years, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? I am one of those who believe that, if it is definitely established that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is in a position to use them, we will certainly have to disarm it, but I hope that all the tactical and strategic considerations will be borne in mind. Speaking as somebody who, as a very young officer, led patrols in a hostile Arab city much smaller than Baghdad 53 years ago, I put it to the Secretary of State that as Baghdad is a city of 5 million people, if Saddam Hussein withdraws, as I suspect that he will, his entire army inside Baghdad, so that the city has to be taken street by street and house by house, the casualties—not only on our side, but on the civilian side—will be absolutely enormous. Even the German army in 1871—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hoon: I believe that I have probably answered the hon. Gentleman's question already, but I point out to him that he assumes that those 5 million people will be fighting for Saddam Hussein.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the issue of Baghdad needs more exploration, may I be considered for an Adjournment debate on that subject?

    Recruitment
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: How many new recruits have joined the armed services in each of the past two years, having completed all training courses.[93177]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The number of new recruits in the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02 were 22,960 and 23,578 respectively. The time taken to complete full training varies, with some trades requiring well in excess of two years, but the numbers completing
    560
    basic training and joining the trained strength of the armed forces in the past two years were 16,600 and 17,040 respectively.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given the number of young people joining the armed forces and the possibilities of a first-class career, but given also the build-up in the Gulf, can the Minister reassure us that there will be sufficient British forces for the peacekeeping missions around the world for which they are renowned?
    Dr. Moonie: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that that is so. What is important is the proportion of those whom we recruit to initial training that we manage to bring through on to the full trained strength. Over the past few years, we have put a great deal of effort into improving the training stream to try to ensure that we lose fewer people on the way.
    Patrick Mercer: The Army remains stubbornly short of about 6,000 men. We stand on the brink of war, yet sections of the Army have had their recruiting suspended. Can the Minister explain that?
    Dr. Moonie: Recruiting has held up very well this year and we have reached 16,990 new recruits in total after eight months, which is 68 per cent. of the target. The Army has not stopped recruiting and it has not stopped initial training. Due to a successful Army recruiting year, the numbers have exceeded available training places for the remainder of this financial year. As a result, a small number of Army recruits who were due to commence initial training in March will be offered places in April and May 2003. There will be no effect on any immediate operational activity.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Would my hon. Friend like to hazard an estimate of the percentage of those recruits who are from ethnic minorities within and outside this country?
    Dr. Moonie: I can answer that very briefly—not sufficient, but the numbers are increasing. There are gratifying signs that we are recruiting more effectively from ethnic minorities, and we shall continue to put a great deal of effort into increasing the percentage.

    Armed Forces (Gulf)
    Mr. George Osborne: If he will make a statement on the size of United Kingdom armed forces on duty in the Gulf. [93178]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): UK armed forces on duty in the Gulf region include about 1,000 Royal Air Force personnel supporting patrols over the no-fly zones and about 1,500 Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and RAF personnel supporting our contribution to the campaign against international terrorism. As part of our continuing preparations for possible military action in Iraq, a relatively small number of service personnel are working in liaison and planning teams in the Gulf region.

    561
    In addition, a wide range of personnel from all three services perform defence diplomacy duties throughout the Gulf region.
    Mr. Osborne: Does the Secretary of State agree that many thousands of those soldiers face weeks of anxiety and uncertainty as the campaign in Iraq hots up? Will he join me in condemning those insurance companies, such as Norwich Union and Prudential, that refuse to provide life assurance cover to them? When does he plan to talk to those insurance companies so that at least that part of those soldiers' fears and anxieties is addressed?
    Mr. Hoon: The situation was dealt with effectively on behalf of the insurance companies by the Association of British Insurers, which indicated that the recent report in The Times was "misleading and inaccurate". Those are its words. It went on to say that life cover for members of the armed forces can usually be purchased at standard premium rates, that existing life insurance policies will continue in force and that armed forces personnel are encouraged to recognise the long-term nature of life insurance. So, there seems to be a clear view from the insurance companies that policies will continue to be available.
    Kevin Brennan: One anxiety faced by our armed forces in situations where there may be conflict is the possibility of casualties due to friendly fire. Given the revelations from the investigation of the friendly fire killings of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan last year, will the Secretary of State tell the House what representations he has made to the United States authorities on the issuing of amphetamines to US pilots when they go into combat? Given that the side effects include irritability and heightened awareness all round, will he confirm that he has made representations to his US counterpart on the use of amphetamines in any military action?
    Mr. Hoon: I dealt with that question the other day. A disciplinary inquiry is under way in the United States, where the use of amphetamines by two pilots has been alleged, and the House should await the result of that inquiry before I comment on it.
    Mr. David Heath: The Secretary of State obviously did not hear the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), so I shall repeat it. Are the British forces in the Gulf currently under US Centcom command, will they remain so if hostilities break out, and what plans are there to withdraw or redirect British forces should American forces engage in hostilities without British participation?
    Mr. Hoon: The question asked by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) related to British forces on duty in the Gulf, and I answered that. Those on duty in the Gulf are currently performing acts of planning and liaison with relevant authorities, and not simply with the US authorities.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if British forces are used in the war against Iraq, there will be concern not only about the military effect of action but about its politically destabilising effect throughout the Arab world and throughout the entire Muslim world from northern Nigeria to the streets of Bradford? Does he agree with the President of Egypt, Mr. Mubarak, who said a few months ago that, if America and Britain attacked Iraq without an explicit UN resolution, not one regime in the middle east would be able to contain its population?
    Mr. Hoon: I have had conversations with a good number of representatives of various countries in the Gulf and the wider middle east. Their views were not in accord with that expressed by my hon. Friend. Clearly, there are concerns about the destabilising effect of possible military action, should it prove necessary. However, there are stronger concerns about the politically destabilising situation of allowing Saddam Hussein to continue in power, particularly if he develops and is able to use weapons of mass destruction. I do not believe that views on what is politically destabilising are necessarily as consistent as my hon. Friend might suggest.
    May I assume from what my hon. Friend said that, if there is a second UN resolution authorising the use of force, she will strongly support it?

    Iraq
    Mr. Mark Prisk: What progress his Department has made in its contingency arrangements for military action against Iraq; and if he will make a statement.[93179]
    John Barrett: What plans he has for the use of military forces in Iraq.[93181]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): No decision has been taken to use military force in Iraq. It is clear that Saddam Hussein will comply with international law only when diplomacy is backed up with a credible threat of force. That is why it is necessary to prepare our armed forces for any military operations, as set out in recent statements to the House.
    Mr. Prisk: On 7 January, the Secretary of State said that, to tackle the dreadful problem of friendly fire, which has been referred to already, the Government would
    "acquire new equipment that will be available in time for any potential conflict".—[Official Report, 7 January 2003; Vol. 397. c. 28.]
    Has that equipment been acquired? Will it be fitted to protect every operational vehicle, and not just some?
    Mr. Hoon: New equipment is being acquired, as I have told the House more than once. Combat identification is not just about fitting equipment. We must also ensure that our forces and those with which

    563
    we are in coalition are aware of our positions, and aware of accurate and agreed target identification, tactics and other techniques and procedures. That is a complex process, and it is under way with those responsible for preparing and planning for the necessity of any military operations in Iraq.
    John Barrett: If there is no specific UN mandate for military action against Iraq, what will the Secretary of State do to receive the backing of the millions of people in this country who are against action being taken in their name without such a resolution?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a situation that has not yet arisen. I assure him that this country wants effective action to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. I believe that the country will strongly support the Government's efforts to achieve that laudable end.
    Joan Ruddock: Pentagon officials were quoted this weekend referring to
    "an aerial bombardment so intense that Iraqi forces will be disabled and demoralised, making a ground assault unnecessary."
    Despite what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), does he plan for and will he commit British troops to such an assault on Baghdad? If so, is it not incumbent upon him to make some estimate of the humanitarian cost of such action?
    Mr. Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that all decisions taken by the British Government in relation to any possible action against Iraq will be in conformity with international law, the humanitarian element of which is significant.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Secretary of State has said that he would prefer a second UN resolution before any military action, but that he would not feel bound by the unreasonable use of the veto. If another country uses the veto—as is provided for within the rules of the UN—what does he think is within the UN charter that gives him, the Prime Minister or George Bush the right to decide that it is unreasonable and ignore it?
    Mr. Hoon: It is important that we allow the process set out in resolution 1441 to unfold without anticipating what might or might not happen in the future.
    Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State's gracious tribute to the late Lord Younger will be widely appreciated, not least by his son James, who happens to be a constituent of mine. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that studied inactivity is not an option; that appeasement, whatever the intentions of those who advocate it, is invariably disastrous; and that, if we do not take the steps and show the moral courage necessary to act, if it is unavoidable so to do, future generations will not forget the fact and will not forgive it, either?
    Mr. Hoon: It is clear that the policy of containment, if it has not actually failed, is certainly failing. Therefore, it is incumbent on the international community—as the unanimous vote of the Security Council in November recognised—to take action to deal with the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Certainly we do not have the choice of doing nothing. Saddam Hussein has a choice: he can choose to disarm, or, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the international community will have to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made clear, the Government can count on possibly stronger support from the Conservative Opposition than from many of the Secretary of State's own colleagues if the taskforce goes into action. If it does, is it not the case that it must be adequately defended? Is he content that, out of our three aircraft carriers, only one is available? Is he content that that one has been converted to the role of a commando and helicopter carrier largely because of the paying-off of Fearless before Albion became available? Is he also content that the most experienced pilots of Sea Harriers will not be deployed? Is he not worried that some will feel that that may have less to do with the availability of alternative land-based aircraft and more to do with the fact that if the Sea Harriers and their pilots distinguish themselves in any conflict, it will show how unwise it will be to phase out the Sea Harriers—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State only has to answer one question.
    Mr. Hoon: I suppose that I should congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on his obsessions, but he should not allow them to get in the way of sound military planning.
    Mr. Bercow: He has a doctorate in it.
    Mr. Hoon: We have sound military advice from those responsible as to how best to configure the force that is being planned to take military action in Iraq, should that be required. [Interruption.] I am getting some helpful advice from Conservative Front Benchers that the hon. Member for New Forest, East has a doctorate in obsessions. I thought it better to suggest that he had a doctorate in armchair generalship.

    Africa (Conflict Prevention)
    Hugh Bayley: What assistance his Department is giving to conflict prevention in Africa.[93180]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence contributes to the Government's conflict prevention efforts in Africa in close co-operation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development through the interdepartmental conflict prevention pool. Together, we are also working with our

    565
    partners in the G8 and Africa to increase the impact and effectiveness of existing and emerging conflict reduction efforts.
    Hugh Bayley: In view of the important contribution that British military advisers have made to the search for a durable peace in southern Sudan, will my right hon. Friend look at the prospects for building a ceasefire between the Ugandan Government forces and the Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda? Will he especially take advice from our high commissioner in
    566
    Kampala on the views of members of the Ugandan Parliament who come from northern Uganda as to whether it might be possible to broker a ceasefire there as well as in southern Sudan?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend is a specialist on all matters relating to Africa and raises a most important issue: how we take forward conflict prevention. At all times, we must examine the whole range of practical options that can be delivered. I shall certainly take account of the views that he has expressed and ensure that they are actively considered.

Child Support Reform
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): With permission Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the implementation of the child support reforms.
As the House knows, the Government are reforming the child support system to ensure that more children benefit from regular maintenance. That will get support more effectively to parents with care and their children, help non-resident parents meet their responsibilities and tackle child poverty.
The new scheme will be more transparent and easier for parents to understand. It will also be easier for the agency to calculate maintenance and enforce payment so that children have the support that they need. It will be based on a simple rate so that non-resident parents will know in advance how much maintenance they must pay. For example, non-resident parents with net incomes of £200 to £2,000 a week will be expected to make payments—based on 15 per cent. for one child, 20 per cent. for two and 25 per cent. for three or more—from their net weekly income; that is, after tax, national insurance and pension contributions, and after the same percentage allowance for any children in their new family.
For non-resident parents with net incomes of less than £100 a week and those receiving income support and jobseeker's allowance, child maintenance will be set at a flat rate of £5 a week. For those with incomes of between £100 and £200 a week, there will be a sliding scale. There will be specific provisions for cases where the care of children is shared.
The introduction of the child maintenance premium will mean that for the first time parents with care receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance who are on the new scheme can keep up to £10 a week of any maintenance paid for their children. That will give them a real stake in making child support work.
The changes we have brought in since 1997 will help, too. The Child Support Agency is more customer focused. Levels of compliance have increased; the agency now collects over £200 million more each year in child maintenance than it did five years ago. The number of complaints is well down; for example, those referred to the chief executive by Members of the House have fallen 28 per cent. over the past three years.
Last March, my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Transport, announced that the introduction of the new scheme would be delayed until the Government were confident that the new information technology worked effectively. That was the right decision and was generally welcomed on both sides of the House, as well as by voluntary groups.
Last September, I wrote to all Members updating them on progress. I said that testing of the computer system had been progressing satisfactorily over the summer so that we were in a position to pilot the new IT for some cases on existing rules. Those pilot arrangements have worked well and are operating across the country. Both senior officials and I are now satisfied, on the basis of the careful and comprehensive testing, that the system will deliver the level of service that our customers have a right to expect.
568
I am pleased to tell the House that new cases will be calculated using the new rules from 3 March this year. New cases are those where liability for maintenance begins on or after 3 March. They will come on to the system at a rate of 30,000 a month. I should remind the House that we always planned to introduce the changes in a phased way. We will start in March with new cases, and then convert the existing 1.1 million cases later, when we can see how the arrangements are working.
However, some existing cases will be brought across to the new scheme earlier than others—primarily those that become linked to a new case. For example, if an application calculated under the new scheme were made by a parent with care in respect of a non-resident parent who was already liable for maintenance in a different case, it would be neither fair nor workable for people to have liability simultaneously under two different schemes, so it is best to move those linked cases on to the new system together. We will, of course, write to existing clients to explain how they will be affected by the changes and to tell them that they need do nothing further until they are contacted by the agency.
I am satisfied that the IT system will deliver a level of service that is acceptable, but with any new system of this size, even after exhaustive testing, there will be some bugs to be sorted out. We have put in place systems and procedures to deal with that. We are also improving arrangements for responding to inquiries from the public, advice agencies and hon. Members. Tomorrow, I shall write to hon. Members with details of an MP-specific hotline that is already in place in all the agency's business units. The agency will do all that it can to ensure that the new system gives a better service to clients.
On the financial implications of this announcement, my predecessor told the House in his statement on 20 March last year that there would be additional costs. The system has proved to be more complex than had been originally thought, and we have reached a negotiated agreement with EDS to share those costs, with it meeting its share under the contract. The amount that the Government will pay has risen by about 7 per cent. over the term of the contract. Although any extra cost is unwelcome, an increase on that scale is not at all unusual for a complex project—whether in the public or private sector—and it is justified to deliver this important reform.
The implementation of the new IT system is the key to bringing in the much-needed new child support scheme, with its better, fairer and simpler system for calculating maintenance. It will help us to target resources to make sure that more maintenance is actually paid, getting more money to children more quickly. That is the right policy. I believe that the decision that we took to delay implementation last March was right, and that it is the right decision to proceed now.
Mr. David Willetts: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. In fact, more than that, I welcome it with some relief after years of delay.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new IT system was originally promised for October 2001; then April 2002; and then, in March last year, it was delayed with no new date fixed at all? Although millions of families have been kept waiting, the latest CSA annual

569
report—in typical new Labour style—claims that it has already delivered the change agenda. It says, "target achieved", with one of those ticks in the box as well.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House about the reasons for that delay? We need to know, not least because it is very relevant to the bill for the delay. EDS says that the problem is that Ministers kept interfering in the details of the system. Ministers may, understandably, have a different version of events, but we know from the Secretary of State's statement that the Government will now pay more as a result of that delay. That implies that they accept some responsibility for what has happened. The Secretary of State did not tell the House how much more they will have to pay. We are talking about a project valued at hundreds of millions of pounds, with very significant cost over-runs. How much of that cost will be borne by the taxpayer? The House is entitled to know.
There are 1.5 million children in families covered by the CSA. We all know the problems of the CSA, which have been brought to the surgeries of all Members of the House. Can the Secretary of State give the House any more information about the handling of existing cases? More than 1 million families are still in the dark after today's announcement. When will they be moved on to the new IT system and the new formula? One Minister said in a Committee that it would take a year; another said that it would take five years. What is the Secretary of State's estimate, which will enable existing cases to know where they stand?
The Department has several major projects on its hands. The Secretary of State is introducing a new system for paying benefits in the spring, the national rollout of Jobcentre Plus, the new pensions service, the new pension credit in the autumn, and all the Chancellor's pet tax credits, which are also being changed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased that Labour Members welcome all those changes, and I hope—especially if they have welcomed them—that they, like me, will seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that they are all on time, on budget and deliverable. Surely the lesson from the disaster with the IT project for the CSA is that the Government have significant problems delivering all these changes. Will the Secretary of State learn lessons from that sorry episode and apply them to the other big projects piling up in his Department? Millions of families will face uncertainty and delay unless he can guarantee to the House that the projects will be delivered on time and on budget.
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) for his welcome—lukewarm though it was. I confirm the timetable. As my predecessor said on 20 March last year, it was right to delay, rather than rushing in an incomplete and unready system. I thought that that was generally understood on both sides of the House. Let us remember why we must modernise and improve the child support system: the Conservatives rushed it in 10 years ago. They had the benefit of good will on both sides of the House. I think that they now accept that the system collapsed under its own weight, as it was overly complex, and the IT was not ready. That is why we have had to put in place these reforms.
570
The hon. Gentleman asked whether additional cost had come about because policy had changed. The policy has not changed. As he knows, the basic features of the system are as set out in the 1999 White Paper. The reason that additional costs were incurred was that the project, including the interfaces with the legacy systems that we inherited—IT systems that were designed, for the most part, in the 1970s and built in the 1980s—was much more complex and required a lot more work than was originally envisaged.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the extent of the extra expenditure. I said that it was 7 per cent. more across the life of the project. The total cost of the project, across its life, goes from some £427 million to £456 million. He asked, too, about the handling of existing cases. The staff who have been employed have been striving to make the unsatisfactory existing system work as well as they can. As I said, the level of complaints has gone down. In terms of compliance, case compliance has been running at 71 per cent. and cash compliance at 68 per cent., which contrasts with the figures when the Conservative party was in charge and struggled to get compliance running at above 50 per cent. Everybody accepts that there are limits to what one can do with the old system that the Conservatives introduced. It needs replacing, and it is right to proceed as we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the changeover of existing cases. As I said in my statement, we will reach a decision on that, sensibly, once we can see how the new system is working out in practice.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the lessons to be learned. There are lessons to be learned from this and indeed other major IT projects across the years. Principal among them is the need to give even closer thought to the specification and management arrangements when the contract is originally concluded. Thanks to the work that the Office of Government Commerce is doing, and the gate procedure that is now in place on all major projects, those lessons are being learned and applied. Perhaps the most important lesson is not to inherit a system that does not work from a Government who did not work for families or for children.
Paul Holmes: I thank the Secretary of State for giving advance sight of his statement.
The Liberal Democrats would have preferred to hear today that the Government were adopting our proposals to pass all the administration of child support over to the Inland Revenue, which already administers child benefit, will administer child tax credit and already has the names, addresses and tax records of everyone with children.
However, given that the Minister is now going ahead with the long-delayed attempt to streamline the existing system, if the Government and EDS are sharing the extra costs of the 18-month delay, does that mean that both were at fault in the delay?
Is it true that the appeals service is budgeting for up to a million new complaints as a result of the new system, as one internal newsletter suggests? When existing cases are eventually switched to the new system, is it still the Government's intention to switch them all at once, on the same day? If so, will the new computer

571
system cope? Constituents who see friends on the new system will be asking us when they will be switched to it. What should we tell them?
Finally, can the Minister clarify why the new scheme starts on 3 March rather than 5 April, the start of the new financial year? The rhetoric so far has been of streamlining and simplicity, but the fear is that the chaos has only just begun.
Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his welcome, such as it was, for the introduction of the new system.
The hon. Gentleman asked about levels of compliance and general performance under the new system. I referred to levels of compliance under the existing system: cash compliance at 68 per cent. and case compliance at 71 per cent. With both of those, we expect to achieve 75 per cent. under the new system, so there will be a clear improvement.
Bringing on to the system all 300,000 recipients of income support who will attract the child support premium is an enormous gain. Taking that with the efficiency improvements in existing cases, we anticipate that some 80 per cent. of parents with care will be better off as a result of the new system.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the changeover of existing cases and whether that would be a big bang. We shall have to phase in the changeover of the existing 1.1 million cases. As to the date, I said in response to the hon. Member for Havant that we need to review the progress and working of the new system before setting it. Of course, I understand the attraction, when people see the benefits of the new system, of wanting to do that as soon as possible, but it makes sense with any big IT rollout to do it only when one knows that the system is working properly. That is what we shall do.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the date was 3 March rather than some time in April. This represents a big step forward, a big improvement for parents with care and a fairer system for non-resident parents as well. Other things being equal, the sooner it is introduced, the better. I am sure that if I were announcing it for April, the hon. Gentleman would be asking why it was not for March.
Mr. Terry Rooney: I remind my right hon. Friend that the original child support legislation required three further pieces of primary legislation. The computer system that was put in to operate it has now suffered more than 1,000 days when it has been either partially or totally shut down. The Opposition should bear that in mind.
I return to the child maintenance premium. Had we been on the original timetable, many single parents would have been receiving it from this April. The delay is riot their fault. Is there any possibility of bringing that in before transferring existing cases to the new system, so that those children are lifted somewhat out of the poverty that they are in?
Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, for his pertinent reminders of the sheer chaos in the original child support system. We have had to tackle that and introduce reforms steadily to improve it before changing to the new system.
572
I understand the case that my hon. Friend makes on the child maintenance premium. I assure him that we considered the matter very carefully, but had we sought, before existing cases switched to the new IT system, to link those receiving maintenance with the child maintenance premium, that would have added another layer of complexity to a very demanding IT delivery programme. As I said, we are trying to manage and reduce the risks associated with that, so that we can deliver to an acceptable standard, and therefore decided, perhaps unfortunately, that it was not possible to make that link.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: While the Secretary of State's announcement is good news, in that the technology has at last caught up with the will of Parliament, may I remind him that these changes, with a simpler formula, are not in themselves a panacea because there will be a significant increase in the element of rough justice that results? I urge him and his colleagues to understand the need to be robust in facing down those who will seek an excuse not to pay their maintenance when society rightly expects them to do so.
Mr. Smith: The answer is yes. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are all the more striking because of his previous responsibilities in this area. Although there is an element of rough justice in the greater simplicity, people can at least see where they stand and understand the basis on which the assessment is made. Sadly, that is not true of the vast majority of cases under the old system.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we need to be robust, and we certainly shall be. One of the advantages of the change is that it will release staff resources to focus on enforcement rather than on assessment and reassessment. I shall be pleased to pray the hon. Gentleman in aid when we need to be robust.
Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not need to take lessons from the Conservative party, which bought from America an off-the-shelf computer that does not even recognise British national insurance numbers? I welcome the fact that we can now replace that and run a much simpler system. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how the simplified system will enable staff to spend more time chasing the approximately 30 per cent. of non-resident parents who currently pay nothing?
Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right; I believe that the current system came from Florida, where they produce such good voting machines. My hon. Friend is right to point to the improved capacity that we will have to chase those who pay nothing. That is in addition to the advantages to the child maintenance premium, which, in benefit and payment terms, will provide an incentive where there is none—apart from the child bonus—for families on income support and jobseeker's allowance.
We now have an opportunity to increase the level of payment and, more generally, to reinforce, where appropriate, the importance of non-resident parents meeting their responsibilities and having contact with their children. I hope that because the new system makes

573
it easier to address financial issues, it will do rather less to sour relations between parents with care and non-resident parents.
Mr. Gary Streeter: For some years now, the CSA has been adept at collecting straightforward amounts of maintenance from people on PAYE—fathers, generally speaking—so that their children are properly maintained. What in the new system will help the CSA to collect money from people in small businesses and those whose financial circumstances are complex or opaque? Let us face it: the CSA has not been good at collecting money from such people, and children all over the country are being short-changed. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the new system will help the CSA to perform that task?
Mr. Smith: Yes, it will. It is simpler and more straightforward, and there is not the same scope for the endless special pleading that is almost designed into the existing system, with the 100-plus pieces of information that may be relevant to an assessment. In addition, as I have said, it will release staff resources for a more dedicated enforcement effort. We collaborate closely with the Inland Revenue and we will have access to its records, which should help with the problem of the self-employed that the hon. Gentleman identified.
Mr. Frank Field: May I commiserate with the Secretary of Secretary, because once the Government decided not to base the reform on a simple tax rate he was presented with a reform that would be difficult to deliver? So may I congratulate him on extending way into the distance the date on which we bring existing claimants on to the new active register? Does he accept, however, that given that the reform was announced in 2000, many of our constituents feel a sense of grievance about the level at which they pay maintenance? Will he help them to sue EDS for compensation for the further delay of what is a necessary reform?
Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his congratulations and commiserations. I am sorry to say, however, that I cannot support his plea for money to sue EDS. As I said, we have a long-term partnership for delivery with EDS. I am satisfied that the system will work. We have reached an agreement with it on how the costs are to be shared. That has both incentivised levels of performance and secured the best deal for the taxpayer achievable in the circumstances.
Mrs. Angela Browning: While the Secretary of State makes the changes, will he take another look at the procedures for attachment of earnings orders? I am worried that the CSA is not rigorous enough in ensuring that employers pay regularly when it has made an order, because the liability remains with the parent whose wages are being deducted. If a company goes broke after making no payments to the CSA for weeks the parent with responsibility is still required to pick up the tab.
Mr. Smith: I should be pleased to look into any cases that the hon. Lady draws to my attention and will raise
574
with officials the issue that she poses. It is important in operating the new system that attachment of earnings and so on are enforced in a way that is business friendly. However, we must also respect client privacy. For example, arrangements will be made for clients to be rung at home rather than at work; we are learning from past mistakes.
Rob Marris: Since the Minister first mooted changes to the 10, 15, 25 per cent. and so on, he has published a Green Paper on pension reform. I notice that the percentages refer to net income, including pension contributions. The Green Paper sets out a lifetime savings in pensions of £1.4 million. Will he assure me that, to use his word, "robust" action will be taken to stop recalcitrant non-resident parents boosting their pension contributions, thereby depressing the amount that they should pay for their children?
Mr. Smith: The system is simple and straightforward. My hon. Friend invites me to add complexities and bureaucratic regulation to it. I am sure that similar invitations will be made along the way. I understand his point, but we will best get money to parents with care and the children who need it by keeping the system simple.
Alistair Burt: As one who bears as many ministerial scars as many others do in relation to the Child Support Agency, I simply say that although we are all equally vociferous and critical of our relative roles in making the agency work, we should never forget that collectively as a House it was our failure to keep our eye on the ball as the legislation was passed that caused many of the difficulties that both Governments have sought to repair.
Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to look at two issues that remain at the core of concerns? The first is the repeated messages issued by the Child Support Agency bearing erroneous figures that people are asked to accept and the frequent changes that it makes to those figures. If the new system does something about that, it will be greatly welcomed. Secondly, on the phase-in, I urge the Secretary of State to remember that people feel a sense of injustice if they know that they will pay less in future, yet are forced to pay more for a lengthy period of time. Will he do his best to make sure that the phase-in period is as tight as possible?
Mr. Smith: Yes, the new system, as I said, is much simpler, so it should dramatically cut the errors that, we recall, were made when the CSA started nearly 10 years ago. We all remember people coming to our advice surgeries clutching half a dozen envelopes that they had received in a fortnight all giving different assessments based on different criteria. That has been getting better, as I said, but to operate effectively the system must be kept simple, which is why we have cut dramatically the 100-plus variables that were previously part of the calculation.
As for the feelings of resentment or frustration that people may experience because the new system will operate on a more favourable basis, that is why, along with the merits of everybody knowing where they stand and being treated consistently, and all recipients of income support and jobseeker's allowance getting the

575
child premium, it makes sense to move to C-day—conversion day—as quickly as possible. Just as it would have been wrong to rush the initial move to the new system until the IT was right, I shall not speculate about a date until I know when we can deliver.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: The new transparent and fair system is welcome, but we must have regard for the fact that, under the old system, a third of children did not receive the maintenance to which they were entitled and that both parents are responsible for paying maintenance. Will my right hon. Friend act to ensure that children who are being denied maintenance receive urgent consideration by the Child Support Agency to ensure that they receive their entitlement? The CSA was guilty of maladministration under the old system, so will he agree to an appeals procedure to determine the level of compensation to be paid by the CSA when maladministration has occurred?
Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome, and am pleased to confirm that, of course, we will step up action so that payment is made to parents with care who are not currently receiving it. I shall look at his point about compensation, but I think that there are established procedures on the levels of compensation arising from ombudsman cases. As for reminding people of the importance of meeting their child support obligations, despite the banter between parties about the history of the CSA, there is a unity of purpose in the House. It would be good if a united message could go out from the Chamber that we all believe that both parents need fully to meet their responsibilities for their children, whether financial or otherwise.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Minister will be all too aware of many absent parents' sensitivity about child support payments. Members have said that among our constituents who will pay less under the new scheme than they do at present there will be a tremendous urge to be transferred to the new system of payment. Will the right hon. Gentleman help the House a little by giving a possible time scale and say what is the earliest date for the transfer of existing payments? With reference to a previous question, can he explain how he will begin to transfer those people to the new system? Will the phasing-in be based on an alphabetical, regional or other system?
Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I cannot offer the hon. Lady much comfort. For reasons that I have given, I shall not be tempted to speculate about dates without knowing how the new arrangements are working. She says that those who look forward to paying less will welcome an early move, but there is another side to the equation: those who receive more now than they will in future might not look forward to the move quite as much.
As a result of the sometimes significant shifts that can be involved, we shall phase in changed assessments, which could take more than five years, so that people do not face too sharp an increase or fall in the sum they are paying. I will set out the basis on which the conversion of cases will take place when we are ready to do so. I am not in a position to do so at the moment.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: May I seek further assurances on whether the changes will have any bearing
576
on the many self-employed, non-resident parents who seem to get away with paying very little towards their children's upkeep despite a fairly affluent lifestyle?
Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. As I have said, as a consequence of the simplicity and greater efficiency of the new system, we shall be able to devote more resources precisely to that. Moreover, it will be possible for a parent with care who believes that the lifestyle enjoyed by the non-resident parent is inconsistent with the income declared to draw that to the CSA's attention. If parents with care are still dissatisfied, they are ultimately able to take the matter to appeal at a tribunal.
Chris Grayling: May I amplify the points about not only companies but all aspects of self-employment? I have examples in my constituency of people managing to hide the true extent of their earnings by clever accounting through partnerships or companies. The fixed formulas described by the Minister may not necessarily help such cases. How will the CSA deal with those who hide their true earnings through self-employment, and how will it manage to extract the information when it appears to have no clear responsibility for taking draconian action to find out what people really earn today?
Mr. Smith: We will collaborate closely with the Inland Revenue on these matters. It has had the task on occasions of identifying the true level of income or profit that people earn. We will pursue that closer collaboration and will act on the information available. We shall also pursue liabilities and accrued debts that much more vigorously because our staff will not have to spend so much more time perpetually assessing and reassessing cases as a result of circumstances never catching up with the string of appeals and procedural devices exploited by those who want to put off payments. I am sure that some will try to hide their true income and so on, but it will be progressively harder for them to get away with that.
Dr. Nick Palmer: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's announcement. As someone who has introduced quite a few IT systems, I am aware that the prediction of completion dates is more an art than a science. We should simply accept that as a fact. Will he advise the House, however, on the precise implications of his assertion that about 30,000 cases a month will be brought into the system? How does that compare with the number of new cases that arise? Does the figure represent the capacity of the system—in other words, when we start to deal with new cases, it will take about 30 months to transfer 900.000 cases? Will he elaborate a little on that?
Mr. Smith: The 30,000 figure is the flow of new cases into the CSA. It is not constrained by the ability of the system to cope with them; it is the number that the system has to be able to cope with. It will be added to, as I explained, as more and more linked cases come on stream.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister give some reassurance on enforcement, especially of current cases? My constituent, Mrs. Gowman, is owed

577
£50,000 by her ex-husband, Mr. Bruce, because the agency sat on her enforcement and took no action for 15 months. Will the Minister assure my constituents and others that agency staff will not use the introduction of the new system to take their eyes off the ball on current enforcement cases, and that enforcement will be considerably improved?
Mr. Smith: Current enforcement cases will also benefit from the ability of staff to concentrate more on collecting existing liabilities and debts. For reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot discuss an individual case on the Floor of the House, although I shall be happy to look into it if he sends me details.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Secretary of State laid great stress, rightly, on levels of compliance. Will he give a precise figure for the level of compliance among self-employed non-resident parents? He has already answered a number of questions from Members who are clearly worried about the level of it. If we are to measure the extent of the existing problem with this category of parents, and to measure any improvements under the new system, which he is confident will be achieved, we need that figure.
Mr. Smith: I think I can remember the figure, but I am not certain, so I shall let the hon. Gentleman know what it is. His question is perfectly reasonable. The figure will be well short of the 68 per cent. for cash compliance and 71 per cent. for case compliance, on average. I will let him and the House have the figure, so that we can assess progress against it.
Mr. Tony McWalter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the statement today and on loosening the Gordian knot that was left to him by the Opposition. Compliance is essential. My former constituent, Mr. Barr, has been evading his responsibilities for 10 years. The Department has thrown the book at Mr. Barr and tried to seize his house and everything else, but still failed. Our noble Friend Baroness Hollis, who is sitting not a million miles away, has tried extremely hard to try to solve the case, but as long as self-employed people with large private pension schemes can get away with violating their obligations, the entire system is brought into disrepute. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that compliance will be dealt with properly at last?
Mr. Smith: Yes, I am determined that that should be done. For the reasons that my hon. Friend and others have pointed out, it is crucial both to confidence in the system and to people's basic sense of fairness that self-employed people, like employed people, meet their responsibilities.
I now have the figure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked for. The compliance rate for self-employed people is 34 per cent.—as I said, well short of the average.
Angela Watkinson: What can be done under the new IT system to check the accuracy of the information provided not just by the non-resident
578
parent, but by the caring parent, to avoid the sort of injustices about which we have heard—overtly successful business people who are able to produce books that show that the business is not in profit, and at the other extreme, people such as a postman in my constituency, who is paying CSA payments for one child which represent 33 per cent. of his gross income and 50 per cent. of his net income? Clearly, both cases are unjust.
Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. That is why the new formula is so much fairer, as well as being so much more straightforward, and why it was widely supported in the extensive consultation. Just about the only information that parents with care have to supply is how many children they have and whether they are on benefit. The only other factors that it might be material to take into account is whether, for example, the non-resident parent is contributing towards the costs of accommodation or education. There is provision in the new system to take that into account.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Members of Parliament will have an increased case load of complaints consequent upon the very simplicity to which the Secretary of State has drawn attention, as a result of the fact that the new system takes into account far fewer individual circumstances. The pay-off will be the increased number of payers who are not paying now. What targets has the Secretary of State set for that?
Mr. Smith: The target for compliance, both for cases and for cash, is to be 75 per cent. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The pay-off is money getting to the parents with care and the children who need it, and what the system does more generally to reinforce people honouring their responsibilities as parents, whether as parents with care or as non-resident parents. The hon. Gentleman points to more complaints. Putting the new cases on the system will result in some complaints—we would get complaints about the introduction of any system—but by and large, given that for many people their payments will be less and the new system will be more straightforward, I should have thought that they would welcome it. What we must prepare for and explain carefully is conversion of the existing cases. However, as I said, with regard to MPs receiving more inquiries from constituents, I shall remind them tomorrow of the dedicated helpline that they and their staff can access.
David Cairns: I am very grateful for the reminder about the helpline.
One of the things that will prevent the CSA from working full-time on calculating compliance will undoubtedly be its having to answer the many thousands of calls that it will receive from those in existing cases, who have, understandably, been left none the wiser following my right hon. Friend's statement. Do we not owe it to those people, who have been long suffering and patient, to contact them directly and explain what we are trying to do, be honest about what

579
has gone wrong and express our firm commitment to move them on to the new system as soon as the computer will allow us to do so?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very good point; for the reason that he gives, we shall write to those in all existing cases, explaining exactly what is going on.
Andrew Selous: The Secretary of State will know that all of us in the House would want payments by non-resident parents to be both fair and reasonable, but as a third of non-resident parents are not making any payments at all, the question of enforcement is on the minds of my constituents who are parents with care responsibilities. On the sanctions that it is open to him to use, where no payment is made both persistently and wilfully on the part of the non-resident parent and no attempt is made to establish contact with the children, what further steps will his Department take to remove driving licences? He already has that power. How many driving licences have been taken away, and does he plan to increase the number under the reforms?
Mr. Smith: The penalties have been increased. I shall certainly keep a very close eye on the matter to see whether we need to strengthen them still further. On the withdrawal of driving licences, the fact that it is being drawn to people's attention and that such a threat is hanging above them works all the more effectively when the licence is not removed; they cough up the money that they owe.

Point of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you and many hon. Members will have seen in the weekend press extensive coverage on the Government's imminent announcement about the contract that is to be placed for two new aircraft carriers. As you know, the order in which questions for oral answer appear on the Order Paper is not a precise science. Of course, I do not accuse you of having any involvement in the matter, which is decided by random selection. However, amidst many questions about Iraq today, there was one about procurement, and it is most unfortunate that it was withdrawn even as proceedings here were under way. I cast no aspersions on the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), whose question was withdrawn; it may be that he was caught on the train, or whatever. None the less, will you do two things for me? First, will you make inquiries to ensure that no pressure was brought to bear—
David Cairns: Have you met him?
Mr. Howarth: I have to say that I think that it is most unlikely; I regard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok as a friend and he is a very fine man.
Given the controversy about the contract, I hope that no pressure was brought to bear on the hon. Gentleman, although I think it unlikely; otherwise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you make it clear to hon. Members that, if they can give the House as much notice as possible, it is a courtesy to the House that makes the planning of such questions rather easier? For the benefit of those who sit elsewhere in the Chamber, I hope that we can put it on record that the reason why the House was unable to discuss the issue is that there was no opportunity to do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I am not sure that I am in a position to rule on pressure—or non-pressure—that is brought to bear on hon. Members. However, I appreciate that it is unfair for many reasons when questions are withdrawn in the way in which the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) described. He has put his point firmly on the record.

Orders of the Day

  Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.19 pm
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill contains provisions that merit further investigation. Erskine May and Standing Orders explicitly state that public Bills to which the Standing Orders relating to private business apply are subject to certain proceedings that are additional to the normal stages in passing public Bills.
  Indeed, the Speaker has defined a hybrid Bill as
  "a public Bill that affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class."
  My experience on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, when I had the pleasure of being the legal adviser to the ship repairers, showed that it was not obvious that the Bill was hybrid. It required a great deal of analysis, which must also take place in this instance. I simply draw attention to the fact that Erskine May says that if, on examination, it appears to the Public Bill Office that Standing Orders relating to private business may apply to a public Bill, it does not necessarily mean that matters will be got right first time. We therefore give notice that we wish, with the leave of the House, to have the matter examined in further detail.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving prior notice of his point of order. Mr. Speaker has given the matter careful consideration, but he does not find the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to be hybrid in any respect. The Bill is an enabling measure that gives the Secretary of State authority to incur expenditure on British Energy, a private sector group that is engaged in nuclear generation, or to acquire a British Energy undertaking. However, it does not require her to do so. The nuclear generating industry to which the Bill applies is a specific class for the purpose of legislation. The other member of the class is British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., a wholly publicly owned company, which is not adversely affected by the provisions of the Bill.
  In reaching his conclusion that the Bill is not hybrid, Mr. Speaker has examined the precedents for such Government action under the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act 1971, the British Leyland Act 1975 and the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980.
  4.23 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before we even begin our consideration, we have a fascinating vignette in which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) reveals himself 27 years later as the man behind Maxwell-Hyslop.
  The Secretary of State came to the House on 28 November last year to make an announcement on British Energy. That company is Britain's only private sector nuclear generator and our largest single electricity
  582
  generator. It was in serious financial difficulty, and the Government had provided it with a loan facility since early September to enable it to continue to operate.
  British Energy proposed a restructuring plan to return the company to financial viability in the private sector. That was a complex deal, which required the participation of several financial stakeholders. The Government were prepared to play their part in the restructuring by providing financial support for BE's nuclear liabilities. They were prepared to underwrite BE's enhanced arrangements for decommissioning and contribute significantly to the historic spent nuclear fuel liabilities.
  However, we were always conscious of the risk that BE would not be able to deliver the deal. It was therefore important that Government were alert to the alternative scenario of the possible failure of the deal and fully prepared for the company to go into administration.
  In her statement, the Secretary of State made clear her intention to introduce legislation that would tackle either eventuality: successful restructuring or administration. That is the purpose of the Bill. I want to re-emphasise that throughout our dealings with British Energy our key objectives have been nuclear safety and the security of electricity supplies. It might be helpful if I explain that a little further.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wilson: I want to make a little progress.
  As hon. Members will be aware, an unplanned business failure of British Energy could have jeopardised those objectives. Nuclear reactors, self-evidently, have their own special safety requirements. One cannot simply shut down a reactor and walk away if one runs out of money. For example, for as long as fuel remains inside, the cooling and safety systems must be operated, and funding is required to ensure that that is possible. Likewise, if BE stations were suddenly forced to stop generating electricity with little advance warning, there would be serious consequences for the security of electricity supplies.
  Mr. Lansley: The Minister will recall that as recently as early December he was saying that the energy White Paper would be published early in the new year. Will he concede that, notwithstanding the urgency of the Bill, it would be far better if we had sight of the Government's more general proposals for energy in the White Paper? Can the Minister explain why it has not been published so as to enable the debate to take place in that context?
  Mr. Wilson: We had this little exchange during trade and industry questions last month. I do not know why the Tories are so worried about timing—it is not as if they are going anywhere. I said that it would be published early in the new year, and it will be. We had a discussion on Report, in relation to academic institutes, about what was meant by early in the new year.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: By Hogmanay?
  Mr. Wilson: Hogmanay was late that year. The White Paper will be published at the end of February or the

  583
  beginning of March—I will not put a precise date on it. Everybody with an interest in these subjects agrees that it is better to get it right than to be pinned down to a specific date. Elements of the British Energy issue also have an impact on the timetable.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: There is a pretty general consensus that this contingency legislation is needed, but there has been speculation that it indicates the Government's preference for rejecting some of the performance and innovation unit's recommendations and introducing new nuclear power stations. Will the Minister confirm that the Bill is without any prejudice towards that end and that the Government recognise that such a policy would face widespread opposition?
  Mr. Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting in early, but I do not recognise the validity of his comments. No such conclusion or interpretation could be extrapolated from what I am about to say.
  I return to the Government's policy objective in relation to the Bill and to our dealings with British Energy. It is essential, first, to guarantee nuclear safety and, secondly, to maintain the security of electricity supplies. Failure to act as we did would have jeopardised those two objectives, which remain vital and will continue to be our priorities. As we move forward, we also need to factor in longer-term considerations, especially how to deal with those of British Energy's nuclear liabilities that already exist as a result of previous stations' operations. It is vital that they are dealt with safely and effectively, but we must consider how to do that at the least cost to the taxpayer while ensuring that electricity generation from those stations contributes as much as possible to the nation's needs. All that applies irrespective of whether the restructuring succeeds or fails.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister mentioned security of supply, which is one of the two main reasons underpinning the Government's actions in this regard. Does he not accept that the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets has estimated that over-supply in the UK electricity market is about 22 per cent., which is precisely the figure that British Energy supplies to the electricity market? The security of supply issue cannot be addressed through British Energy alone and he is, at very best, taking a short-term approach in the Bill.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall not quibble over the hon. Gentleman's figures, but if there is 22 per cent. overcapacity and 22 per cent. is taken out, that will leave us without much margin. That seems to be a pretty fundamental arithmetic calculation. Of course, many issues relate to security of supply, but I would have thought that there is a pretty broad consensus in the House—irrespective of the history, as this is the reality—that we get about 22 per cent. of capacity from nuclear. Therefore, the idea that we can countenance its withdrawal over a short period, or even the medium term, is not viable.
  I know that there are some in the House who would want all those nuclear stations to be shut down tomorrow. I strongly disagree with that view. For one thing, the sudden shutdown of a nuclear reactor is not a practical option. Reactors take many months to defuel
  584
  and the infrastructure is not set up to allow all those stations to defuel their reactors at once. In practical terms, it would be many years before that process were complete.
  Beside that practical point, however, there is an equally important argument on the economic rationality of such a move. Those stations more than cover the additional costs of their operation. To put it another way, continuing to run them generates surplus revenue, which can then be put towards paying for the liabilities that are already incurred and cannot now be avoided. Shutting down those stations and forgoing the financial contribution that they could make towards their liabilities would be economic madness, which is doubtless why it commends itself to the Liberal Democrats.
  On 28 November, we identified three key outcomes that the company would have to achieve if the restructuring package were to succeed. The first was that it would need agreement from existing creditors to a temporary freeze on payments and a write-down in the value of what they were owed. The company is engaged in a dialogue with its creditors to achieve that.
  Secondly, it was recognised that the company would need to sell the north American part of its operations. Since the November statement, it has announced that it has successfully entered into a binding agreement to sell Bruce Power in Canada. That will be subject to a shareholder vote on 10 February. The third part of the restructuring package was the implementation of a new trading strategy. The company is negotiating with potential trading partners.
  The negotiations with the various counter-parties to achieve those three outcomes are in the hands of British Energy and are clearly commercially sensitive matters for that company. The House will therefore fully understand that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for me to be drawn further on those specific matters today.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Given that the emissions trading regime is coming from the European Union, does the Minister believe that British Energy can benefit from that? Will he assure me that generators will not be given an opt-out when the trading regime is introduced?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend raises an interesting question. Of course, the emissions trading directive is still being negotiated, but, in its current form, it includes electricity generators from the outset of the scheme. I can certainly say today that the Government have no plans to seek an opt-out for the electricity generators.
  I know that Members are interested in the wider details of the British Energy case, so I hope that that background information and progress update have been helpful. If I may, I shall discuss the specific provisions of the Bill. Perhaps I should say first that successful implementation of the restructuring plan also depends on receiving formal approval of that plan from the European Commission under the state aid rules and provisions on rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. We are preparing that plan, which is due to be submitted to the Commission by 9 March.
  Mr. George Osborne: Does the Minister concede that one burden placed on British Energy has

  585
  been the climate change levy, which, according to some estimates, has cost the company between £80 million and £100 million? Does he agree that since the levy was designed to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, it is complete nonsense to apply it to the nuclear industry, which does not produce it?
  Mr. Wilson: I do not intend to go into wider areas of energy policy. The hon. Gentleman has made his point effectively, and I am sure that it will be noted.
  Richard Ottaway: Given the leaks last week to the effect that the Government do not plan a new generation of nuclear generators. if British Energy goes into administration and if the Minister subsequently takes it over, will he seek to prolong the life of existing nuclear generators while the renewables programme gains momentum?
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has a genuine interest in these matters, but for as long as I have done my present job not a week has gone by in which no one has written nuclear stories saying "yes, no or maybe" about our policy. There is a preoccupation with such stories and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the stories of which he spoke fall into that category.
  It is not for me to say whether the life of existing stations would be prolonged; that will be a regulatory matter at the appropriate time, which is some way down the road for all the stations in the British Energy stable. It will be open to the company to seek to prolong those stations' lives, and that will be an economic decision for the company as well as, clearly, a regulatory decision for the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive. There is nothing to preclude such an application.
  David Hamilton: Surely the Minister is not saying that if we are bailing the company out to the tune of millions of pounds, we will have no say in whether stations should have an extended life. Surely phasing them out would be the natural way forward.
  Mr. Wilson: That is not the subject of the Bill. As things stand, the nuclear power stations operated by British Energy have a defined life span. I was responding to the purely hypothetical question of whether it would be open to operators to apply to extend those life spans, as has happened in the past. I merely confirm that that option exists. I know of nothing that could stop it. That does not prejudge the issue in any way, and whatever else that issue may be, it is not a political issue. It has to do, above all, with technical decisions and safety, and it will be judged in those terms at the appropriate time.
  I quibble with the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) to millions of pounds being put towards bailing the company out. We are talking today about the precise reasons why what we are doing is being done not in the company's interest, but in the public interest.
  Hon. Members are interested in the wider details of the British Energy case, but having given some general background I want to discuss the specific provisions of the Bill.
  586
  The Bill will ensure that we are properly prepared for the future in relation to British Energy. It authorises expenditure on the company generally, providing specific statutory authority for the support that we are currently giving and for measures that we may need to take in future. It ensures that we can deliver our part of the solvent restructuring deal, should it succeed. On the other hand, it ensures that we will be prepared if the deal should fail and the company go into administration.
  I shall turn to the role of the Bill if the deal succeeds and solvent restructuring is achieved. As part of the deal, the Government have agreed to contribute significantly to British Energy's historic nuclear liabilities. However, British Energy will in turn pay its own way in future. That is an important principle: liabilities that arise from future operations at its stations must be paid for by the company. On top of that, British Energy will make additional contributions to its nuclear liabilities, including £275 million worth of bonds and 65 per cent. of the cash available each year. The more successful the company is, therefore, the more it will contribute.
  Joan Ruddock: The Minister speaks of liabilities, one of the most pressing of which is the disposal of nuclear waste. Has he estimated the difference entailed by any move from reprocessing to dry storage, which I believe British Energy supports?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister answers that question, it might be helpful to the House if I said that the provisions of the Bill are very tightly drawn and that we are not debating energy policy in general.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) knows very well that waste is the subject of ongoing research, led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I do not know where British Energy stands now on dry storage. At one time, not long after I came into the House, it certainly supported dry storage, and a number of us were taken to witness the wonders of dry storage in Colorado. British Energy then got a better deal from BNFL and, suddenly, it forgot about dry storage. I do not know if it has come back to the idea of dry storage or not, but clearly the treatment of waste is an important issue. It is essential that we come up with answers, and my hon. Friend's comments on the advantages of dry storage will be noted.
  From the taxpayer's point of view, it is important to emphasise that we have made sure that the more successful the company is, the more it will contribute. For this deal to work, the Government need to make a firm commitment now of the support we are prepared to give BE over future years. In order to enable the Government to give that guarantee, the Bill will remove the existing statutory ceiling on payments for nuclear liabilities under schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989, a ceiling that is currently set at £1 billion. Removing the limit recognises that, ultimately, the Government have overriding responsibilities for nuclear safety and environmental protection. If the company could not

  587
  afford its liabilities and were to fail, the Government therefore would have to step in to ensure that they were dealt with properly.
  Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister have any estimate of how far the figure is likely to go over the current ceiling?
  Mr. Wilson: There is not a figure because the amount is not predestined to go over any ceiling, but the existence of the current ceiling is not a natural inhibition. Therefore, we have to have room for manoeuvre in all eventualities. However, that certainly does not imply any figure.
  Mr. Mark Field: Has the Minister been in touch with the Treasury to ensure that, if the ceiling is taken off, the amount concerned is put into the public accounts? If it is to be a liability, it should be a liability with regard to the public accounts.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that we are in constant touch with the Treasury on these matters.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Schedule 12 to the 1989 Act, says that the amount
  "shall not exceed £1,000 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £2,500 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify."
  Is the Minister suggesting that the amount will be more than £2,500 million?
  Mr. Wilson: No. I was emphasising that it is not inherent in making these changes that there is an expectation that figures will rise above their present levels. We need the flexibility to respond to eventualities; that, indeed, is the whole purpose of the Bill.
  I must emphasise that, under the solvent restructuring plan that the company has presented to its creditors, we are certainly not writing a blank cheque for British Energy's nuclear liabilities. The Government have a duty to the taxpayer to ensure that there is no potential for the commitment that they would be offering to be exploited at the taxpayers' expense, nor should there be any incentive to run the company's stations in a way that might be inefficient for the country as a whole.
  We understand very well the nature of the company's liabilities and we will put appropriate controls in place to safeguard taxpayers' interests and ensure that we only provide the aid necessary to ensure the safe and secure discharge of these liabilities. Changes to decommissioning plans or station operation that would materially increase the nuclear liabilities would need to be authorised by the Government in advance, working in close consultation with the regulators. The planning and contracting of the work necessary to tackle the nuclear liabilities will need to be transparent and provide value for money.
  The company will be required to continue to maintain a high standard of operation of its sites and will be liable for any consequences if its actions fall short of that. The new arrangements will also ensure that, while recognising that the company must be given the space to
  588
  run its stations commercially, due account is taken of the costs of decommissioning in view of taxpayers' exposure.
  The Bill will also ensure that the commitment to financial support given by the Government for BE's nuclear liabilities would not cause an immediate, massive tax bill for the company; that would undermine the deal, given the company's cash position, and would be an unforeseen revenue windfall. It would be perverse for us to write out an IOU with one hand and then immediately snatch cash back from the company with the other, tipping it into insolvency.
  I want to consider the role of the Bill if the restructuring deal fails. If the deal fails, we expect the board of the company to decide to put it into administration. We anticipate funding the administrator so that we are able to ensure that our key objectives of nuclear safety and security of supply are met. We have been undertaking detailed contingency plans for administration, in discussion with all the key responsible regulatory bodies. Furthermore, we have notified the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the terms of the proposed indemnity that the Government would give the administrator.
  BE's nuclear liabilities and the particular financial risks associated with its nuclear operations put it in a special position, and we are not aware of any credible private sector interest in acquiring BE if it were to end up in administration. The Government must thus plan for the eventuality that a private sector buyer will not be found for all the company's power stations. That is why we are preparing for the possible acquisition of BE's nuclear stations by the Government, either through acquiring the nuclear operating companies directly or through buying the assets and business of those companies.
  The Bill ensures that we are prepared for either approach, giving the Government the financial authority to make such an acquisition and to finance the continued safe and secure operation of the business. Any acquisition would of course be a commercial arrangement with the administrator of the same kind that a private buyer might make; the Bill gives the Government no special powers in that regard.
  Paddy Tipping: It is conceivable that the Bill will not have received Royal Assent before the company goes into administration. What plans are there to ensure that the company continues to operate smoothly and satisfactorily in those circumstances?
  Mr. Wilson: My Department is in constant touch with BE, as indeed are the regulatory bodies, and I can give an absolute assurance that in any eventuality the smooth and safe running of the stations will be maintained; it will be our highest priority. However, my hon. Friend's point emphasises the need to introduce legislation and to progress it as expeditiously as possible—exactly as we are trying to do.
  My focus is on what the Bill would enable in the immediate future, but I also flag up that bringing nuclear stations back into the public sector would not necessarily rule out future collaboration with the private sector in the longer term. I am sure that many hon. Members will already have noticed that the measure will

  589
  repeal some old provisions relating to the original privatisation of the electricity industry. Those provisions effectively prevent the Government from acquiring shares in certain privatised electricity companies, thus preventing us from owning the BE operating companies that we want in the current circumstances.
  Those provisions may have made sense at the time—to show that the Government had confidence in the privatisation process and that they did not intend to reverse it immediately afterwards. However, such provisions no longer make sense a decade later when the shape of the industry is unrecognisable compared with the immediate post-privatisation period.
  The provisions apply only to the original legal entity formed by the industry restructuring, and not to other companies in the same group. That legal entity may no longer exist; even if it does so, it may no longer own its original assets. The provisions will not apply to any companies that have newly entered the electricity market. If nothing else, they are discriminatory and reflect former conditions and the imperatives of our predecessors in government. They are not an accurate reflection of the industry at present.
  It is true that repealing the provisions could, in theory, permit the Government to acquire shares in certain other electricity companies where we cannot currently do so, but I stress that we have no intention of doing so in relation to other companies. So there is nothing sinister about repealing the provisions wholesale; we simply want to tidy up old, outdated provisions. Indeed, the rest of part 2 of the Electricity Act 1989, which deals with the initial restructuring, appears to be spent, so the Bill will take a power to remove it.
  Hon. Members should not read anything sinister into that. The reason that we are taking that power is simply a practical matter of timing. As a principle, we want to repeal part 2, but, before we go ahead and do that, we want go through and check every provision thoroughly to see whether any of them needs to be retained in any form. We will do that in due course, but, to avoid holding up the pressing issue of dealing with British Energy, we are taking a power to repeal later on.
  I have not tried to address the Government's wider energy policy, since that is not the subject of this debate, as you have pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suspect that hon. Members may wish to extend the range of the debate, but I should like to remind them that, as has been said already, there will be a full opportunity to debate the Government's energy policy when the energy White Paper is published in a few weeks' time.
  The White Paper will set out our policy on achieving energy reliability, competitive energy prices, our environmental goals and, indeed, our wider social objectives. Of course there will be a statement to the House when the White Paper is published, but I am mindful of the position of British Energy's financial creditors who are considering the restructuring deal that the company has put before them. There has been speculation about how measures to be announced in the White Paper might impact on British Energy, and I thought that it would be helpful to address that.
  590
  I should like to make it clear therefore that the energy White Paper will not contain measures that are likely, in the Government's view, to have a material impact on the financial position of British Energy. I should perhaps also emphasise that the restructuring proposals put forward by the company were not in any way predicated on future changes through the White Paper, so the statement I have just made does not affect the viability of those proposals.
  British Energy has put forward its restructuring plan, and we wait to see whether it will be able to deliver it. The Government need to be able to play their part in the solvent restructuring if that succeeds, but we need to be equally prepared to act swiftly if it fails and the company goes into administration. The Bill will ensure that we are prepared for either eventuality, and I commend it to the House.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister has attempted in a rather deflated way, compared with his usual parliamentary standards, to present this sow's ear of a Bill as a silk purse.
  I first want to pick up on one of his final remarks: that the energy White Paper will have no financial impact on British Energy. That indicates that the Government will not produce any proposal that will assist those electricity generators that do not contribute to climate change, which is a rather remarkable admission by the Government, but we will wait to see exactly what their proposals are. If there will be no advantage in relation to climate change, the energy White Paper will certainly be a sadly missed opportunity.
  The Minister cannot disguise the fact that the Bill would be rather better named, the Electricity "we do not have a clue" Bill. The Executive have come to Parliament to ask us to write them a blank cheque, so that they can spend and do whatever they like to get them out of the mess that is much of their own creation. I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to decline to sign that cheque, and I hope that all other hon. Members who want to defend the interests of the taxpayer and the consumer will join us.
  Mr. Tom Watson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept any responsibility for part of the mess that British Energy finds itself in now? Does he agree with the comment that appeared in The Guardian that British Energy was one of those
  "businesses where the pitfalls of privatisation stood out in neon lights"?
  Mr. Blunt: No, I do not accept any responsibility at all. I was elected to the House in 1997, so I find it rather extraordinary that I should be expected to be responsible. Perhaps I should be responsible for things that happened in the 1920s or 1930s. Just how far back does the hon. Gentleman want me to go? Does he want me to hold him responsible for the activities of the Labour party in the 1980s and its relationship with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? I remind him that the leader of his party was shadow Secretary of State for Energy at about the time that his membership of parliamentary CND somehow lapsed. The hon. Gentleman would do everyone a favour if we made this

  591
  a contemporary debate rather than an examination of history. I certainly take absolutely no responsibility for the state of affairs that the Government have created.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in large measure, British Energy found itself in difficulties because the pool system was ended? That happened because, when the Conservatives introduced the system, they did not structure it sufficiently well, so the generators were over-charging electricity consumers by vast amounts. The Labour Government sought to change it and introduce the new electricity trading arrangements. The Conservatives got it wrong in the first place, and the Labour Government were protecting consumers, which resulted in part of the difficulties that British Energy faced.
  Mr. Blunt: I usually have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who is Chairman of the Select Committee, but that is an extraordinary set of statements. I happily accept that one of the reasons that British Energy and every other generator of electricity find themselves in difficulty is that a liberalised market is delivering lower prices to consumers. That is one of the aids to assist British manufacturers in comparison to all the other difficulties that this regulating and interfering Government have put in their way. If electricity consumers are enjoying lower prices because of a liberalised market pioneered by the Conservative Government before 1997—a Government whom I did not represent but merely advised—I am happy that the Conservative party should take credit for the benefit to the wider economy.
  Richard Ottaway: I do not think that the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) can be allowed to get away with his remarks scot free. The new electricity trading arrangements were brought in with a target to reduce wholesale electricity prices by 10 per cent. The way in which they were introduced led to an overshoot, and a lowering of prices by about 40 per cent. has led British Energy to be uneconomical. That is the only reason for the mess that it is in today.
  Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend has engaged the hon. Member for Ochil in his own way.
  Even the Minister's rhetoric cannot disguise the scale of the personal disaster that this Bill represents. It is surprising that when the going gets tough for the Government, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has apparently got going. Where has she gone? Why must the Minister present this wretched brief to the House alone? It is a touching feature of the Government that in times of difficulty they conspicuously fail to rally to each others' support, and a sad irony that the identified champion of nuclear power within Labour's ranks has had to come to the House today to propose a measure that will probably sound the death-knell for the future prospects of new nuclear power generation within the private sector.
  The future welfare of the Minister's 450 constituents who work at the Hunterston B power station is also at stake. It is ironic that his actions could help to deny the future success of nuclear generation in the private sector. It is also ironic that Labour's former spokesman on citizens' rights and open government is proposing a
  592
  measure to the House that will obscure completely the true cost of nuclear power. As a result of the Bill, those of us who believe that nuclear power, with its costs and benefits understood, deserves its chance to compete fairly for Britain's future electricity generating capacity will have our position hopelessly undermined. The Minister's rhetoric cannot disguise the fact that the Government's management of energy policy has helped to create this shambles. Nor can he disguise the confusion in his Department that has led to this measure, which will have wretched consequences unless Parliament is prepared to do something about it.
  Anyone who has followed the unfolding story of British Energy will be impressed by the consistent reporting of the panic inside the Minister's department. I am not sure whether "headless chickens" or "rabbits in the headlights" is the most appropriate description, but both serve to give a general idea of the atmosphere in which birth was given to this measure.
  Let us first examine the policy framework in which the Government have made British Energy operate. I cannot find from the Labour Party a single unequivocal statement on nuclear energy for 25 years. On coming into office they confiscated £2.1 billion of the assets of the electricity industry through the windfall tax. Then in 2000 they passed a statutory instrument that uniquely rated nuclear reactors, ensuring a business rate regime that discriminated against nuclear power stations. Then they introduced that peerless instrument, the climate change levy, a bureaucratic and regulatory nightmare that discriminates against manufacturing and that they also applied to nuclear-generated electricity.
  Then there is the Government's role as owners of BNFL. That company is trading technically insolvently to the tune of a billion pounds or three. So the Government's alibi that that company's commercial interests are nothing to do with them would seem somewhat below the expectation that the taxpayer might have of their accepting their responsibilities.
  Mr. Hendrick: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how the climate change levy could be applied to nuclear electricity, when it applies to consumption of electricity in the grid, not production?
  Mr. Blunt: I wonder where the hon. Gentleman thinks that that electricity was generated.
  Mr. Hendrick rose—
  Mr. Blunt: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. It is a ludicrous proposition. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will resume his seat rather than insist on continuing with this point to his own embarrassment.
  Electricity generated by carbon-free sources, of which nuclear is one, is charged to the climate change levy at the point of consumption in exactly the same way as electricity produced from any other source. If the hon. Gentleman has worked out that that discriminates against carbon-free electricity, I hope that he will give the matter a little more attention.
  BNFL, the Government's own company, offered British Energy a deal that first drove it onto the rocks in September and then saw the Secretary of State come to the House on 28 November to explain a wholly new deal

  593
  from BNFL that was crucial to dragging British Energy off the rocks where BNFL had deposited it two months earlier. That is the Department that comes before us today asking Parliament to give it the authority to do what it likes.
  Mr. Wilson: I have not sought to stop the hon. Gentleman's flow, but what he has said is absolute rubbish. The difficulties of British Energy on the scale that we now know them to have been came to our attention as a result of it becoming clear that the deal between BNFL, a commercial entity in its own right, and British Energy would not be enough to solve British Energy's problems. What was on the table afterwards from BNFL was exactly what was on the table before. Therefore, it is an extremely unfair aspersion to cast on BNFL that it acted in any way irresponsibly in driving British Energy into the difficulties that arose.
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. What he has said is that the deal that BNFL is offering British Energy today is exactly the same deal as it offered British Energy in the run-up to 9 September. I am grateful that he appears to indicate assent. I think that that is what he has said. If it is not the case—and I have no doubt that the Select Committee of the hon. Member for Ochil will look further into this matter—then, of course, the event that put British Energy into the arms of the Government was the failure of the negotiations with BNFL. I accept that there were a vast number of other issues in play as well, but that was what drove it into the arms of the Government to seek a loan. The Minister is on record as having said that; it is not a point in dispute. It is agreed that the failure of those negotiations with BNFL was the point at which British Energy had to seek assistance from the Government. I hope that the Minister will make it clear whether he is saying that the deal in the rescue package and proposal put forward to British Energy with BNFL is identical to the one that was being negotiated on 9 September. That is the crucial issue.
  Mr. Wilson: I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman has said. He used a slightly pejorative phase, saying that BNFL drove British Energy into the arms of the Government. Is he saying, on behalf of the Tory party, that BNFL had an obligation to offer British Energy a deal which would have prevented it from going into the arms of the Government, irrespective of the impact that that would have had on BNFL and, indeed, the taxpayer? If so, that is a remarkable proposition.
  Mr. Blunt: The Minister said that BNFL is offering British Energy precisely the same deal as before, and I just want him to tell the House that that is correct. If so, the issue does not arise. But if BNFL, as a Government-owned company, has now offered a different deal as part of the rescue package that the Government are presenting to the House in association with the Bill, that is quite a different question.
  Mr. O'Neill: This point is not one of party dispute but of knowledge or interpretation of the facts. As I understand it, and it may benefit the House if the hon.
  594
  Gentleman confirms that this is his understanding, in September we became increasingly aware of the difficulties that British Energy was having. It made several calls on BNFL, and on each occasion it upped the request for a cut in prices. When it came to what most people would have regarded as BNFL's final offer, British Energy said, "We are sorry, but we need even more." At that point BNFL said, "If we offered more, we would be putting ourselves into a difficult financial position and we would be in the arms of the Government." As I understand it—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that this is an important point and obviously the House is anxious to have it cleared up, but the hon. Gentleman will be seeking to catch my eye later.
  Mr. Blunt: BNFL is already in the Government's hands, and that is the point. I, like anyone else who is not on the Government Benches, have not been privy to the negotiations between BNFL and British Energy. The issue is whether the proposed contract between them is materially different from the one that drove British Energy on to the rocks—it was the final wave that washed it ashore—because the Government are the owner of BNFL and can influence its decisions, which have wider ramifications for the taxpayer.
  Paddy Tipping: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman let me make a little progress before I give way?
  The Government's rationale for their actions is accompanied by the constant refrain, which was repeated by the Minister this afternoon, that they are acting to secure the electricity supply of the United Kingdom and to ensure its safety. They have said that so often that it is even possible that they have convinced themselves that it is true—a Goebbels-like quality of self-delusion. Any examination of the issues of safety and of security of supply shows those explanations to be nonsense, but of course we heard them again this afternoon and they sound good. One should never underestimate the attraction of what sounds good for this glib and superficial Government.
  British Energy has demolished the Government's explanation. In response to the legal challenge by Greenpeace and Ecotricity that the aid was unlawful, both British Energy and the Government entered a defence, and they contradicted each other. The Government said:
  "The grant of the loan to British Energy was not unlawful given that it had to be granted as a matter of urgent necessity in the face of unacceptable risks to public safety and security of supply."
  British Energy said:
  "The claim herein for judicial review is wholly misconceived since it depends on a false hidden premise which the Claim Form does not even seek to substantiate.
  The premise is that, if the S of S had not extended the Financial Assistance to BE, then the amount of electricity generated by the nuclear generating stations presently in BE's ownership would have been materially reduced and that, if the relief sought herein were granted, the amount of such electricity would be materially reduced, even perhaps through cessation of generation as a result of permanent closure of the stations. That premise is demonstrably false, irrespective of the person or persons in whose

  595
  ownership and under whose control the stations are operated; and this is true not only of BE's eight nuclear generating stations but also of its non-nuclear station at Eggborough, the output from which is used to enable the output from the nuclear stations to be more profitably marketed. While the Claimants' Additional Material for Claim Form is profuse in its citation of abstract legal propositions, the Claimants appear never to have addressed their minds to the practical application of those propositions to the actual and unusual circumstances of the present case concerning, as it does, nuclear electricity generating facilities".
  So there we have it: British Energy's attested opinion that the Department of Trade and Industry has never addressed its mind to the practical application of its propositions. Tempted as one might be to accept that, I give credit to DTI officials and, indeed, Ministers that that is not the case. The explanation is that the DTI's spin doctors would like us to believe that there is a danger to security of supply, but it is not true. There never has been any danger to security of supply. In administration, with a loan, in Government ownership or, indeed, in any conceivable circumstances, as the Minister repeated in detail, the stations will continue to generate electricity. Relieved of their liability, it is now accepted by the Government that power stations and their staff will continue to generate power and cash, making it nonsensical for anyone to switch them off, even this Government, with their reckless disregard for the taxpayers' interest.
  There is a final nail in the coffin of the security of supply argument. We could switch off all British Energy's contribution to the grid and, on current figures, it could still supply the market on the coldest day of the year. The Minister made it clear that the margin might be a little tight, but there would still be a margin, provided by a combination of power supply through the interconnector to France, demand management and the 10 per cent. margin available by lowering voltage at peak demand. Prices would also rise, but supply would continue. As has been made clear, however, there was never a prospect of Britain being in that dramatic position. The Secretary of State even contributed to rubbishing her own explanation by saying in her statement:
  "but whatever happens, nuclear power stations will continue to generate electricity and will continue to employ staff."
  So if it is economic madness, as the Minister told us, why has it been the basis of the explanation for the Government's actions?
  Let us consider the safety case. Is anyone suggesting that plants would be abandoned by their staff? Is the Minister suggesting that his constituents would walk away from Hunterston or that the on-site arrangements for nuclear installation inspection would suddenly come to an end? No, of course not. The fact that a board of directors in East Kilbride is replaced by an administrator makes no practical difference to the running of any asset. Heysham 2 and Sizewell B are not going to leak or explode because there has been a change of personality in charge of the finances.
  Paddy Tipping: Does the hon. Gentleman absolve the board of British Energy from all blame? Did it not spend £500 million on Eggborough? Did it not sell SWALEC when other people were concentrating on the consumer? Did it not pay SWALEC many thousands of pounds in special dividends? Should it not, too, be criticised?
  Mr. Blunt: Quite. I could not agree more. The commercial strategy of British Energy has been sadly
  596
  flawed. The hon. Gentleman mentions SWALEC. British Energy purchased SWALEC for £100 million and sold it for £200 million. On the face of it that might appear a satisfactory arrangement. We need to draw attention to the fact, however, that it bought SWALEC with an obligation to buy power at a highly inflated price from another generator, which appears in its accounts as an onerous contract with a liability of £200 million. The board of British Energy has made numerous mistakes. Indeed, I could go on citing them, but I do not want to make this debate an examination of why British Energy is responsible for its predicament. [Interruption.] I have never said that it was not responsible, but the Government are also responsible and it is my job to hold them to account. It is not my job to hold the board of British Energy to account. I am not a shareholder or bondholder in British Energy. The Government are inviting the taxpayer to take on an unlimited liability and the House to give them unlimited freedom of action in the Bill.
  Mr. Wilson: May I try to help the hon. Gentleman? Only a few minutes ago, he said that BNFL drove British Energy into the arms of the Government. In light of what he has just said, he may wish to withdraw that comment and accept that it would have been grossly irresponsible of BNFL to have given a blank cheque to British Energy, something that he appeared to endorse a few minutes ago.
  Mr. Blunt: That is not the case at all. I was making the point that negotiations with BNFL were the straw that broke the camel's back. That was the final event that drove British Energy to seek a Government loan—that is exactly what the Minister told the Select Committee and is not a matter of dispute.
  As for safety, the only issue that the Government have had to cope with was a bureaucratic one—how to transfer the necessary licence to operate nuclear power stations from British Energy to a potential administrator. It is not as if the Government have not had time to think about the matter. The Minister told the Select Committee that
  "certainly from June or probably earlier through the summer, we were monitoring what was going on at British Energy because clearly the market was an impact on it which could lead to the difficulties which eventually manifested themselves."
  That even had a name in the Department—Project BLUE.
  Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in light of what you said earlier, do you believe that there is a remote chance that the Tory spokesman may actually touch on the Bill's provisions?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman were out of order, I should have told him so.
  Mr. Blunt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In her statement in November, the Secretary of State said:
  "We have therefore prepared detailed contingency plans for administration, in discussion with all the key … regulatory bodies, to ensure that whatever happens, nuclear safety and security of supply will be maintained."—[Official Report, 28 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 489–90.]

  597
  The Government's overt explanation for their policy and the Bill is therefore demolished in their own words and those of British Energy.
  Mr. Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman has placed a heavy emphasis on administration and has talked about management being handed over to the administrator. I do not want to get into a debate about the meaning of administration, but can he tell the House which third party in the wide world would be interested in taking over the running of those sites?
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is prejudging the next part of my speech—I shall address that issue shortly.
  There is a new factor in the British Energy drama—no one seems to have considered from 1996 onwards the fact that British Energy could indeed go bust and what, in the circumstances, would happen to its nuclear liabilities. There is a ring-fenced fund for decommissioning which partly addresses those costs, but as the taxpayer is now painfully finding out, there is the large matter of back-end fuel costs, liability for which dwarfs the scale of decommissioning costs. The Government's answer is to attempt a rescue, thus putting off a decision about renationalisation or administration. We believe that that is the wrong strategy. If the Government are trying to operate in the taxpayer's interests, they are going about it in an odd way, presumably taking on a £2.1 billion liability and none of the assets. As the Minister explained in response to the hon. Member for Ochil, who wanted to know what the taxpayer got for his £2.1 billion:
  "The taxpayer specifically from that will have the peace of mind of the safe management of nuclear liabilities."
  As no one was proposing to manage those liabilities dangerously, that peace of mind may not represent the best value for the taxpayer. It is commonly accepted that in the final analysis the Government cannot escape responsibility for dangerous radioactive waste. The most disturbing feature of the saga for those of us who want nuclear power to have an economic future is that British Energy does not seem to be making adequate provision, if indeed any, for back-end fuel costs. The assumption that that will be funded by future operating profits when the company is in fact making a loss is not one that the insurer of final resort—the taxpayer—will find acceptable. I have been unable to identify anyone who has raised that matter until now. The taxpayer's representatives should have identified that threat at an earlier stage. All of us in the House, whether serving on the Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee or any other body, should accept that perhaps we are responsible.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: The fund for the decommissioning of nuclear power stations was set up at the time of privatisation with an endowment to start it rolling. It was intended to build up over the lifetime of the power stations until, at the end of their life, it was sufficient to cover the costs. If the House were to take the hon. Gentleman's advice and decline to give the Bill a Second Reading, and British Energy were then to go bust, would not the money that the Government
  598
  are proposing to loan under the Bill become a grant to cover the cost of decommissioning. which would have to start straight away?
  Mr. Blunt: I do not know whether it has escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention, but that is precisely what the Government are proposing anyway. They are proposing to give British Energy between £150 million and £200 million a year, and to merge the decommissioning fund with the fund for back-end nuclear liabilities. The decommissioning fund has been ring-fenced to date, and has had a cash stream of about £20 million a year. Sadly, the fund that the Government are proposing to take over has diminished since the company made its reports. It stood at £411 million in April, but I now understand that it is closer to £300 million. I am afraid that that has more to do with the Government's wider mismanagement of the economy, as I understand that the fund is largely invested in equities. The adage "Sell in May and go away" would have been advice well taken on 1 May 1997. Investors could come back on the election of a Conservative Government.
  This issue must be dealt with in a clear and transparent way. The interests of the taxpayer must be protected, and future investors in nuclear energy need to know how the liabilities will be costed so that they have confidence to invest following this debacle. Without that clarity, or a proper framework for energy policy, there will be no new investment from the private sector. When the Conservative party publishes its energy proposals, it will propose a scheme to address that.
  In the meantime, the Government's cack-handed rescue scheme, which has been cooked up with British Energy, will not deliver such results. Thus, the Bill is not necessary; indeed, it is an obstacle. The Government have so far endorsed British Energy's proposal, but I suspect that they will be somewhat bewildered by the complexity of the financial arrangements proposed.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. He has certainly done much to demolish the security of supply argument. However, he has not yet addressed what should have happened in the light of British Energy's fortunes. Surely there are only two options: one is that proposed by the Government; and the other is full renationalisation—the only way to safeguard taxpayers' interests in the company and ensure security of supply for as long as we decide to have nuclear energy. The hon. Gentleman mentioned administration, but has not yet said what that option would entail.
  Mr. Blunt: I am getting there, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
  The beneficiaries of the Government's rescue scheme are the bondholders and the existing management of the company. Even Robin Jeffrey continues to defend his position, and there are suggestions today that British Energy is being invited to fund the price of his silence in order to prevent him embarrassing the Government. I hope that the Minister will make it clear in his

  599
  winding-up speech that the Government have nothing to fear from Robin Jeffrey being completely free to speak his mind.
  Mr. Wilson: Why delay? I say now that I do not think that anybody should be suppressed in that way. If Robin Jeffrey has anything to say, I would be very pleased to hear it, and I think that the public should hear it.
  Mr. Blunt: May I say how welcome that statement is? The Minister has made it clear that the Government would deprecate any gagging clause in the terms on which Robin Jeffrey leaves British Energy.
  As for the taxpayer, there is only one factor in favour of the Government's rescue. Had the company gone into administration in September, the Canadian assets—Bruce Power, which was valued at £600 million—would have reverted to the landlord, the Ontario Government. The one significant benefit of the Government's support is that that clause cannot be invoked. Yet, one ludicrous product of the Government's aid to British Energy and the current plan is the deliberate destruction of the value of the north American assets of the company. As a condition of the loan, the Government are forcing British Energy to conduct a fire sale of its north American assets by 14 February as a condition of their support. Assets valued at more than £600 million are to be sold for about £300 million, so the Government have halved the only conceivable value of their actions.
  What about the costs? BNFL, a Government-owned company, has accepted a chunk of British Energy's price risk, which it may or may not have been prepared to do in early September. What will that cost the taxpayer? If bondholders and shareholders accept the deal, it will be because it is in their interest to do so, yet surely the value that they derive can be only at the expense of the taxpayer. If the company had gone into administration, the Government would have been left with the liabilities that they have already accepted explicitly. Those liabilities were always with them implicitly, although as I said, no one seems to have established that.
  However, the administrator would be able to refloat the company on the basis of the cash-generating assets, which have a significant positive value. The taxpayer would have the first charge over receipts from such a sale, and we would have had a nuclear generator—and we can still have a nuclear generator—fully in the private sector, with an opportunity for a transparent and sustainable method of internalising the costs of its environmental pollution. That would have been the best way forward, and it still is. It would be a market solution, and it would be fair to all concerned.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to read the Select Committee report of 1996? Did he see the vast size of the liability? The liability at that time for AGRs—advanced gas-cooled reactors—and Sizewell B was £10.5 billion undiscounted, and £7.6 billion discounted at 2 per cent.
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have not read that report. However, the point that he makes is that the size of the liability was understood. It seems that no one made provision for what would
  600
  happen if British Energy, as a privatised company, went bankrupt, and what would happen to those liabilities. I will go away and read the Select Committee report in order to establish whether the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Committee were prescient enough to identify the issue at that stage, in which case the then Government should have made clear what would happen in those circumstances. I am happy to accept that. We shall have to wait and see whether that warning was given at the time.
  My hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General has raised the possibility of hybridity, and the Deputy Speaker has given his ruling on that. If the Bill is not technically hybrid, it would certainly appear to be unfair to other generators of electricity. A significant number of them have made known their concerns.
  We are invited to support a circumscribed and crippled entity that will never have the chance of proving the future worth of nuclear energy. What incentive will there be for effective financial performance if 65 per cent. of its cash has to go to the Government, even after it has paid its taxes, business rate, climate change levy and so on? The beast that the Government are proposing in the Bill will never fly.
  What sort of message do the Bill and the attendant rescue send to the rest of the electricity industry and the market? Its effect on the market is documented. The reaction to the Government's announcement that they proposed to extend their loan to British Energy on 23 September was followed by a drop in the forward price of electricity of 40p to 50p a megawatt-hour. Competitors AES, Powergen, NRG, Ecotricity, American Electric Power and Eastern Electricity are all recorded as expressing concern.
  Government interventions in the market have a price. Future investors will levy a premium on the risk:reward ratio to cover for political risk. The price will be paid by future consumers. If the Government are not prepared to let the market work, we will all pay the price, both as consumers and as taxpayers. Nationalisation is wholly unnecessary.
  We must spare a thought for the employees of British Energy, many of whom have backed their employer by purchasing their own shares in the company. I am very sorry for them. The company's commercial strategy has been at best unlucky and at worst incompetent. It has certainly not been blessed with significant foresight in an increasingly difficult market. What it should also know is that the Government bear a share of responsibility for its plight. There was no framework for nuclear policy, no unequivocal statement about the merits of the industry, a shocking inability to come to timely decisions about policy on future waste disposal, the windfall tax, the climate change levy and disproportionate business rates, all of which combined with a market in considerable surplus.
  We want nuclear power to have a fair chance to play a role in the future electricity generation of the United Kingdom. I want that power to be economic, its environmental costs and benefits having been taken into account in the market. The Bill will not achieve that.

  601
  It is as sorry a day for the Minister as for the industry, the taxpayer and the consumer. We can do them all a favour and throw the Bill out.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches. That applies from now on.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I welcome the Bill and believe that it is prudent of the Government to get the powers that they are seeking.
  Those of us who know British Energy feel sad that it has come to this pass. In its history as a privatised company, its record was extremely good for many years in respect of its technical responsibilities. Its reduced its costs considerably, operated within the increasingly tight requirements of the nuclear installations inspectorate and had a nuclear safety record as good as any in the world. While British Energy was technically sound, however, it was at best commercially unlucky and at worst downright incompetent. It was unlucky in so far as it was unsuccessful in failing to secure the London Electricity purchase in the teeth of opposition from Electricité de France, because the French Government were prepared to extend their pockets far beyond what the market considered a reasonable price. I do not think that EDF has made a great deal of money out of what happened.
  If British Energy had had flexibility and had become a broad-based energy company instead of being almost entirely a generator, we might not have had this debate. Certainly, as has been suggested, the SWALEC deal was probably ill judged initially. The details that have been released, to which the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) referred, show that it was a pig in a poke and that the directors should have been called to account, although it was difficult for that to happen given that they were making plenty of money and passing it on as dividends. Everybody was happy in the best of all possible worlds—or so it seemed. Perhaps because those involved had burned their figures on SW ALEC or were frightened off by the London Electricity failure, the company chose not to go anywhere else. It could have taken other opportunities, in the shape of Yorkshire Electricity for one, that would have given it not only a far broader basis as an energy company but the financial support necessary to take on the difficulties that subsequently arose.
  Nothing in the work of the Environment Agency or the nuclear installations inspectorate caused the company undue problems. The reason above all else why little concern was given to the possibility of financial failure is that it takes a particular sort of incompetence not only for a company to run a utility at a loss, but for it to fail to recognise that it is working in a rigged market and that it is only a matter of time before the super profits and high share prices that that market offers will change.
  602
  That is what the hon. Member for Reigate has been incapable of appreciating in all his previous incarnations. The pool system operated brilliantly for the generators and their shareholders, but not in the interests of British industry or the other players.
  The nuclear industry, which was privatised on the back of assets that had just been completed, was in a privileged position. We had one of our most illuminating exchanges in the Select Committee on the valuation of assets when we considered the reasons for the extent to which Sizewell was being written down. A previous permanent secretary at the Treasury, who was then in Barclays de Zoute Wedd and the chairman of the bank responsible for the flotation, used a striking metaphor. He said, "A nuclear power station is a bit like a motor car. Once you've built it and sold it on, like the car leaving the forecourt, it immediately loses a lot of money." The knock-down price of the original sale was suited to the purposes of the privatisation.
  On 31 March 2001, barely two years ago, the system changed, and the privileged position that British Energy enjoyed also altered. The bidding system no longer meant that the price that it bid floated up to the market price and everything was taken care of. That is when the problems set in. If British Energy had been as commercially aware as it should have been, it would have acted immediately. Other generators did that and were able to deal with matters.
  Nuclear power is difficult and dangerous to produce. It can be produced safely, but only with great difficulty. Sadly, those who had the skills and the capability to do that were not the same sort of people as those who were brought in to look after the commercial side of the company. That was the greatest problem. When Robin Jeffrey returned from America, and there was a clear-out on the board, his ambition was to generate even more nuclear energy. He wanted either replacement or additional build. Frankly, he took his eye off the ball.
  Matters were clearly drifting in the summer. That was followed by a crass move whereby Robin Jeffrey said that the company had the ability to call on additional financial support. The humblest mortgage payer knows that one can always get additional financial backing, provided that one can at best service the loan. As we marched through September, servicing the loan became increasingly difficult for the company. When BNFL was asked to reduce some of its prices, it wanted to ascertain whether a deal with some of the Magnox stations was possible.
  I appreciated Mr. Speaker's earlier intervention when my question went on too long, for which I apologise. I was trying to make the point that BNFL was asked to go the extra mile, which it travelled. It was subsequently asked to go even further. At that point, it would have prejudiced its position and been in the Government's arms. As far as I understand matters, BNFL's financial circumstances have not changed in the past six or four months to the extent that it could make a much better offer than that on the table when it made its final deal.
  The current room for manoeuvre comprises the three options that we have discussed today: administration, limping along or nationalisation.
  Mr. Blunt: I want simply to establish the facts. The hon. Gentleman points out that BNFL could go only so far at the beginning of September. Has it now gone further as part of the Government's package? That would have an impact on the taxpayer.
  Mr. O'Neill: I am not privy to BNFL's secrets. As a close observer of its fortunes, and those of the nuclear industry, I simply say that if it went further without material improvement in its financial circumstances, that would spell danger for the company. That is as much as I am competent to say.
  Mr. Hendrick: I fully agree with my hon. Friend that BNFL should not take any steps that would put it in difficulty. Will he say to the hundreds of BNFL workers in my constituency that he supports them in delivering the goods to British Energy and that he hopes that they will continue to do so in the foreseeable future? Thousands of jobs are at risk. If we were to take the course suggested by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), those people would be out of work fairly quickly.
  Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend may be over-egging the pudding a wee bit. BNFL is in a strong position in so far as it is a virtual monopoly as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. The French company will not necessarily step in with a lower bid. BNFL has made step changes and radical improvements. We must recognise, however, that the deals that were struck at the time of privatisation were commercially unrealistic. When Robin Jeffrey returned from the United States, he asked the apparently reasonable question, "Why can't I get my nuclear reprocessing done in Britain for the same sort of prices I pay in north America?" In fact, that is not to compare like with like—different circumstances apply—but it was a question that had to be asked. He got a reply of sorts, but it was not as good as he thought that it could have been.
  As with many privatisations, several people in those companies thought that they had died and gone to heaven. They were offered shares at ridiculously cheap prices and bought them through long-term schemes, often to the exclusion of any other form of savings. Those poor souls are now seeing their savings going down the drain. Over the years, when shares in British Gas and other privatisations fell, many hon. Members received letters from constituents asking what the Government could do about it. The fact is that there is nothing that the Government can do about it. That happened when I was an energy spokesman for the Opposition and privatisations took place under the writ of the Tories; it happens whenever such fluctuations occur. In this instance, it is little short of a disaster for many people. For that reason, if for no other, proper provision must be made through legislation such as this Bill. Many of the shareholders and bondholders are small savers, and to dismiss them in the manner of the hon. Member for Reigate is callous. He said that it is in their interests to get a deal. Of course it is—sometimes those savings are all that they have.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said, a trade sale is not a realistic proposition. What worries me about nationalisation is that nobody in the civil service is qualified to run British
  604
  Energy. There are better managers out there who could run the business, but I am not sure that we could lure them to Victoria street.
  If, in the end, taxpayer's money has to be put up, there must be a means of protecting it. If the company can work its way out of its present difficulties and get itself into a position whereby, as my hon. Friend the Minister suggested, loans can be considered, its fortunes will begin to change. It is important that the business is kept running and that revenues keep coming in. It is much better to keep the power stations going than to have them lying idle while they still have to be cared for and protected. It is not a simple choice. If we discarded just 21 per cent., we would be down to about the lower limit. That is the technical economics of the madhouse. It might work in a wind-driven Wales, in some future independent state that will never arrive, but it will not happen in the United Kingdom, where many people—certainly those in Scotland—depend for half their electricity on the output of two nuclear power stations. I certainly would not want my constituents to go to bed with electricity or power reduced simply to meet the needs of fanatical so-called environmentalists or supposedly hard-nosed business people.
  The fact is that nuclear energy in this country will be required for some considerable time and it would be wrong even to discount the possibility of life extensions for existing stations, because the life of a nuclear power station is a guesstimate at the best of times. It could be cut down the way—I admit that if it were technically wrong to run stations they should be closed—but if they are technically capable of being run and their costs have largely been met, that is perhaps one of the better ways to ensure that the public get some return on the loans and assistance. My hon. Friend the Minister seeks to acquire powers for that, but the proviso, of course, is that the European Union can act.
  There is a matter that we have not discussed, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister makes this point when he replies to the debate: we still have to get the underwriting for the deal from the Commission. I believe that there is still some way to go there. We are discussing a minor milestone in the long journey ahead before we clear up British Energy's problems, but I welcome tonight's debate as a meaningful first step along that road.
  I take the point that the Government acted wisely, prudently and in a measured fashion. There was no panic in the Department at that time, and it is wrong and demeaning to officials and Ministers to suggest that. The problem is difficult and it will not be solved overnight, but the Bill is a useful first step on the way to a solution and I welcome it.
  5.46 pm
  Dr. Vincent CableListening to the Minister's sober and restrained introduction called to mind a quotation from one of his predecessors, Mr. Fred Lee, who stood up in the House in 1965 and said that
  "we have hit the jackpot … we have the greatest break-through of all time."—[Official Report, 25 May 1965; Vol. 713, c. 237-8.]
  With those words, he introduced the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme, which is the basis of British Energy's portfolio. What Fred Lee did not anticipate,

  605
  and what we know with hindsight, is that the first of those would take 17 years to build, be 500 per cent. over budget and 20 per cent. below specification. Unfortunately, a lot has flowed from that.
  I was brought up in a stern, non-conformist tradition, so I am not sure what the gambling term is for the opposite of a jackpot, but the Government and their predecessors have hit it. That issue is worth pursuing before getting into the substance of the arguments, because, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) hinted, the package, which is incorporated in the Bill and will lead to the lifting of the ceiling on the Government's commitments to £2.5 billion, comes on top of a lot of other liabilities that the taxpayer is being required to assume.
  A couple of years ago, the late Mike Sadnicki put to the Environment Sub-Committee a paper in which he bravely attempted to calculate that sum. He came up with a figure of about £55 billion—that was £20 billion at current prices, after discounting—which was a conservative estimate of the liabilities that would fall to the taxpayer. Those are liabilities to which we propose to add.
  Returning to the jackpot analogy, when a gambler is losing money, there is always an instinct to stay at the table. I sense that, in a way, that is what the Government are trying to do. The recurrent theme that comes through their arguments on the financial case—we shall come to the wider arguments later—is that it is cheaper to stay at the table and keep British Energy in solvent restructuring than for it to go into administration, and cheaper to keep production going than to close it down.
  This is a technically complex area and I do not in any sense claim to be an expert on it, but all the figures on the financing aspect that I have seen suggest that both propositions are wrong in fact. The Minister shakes his head, and he may be right. None of us has a definitive answer. However, before the Bill proceeds through Parliament under the Government's hurried programme, can we have an independent financial assessment? I do not know who could make that assessment in the space of a few weeks, but perhaps the National Audit Office or the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), could do it. Is administration really more expensive than solvent restructuring? Is keeping production going cheaper than stopping it? We might at least agree on issues of fact before we debate issues of principle.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need an independent assessment of one of the Minister's arguments? He said that it is better to give British Energy a loan so that it can continue to pay money into the public nuclear liability contingency fund. Should that argument not be open to scrutiny? An independent assessment would be useful.
  Dr. Cable: That is part of what I propose. I shall return to the details of the financial arrangements.
  I have spoken on trade and industry and energy for two and a half years, in which time there has been a long succession of Conservative spokesmen. Although I have
  606
  rather lost track of who they all are, until today I could almost rely on the fact that they would put up a robust defence of private nuclear power and of putting more money into it. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), and something has changed. I do not know whether there has been a rebranding exercise or whether the hon. Gentleman has been allowed to use his initiative and has come up with a sensible statement on many key issues. Much to my surprise, I found myself agreeing with much of what he said.
  On the other hand, I profoundly disagreed with the Minister and the Government's case, and my colleagues and I will vote against the Bill. Temperamentally, my instinct is to find common ground and to try to identify areas in which we start from the same point. On nuclear safety, the Minister was absolutely right to say that safety must be guaranteed. That is obvious: nuclear power stations cannot have small accidents—any accident is a potential catastrophe. We entirely share that starting point.
  The problem with the Minister's argument is that the only risk that he identified is that of a sudden—his word—shutdown of all capacity in the industry. No one has ever suggested that. No one is promoting it or thinks it remotely feasible. If the matter went into administration, the administrator would almost certainly keep the power stations running. So long as they cover their interest charges, that would be in the economic interest. We certainly do not advocate a sudden shutdown.
  We know from experience in the United Kingdom, quite apart from that overseas, that nuclear power stations can be shut down. Torness, on the east coast of Scotland, is shut down at present.
  Anne Picking: No.
  Dr. Cable: It has had a prolonged period of disruption and interruption of production, as the hon. Lady knows. Stations can also be shut down permanently and decommissioned. That process is beginning in the UK with Windscale, Dounreay and so on. Safety can be guaranteed in that environment. Provided that any contraction is orderly and managed, there is no reason why there should be a safety problem.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that he has moved on to making the safety case from making the financial case. The two are in fact indissolubly linked. Does he accept that if we moved toward closure of a plant, we would bring forward substantial decommissioning costs for which no contribution has been made during the life of the plant? One reason why British Energy's average cost of production went up was that Torness was shut. Even temporarily shutting down a plant results in a dramatic rise in the industry's overall costs.
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is logically right, but the sums involved in the argument are often not true. The Government, and, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman, use the magic figure of £5 billion for the decommissioning costs that would be brought forward. When one actually looks into decommissioning costs—

  607
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows this because he is very knowledgeable about the industry—only a small part of the costs, in the order of £600 million, must be incurred in the near future to stabilise the core of the reactor. The remaining present value of the decommissioning process is £300 million. The cost that would have to be brought forward is therefore less than £1 billion, not the £5 billion suggested by the Government and hinted at by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) in his intervention. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is right to say that there is a link between safety and costs, but the figures often put before us as the estimated cost to the taxpayer of a reduction in, or phasing out of, production are wildly exaggerated.
  Safety is the first issue; the second is security of supply. The Minister is right to say that no one wants an environment in which substantial numbers of people risk being disconnected from the electricity supply. That is common ground, and we do not argue that people should be put at that risk. The Government's problem is not with us—I am no expert at calculating spare capacity—but with their own regulator, who consistently points out that there is a very large margin of spare capacity. According to the statement that he sent us a couple of days ago, it is 22 per cent. at the very least. That is considerably in excess of the capacity of British Energy, even on a crude aggregate basis.
  The regulator also pointed out that a large amount of capacity has been agreed commercially—consensus has been reached—but cannot be brought forward because of low prices in the industry. There is a basic paradox at the heart of the Government's argument. If there were less capacity in the nuclear industry—if some of it were withdrawn—the price would rise. That would enable nuclear power to operate more profitably; it would also enable other investment to come into the industry. The regulator has never suggested—indeed, he has gone out of his way to suggest the opposite—that security of supply would be threatened as a result of British Energy's going into administration or of capacity being withdrawn.
  The third issue has to do with competitors. It is partly a legal issue, and it would be neither useful nor appropriate for us to comment on the legal ruling that will come from the Greenpeace case or on judgments from the European Commission. There is, however, a serious problem in that the Government are favouring one company over others through the Bill and through bailing out that company. It is important to have some sense of the damage being done to British Energy's competitors.
  One small part of the market is combined heat and power, which has lost about 75 per cent. of capacity. Powergen has had to write down about 90 per cent. of its investment in the industry. CHP is receiving no compensation or help from the Government—nor are renewable energy and other producers. The Government will have to explain to the European Commission why British Energy is being helped while other operators are not. Moreover, it is not just being helped temporarily, but being given permanent, ongoing help. As I understand the European competition rules, the Government will have great difficulty in getting that through.
  Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman chooses to forget that renewable energy is receiving a lot of financial
  608
  support. Like combined heat and power, it has been exempted from the climate change levy. CHP is also a dual fuel, so that if gas rises in price, as it has done, people stop using it and go for coal or other forms of generation. All that results from the working of the market, which the hon. Gentleman vaunts, and has precious little to do with the Government's policy of favouring or not favouring British Energy. The Government have favoured other forms of energy in other ways.
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman's specific points are right, but he knows that renewables and combined heat and power have been disproportionately hit at a time when we are talking about helping a particular sector to continue to operate as before.
  Let me turn to the core of the Bill; the argument about financing on which there is some common ground. A lot of the problems have arisen from the way in which the privatised company operated. It is said that the privatised company was just unlucky because of the new electricity trading arrangements and the way in which the auction system works. However, as I recall, British Energy never objected to NETA. I was involved in the Utilities Bill 2000 and the associated legislation. A variety of lobbies petitioned us about the problems that NETA might cause. British Energy never said a word and was entirely optimistic that it could compete in the market.
  In the meantime, the company made some severe commercial misjudgments. Quite apart from passing up the opportunity for diversification that the other power companies took, it bought a power station for £50 million that is now worth £6 million. There was a succession of such judgments, including a special dividend of £48 million when the company was losing money. The whole ethos of the company is summarised by the manner in which Mr. Jeffrey is leaving it. The company is virtually bankrupt, but he is being paid off with £300,000 compensation, plus a £150,000 a year pension. He now says that that is not enough. Almost single-handedly, that gentleman is making the case for the Company Directors' Performance and Compensation Bill that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) will be proposing on Friday. It also speaks volumes about the way in which British Energy has been run. There is some common ground on that.
  I accept also that, since September when the crisis emerged, the Government have accepted that there must be burden-sharing. The private investors will take a big hit, even as a result of the Bill. As I understand it, the creditors will lose roughly two thirds of their assets. There is a hard-headed question—if the Government are acting on behalf of the taxpayer—as to why any wealth should be left in the company.
  I welcome the acceptance that we are now debating—in a way that we could not three months ago—the pros and cons of administration. I raised it when the crisis broke and was accused by one or two Labour Members of being wildly irresponsible: "How could the hon. Gentleman possibly talk about administration? It is sheer lunacy." It is now in the Bill and accepted as a practical and, I would say, probable option.
  Simply arguing about administration versus solvent restructuring is only the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of subsidiary issues that, somehow or other—in a day's

  609
  debate in Committee and in the House of Lords—need to be addressed. If the company went into administration, there would be a variety of options. The administrator could keep running British Energy for a long time, provided that it covers its basic costs. The company could be nationalised—one of the options that has been raised. It could be sold, though that seems improbable. It could be taken into a public interest company, with a view to an orderly and gradual closure. Those are all enormously important options that we have not even begun to consider. If we are to consider the Bill properly, we must look at all of them.
  On financing, I accept that there is some common ground, although there are some fundamental differences. I hope that, through an examination of the accounts or in other ways, we shall get some answers to these problems—about the relative costs of keeping British Energy in solvent restructuring or putting it into administration, or the partial closure of plants. First, what is the cost of the Government's proposals? There is the Government assistance per se: the £650 million loan, the ceiling of which was increased, under EU proposals, to about £1.15 billion. The Bill mentions £2.5 billion, of which only £350 million has been drawn so far. Potentially a very large sum of money that has not been disbursed will be disbursed if the Bill is passed, in the form of aid to the company.
  In addition, we have the new contracts of BNFL—a public sector company—amounting to an additional £150 million to £200 million a year. We have the back-end liabilities commitment of £150 million to £250 million a year. We are talking about a total taxpayer commitment of about £4.8 billion over the next 10 years; it could be £6 billion. It would be useful to know, at the very least, the order of magnitude about which we are talking. Very large sums are being committed under the Bill.
  If the option of administration were to be chosen, the taxpayer would lose the private company's contribution to decommissioning. Although it is technically complex, we should reflect on that subject. It is agreed that the private company will pay 65 per cent. of net cash flow, after interest payments, into the decommissioning fund. On the assumptions that are being made in the plan, £100 million a year would go from the private company into decommissioning. That is why the Government want to retain the company as a private operation.
  However, the assumptions that lie behind that are wildly optimistic. It is assumed, for example, that the company can make a £1.50 margin per megawatt-hour on its operations, while operating at much higher levels of efficiency than before. It is assumed that the plants will be able to operate at maximum efficiency, without the kind of disruption that we have had in at least two reactors recently. It is assumed that there will be income from the American subsidiaries, which are being sold off. The assumptions are wildly optimistic and have no basis in reality. If the money is not forthcoming, there is no reason to continue to expose the taxpayer to the continued liabilities through the subsidy.
  The more radical option that we should look at is not just administration, but the possibility that at least some, if not all, of the reactors should be taken out of production before the end of their natural lives. There
  610
  are various time horizons for that, but let us at least look at the options. The Government have always argued that that would be financially disastrous because of the £5 billion of liabilities. I hope that, in my answer to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I answered that point. But the figures that would confront the Government, were they to go for premature closure, are far lower than have been bandied about in the past. Given that there is doubt about them, let us at least have an open, honest and independent inspection by the National Audit Office, or somebody else, to validate the figures.
  Mr. Lansley: I have detected no reference from the hon. Gentleman to British Energy's intention in the solvent restructuring deal to issue £700 million of new debt, £275 million of which would go into the liabilities fund. By extension, that is capitalisation for the operation and a contribution to meeting liabilities that would not be available in the event of either administration or nationalisation.
  Dr. Cable: I thought that I acknowledged that when I said that the creditors would lose two thirds of their investment, which would happen if they took shares in return for bonds in those circumstances. I am happy to argue these points with the hon. Gentleman at greater length. There may be an element in the calculation that I have missed; but I do not think so.
  David Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the investors. As someone who does not gamble very often, I take the view that people who buy shares are gamblers; a loss as well as a profit can be made. I do not have much sympathy for anyone who buys shares—even an elderly person—and then cries about not making a profit. When we talk about discussing energy requirements, we should be talking about the cost to Britain and to the taxpayer.
  Dr. Cable: I think that the hon. Gentleman makes two points. As regards the interests of investors, many of the shareholders are sophisticated investors and have no reason to complain about the loss that they will suffer. However, I do not gloat over that. After all, there are nuclear energy shares in our pension funds, so everybody loses. We have to accept that there is no shareholder value left, but I take no pride or joy in saying that.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point leads me to the conclusion that I was about to draw: we need to consider the wider energy picture. There is obviously a link between this debate and the larger debate that we shall hold on the White Paper.
  I was about to make a concession. Although many of the Government's arguments are weak, we need to think seriously about the carbon dioxide issue. I wholly accept that my approach would mean higher CO2 emissions, at least in the short term. I accept that that is part of the price we have to pay for a sensible and honest restructuring of the nuclear power industry. However, in taking that approach, I am in fairly good company: organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth take the same view. Like me, they would argue that, whatever happens in the next two to four years, it is much more important that we are on the right

  611
  trajectory for the development of renewables, energy conservation and energy efficiency. It is important that all those elements are in place.
  If that overall approach were adopted, it would be possible to see a future in which we had less reliance on carbon emissions and nuclear power. However, the process will be difficult. I look forward to debating these matters again in the context of the White Paper.
  6.12 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am not entirely sure what I have heard from the Opposition spokesmen. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, was at least honest when he said that no shareholder value remained in British Energy, but the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was less honest. The implication of his solution was that British Energy could be closed without tackling the problem of shareholder value.
  If we adopted the hon. Gentleman's solution—thereby eradicating shareholder value—the Conservatives would be the first to say that as the Government had engineered a situation in which shareholders had lost all their money they should step in with compensation. Have we all forgotten the Conservatives' comments about Railtrack and the problems in the rail industry? If the hon. Gentleman really believes that British Energy can be put into the hands of administrators and continue to be run while maintaining shareholder value, he is setting out a bizarre contradiction.
  Mr. Blunt rose—
  Dr. Ladyman: As the hon. Gentleman is anxious to intervene, I am happy to allow him to explain himself.
  Mr. Blunt: It is the hon. Gentleman's statements that are bizarre. I ask only that the market should operate. Of course shareholders will be bottom of the administrator's list. If any value remains, there will be a distribution to existing shareholders, but the taxpayer will have a prior charge—as indeed will the bond holders, the trade and other creditors, and possibly even Robin Jeffery with his settlement terms. If the Government intervene in the market, however, there will be a price to be paid.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman says that the market should operate, but the consequence of its operating as he suggests will be that no shareholder value will be left, and the Conservatives would shout the loudest that the Government had brought that about. Another consequence of his suggestion is that, ultimately, the operation of nuclear power would be run down—in that he finds common cause with the Liberal Democrats. There might be a debate about how quickly that rundown would take place. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that he knew of no one who had suggested that it should be shut down immediately, although that is exactly what Greenpeace proposes. However, at least he was honest enough to admit that the consequence of shutting down the nuclear power industry, if we do not agree to the Bill, would be an increase in carbon emissions. That would have a significant impact on our ability to meet our Kyoto
  612
  obligations and would certainly mean that we would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions for a long time to come.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham did not point out that the Government's figures show that between 12,000 and 24,000 people die prematurely each year as a result of carbon burning. If we do the maths, we realise that nuclear power, which currently generates a quarter of our electricity without burning carbon, saves between 2,000 and 4,000 lives in the United Kingdom each year. If we decide willy-nilly to adopt a proposal that would run down nuclear power and increase carbon emissions, we shall not only contribute to greenhouse gases but we shall also add to the number of people who die every year.
  Mr. Hendrick: I agree with my hon. Friend's accurate comments about CO2 and about share prices. Does he agree that if the proposals of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) were adopted and no financial assistance were given not only would British Energy collapse but thousands of jobs would be lost, including 2,000 at Springfields near Preston in my constituency?
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. To the best of my recollection, neither of the Opposition spokesmen mentioned jobs. Tens of thousands of people would lose their jobs if their solutions were followed, which seems utterly bizarre.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman appears to have missed the central part of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable): if nuclear capacity is taken out of the system, it will provide a platform on which other technologies can flourish. They will provide employment, but there will be a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The hon. Gentleman is doing some very special pleading on behalf of a dying industry.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman should be careful about what he says. The technologies whose cause he usually espouses in this place are based on renewable energy and are several times more expensive than nuclear power. Unless we distort the market there will be no future for those technologies. I challenge Members to provide the House with the name of any serious engineer or other expert who believes that the target of 20 per cent. production of renewable energy by 2020 is a practical possibility. Most of the experts do not even believe that the Government's target of 10 per cent. by 2010 is possible.
  Even if we put all the resources of Government behind renewables, and even assuming that we maintain the renewables obligation that is part of the existing marketplace distortion, which we all seem perfectly happy to accept, no expert believes that 20 per cent. of our energy will be produced from renewables by 2020. To use wind power, for example, would require us to build 40 windmills every month between now and 2020. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction pointed out so eloquently in a previous debate on energy, that will not happen, especially in

  613
  areas of the country where the councils are under Liberal Democrat control. Every proposal for windmills is opposed on planning grounds in those areas.
  Mr. O'Neill: A further point is that the wind does not blow all the time. We should thus require base load generation of some form—probably using gas or coal, the other two options for mass-produced energy.
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Professor Laughton of the university of London has done the figures for us—if anyone cares to get hold of them and read them. He has shown that the prevailing winds are such that, in this country, the wind does not correspond with the demands for peak electricity consumption. We would have to spend £30 billion to £40 billion to build windmills all around the country to generate 20 per cent. of our electricity, and we would still have to match those windmills with onshore alternative energy supplies—almost certainly burning carbon—to guarantee continuity of supply. That would make an absolutely nonsensical energy policy. I put it to the House that the only energy policy that will make any sense for this country is one in which we have a balanced supply portfolio. That will require some carbon burning in the form of gas and clean coal.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the content of the Bill, which is the restructuring of British Energy?
  Dr. Ladyman: I certainly take your advice on board, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I simply point out in my defence that we are seriously debating whether to accept the Bill and, if we say no to the Bill tonight, we are saying no to British Energy and no to nuclear power, so the context in which we make that decision must be clearly understood.
  I do not see a future for nuclear power unless we accept the Bill, and we must therefore ask ourselves whether we should make a one-off loan and provide new arrangements for the industry and whether that solves our problem, or whether we are simply going to find ourselves in the same position six months, 12 months or a few years down the line.
  My concern is that although my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction addressed very well the need to support British Energy in the short term, what he did not do so well—presumably because he expects to have such a debate when the White Paper is published—is talk about the industry's long-term framework, in which nuclear power can flourish as one of the components of a balanced portfolio.
  Brian White: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a role for renewable sources and sustainable energy in the wider context?
  Dr. Ladyman: I absolutely agree that there is such a role, but we can make a reality of that role only by distorting the marketplace in exactly the way—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, may I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the purpose of the Bill—the financing of British Energy?
  Dr. Ladyman: I shall certainly do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  614
  The Bill will give British Energy a future. It minimises the expense that we can expect the Government to incur in guaranteeing that future. We must ensure that a way forward is built into the White Paper that will guarantee us a safe and consistent energy supply in the future and that will involve the least hardship for British Energy.
  Points have been made about how British Energy got into this mess, and we have to accept that there have been considerable management failures, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) mentioned earlier. I agree with him that management caused some very serious problems, but, equally, the Government must accept that NETA has had an impact on British Energy. Decisions about the rateable values of the company's sites have had an impact on its economic viability. Both those things need to be addressed if the Bill is to succeed in its aim of maintaining British Energy as a viable, going concern.
  We must accept that the current wholesale price of energy generation—about £16 per megawatt hour—is lower than the economic price of generation for all electricity suppliers, not just the nuclear power industry. Indeed, British Energy's current price is very close to the wholesale price at about £17 per megawatt hour. However, it is not sustainable to have all forms of generation generating below the wholesale price, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech.
  My hon. Friend the Minister should accept that, although NETA. has forced down the wholesale price, the retail price has not reduced so dramatically. If we take away the discounts that people in the domestic sector receive for changing their supply company and the short-term offers that some companies make, the retail price of electricity is about £66 per megawatt hour—four times the wholesale price. That seems a rather strange margin to allow the industry, and we need to consider how NETA operates, not only because of its impact on British Energy but because the whole energy industry is unsustainable at that price.
  Apart from the rateable value of sites, which various hon. Members have already mentioned, we should recognise the fact that the nuclear power industry is the only form of generation that has to internalise the costs of waste and all the environmental costs. If we were to force the carbon-burning industry—whether clean coal, gas, or even including burning petrol in cars—to take account of its environmental costs, it would be by far the most expensive form of energy on the market today, and we have to judge the Bill's merits in that context.
  The Bill is very much a short-term solution to British Energy's problems, but it will not stand alone. It must go hand in hand with other measures included in the White Paper to promote a balanced portfolio and ensure that this country's nuclear power industry has a future, so that we can continue to produce clean energy from nuclear sources, as well as developing the other forms of energy that are required.
  We need a package of measures on top of the Bill to create a sustainable energy policy for this country, but at least the Bill is a good start. Opposition Members would be very unwise to vote against it because they will be judged in the long term by the impact that their action would have on British Energy's share value and on the environmental damage that, by implication, they would force on our country.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. John Horam: I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) because he hit on one of the crucial points that none of the Front-Bench spokesmen have emphasised so far, which is that the whole energy industry cannot sustain the present prices. He quoted the figure of £16 per megawatt-hour, whereas £22 per megawatt-hour is needed for anyone to be profitable, but he must ask why prices are so low. Of course the answer is—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, may I remind all hon. Members that the Bill is about financial assistance to British Energy?
  Mr. Horam: With due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, the reason that British Energy is in this position is that it is not profitable because it has had to operate in a market where the prices are simply unsustainable. That is the reason why we are discussing the Bill today, and I am concerned about the operation of NETA, which the Government imposed about 18 months or so ago, and the prices are unsustainable as a result. Of course there are other reasons why we are in this position. I fully accept the Minister's point that British Energy's problems are not simply to do with prices.
  Mr. Clapham: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about NETA, but does he accept that the way in which nuclear energy was favoured under the marginal pricing system of the pool is the reason why it was able to appear to be economic and that, when it had to face competition under NETA, it could not hack it?
  Mr. Horam: That is a substantial point. The problem has been that we have gone from the pool situation, on which the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) commented favourably, to the reverse situation in which no one can make any money at the current price. That is because we have too much capacity—I think that the Minister mentioned 22 per cent.—and because of the way that the NETA system operates. It is a brutal market system.
  Richard Ottaway: Yet another reason is that the market has not been allowed to operate freely. The most uneconomic generators—the Magnox nuclear stations—are hopelessly unprofitable and are forcing prices down, and the market cannot therefore operate in a genuine way.
  Mr. Horam: Whatever may be the case, the fact is that the Government brought in a system that is wholly predicated on a straightforward, simple, unaffected market system, leading to prices that are unsustainable, which, among other factors, has led to the present pass of British Energy. Nothing will change until something is done about the NETA system—that is the point that I want to get across.
  The arrangements that the Government are currently introducing, as the Minister has argued, may be necessary, short-term palliatives to deal with a crisis situation. What he cannot escape, however, is the
  616
  Government's responsibility for introducing a pricing system that has led to this pass. That is the argument with which the Government must contend.
  In response to the arguments of the hon. Member for South Thanet, I agree that we need a balanced system with regard to the various types of energy supply. Not only do we need a balanced system but we need to take into account the social consequences, in terms of jobs, and the environmental consequences of our energy policy. That is extremely complicated, and not all of those factors can be taken into account in dealing with a short-term situation such as British Energy and its continuing performance.
  That is why my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was right when he teased out from the Minister his casual approach to the question of the White Paper. Waiting for that White Paper is like waiting for Godot—we have been waiting for months and months. The Committee that I chair, the Environmental Audit Committee, published a report on renewable energy last July in the expectation that some sort of White Paper would appear in the autumn. Autumn passed, December and Christmas came, we began to expect it in January or February, and we are now told that it may appear in February or March. While I respect the Minister's point that he would rather get it right than produce it too early, the way in which this debate is taking place is like "Hamlet" without the prince. We need to consider energy policy in the round, which the Government should also do before they make crucial decisions involving millions and potentially billions of taxpayer's money without any of us knowing where we are proceeding in terms of wholesale energy policy.
  Mr. O'Neill: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that in relation to the specifics of the company whose financial plight we are trying to address this evening, something like 20 to 25 per cent. of its generating capacity is not affected by NETA in so far as it is under a private agreement with Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy? There will be an opportunity before too long, when the new British electricity trading arrangements are introduced, to recast the whole equation and to see it if it can be done better. That does not need a White Paper, as we will be dealing with market situations that will prevail for perhaps seven to 10 years. A White Paper will deal with new build that will probably barely have started within that time scale.
  Mr. Horam: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but, none the less, the operation of the NETA system has been a contributory factor to the current plight, and we are having to spend millions and billions of pounds to get out of it. It would have been better if, from the start, the Government had instituted a market system that was within a logical framework of a clear energy policy. As was pointed out, although the details of the situation can vary, that would at least ensure the right trajectory. In that respect, the measure is flawed, as, first, the NETA arrangements take no account of the need to encourage renewables. A renewables obligation exists, as the hon. Member for Ochil mentioned, but it is a very weak instrument. The hon. Member for South Thanet said that he knew of no engineer who would say that the Government could achieve 20 per cent. of our energy

  617
  from renewables by 2020. In Denmark, however, 25 to 28 per cent. of the energy supply is from renewables, and that has been achieved in less than 17 years—the period between now and 2020. I confess that I cannot name an engineer who would support my case, but, if it has been done in Denmark, I cannot see why it cannot be done here.
  I agree with the hon. Member for South Thanet, however, that we must have a balanced approach, and I concede that nuclear has a role to play as well as renewables. I am not one of those people who believe that we should have renewables at all costs and that we can do without nuclear altogether. Clearly, that is not sustainable in the current situation.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could start to address some of his remarks to the specifics of the Bill.
  Mr. Horam: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that sensible reminder.
  Nuclear energy has a role to play, but we cannot say currently what will happen: whether administration or the solvent restructuring about which the Government are talking will be pursued. We do not know how much money the taxpayer will have to fork out. The Government must consider the NETA arrangements fairly soon. I agree that we must not talk too much about the White Paper, which we hope that we will debate in the next couple of months, but one thing that the Government can do is talk to the regulator about how he is operating. I notice that the Minister is laughing rather extensively about that. He may regard talking to the regulator as impossible. Certainly, when we interviewed him while discussing these matters in the Select Committee, we found him resistant to suggestions that even the Government could talk to him. The fact is that as a result of the way in which he has operated the arrangements, nuclear energy has faced the problems that the Minister is trying to address today.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems with the regulator, which we examined in the Select Committee, was that the environmental and social guidance promised in the Utilities Bill had not been delivered to the regulator at exactly the time when the debates about NETA and British Energy were taking place? In fact, the House only approved them a few weeks ago. That has also been a failure in the NETA arrangements.
  Mr. Horam: That is why I am afraid that the Government, although they have a crisis agenda with regard to British Energy—they must handle it one way or another, and they have come forward with a solution this evening—have gone about their policy in the wrong way. The cart is being put before the horse, as we do not know where we are going, and we do not know the priorities of the Government in relation to the various alternatives. We are discussing today a Bill that puts billions of pounds in the hands of a particular organisation whose future role we cannot yet envisage.
  Sir Robert Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the last remarks of the Minister in relation to the
  618
  White Paper having no effect on the financial situation of British Energy tend to suggest that its proposals will not be exciting or radical?
  Mr. Horam: Again, that point has been made repeatedly. The fact is that the Government have addressed these issues often. A performance and innovation unit report has been published, we are expecting a White Paper, and papers have been published previously. All of them, however, are expressed in bland generalities that do not grasp the nettles that must be grasped. That is why the Minister must now grasp in the short-term a particular nettle, as a consequence of not facing up to the difficult choices that a sensible Government would have made years ago. This Government have been in power for five and a half years.
  We have reached a stage at which we have no sensible energy policy. Such a policy has a major contribution to make, not only to manufacturing industrial strength—which it has done, because prices have been very low; I fully concede that that has been of great benefit—but also to environmental policy, to Kyoto and to social questions. None of that has been forthcoming. So the Government have put the cart before the horse, which is one reason why I shall vote against the Bill.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I first apologise to the House and my hon. Friend the Minister for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I wrote to Mr. Speaker and said that I had problems getting here.
  I want to address a number of issues in relation to the Bill. I found it amusing to listen to the end of my hon. Friend's speech and to the speech of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I have been in the House for nearly 20 years. I came here from an energy industry and had energy interests for many of those years, to the extent that I served on the Opposition Front Bench considering the Bill that became the Electricity Act 1989. I remember very well sitting through many months of consideration, with my right hon. Friend who is now the Prime Minister, who was then leading for the Opposition in the shadow Cabinet.
  If anything could have been predicted, it was the state that British Energy finds itself in today. During that Committee stage we had a plethora of leaks of letters, draft letters, speeches and draft speeches from people who were then members of the Central Electricity Generating Board but who were about to be senior participants in the new privatised companies that were to come into being when the industry was put into the private sector.
  The nuclear industry was to be with a company, National Power, which would take over 70 per cent. of electricity generation. That did not happen. The arrangement was withdrawn in 1990 because it did not stack up. Nobody could answer the question that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) attempted to ask today, when he said that we should have an independent assessment of the costs of the nuclear industry. Twenty years ago nobody knew the costs of the full nuclear fuel cycle, and I suspect that nobody knows them now. The back-end nuclear liabilities can to some extent be predicted, and in the Electricity Act there was an attempt to do that. I shall address a couple of comments to that a little later.

  619
  At that time the Government were convinced that the nuclear industry could stand up in the private sector and that it would be profitable. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) was Under-Secretary when we considered the Act in Committee. He was adamant that
  "The Government believe that the non-fossil fuel obligation"—
  it was actually a tax on fossil fuels to assist the nuclear industry—
  "will result in four PWRs being built. PWRs are an efficient way of producing nuclear electricity."
  He later said that my now right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had raised two points:
  "His second question was whether I accept that nuclear electricity will necessarily be more expensive. I do not accept that, for at least two reasons." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 19 January 1989; c. 262–263.]
  One was the environment and the other was that he was adamant that PWRs were the future of nuclear generation in this country, and that it had a future. That was not true. It did not work. Sizewell B was completed, but we saw nothing of the other PWRs, and we have not seen them since.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that at the time he is speaking about, in the 1980s, there was not the same degree of liberalised market, under pressure from the European Commission, as there is now? The single market was not around, and there was not the same pressure from the environmental lobby, with the knowledge of the greenhouse effect.
  Mr. Barron: We shall not have a debate on the greenhouse effect now, but it is right to say that those other two points did not apply at that time. But the Opposition argued in Committee about the horizontal privatisation of the electricity industry, which meant that generators could not own supply companies. I and many others went to America to see the privatised electricity industry. Ministers also went to America, where many of the companies concerned owned the energy source, the generation plant and the supply companies. They were supplying into homes. It was that type of vertical privatisation that we should have had in this country. But we do not have it, so I want to move on.
  There were the seeds of the problems before us today. The Government are right to act by introducing this Bill to ensure the safety and security of supply and to deal with nuclear liabilities. British Energy is currently attempting to restructure. If it fails, it is highly likely that no private company will want it. What we are doing in the Bill is to make sure that the Government could be a purchaser of last resort. That is something that we should vote for.
  It is the height of irresponsibility for the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) to say that the market should operate, that if the company cannot be reconfigured and goes into administration, and if there are no takers, it is as well that it should go out of business. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the nuclear industry and the life cycle of nuclear plants.
  I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the likely effect of repealing sections 72 and 74 of the original Act, which restricted the Government's powers
  620
  to acquire shares in companies that were formed before privatisation. The relevant clause will give the Government power to acquire shares. How does my hon. Friend see this operating?
  In a debate in Westminster Hall on 3 December 2002, my hon. Friend gave the reasons why the Government are taking this action, stating that there were two main reasons and three subsidiary ones. The first of the subsidiary reasons was
  "to maintain an indigenous energy source".
  Another was to meet our environmental obligations, which everybody would say we have to do. Both Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen should reflect upon that if they are going to vote against the Bill. The third was that
  "it would cost more to shut nuclear power stations than it does to keep them open."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 3 December 2002; Vol. 385, c. 198WH.]
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is shaking his head. Nobody knows the cost of the full lifetime of the nuclear cycle. I remember the debates 10 years ago when people asked "What do we do when a nuclear power station closes? Do we leave it alone for 10 years, 50 years or 100 years, before starting to dismantle it, because it will be more inert then?" Nobody knows the cost. I said that at the beginning of the debate, and I firmly believe it. Nobody has yet convinced me that we could switch off the current nuclear power stations and be able to maintain them as they are for a period. The suggestion is the height of irresponsibility.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: British Energy has to put into its accounts some account of this "height of irresponsibility", because it has to say what the liability costs are. Its accounts say that for the first five years the liability costs about £600 million, which is the very minimum of what we are giving British Energy in the Bill, and that the vast majority of costs are after 35 years. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should accept that it is unproven that the open-ended cheque that we are writing for the nuclear industry in the Bill is any better than the real decommissioning costs of nuclear energy.
  Mr. Barron: I think that the hon. Gentleman is second-guessing on that. I shall have something to say about what the Bill does, especially to schedule 12 of the Act. I well remember the debates in Committee about this issue. Nobody can say that we could turn the nuclear stations off tomorrow, whether we have excess generating capacity or not—and we have. We have to recognise also that for most of their lives these generators have been base-load generators, and there is a lot of other generation that would be put in place. That may have severe implications for electricity generation in this country.
  Mr. Stunell: Surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that for years nuclear plants throughout the country have been turned off, when necessary, for maintenance, or left idle for periods, and then brought back on stream when the market would bear it or the repairs were completed. He is painting a wholly unrealistic picture of the way in which nuclear plants are brought on and off stream.
  Mr. Barron: On liabilities, if nuclear plants are turned off, any revenue stream will end, and that has major

  621
  implications for the taxpayer. We cannot wish these things away. The issue of whether we ought to have used nuclear plants in the past or of whether there should be new ones in future does not matter; we will wait and see what the White Paper says. However, it would be irresponsible to turn off plants, and the taxpayer may end up having to spend more money.
  Dr. Ladyman: I agree with much of what my right hon. Friend says. Does he agree that, in real terms, the cost of decommissioning these plants is the same whether one does so early or at the end of their lifetime, but if we decommission them early, we will receive no profit from the electricity that they could have been producing in the meantime?
  Mr. Barron: That is exactly the point. They are earning revenue for British Energy, and they will continue to do so if the company is saved.
  Mr. Stunel rose—
  Mr. Barron: I shall not give way because I have only about four minutes left, and I want to finish my speech.
  In the Westminster Hall debate, the Minister used the word "indigenous" to describe nuclear energy. I have strong thoughts about other indigenous fuels which I would like to express, but not in this debate. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I cannot do that. I just hope that the last colliery in my constituency, which is under threat, will still be around when we are able to debate the energy White Paper in a few months. Some people tell me that that is doubtful; I hope that they are wrong.
  I turn briefly to clause 3, which amends schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989. That provided for financial assistance from the Government for nuclear liabilities, up to a ceiling of £2.5 billion. The Bill will remove that ceiling. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. One concerns a report in The Mail on Sunday yesterday. I gladly admit to my hon. Friends that I am guilty of buying and reading that newspaper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I know that it is a shame, and most of its contents are a shame. The article says:
  "As part of the restructuring deal, the Government has agreed to pay £2.1 billion towards the generator's decommissioning liabilities … There is also growing confidence within the company that the White Paper on energy will not spell the end of nuclear power in Britain".
  I do not necessarily want to see the end of nuclear power, and clearly nothing in the White Paper will have that effect; nuclear power will be around for a long time. However, I wonder whether £2.1 billion has been earmarked for that purpose.
  My other question concerns the protection that taxpayers will have in relation to the operation of the amended schedule. How can we safeguard taxpayers' money and prevent it from being given to a private company that has mismanaged its affairs and consequently has to go into administration? Will taxpayers' money used to manage nuclear liabilities be ring-fenced within such a company so that, even if it goes out of business, there is still money to pay for the clean-up of the end of the nuclear fuel cycle? The hon. Member for Reigate suggested that that may be the case.
  622
  This debate will go on long after the passage of the Bill. However, we ought to secure the protection of taxpayers' money. We ought to ensure that if that money is being paid to a private company, it will be used for exactly the purpose for which it was intended. In this case, that is to meet the liabilities of the nuclear fuel cycle, and the money should not go into shareholders' pockets or be used for any other purpose.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Mark Field: It is a great pleasure to speak after the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who gave a spirited defence of his long-standing interest in the energy industry, and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who suggested that, by voting against Second Reading, we would be voting to write off the whole nuclear industry.
  It seems that there is no problem so big that a good dose of Government intervention cannot make it worse. Although I accept that, from the Minister's point of view, it is prudent to plan for all eventualities, and that the Bill is obviously the result of such planning over recent months, no one should be deceived. This is wholesale renationalisation of the business, or at least the first and most important step towards that.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: It is an expensive way of doing it.
  Mr. Field: It is indeed. There is a great fear among Opposition Members that this may become Railtrack mark II and that the taxpayer will effectively be asked to sign a blank cheque. The Minister will remember that, on that long ago day in October 2001 when Railtrack was reorganised, to put it at its most euphemistic, it was said that no taxpayer's money would be spent, and of course we have seen the results of that in the intervening 15 or 16 months.
  I shall canter through a quick history of the UK energy sector. I accept, as I am sure that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley does, that there has been rapid change in the past 50 years. In 1950, we relied on coal for about nine tenths of our energy, and roughly one tenth came from crude oil. Gas, high-grade oil and nuclear power were not even a gleam in anyone's eye. Now, 43 per cent. of energy comes from gas, 32 per cent. from oil and only 15 per cent. from coal. We may not be sure about the route that we will take in the next half-century, but one thing that we can all be sure of is that there will be rapid change in the energy sector. I suspect that, whether or not Liberal Democrat councillors get in the way, the hon. Member for South Thanet is right to suggest that wind power will not be the answer to all the UK's problems.
  More recently, the energy review has tried to envisage what energy policy we will have in 50 years. There is a fallacy of over-prescriptive planning, and one has to consider the law of unintended consequences, which all too often rears its ugly head in any planning that promotes one sector over another. I greatly fear that, in giving this Bill a Second Reading and giving a thumbs-up for the long-term future of nuclear energy, which intrinsically I support, we will distort the whole energy market. It will be interesting to see how the energy White Paper, when it is eventually published in late February, early March or even a week or two later, is integrated with the Bill.

  623
  There is widespread acceptance of certain beneficial impacts, both economically and environmentally, of the changes that have taken place in the past 10 or 11 years. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) hit the nail on the head when he said that there had been a sea change in thought about environmental issues in the past 12 or 13 years, particularly in relation to greenhouse gases and global warming.
  The changes in the 1990s, both under Conservative Governments and more recently since Labour was elected in May 1997, have reduced the cost of production as a result of the liberalisation of the market. Wholesale reductions in the cost of raw materials have fed through to the consumer. That has led to a reduction in UK fuel poverty, which was a large-scale problem discussed by many only 10 years ago, but it has not been in the headlines in more recent years. We have also seen a switch from coal to gas, which has allowed us to achieve many international environment targets.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman to return to the Bill's content.
  Mr. Field: I shall indeed. I apologise.
  There is little doubt that one problem in the electricity sector is the precipitate fall in wholesale prices, down 40 per cent. since 1998 as a result of misguided pricing policies and over-building. That created a generation capacity 22 per cent. higher than required, to which hon. Members referred. The role of NETA, the new market clearing system, accelerated the worsening position since 2002. The fallout in the increasingly international energy market has also been a problem. We fear that that is not over and that British Energy is at the forefront of the financially embarrassed market.
  What is the right way forward? We all agree that there are problems. We need a concerted strategy, not just as an Elastoplast for the stage that we are considering, but as something that plans for the years and decades ahead. British Energy provides about 20 per cent. of the UK's electricity, with more than 5,000 staff and 15 of the 31 nuclear reactors. The precipitate problem that began only last August, with the shutdown of new plant owing to the probe over a fault, led to a run on the British Energy share price, which lost a third of its value almost overnight. That resulted in the financial position turning down from the already precarious to the somewhat ugly. At the end of 2002, creditors were owed £1.26 billion.
  Even the Department appreciates that the introduction of NETA opened up competition between operators and helped to drive down prices of wholesale electricity. That would not be such a problem but for the fact that British Energy has no retail business on which it can rely. After the warnings of insolvency, which Conservative Members espoused as recently as September, the Secretary of State assured us:
  "There's no question at all of taxpayers writing a blank cheque to British Energy and its shareholders".
  That assurance seems hollow in the light of the Bill, which will probably go through tonight, and any action consequent on it.
  Last autumn was characterised by the extension and increase of British Energy's financial support package. The blank cheque rose in value from £410 million to £650 million to provide working capital because of its
  624
  shot-through balance sheet. Even the Bill can only take effect to the extent permitted by the European Union state aid rules. We may not have heard the last of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) tried to address the problem in a point of order before the debate. I suspect that we will return to it on Report next week and later. It is of great concern that the papers will not be given to the Commission until March, by which time there is a risk of the package falling apart. The Minister will know that the Commission has reportedly launched a new investigation into British Energy after its request to local councils to defer business rates. There is the suggestion that that falls foul of state aid provisions.
  We are gravely concerned that the Bill amounts to unnecessary Government intervention. It is anti-competitive and, by exposing the taxpayer to an unlimited and uncosted liability, there is a risk that it will not be in the public interest. Specifically, it is clear that British Energy will not enjoy fair trading until proper account is taken of the true effect of the climate change levy. Given the absence of carbon dioxide emissions, the proper account should be nil. Although I am instinctively supportive of measures that will improve the global environment, the Government have all too often allowed the environmental tail, in the form of the climate change levy, to wag the energy dog. Their policies, as highlighted by the Bill, make neither economic nor environmental sense.
  7.4 pm
  Paddy Tipping: The Bill is both a response to, and a reflection of, an energy sector that is changing massively and quickly. It gives the Department the tools to respond flexibly if we need to restructure British Energy or if it goes into administration. Conceptually, I support the approach, but it is important to view British Energy's problems against the wider energy difficulties, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said. It is not just British Energy that faces problems. Enron, AES, TXU and even the coal producers, UK Coal, face problems in a rapidly changing energy market.
  As a reflection of how quickly the energy market is changing, let me take the Minister back to the performance and innovation unit energy review published last February, less than 12 months ago, in which it said:
  "Because nuclear is a mature technology within a well established global industry, there is no current case for further government support."
  Things have changed fairly radically in the space of a few months and I predict that they will change radically again.
  To enable us to discuss the Bill, we need to consider the problems arising from British Energy. Hon. Members have referred to the climate change levy, the nature of the contract with BNFL and the effect of NETA on British Energy. It is important to acknowledge that the management of British Energy should shoulder a good deal of the blame.
  British Energy has not responded to a changing energy market. It attempted to widen its generating base by buying Eggborough at the cost of about £500 million, which was perhaps not the best of investments.

  625
  It acquired and sold SWALEC. When other energy companies were trying to integrate vertically, British Energy was going in a different direction. Over the years, for the majority of its life, British Energy has consistently paid out special dividends. It has been a good earner for shareholders until now. It is important to focus some of our attention on the failure of the management at British Energy. In technical engineering terms, the management have been good, but they have been pretty poor in responding to market signals.
  Sir Robert Smith: Surely the great danger is that, if the market is not allowed to take its course with British Energy, people will wonder when the Government will intervene in other sectors.
  Paddy Tipping: That is a problem. Hon. Members have different views on British Energy and legitimate arguments to make. The point is that we have an asset with an income stream. It is important to consider how we make best use of that. Some hon. Members argued that it is important to close and decommission the plant as quickly as possible. Others offered a counter-voice and argued that perhaps we could extend the plant safely beyond 2020. The intervention in the market will have consequences that I want to spell out.
  The cost to the taxpayer looks immense, with a £650 million loan. I acknowledge that it is only a loan, but whether we will see a return on it is a different matter. The key issue is the commitment in the proposal announced on 28 November of £150 million to £200 million a year for perhaps 10 years for liabilities. Some people will ask whether that immense cost is fair in market terms, and I am not entirely sanguine that the Commission will nod the agreement through. There is a case for it going through, but serious doubts and reservations remain. The Minister will know about some of them, and will have heard voices in the coal industry acknowledging that, while it has received £130 million under the coal operating aid scheme that ended at the end of the year and will receive further help from a new investment aid scheme, those sums are not on the same scale as those received by the nuclear industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) talked about the problems at his colliery in Maltby—there are expectations that the Government should intervene in a big way.
  We are about to experience a step change or a conceptual shift in energy policy: we are about to move from a free-market approach to one where we need to set a framework for energy policy. Our discussion of the Bill and British Energy's policy must therefore be set in the context of the White Paper, which draws on the PIU report. That report is good on questions, but not very good on answers. One problem caused by the delayed publication of the White Paper is that we are not sure what the answers will be. However, the introduction of a set of energy proposals is inconceivable without nuclear having a role to play. I guess that our energy proposals will focus on affordability, diversity of supply and environmental aspects. Nuclear clearly has a role in those three propositions, and will continue to play a role.
  626
  On security of supply, there has been a just discussion about the amount of generating capacity. There is too much, but it would not be sensible to take nuclear out in one go. It is more sensible to allow it to decline over a period and introduce a series of measures to build renewables.
  Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend suggested letting nuclear energy decline over time. Will he clarify whether "decline" is a euphemism for phasing out?
  Paddy Tipping: As things stand, there is no future for nuclear energy. The private sector has never replaced nuclear with nuclear and will not do so until the distant future when we have resolved the issues about decommissioning, disposal and liabilities. There is a strong argument for building a renewables base while nuclear declines. There are great challenges for renewables, as we must achieve a 10 per cent. target by 2010 and one of 20 per cent. by 2020. At the moment, 3 per cent. of our energy comes from renewables, much of it from traditional hydro. Many planning applications for wind farms have been withdrawn. In fact, two thirds do not see the light of day.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman not stray too far into general energy policy?
  Paddy Tipping: I shall ensure that I do not, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am making the point that the Bill is necessary because we need a rescue package for British Energy if nuclear is to develop in future. Our balanced and diverse energy supply should not be dependent on renewables and gas. The PIU report said that 80 per cent. of our energy could come from gas by 2020, and 90 per cent. of that would be imported. If we want a balanced energy policy, it is important that British nuclear energy has a role and that other sources of supply are maintained. Many environmentalists dismiss nuclear as a dirty fuel. There are genuine environmental problems with disposal but, on the plus side, nuclear gives rise to minimal emissions.
  My final point relates directly to the Bill and the money that the Government have made available to British Energy. That involves an immense cost, and one of the step changes that we are contemplating may be about moving away from the notion of cheap energy. Wholesale prices have fallen by 40 per cent. but the knock-on benefit for the consumer has not been nearly as great. With the promise of extra money from the Government and taxpayers, should we not reflect on whether the days of the cheapest energy supply are over? The Bill deals with that problem, and I very much hope that we will develop the issue and discuss it again when the White Paper is published.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am glad of the opportunity to contribute to our debate and follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who made a useful contribution. Interestingly—I hope that this is still the case when I finish my speech—everyone who has spoken has added to our debate, not least in the form of information and ideas. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was generous about me—I suspect that my knowledge of the subject is

  627
  not as great as it ought to be—and I shall try to follow that precedent. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and members of the Select Committee have wrestled with aspects of the subject and related matters during the course of our inquiries, including the security of energy supply, so we have something to offer.
  I shall treat one or two things as read, even if they are the subject of further debate in the House. First, as the hon. Member for Sherwood explained, British Energy contributed to its own downfall, because it did not adjust to market circumstances sufficiently, nor did it secure vertical integration to capture the remaining benefits of consumers' willingness to pay for electricity. It bought and sold SWALEC, and bought Eggborough on a basis that was not as commercially advantageous as it might have hoped. As the Minister said when he appeared before the Select Committee, it did not enter early advantageous long-term contracts, given that it is a base-load supplier of the national grid. It therefore contributed to its own downfall, and I am not seeking to excuse it or bail it out.
  I may sometimes go a little further than the Minister, but we may share common ground as I do not blame the new electricity trading arrangements for the problem. If we were to turn the problem round and say, "Fine, let's not have NETA", what would be the consequences? If they were higher prices for consumers, they would have no intrinsic merit. If, in the long term, consumers have to pay higher prices because environmental objectives must be met through the extension of renewables, carbon-free emissions and so on, that would be a rational basis for proceeding. If consumers have to pay higher prices because the way in which the market operates means that the highest-cost producers disappear and the margin between overcapacity and supply is better balanced, that would be acceptable. However, the worst possible reason for changing NETA would be the lack of commercial success of operators who are uneconomic or who have failed to adapt to a market-led system. Intrinsically, we should move towards a liberalised system. The shareholders in British Energy should to that extent have no complaint. The company was privatised into what was intended to become progressively a more liberal marketplace.
  The Minister made it clear in reply to me that we will not see the energy White Paper before the Bill passes through this place at least—I do not know about the other place. That is regrettable. It would have been better to have seen it at the same time in order to set it in context. At least the Minister told us that nothing in the White Paper would fundamentally change the economics of nuclear generation, because if there were such a thing it would change the economics of British Energy's generation.
  Had the Minister not done so, I would have gone on about the climate change levy and its impact on the economics of British Energy's electricity generation. The Minister knows that the levy could make a difference of 0.4p per kWh—£4 per megawatt-hour. Irritatingly, everybody is talking in pounds per megawatt-hour, but I think in pence per kilowatt-hour. However, I think that we can manage. It is curious that the Minister said that it was illogical that the Government should give financial assistance with one hand and take it away in the form of tax with the other, given that the Government propose financial assistance
  628
  on one hand and impose the climate change levy on the other. I do not see what is so logical about applying the climate change levy to nuclear generation, and so illogical about applying tax. They seem almost the same.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I followed the hon. Gentleman's persuasive argument in favour of the market. He now seems to be suggesting some double distortion in favour of nuclear, and that the industry should benefit from not only the grant, loan or whatever is in the Bill, but the removal of the climate change obligation, which all other electricity producers apart from those of renewables must meet. Surely that would also be distortion of the market. We must be careful not to replicate the old pool arrangements, under which the base load rewarded nuclear and the shareholders benefited from it.
  Mr. Lansley: I shall come on to discuss the financial assistance. I did not mean to go on about the climate change levy, but it depends what the levy is for. The Minister would say that it is to stimulate energy efficiency, but if that were the principal purpose, surely one would apply it primarily to the domestic rather than the industrial sector. As he told the Select Committee, the industrial sector has seen a 62 per cent. increase in energy intensity, compared with only about 6 per cent. in the domestic sector. The climate change levy is in truth a tax, the ostensible purpose of which is to reduce carbon emissions. If so, it does not make sense to apply it to nuclear. That is not a distortion; it simply means not applying it to those who should not pay it.
  The question that I want to reach before time elapses is, what does one do? The Government were clearly right to make finance available in order to forestall what would otherwise have resulted in administration and damaging financial consequences—in relation not least to the north American assets—as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). Having done that, the Government need to think about the longer term.
  Although the hon. Member for Twickenham tried manfully to work through the numbers, he was still somewhat confused. We are dealing on one hand with the liabilities associated with past generation, which the Government, effectively, intend to remove from British Energy, except to the extent that it will be able to generate cash resources to help meet them. On the other hand, the costs associated with managing the waste from current and future generation and the resultant decommissioning must also be met at some point. The hon. Gentleman more or less said "Why don't we just meet them in the next few years? At present net value, that would cost us only £1 billion." That is £1 billion that we do not have to spend. The figure could be £1 billion or £5 billion; I do not know where it is between the two.
  One cannot compare that £1 billion with the £2.1 billion that the Government have talked about as the net present value of historic waste liabilities, because they are different liabilities. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the Government pay the £2.1 billion and the £1 billion, and also that we do not have the electricity generated by nuclear power stations—which is a substantial part of our security of supply and greatly reduces our carbon emissions. What is the logic in that? It is environmental and financial nonsense.

  629
  What is in the Bill, and is it sensible? Up to now, the Minister and I might not have parted company, but at this point we do. Clauses 1 and 2 include an option for the Government to acquire shares in British Energy and, if necessary, to renationalise it. By doing so, the Government are opening up shareholders and future bondholders to the opportunity, from their point of view, of everything being handed back to the state if it all goes wrong.
  The Minister may say that everything will be handed back anyway, but we should not make it that easy. The plant would not be shut down. The assets, not the company, should be handed over to the Government. In the event of the failure of British Energy, the result would not be renationalisation but simple failure. If the Government are to accept responsibility for the long-term liabilities, they must be prepared—just as the Liabilities Management Authority will have both responsibility for liabilities and control over the assets—to accept the transfer of the assets, but not the company.
  Does that mean that there should be no legislation? I shall vote against the Bill because, owing to the risk of nationalisation, there is no cost incentive for British Energy to achieve what should be achieved in the private sector: driving down costs and responding to markets and market opportunities. There should be a Bill—perhaps alongside the forthcoming Bill on the Liabilities Management Authority, as it takes a similar approach—comprising of part of clause 1, not clause 2, and certainly clauses 3 and 4, as it might be necessary to extend financial assistance. The presence of the nationalisation provisions make this Bill fundamentally flawed.
  Even if the Government go down this path, I am far from convinced that they have chosen the most advantageous mechanism for the taxpayer concerning British Energy's contribution to the costs of waste management and decommissioning. The House will remember, not least from what the hon. Member for Twickenham said, that some of the bond issue is to be transferred into a fund, and that in future 65 per cent. of available cash is to help meet the liabilities. That is 65 per cent. of available cash after meeting British Energy's cash reserve position and the running costs of plant and so on. That is not the right solution. We must leave British Energy with incentives to drive down costs.
  British Energy is not the cheapest producer of energy, but it is not the most expensive by a long stretch. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) might have more up-to-date figures, but last year British Energy representatives made it clear, when talking to the Select Committee, that their public target was 1.6p per kWh. If they can meet that, the company will not be far off—certainly if it does not have to meet historic liabilities the current market price. That would make the company if not profitable at least not a substantial loss-making activity.
  Dr. Ladyman: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. British Energy is achieving £16.70 per megawatt-hour.
  Mr. Lansley: When British Energy came to see us, the figure was £18 per megawatt-hour. Even after the
  630
  problems associated with Torness and other things, it is moving towards that target. I do not know what the market price is, but let us say that it is about 17 or £18 per megawatt-hour. The company is not really losing money on that basis. It cannot meet the historic liabilities, so the business is not necessarily solvent, but after the financial restructuring it might be.
  Where is the incentive to control costs? In effect, the Government are offering the opportunity for costs simply to be passed through. They will be allowed for in the mechanism. It would be much better, as in the BNFL arrangement with British Energy, for the Government to have an arrangement with British Energy shareholders to share that incentive. For example—one would have to work through the numbers—in so far as the market price went above 1.8p per kWh, the revenue beyond that point would be shared in some proportion, possibly two thirds and a third, between the Government, as a contribution to the fund, and British Energy shareholders, rather than allowing the costs to be passed through.
  That may be regarded as a nit-picking point of detail that we in the Select Committee will have to pick up and work on, but in the long run it might be important. If, as may well be the case, the price shifts to 2.2p per kWh or even higher, and if the plant continues to work efficiently, we should make sure that British Energy cannot allow its costs to escalate beyond its publicly-stated target of 1.6p per kWh. The benefit of that and the cash resources that flow from it should not subsidise inefficient quasi-public ownership of British Energy, least of all if it were nationalised. The company should have an incentive to drive down costs and deliver a substantial part of the benefit that flows from that to the Government.
  Nationalisation would be the worst of all scenarios, as there would be no incentive to control costs or to respond to market pressures. The costs would begin to move in the opposite direction to that in which they have moved in the past. The net result of my argument is not to let the company go to the wall, but to support it in a way that maintains incentive. Nationalisation has never been the way to provide an incentive.
  7.32 pm
  Brian WhiteFrom listening to the debate so far, one would think that British Energy was the only company that had ever undergone restructuring. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said, a number of energy companies have been in trouble recently, and many companies have been through a restructuring exercise. We should bear that in mind and learn the lessons from those restructurings.
  One of the benefits of the Bill is that it gives us time to do that, and buys time for British Energy to restructure in a way that will allow it to continue to trade. The key objective is not just to keep the company going but to protect its work force and ensure that they have a role in the future of the industry. Two further objectives have been mentioned: security of supply and safety. Enough has been said about those, but it is important to reflect on the lessons of other restructurings.
  We need to consider the Bill in the light of the rundown of Magnox stations. I disagree totally with the remark of the hon. Member for Croydon, South

  631
  (Richard Ottaway) that Magnox distorts the market. The crux of the matter is British Energy's business case. Does its business case stack up? I agree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) —that is becoming a habit on the Communications Bill, on which we have had a number of debates. He makes a valid point when he says that British Energy's costs should not be allowed to get out of control. It is important that we make sure that its business case is robust. It should not be based on hidden figures, as it was under the previous management. It should be transparent. We must not repeat the strategic mistakes that were made previously.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt take that on board. The business plan must set out the proper direction. The change in the chair is welcome. The business case must be monitored and we must have assurances of its viability. The costs to the taxpayer and to the company must be controlled. The Bill gets us over the short-term hurdle and gives the business case a chance to work, but it must not be implemented in the context of the White Paper and the long-term energy market. That brings me to the role of the regulator.
  We have considerable experience of privatisation in this country. Some privatisations have been quite good and have stood the test of time. Others have shown themselves to be viable when the market is buoyant, but not through the full cycle of the market. British Energy fits into that category. We need to learn that not all privatisations have been in the best interest of the company, the country or the work force.
  We have seen what happened abroad—in California, for example, where the lack of investment and delay in strategic decision making have led to power cuts. In Scandinavia, the debate on the future of the nuclear industry has led Sweden and Finland to take different decisions about the way forward. The Bill will allow us to debate the type of activity in which British Energy should be involved as it moves forward. Others have raised the issue. It is not a case of business as usual or closure. There are choices that British Energy can make about the way in which it carries out its business and runs the power stations. That may affect the cost to the taxpayer. Once the Bill is enacted, it is important that the Government, through the regulator, engage with British Energy in a discussion about the strategic options for the operation of the power stations. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) is right to draw attention to the economics of that, but the way in which British Energy deals with BNFL must be challenged.
  As a refugee from the Utilities Bill in 2000, I remember the debates about the new electricity trading arrangements. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) is right. Many of us expressed fears about NETA at the time, but I do not recall British Energy approaching members of the Committee and saying that it had a problem. We said that the role of the regulator would be crucial to the operation of the company.
  With regard to the present Bill, I am concerned that the decisions of the independent regulator should be consistent with Government policy. I fear that the independent regulator could undermine Government policy and take decisions that cause problems for British
  632
  Energy. I look to the Government to make sure that the independent regulator's decisions are consistent with the terms of the Bill.
  The negotiations about the conditions under which British Energy will supply could be badly hit if the wrong assumptions are made about market conditions or the regulator's intentions. I do not want us to be back in the same situation in a few months' time because the new management at British Energy has made the same strategic mistakes.
  As has been said, we cannot shut nuclear power stations overnight. We need to get the balance between different suppliers right. I expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will tell me that that is a matter for the White Paper, and I will not stray into it, except to mention that my private Member's Bill on sustainable energy will come before the House shortly. It will deal with issues connected with NETA, but that is a debate for another day, and I will not stray into it.
  It is important that we look at how the money that we are giving to British Energy is being spent. The House needs assurances that the money is being spent properly, that it represents value for the taxpayer, that the environmental, social and energy gains are right for the country, and that if intervention in British Energy is necessary, it is done quickly, and the matter is not left to drift. One of the problems that British Energy has had in the past is that it let strategic decisions drift.
  To conclude—I appreciate that many other speakers want to contribute—the Bill will allow restructuring to occur. It will not make a difference to whether British Energy succeeds or not—rightly or wrongly, that will be down to the market and the independent regulator. In those circumstances, the Bill will give British Energy the greatest chance of success.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: In the light some of your earlier strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have dismissed my meticulously prepared notes, which are next to me in piles on the Bench, and am left with a couple of sheets of paper. I wanted to contribute because since I came to the House I have followed with interest the debate about the future of energy policy. I throw up my hands in horror at the fact that, three years later, we still do not have an energy policy and are debating the issues out of context, which is why we are facing some difficulty in finding our way ahead.
  One of the most startling statements in the debate was made by the Minister. It related not to the money that we are putting into British Energy in grants, loans or whatever, but to the White Paper, so I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me to respond to his comments. He said that he could give an assurance that the White Paper would contain nothing to affect British Energy. That is an astonishing statement, although it may be necessary in the context of the Bill, shareholders and so on. However, it shows not only that the nuclear industry as it is currently constructed will not be affected by the White Paper, as hon. Members have pointed out, but that, because there is a liberalised energy market, the other players in it will not significantly be affected.
  That means that we are still asking the same questions that were being asked a year ago in the performance and innovation unit report and that we are unlikely to get

  633
  any clear answers from the Government in their White Paper, apart from some fudging around the sides. There may be a little bit extra for renewables, combined heat and power or whatever else, but the basic construct of where energy in this country is going remains unchanged by the Bill and, in all likelihood, will remain unchanged by the White Paper. That shows that the Government have learned nothing from the fiasco that has occurred and the way in which the new electricity trading arrangements have worked in respect not only of British Energy, but renewables and CHP, even though they have not had the benefit of such a debate in the House or the introduction of their own measure.
  I do not approach the Bill from the perspective of believing in overnight shutdown of nuclear energy. I do not see on safety and economic grounds the case for any new build for nuclear energy, but I certainly agree that we cannot go for an overnight closure. We need a natural progression in the nuclear industry. As the reactors come to the end of their natural life, they should be decommissioned and we should face the costs. As we move along that path in the next 14 to 15 years, we must decide how to pay for that—an issue that the Bill partly addresses—and how we should put in place the security of supply that the Minister has adduced as one of the main reasons for introducing the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, of which I am a member, led the Committee to Germany last year, when we looked into the future of energy needs in this country. We saw a Government who had already decided to give up a nuclear programme. They have decided not to support new nuclear Bills and have said that, as nuclear power stations reach the end of their natural life, they will be replaced not by more nuclear stations, but by a mix of other energy sources. Security of supply is therefore a serious issue for the German Government, but they are prepared to bite that bullet and address the issue thoroughly and properly.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman not also remember that many hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of contracts to BNFL had to be honoured anyway? Effectively, the German Government chucked that money down the drain, as they still had to honour those contracts.
  Mr. Thomas: I accept that, but it was a decision for the German Government. I do not know what the contracts were worth, but I do not think that it was much more than the £3 billion that the Bill gives to British Energy.
  Brian White: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was a strong debate last year in Finland about whether nuclear power was right or wrong. It has now decided in favour of new nuclear build.
  Mr. Thomas: I accept that. It is for sovereign states to take the decision. We are not discussing a European directive; such matters are part of how a liberalised energy market is run. My submission is that the failure of British Energy is significant in terms of what we should be regarding as the long-term interests of nuclear energy in this country. We can deal with the short term
  634
  in the Bill, but how should we deal with the long term? How should we deal with the fact that BNFL is also in a very dodgy financial position? That is a question that must be debated for the future.
  We have already debated how we reached the current position, so I shall not reiterate the details. The Minister said in his evidence to the Select Committee that what happened was as much a failure of British Energy's management as anything else, and I shall not disagree. Nor do I think that we can put the blame at the door of NETA, although I have some problems in that regard. There are some questions about how NETA has worked in a moral vacuum with no pressure of social or environmental responsibility from Ofgem, the regulator. The shareholders in British Energy benefited wonderfully when there was a pool arrangement and the base load of British Energy was rewarded in that context, so they should not complain when they find it difficult to cope with the liberalised energy market that they knew would be introduced. That is not a matter that we should address at a legislative level, which is one of the reasons why I am disappointed with the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) adequately demolished any significant arguments made on the grounds of security of supply. He made it clear that, if we did not take the Bill forward, we would not see the turning off of lights, as the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) put it, in Scotland or anywhere else. There are processes in respect of companies such as British Energy that will ensure a continuation of supply and employment, so there is a way of addressing that issue.
  The other argument that the Minister prayed in aid—it was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—was that the Bill kept British Energy going and maintained an income flow into the liability fund, which would be cheaper for the taxpayer. There are two questions about that. First, we have seen no independent report about the real value of the settlement to the taxpayer. Secondly, my feeling is that we will not see much money coming from British Energy into the public liabilities fund. When the Minister winds up the debate, as I think he will do—
  Mr. Wilson: With the leave of the House.
  Mr. Thomas: I shall not object to his doing so, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to tell us what sum he expects British Energy to contribute annually to the liabilities fund, bearing in mind that the Bill allows him to put £150 million to £200 million into the historic liabilities fund. I accept that those are different funds, but they come from the same pockets.
  Decommissioning costs have also been mentioned. As I said in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is not currently in his place, we need a proper assessment of the real costs. We may face up-front costs now. That does not mean overnight decommissioning, but if we see that some nuclear closures are needed to allow British Energy to work in a competitive marketplace, we must ask how those costs can be met from the public purse. Ultimately, as the backstop is the public liability, the taxpayer will have to pay. I am not convinced that that is a more expensive option than the up-front payments

  635
  of about £1.15 billion for which the Government sought the European Commission's authorisation in the Bill and the ongoing £200 million a year that can be provided for at least 10 years, which amounts to at least £2 billion. It is with regard to that £3 billion package for British Energy that we must consider decommissioning costs. That is important not in the context of year one or even year five, as this is a 10-year Bill that provides the ability to give £3 billion to British Energy.
  I agree with some of the comments of Opposition Members about the idea that the Bill introduces a type of nationalisation. It is an attempt to establish the framework for potential renationalisation. I would not necessarily philosophically object to such a policy. I did not do so in respect of Railtrack and I am not sure that I would in respect of the nuclear industry, which would possibly be safer in public hands than it has been in private hands. However, the Bill is an expensive way of pursuing such an approach. Setting up a framework involving a private company but always thinking "We'll come in and renationalise" is not good value for the taxpayer.
  In the long term, we could argue about whether nationalisation is good value for the taxpayer. My central argument about nuclear power is that it cannot be valued on the basis only of price per megawatt or kilowatt; it has to be valued on the basis of security supply and safety in particular. I am not completely comfortable with an industry that says "Let's drive down costs at all costs." We saw what happened with Sellafield and BNFL in that regard. I am more comfortable with an industry that involves a great deal of public interest, but the Bill is a missed opportunity in that regard.
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned safety several times. In more than 50 years, the total number of deaths as a result of the nuclear power industry is fewer than one a year. In the same period, the figure for the conventional power industry is 11,300. Will he therefore stop claiming that there is a safety issue? Nuclear is the safest form of electricity.
  Mr. Thomas: I am tempted to take the hon. Gentleman to a wind farm site. I appreciate that I am straying, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall be careful. The only community-owned wind farm site in Wales is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and is on land that is still contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster. That is the price of the nuclear industry. The wind farms that have been built on the land will not contaminate it; Chernobyl still contaminates it.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thomas: I shall not give way again on that, and I will move on.
  If the Bill is genuinely to protect taxpayers' interests, we must consider all the options. Hon. Members have outlined them, and I shall not reiterate all the questions. The Bill as currently drafted distorts the market enormously. It is open to challenge, and I would be amazed if another energy generating company did not
  636
  challenge it. The European Commission has agreed to the £1.15 billion, but the Bill is different. I should be surprised if it were not challenged in some court.
  In the context of the continuing debate on the White Paper, the Bill puts paid once and for all to the idea that we can have energy that is too cheap to meter. We should be grateful for that. The Bill acknowledges the true price of cheap energy. It is noticeable that several Labour Members have claimed that energy is too cheap. A liberalised market delivers the cheapest energy; that means the dash for gas and everything else that we have had to tolerate. I hope that hon. Members realise that cheap fuel alone cannot fulfil the need for security of supply and long-term energy. It cannot solve fuel poverty, which relates to energy efficiency and providing the best resources to the poorest people. It is not simply a matter of the price per kilowatt hour of electricity. I hope that that realisation is dawning on Labour Members. That is not apparent in the Bill.
  The Bill does not deal with the genuine, long-term costs of the nuclear industry. It does not tackle the costs that the PIU report outlines or our position in five or 10 years. The measure is a sticking-plaster solution. Sticking plasters are not safe for nuclear reactors.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I agree with much of his contribution. He said that he was disappointed with the Bill, but appeared to suggest that if it were more specific about public ownership, he would be attracted to voting for it. Similarly, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) considered whether the cost of public ownership would be too dear. At the same time, he appeared to claim that the liabilities were so great that if the Government took them on, the industry could be privatised again. I do not accept that.
  The only way forward is public ownership. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) suggested that to some extent. He rightly pointed out that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) did not robustly oppose renationalisation in the way that Conservative Front Benchers normally do. Perhaps he accepts that public ownership of a company that has such vast liabilities is the only way forward.
  Mr. Blunt: I want to ensure that I have not given hon. Members the wrong impression. Conservative Members would oppose renationalisation. Administration is a perfectly good route. The company's assets—the working power stations that generate cash and power—can be sold out of administration. The taxpayer will have the first charge on any receipts from that to meet the liabilities that the Government have taken on.
  Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. Doubtless my hon. Friend the Minister has noted it.
  I appreciate the Minister's need for the Bill. I understand that the Government require such a Bill to restructure. However, rather than restructuring British Energy and having to come back to the House to discuss public ownership, I urge the Minister to consider public

  637
  ownership as the first option. I hold that view because of the enormity of the liabilities, to which I shall revert shortly.
  The economic case for nuclear energy is not strong. If we consider the competition in the market before the new electricity trading arrangements, it is apparent that nuclear energy could hack it only because the pool favoured it. When I was member of the Trade and Industry Committee, we considered the proposal to privatise in 1996. It was discernible that the Tory party had decided to privatise British Energy despite removing it from the privatisation package in 1990 because the economic climate had changed. It had introduced the non-fossil fuel levy, which obliged specific suppliers to buy energy from a nuclear source, and the nuclear levy. The latter paid for the nuclear industry. The Tory Government therefore decided to privatise British Energy because the commercial position had changed.
  The position has subsequently changed dramatically. The Minister referred to security of supply and safety. We should take up those points and I hope that Opposition Members are prepared to support the Government on them. Safety has been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) pointed out that only one person a year had died in a given period in the nuclear industry. However, he omitted to mention the way in which privatisation changes the safety culture. For example, contracting out and outsourcing in British Rail resulted in the employment of people who were less skilled than the previous in-house workers. That led to some of the problems that British Rail experienced and to Network Rail as a solution. Network Rail has now decided to use in-house workers for many of the maintenance jobs.
  When British Energy was privatised, there was a move to outsourcing. Only a few months ago, the nuclear installations inspectorate raised the problem of safety. Questions were asked in the House about its report. British Energy may have adjusted to that. I am not sure whether it did so by retaining payroll workers in maintenance and cutting its outsourcing, but the nuclear installations inspectorate drew our attention to it.
  Mr. Hendrick: Is my hon. Friend, like John Edmonds, the general secretary of my union, advocating a Railtrack-style solution?
  Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for prompting my memory. When the Minister considers the total picture, if he does not feel that outright public ownership should be the model, he may favour a Railtrack-type solution for British Energy. Whichever model he opts for—whether it is the public model or the Railtrack-type solution—the general public will have a greater commitment to the industry. They will feel safer if the industry is operating on a non-profit basis, so that commercial pressures tend not to subvert the safety culture. If it was in the public sector, we would see the return of that safety culture.
  Another point that I want to raise with regard to the nuclear industry has not yet been mentioned—the threat from terrorism. We know that the industry is vulnerable
  638
  to such threats. Indeed, only two weeks ago the Daily Mirror probed the defences of the nuclear industry and found that it was allowed to enter sites quite easily. Will the Minister tell us whether the Daily Mirror provided him with a report of that incursion by one of its journalists on to a nuclear cartilage, and, if so, whether he will act on it to ensure that security is tightened up?
  My next point concerns liabilities. Opposition Members have suggested a number of options as to how liabilities should be dealt with. Some believe that the phasing out of nuclear energy would reduce the future liability and therefore be a saving to the overall energy economy, leaving more money available to be invested in its future. Others feel that the industry should be phased out over time, as in, for example, Holland, Germany, Spain and Sweden. I tend to favour that approach, because it would allow the industry to work to a timetable of phasing out and would enable the Government to address the issue of jobs. However, that would be better done within the context of public ownership. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said that he was ideologically opposed to renationalisation. He did not use that phrase, but I think that is what he meant. If he had looked at some of the huge operators in the energy industry, especially British Gas before it was privatised, he would have seen that British Gas was described as a monopoly that operated in the public interest. If the Minister were prepared in clauses 1 and 2 to bring British Energy into the public sector, it would operate for the public interest.
  The liabilities are vast indeed. I refer the hon. Member for Reigate to the Select Committee report of 1995–96, in which we were able to see the undiscounted and discounted liabilities. The undiscounted liabilities for the PWR and for the eight advanced gas-cooled reactors, which are part of British Energy, were £10.5 billion. Discounted at the rate of 2 per cent., that liability came down to £7.6 billion. That is another matter that I should like to be clarified. A segregated fund was set up when British Energy was privatised whereby contributions were made by the company towards dealing with the clean-up costs. How much was in the segregated fund when this crisis arose, and does the Minister think that the amounts that were put into it were sufficient? Can he say whether it is the board of the company that decides on the amount of moneys that will be put into the segregated fund? Who decides the rate of discount? That is an important issue. That rate depends on the size of the fund that is to be accumulated to deal with the clean up.
  Although I am sceptical about nuclear energy, the Bill is necessary and I shall vote for it.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. I want to start by picking up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who said that gambling analogies apply to the Bill. It allows the Minister to do anything that he likes in relation to anything that has British Energy in its title without let or hindrance and with no cash limits whatsoever. That is the plain reading of the words in the Bill. Although discussion of specific sums of money has been useful and instructive, it is somewhat beside the point. All that can be put in the wastepaper basket on the day after the Bill is passed,

  639
  all the numbers can be doubled, and the Minister has the authority of the House to do that. If nothing else, that is a good reason to oppose the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, it is like the young man at the tables in Monte Carlo who sends home a message saying, "System working well—send more money." The Government are professing that all is well, but they just need a bit more money to finish it off.
  Several interesting points have been made in the debate, which has been of good quality and has shown that many hon. Members are seriously engaged in the issue. One of the issues that has been discussed is how the full decommissioning costs fall and who is to take responsibility for them. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) argued that by the Government taking the firm over, the decommissioning costs could be paid for over a longer period from the profits made from the company. He went on to point out that the firm is running at a loss. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) commented that the costs of production for the firm are £16.70 and the market price is lower than that. In other words, every day that it runs increases the loss—it does not allow it to contribute a profit to the fund. We therefore need to move to one of the other mechanisms that the Minister has suggested.
  Brian White: The hon. Gentleman mentions the price of NETA. Is not one issue whether the regulator is taking sufficient cognisance of the whole ecology of the industry, or simply believing in a market-oriented approach?
  Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. What we need is a proper external objective assessment of the costs, how they accumulate and how they can be paid for. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) made a similar point when he referred to the discount rate. A small change in the discount rate completely upsets all the arithmetic that has been discussed so far. We have heard about the £72 million per year contribution to the nuclear liabilities fund, which is very susceptible to assumptions about rates of accrual and so on, and about the £275 million contribution by way of a bond by the company.
  I draw the House's attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) specifically inquired into that issue in the Trade and Industry Committee. At paragraph 37 of its report, he asked:
  "What is the credit rating of the £275 million bonds?"
  He pressed his point a couple of times and was finally told, at paragraph 39:
  "If British Energy were now to go into insolvency, the government has taken security so the taxpayer will get first call on any value."
  However, not discussed in the Select Committee was which of two civil servants would be at the front of the queue— the one wanting repayment of the £275 million bond or the one wanting repayment of the £650 million loan. The House will get to the same answer in the end—that is, those civil servants would simply be in a long list of creditors of a company essentially without value.
  640
  I hope that the Minister concedes that we need that external, objective assessment with the figures agreed and in front of us.
  The hon. Member for South Thanet complained bitterly that going for a renewables generation solution could easily cost £30 billion. I do not know where he got his sums from, but I remind him that the assessment before the House of the costs of Government support for the nuclear industry so far is £55 billion. The investments would be massive in either case, but I have a clear view as to which would give the House, the country and the environment best value.
  If I may, I shall deal with a question that has been mentioned a number of times: whether the company going into administration would mean that the plants had to close immediately, causing some catastrophic loss of capacity or even safety issues to arise. A number of Members on both sides of the House have done well in rebutting that point. In particular, I draw the House's attention to what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said about it. There will be working plants capable of generating electricity, and any administrator with a mind to maximise the return for creditors will clearly see them in operation, provided that they continue to contribute to the company's cash flow.
  Mark Tami: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there will be no difference whether the plants carry on as they are or go into administration? That is what he seems to be suggesting.
  Mr. Stunell: There will clearly be an important financial difference, which I am just coming to: the Government will be £650 million better off if the plants go into administration than if they take the route set out by the Bill. There are good reasons why the Bill should fail. The key one, which the House should have regard to, is that £650 million will be available for something else in the energy industry, or perhaps beyond it.
  Members should imagine that we have before us not the Bill, but the White Paper, and that Treasury is saying to the Minister, "You have £650 million you can spend. What would you like to spend it on?" It would be inconceivable, in the context of the White Paper, for the Minister to say, "There is a drain. Let's tip the money down there, please, and forget everything else in the White Paper." For instance, £650 million would go a long way towards the planned restructuring of and compensation for those bits of the electricity generating industry that are the least efficient and which produce the greatest amount of carbon dioxide. Clearly, when one looks five or 10 years ahead, one sees large, elderly coal-fired plant, which is environmentally and financially not worthwhile.
  Mr. Clapham: Presumably, the hon. Gentleman is impressing on the Secretary of State the real need for investment in clean coal technology.
  Mr. Stunell: I certainly accept that point, and the hon. Gentleman and I make common cause on it. This country should indeed pay attention to that technology, as well as others. My central point is that the Bill is not the priority investment in the energy industry for the

  641
  Government in the context of developing an energy policy and the likely outcome of almost any conceivable White Paper that they might produce. However, it will artificially preserve a huge overcapacity in the industry and lead to low wholesale prices, although, as a number of people have pointed out, not to particularly low retail prices.
  Another reason for refusing to pass the Bill is that we are seeing a distortion of the competition in the industry. There is competition for investment in the national economy as a whole, but particularly in the energy industry, and the competition for private investment is intense. An energy generator might say to a banker, "Please lend me the odd £600 million. I want to make some money." The banker would say, "What is your business plan?" The energy generator could show the banker any conceivable business plan, but he would be unable to make any money and the banker would not provide such an investment. Such distortion is making such investment more difficult to make.
  I am impressed by the argument made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who thinks that the day of the liberalised market is coming to an end. I think he rather fancies returning to a somewhat Stalinist command economy. We on these Benches do not believe in that. We believe that the market has to be an important component in the development of the energy industry, and it has to be the job of the House and of any Government to set the regulatory framework in which that can take place.
  Mr. Watson: Is the hon. Gentleman demanding that market forces should dictate the Liberal Democrats' renewable energy strategy and saying that they will not look for any Government intervention?
  Mr. Stunell: I am sorry that I was not speaking loud enough for my voice to reach the Labour Back Bench. I said that it is for the Government and the House to provide the regulatory and fiscal framework. I have talked in the House several times about the need to extend the renewables obligation, for example. However, I shall move on, as I am conscious of the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Our discussion has been somewhat handicapped by the need to set it in a wider context relating to the White Paper and the forthcoming Bill on the Liabilities Management Authority. I do not want to transgress your rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall say that the Bill will open the way to a failed rescue bid of the kind used throughout the 1970s and 1980s for failed industries. Such a rescue will distort the market, deter investment and delay the restructuring that is essential if we are to have a viable energy industry for the future.
  British Energy has shown itself to be a failed company in a failed industry. It paid monopoly money for Eggborough, for SWALEC and for project after project. Now, unfortunately, it seems that the Government are ready to pay monopoly money to rescue managers and investors who ought to take the rap for their misjudgments.
  8.18 pm
  Anne Picking: It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that I support the Bill. It is a bit rich that the Government are being left to sort out another Tory privatisation disaster. Yet again, a major utility is under threat because the Tories allowed political dogma to drive an energy privatisation agenda rather than doing what was in the national interest. It is time to sort out that sorry saga.
  A secure, stable and safe electricity supply is fundamental to our country's future. That can be achieved only through a diverse and balanced energy sector. My constituency has a diversity of energy supply to be proud of, including wind farms, coal and nuclear power. We should all avoid promoting our favourite causes and think of the big picture—a long-term, sustainable energy policy.
  This is no time for woolly thinking. The Government have set realistic, ambitious targets to work towards renewable and reliable sources of electricity, but renewable energy, combined with hydro, meets only 2.8 per cent. of our energy needs. Nuclear power produces 50 per cent. of those needs in Scotland, and 21 per cent. of national need.
  Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend seems to be saying that there is a need for nuclear energy to complement and support renewable energy. However, nuclear energy provides the dearest electricity on the wires. The one industry in which we should invest in order to support renewables is the coal industry. Does she agree that we need investment in clean coal technology?
  Anne Picking: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I entirely agree. I do not know whether he knows my background, but I am a relative of Abe Moffat, well known in the mining industry, so I come from what we call "guid stock".
  We should not forget that nuclear energy produces vital supplies of electricity and helps us to meet environmental obligations by being carbon-free. When I hear ludicrous statements from hon. Members calling on the Government simply to shut nuclear power stations, I find them quite irresponsible. Apart from anything else, it would cost us much more to shut them than it would to keep them open.
  Mr. Russell Brown: My hon. Friend knows, if anyone does, the difficulties that British Energy has had at Torness power station in her own constituency. Has she had any indication of what the cost would be of early closure?
  Anne Picking: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I cannot pluck a figure from the sky. We are talking megabucks. I shall get back to my hon. Friend when I find out.
  We have to do away with any pie-in-the-sky notion that wind and sea power are ready to replace nuclear power. It simply is not so. That notion simply does not bear scrutiny.
  There must, then, be a future for nuclear. The debate has been very good on many levels, but I am a little disappointed that not enough hon. Members have paid tribute to the staff who work in the nuclear industry.

  643
  Those staff have been the backbone of British Energy. I take this opportunity to commend those highly trained and motivated workers, who fully deserve our support. They—he shareholders or bondholders who thought that they had a well to drink dry—have invested most in the industry. The workers, such as the 450 at Torness, have sacrificed the most in trying to save the company.
  Brian White: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the management of British Energy had consulted the work force, it might not have made all the mistakes that it did in its strategic decisions?
  Anne Picking: I agree.
  As well as the workers, I commend the trade union representatives who tried hard to consult with British Energy's management and to represent effectively the interests of their members. It is the workers who are reorganising and retraining. They have been doing all that they can—including shedding jobs—to make British Energy pay. Meanwhile, dividends have been paid to shareholders. We should ignore any morality calls from them about being paid compensation.
  Security of supply is not a luxury but a matter of life and death for many of our citizens. Electricity is also the life-blood of our future prosperity, affecting every one of our constituents. We quite rightly expect that when we flick a switch, the light comes on. At North Berwick high school's end-of-term Christmas dance for the older pupils, the boys put on their kilts and the girls their fancy frocks only to have the dance abandoned because of a power failure. In the scheme of things, that is not a big deal, but it was a major disappointment to those pupils.
  In essence, I support any action necessary to secure the future of the nuclear industry, including outright nationalisation if it proves necessary.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Tom Watson: This has been an insightful debate and, for much of the afternoon, the Chamber has looked like the Standing Committee of the Communications Bill in exile. Many members of that Committee have displayed their customary depth of analysis today, as they do day in, day out in that rather laborious Committee on that clause-ridden Bill.
  Most speakers have congratulated the Government on making the necessary provisions to guarantee that the country's energy supply is in good hands in the unfortunate event of British Energy failing to secure agreement on its restructuring. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was a bit harsh on my hon. Friend the Minister when he said that security of supply had been blown out of the water as a motive for the Bill. It is important that management failures are not allowed to undermine the ability of households and businesses up and down the country to know with certainty that the lights will stay on and workers to know that they have a secure future.
  This is a pragmatic Bill that takes a pragmatic approach, a stark contrast to the dogmatic approach that led the last Conservative Government into a rash, ill-informed and, as we can see now, unsuccessful
  644
  privatisation; one that most City commentators at the time, and nearly all City commentators now, agree was perhaps an ideological step too far.
  The Bill is not about turning back the clock; it is about being prepared for any eventuality. If British Energy can secure agreement for the restructuring proposal from its bondholders and creditors —I hope that it can—the Bill will be unnecessary. British Energy will be able to continue as an ongoing concern, generating electricity rather than column inches and debates in the Chamber.
  I understand that real progress is being made in bringing bondholders and creditors together to reach an agreement on the restructuring. The detailed information that bondholders have required from the company has only been available since just before Christmas. It is understandable that those involved have been racing to reach an agreement and we must pay credit to them, as they are genuinely trying to reach agreement by the deadline of 14 February. I am not opposed to that but, in that eventuality, I hope that Adrian Montague, the company's new chairman, and the major investors will look to reorder and strengthen the clearly tainted British Energy management.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) mentioned the hard work of the 5,000 workers in British Energy, and there is no doubt that their morale has been sapped over the last 12 months by the uncertainty that they all face. It is essential that we put pressure on the company to bolster its management, because the previous management was, at best, incomplete in its dealings with stakeholders and, at worst, simply misleading.
  If British Energy cannot secure the agreement, it is absolutely right that the Bill will allow the Government to incur expenditure through a range of measures to ensure a "smoother path through administration." Let us not forget that the company does not have to nestle in the public sector for long. The provision of loans or grants may allow for the possibility of a new ownership structure to evolve. In that event, I hope that stakeholders look to recent successful not-for-profit models, as it need not be a wholly public sector solution.
  When I talk about not-for-profit models, I am talking about Welsh Water, Britain's fourth-biggest water company. It is a good model to look at; it provides an essential public service, delivered in the private sector by a company without shareholders. Instead, bondholders fund the company. It makes a profit, but that profit is reinvested in the business, in training staff and in lowering bills for customers. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that if things go wrong for British Energy, that would not be a bad model for the Government to look at.
  Mr. Russell Brown: I am intrigued by what my hon. Friend is saying, but I am slightly confused. Could he elaborate on the point that he is making?
  Mr. Watson: Indeed. Having dealt with failed Tory privatisations, the Government have learned that we do not have to have wholly public or wholly private organisations. The Network Rail model is one we can look to.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that if it were down to the work force—those 5,000 employees we have mentioned— and their normally moderate unions,

  645
  they would demand that the Government take control of the company today because they have faced such uncertainty for the past six months.
  For too many years, the work force also faced uncertainty on safety. After the damning report on operating safety at British Energy issued by the World Association of Nuclear Operators two years ago, I understand that the management briefing notes that accompany presentations to safety representatives at BE are considered too embarrassing to share with the trade unions. Can my hon. Friend the Minister urge the new chairman of the company to release that important safety information to union representatives?
  The question to which employees and consumers most want an answer from my hon. Friend the Minister is: how did we get into this situation? The answer is easy: first, Tory dogma and, secondly, constant mismanagement at the highest levels of British Energy. Hon. Members have laboured that point but it is worth remembering, as Parliament, once again, debates a failed privatisation, which is, like Railtrack, a privatisation that Labour Members warned against at its inception.
  We are looking for new models. As has been said elsewhere, it is no coincidence that these problems surfaced in the two companies that were the last to be taken to the market during the final, frantic, befuddled death throes of the previous Conservative Government. In effect, the British Energy privatisation amounted to a massive gift from the taxpayer to the private sector—
  Mr. Robathan: Oh, really.
  Mr. Watson: Yes, really. British Energy was floated for £1.5 billion.
  Mr. David Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the previous Conservative Government had been local councillors they would have been surcharged? Many of the Tories who now sit on the Opposition Benches would have been paying the taxpayer compensation for a long time.
  Mr. Watson: Indeed. I have some figures for Opposition Members. British Energy was floated for £1.5 billion—a sale package consisting of seven advanced gas-cooled reactors and Sizewell B, which itself cost £3 billion to construct. The market capitalisation of BE is now below £100 million, making it one of the biggest write-offs in Tory privatisation history. At the time, concerns were brushed aside.
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either the shareholders have taken an enormous bath and should never have bought the thing in the first place, so encouraging shareholders to buy the company was a thoroughly good deal for taxpayers, or the company is subject to the vagaries of the market. He cannot say that simply because the company is now worth only £100 million privatisation was a disaster for the taxpayer—plainly it was not.
  Mr. Watson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is perhaps unique that the Conservatives managed to hit
  646
  the taxpayer hard when they privatised the company and then undermined the shareholders by nearly bankrupting the institutions that invested in it.
  At the time, concerns were expressed to the then Conservative Government in powerful contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North, now the Minister for Energy and Construction, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. During those debates, one of the most prominent cheerleaders for privatisation was the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)—although he has been noticeably quieter on the subject of late. He made the perceptive prediction that
  "he key benefit is that privatisation would impart to the nuclear industry the ability to make decisions to benefit the industry".— [Official Report, 26 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 859.]
  With the benefit of hindsight, I have been trying to work out what the industry gained from that privatisation, but I cannot find many benefits at all.
  Much has been made of the impact of NETA on the company and there has been some discussion as to whether that was a major factor in BE's problems. Many Members have pointed out that BE did not complain about NETA; in fact, the company welcomed NETA and said that the new arrangements were good, yet it failed to adapt to the new market conditions.
  The company failed to take a natural hedge in the market to offset the sharp fall in prices. When everyone else was moving into retail distribution, BE was moving out of the retail electricity sector—just as others in the industry began to understand the benefits of vertical integration. Furthermore, the Eggborough plant, purchased for more than £600 million, is now reckoned to be worth only about £75 million or £100 million.
  Those are all problems of senior management in British Energy, but the continued payment of handsome dividends, even as the storm clouds gathered and the company was dusting down its begging bowl, was a scandal. Last year, just months before the company turned up cap in hand at the DTI's door, it handed almost £50 million back to shareholders. The £500 million special dividend payment that it made in 1999 was an act of breathtaking complacency, and the excuse was that the money was not needed, as there were no immediate acquisitions to be made. That money would have been better used preparing for the company's many rainy days.
  Mr. Blunt rose—
  Mr. Hendrick: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Watson: I had better take the intervention from the shadow Minister first.
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he suggests that he will go into the Lobby tonight to support a Bill that will enable the Government to come to an arrangement whereby the taxpayer will help out the existing company's shareholders and bondholders. That is a rather surprising argument.
  Mr. Watson: No, I will go into the Lobby to allow the Government to take on board any eventuality that the

  647
  company faces. I apologise for the fact that we need to have this debate. As I tried to suggest earlier, even Mrs. Thatcher perhaps noted that this was a privatisation too far, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said, he was not a Member at the time, so he took no responsibility for the previous Government's decisions—a "not me, guv" attitude. So the Government are taking measures to deal with any liability.
  However, as has been mentioned, the liabilities that we need to take on board are those of radioactive waste. The nuclear equation must not be forgotten as we discuss the industry's restructuring and, more widely, the United Kingdom's future energy mix, which we are not allowed to talk about now. So I will not talk about the energy White Paper, but perhaps the Government can learn a lesson from this privatisation about the other sectors of the industry that are considering restructuring—principally, Nirex.
  I have pressed the Minister before on the fact that perhaps Nirex should be an independent foundation, divorced from ownership of British Energy and BNFL. I know that he will not tell us tonight about his future plans for Nirex, but I hope that he can rule out the ugly rumour, which is going around the nuclear industry, that Nirex will be privatised. The lesson of this debate is that, if we go down that route, we will find ourselves in a greater mess in years to come.
  This is a good, pragmatic and flexible Bill. It is a Bill that we do not want to use if we can get away with it, but I hope that hon. Members will support it in the Lobby tonight.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Whatever is said about British Energy, there can be no doubt that it is an extremely important industry. As many hon. Members have said, it provides about 22 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity capacity. Given that it provides such a huge amount, even with 20 per cent. overcapacity, it is essential that that capacity remain available for two reasons. First, demand for electricity may increase. Secondly, it is important that capacity is spread over as wide a range of different sources as possible. It is clearly important that we reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and that, if a certain part of the industry hits problems, there is still the capacity for other parts to make up the gap. The industry's importance to the whole economy is phenomenal, and I would be very sad to see such an important industry go to the wall.
  The risks of letting the industry go under must not be underestimated, and I commend the Government for bringing the Bill forward, first, to take account of the current financial difficulties, and, secondly, to make available provisions that might not be necessary but that will provide a safety net should the worst come to the worst. Let us not forget why we are here in the first place: a botched privatisation was rushed through in 1996 by a Government who were trying to get as many measures as possible on to the statute book before a general election that they knew that they were going to lose. The industry was privatised and raised £1.3 billion.
  Mr. Russell Brown: Does my hon. Friend suggest that that was akin to a scorched earth policy?
  Mr. Hendrick: Perhaps I would not use that description, but I can see its merits.
  As I said, £1.3 billion was raised. What was the market capitalisation in March 2000? It was £1.2 billion. In 2001, the market capitalisation rose to £1.8 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "£1.8 billion."] I stand corrected. It was £1.8 billion. In 2002, it went down to £1.114 billion. On 11 January this year, its capitalisation was £39.9 million. Those figures speak for themselves in terms of the management of that company since privatisation.
  It is essential that the company receive financial assistance. We cannot afford to switch off that essential capacity. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) mentioned, something like eight nuclear power stations are currently involved, and the implications of even switching off the core of those reactors, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) suggested, are phenomenal. He said that the cost would be something to the tune of £600 million. Given the scale of the figures that we are talking about, that might not seem a great deal of money. However, decommissioning nuclear power stations is not just a question of stopping the core reactor generating electricity; it also involves the disposal and dismantling of the reactor facilities as a whole.
  Albert Owen: Does my hon. Friend agree that one factor that has been overlooked in relation to the shutting down of British Energy power stations is that many of them have contracts with other industries, which may have a knock-on effect not just on price but on jobs in those industries?
  Mr. Hendrick: Yes. I have not dealt with the jobs issue yet, but what my hon. Friend says is correct. What the hon. Member for Twickenham failed to take into account, apart from the jobs issue, was that those problems were never going to go away. Just because we spend £600 million today does not mean that the rest of the costs associated with decommissioning will not be around for future Governments. It is important to factor in those issues.
  Dr. Cable: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, of the £5 billion decommissioning costs, about £2 billion would be incurred after 135 years, and another £2 billion after 50 years? Clearly, those long-term commitments have to be factored in, but they hardly make any difference as to whether the plants are closed down in five years or in another 15 years at the end of their natural life.
  Mr. Hendrick: Again, I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. Apart from the loss of jobs, there would be a loss of revenue and of electricity generated as a result of the plant ceasing to operate. From that point of view, it was interesting that one of the Welsh nationalist Members who spoke earlier referred to Germany. Germany took the worst option of all, which was to pay the cost of the contracts and close the industries, too.
  Dr. Ladyman: Before my hon. Friend gets too bogged down with the Liberal Democrats, does he recollect that

  649
  the last time that we debated energy, they said that we should not build any nuclear power stations because we did not know how to decommission them? Today they tell us that we should not build any more because the ones we have should be decommissioned. The truth is that, as on so many issues, they do not know whether they are on foot or on horseback.
  Mr. Hendrick: My hon. Friend makes a very good contribution.
  Clause 1 provides for financial assistance in the short term and gives the option of acquiring the company or its assets if the solvent restructuring fails. The Government have stressed that this is an enabling Bill and that there is no agenda other than to try to restructure the company and get it up and running. I mentioned in an intervention a possible Railtrack-style solution, as John Edmonds, general secretary of the GMB, put it. I give the Government the benefit of the doubt with regard to this approach. There is still the possibility that more restructuring of the industry would not make it more profitable or self-sustaining than it is now.
  There are two conflicting approaches to the provision of electricity in this or any other country. With a totally market-led approach, it stands to reason, because of the very different ways in which the energy is derived and then distributed, that not every method would potentially result in the same costs.
  Similarly, if one believes in an energy policy that is diverse and draws from a number of sources, it is clear that some sources may be more profitable than others, and that therefore certain types of industry, as we have already seen from renewable industries, would need extra support in the form of derogations from the climate change levy or taxes to rebalance the market. The Government should enter into discussions with the European Commission to see how that matter can be examined, because a totally market-driven approach does not necessarily mean a fair market. It can be a distorted market, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) put it. In fossil fuel generation of electricity, there are associated costs that are not immediately paid for. In fact, the environmental costs of those industries probably compare with the environmental costs of the nuclear industry, if everything is taken into consideration.
  Mark Tami: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If matters are left totally to the open market, we shall not have a balance: we will not have nuclear or renewables but a short-term system based on gas turbines that will probably burn imported gas from unstable countries.
  Mr. Hendrick: I absolutely agree. When the decision was made to allow gas to be used in generating stations I was one of those who thought that it was somewhat of a disaster, because gas is very precious. There should
  650
  have been a continued emphasis on coal, with new technologies to work with it alongside the generating capacity that was there—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying from the main subject of today's debate.
  Mr. Hendrick: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is just that, in determining the true costs of nuclear power, to determine whether a nuclear power industry is viable, to some extent we need to look at the alternatives, because obviously there are implications. But I will not stray any further in that direction.
  Britain's nuclear power industry has developed from a programme that originally had military imperatives into one with political imperatives, leaving us with what is, by its very nature, an expensive means of producing electrical energy. During the debate in the 1980s, cost per kilowatt-hour in comparisons between coal and nuclear power was based purely on the operating costs of each means of generating electricity. I put it to the Minister that £16 per megawatt-hour, which is the lowest cost of production nowadays, is probably not the real cost, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. Research and development costs for nuclear facilities and waste management and disposal were never factored into the equation for operating costs because the industry was Government-owned and not subject to market scrutiny.
  As other Members have said, the privatisation in 1996 was a give-away, and it should never have taken place because the industry was never going to meet, and beat, the competition from gas. British Energy, like Railtrack, has put shareholders before consumers. Last May, it had a profit of £42 million in its British and north American operations, but an overall loss to its UK operations of £41 million. None the less, the company chose to maintain its dividend, paying out nearly £50 million to its shareholders. Last year, when the company had already recorded large losses of over £500 million, the chief executive was awarded a performance bonus, and is now being offered a fortune. Given the dividend, which was clearly a bribe to keep the chief executive in his job, and his bonus, it seems that the company is paying itself for under-performance.
  Despite that, it is essential that BE continue to produce electricity and that this country develop a viable nuclear power programme to meet our international obligations on climate change. The switch-off of all eight stations would cost more than letting them continue to run. They need upgrading, and, in time, the Government will need to consider new build. Safe nuclear power is the future, and it must be part of an overall balanced energy policy with a mix of sources.
  While the single European market in energy continues to develop, it is plain that a purely market-driven energy policy will not respect the environment, just as the coal-generating industry failed to respect it before scrubbing technologies were introduced. The Government should work with the European Commission to consider how nuclear generation industries throughout Europe can be assisted in coming years. Wind and waves are okay, but they will never produce 20 per cent. of this country's electricity, and they would do well to reach 10 per cent.

  651
  The nuclear industry has the capacity, and it is an essential part of this country's electricity generation programme.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the Second Reading of this enabling Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) said that he thought the Chamber was full of exiles from the Standing Committee on the Communications Bill, so I take it that there are difficulties in that Committee. I suggest that tomorrow he pop along to Room 14, where the Hunting Bill will be discussed, and then he will see real difficulties.
  The Bill focuses on the current problems for British Energy. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made a variety of observations, but a common thread that runs through the debate is that the decisions of the company's management have greatly contributed to its downfall. We have heard about the spent field contracts with BNFL. Signing contracts has done nothing to assist with the difficulties; in fact it has contributed significantly to the problems.
  The Bill will ensure that the Government are prepared for the successful restructuring of the company or its administration. I would sincerely like to think that it will be the former. Administration is not my preference. It would be a major mistake. However, we need to make contingency plans for it, otherwise people will highlight it at each and every opportunity.
  Some colleagues I spoke to recently think that the Bill is a form of renationalisation, which in some people's minds is a good idea. However, even those on the extreme left wing of the Labour party would shy away from renationalising the nuclear industry, because the two do not tie together. I do not want to stray beyond the terms of the Bill. The energy debate has been touched on in a variety of forms, but it is for another day.
  The energy White Paper will be important in determining how the Government deal with the country's future needs. Some 11 days ago, I received a written response from the Minister to an oral question in which I asked about the energy White Paper. He gave the succinct answer that it would be published shortly. Today, he said that that might be published in February or March. Let me give my hon. Friend some advice. Some hon. Members greatly admire and love nuclear energy, so perhaps Valentine's day would be a good time to publish the White Paper. Others are not so keen, however. He has heard the arguments before, and perhaps he should beware the Ides of March. Whatever he decides, many of us look forward to the White Paper being published soon.
  The priorities of nuclear safety and security of supply must be met. The Bill will enable those to be determined in Committee and beyond. Security of supply has always been a feature of the energy debate. There is a wide variety of views on how it can best be achieved. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said that the 22 per cent. overcapacity could be dealt with by the closure of nuclear power stations, but that would create in the sector a fine balance that I would not be prepared to risk. He said that nuclear contributes to some 20 to 25 per cent. of power generation in the UK. I would not
  652
  argue with that. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) rightly said that it is double in Scotland, at about 50 per cent.
  Mark Tami: The margin of 20 to 25 per cent. has to exist. Another consideration is the position of the stations on the grid. Just switching them off would create many problems with balancing the electricity supply around the country.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The strategic placing of sites is important for access to lines and interconnectors. It is strange that he should raise that matter, because I was about to mention a constituency case that relates to the position on the grid. Losing eight British energy sites would have an impact. Like some in the industry, I believe that it is a nightmare scenario. To return to the point made by my hon. Friend, there is a Magnox reactor run by BNFL in Chapelcross in my constituency. I was interested to learn that not many months ago, my predecessor, a long-serving Member of Parliament who supported that site for many years, had suggested to a colleague of mine that a replacement reactor on the site may not be a good idea because it was not close enough to the marketplace. My hon. Friend therefore made an interesting and important point.
  Many Members have driven home the point about people returning home in the evening and wanting power so that they can sit in a warm home and switch on the television. That is something that we all expect, and families without those luxuries desperately want them. There is therefore an even greater demand for power generation in this country. On security of supply, this time last year we had a detailed discussion with Ofgem about the Magnox station in my constituency, which centred on access to the interconnector. The power station exports everything to the interconnector and south of the border, so the regulator asked Scottish Power whether it could guarantee security of supply if it were not in operation. Eventually, after much browbeating, Scottish Power said that it could not. The site has four reactors generating 196 MW, so security of supply is clearly important.
  The potential for power reductions and what are known as "brown-outs" had been identified by others, which is why that information was fed to the regulator. However, it is not just household supply and domestic use that would be affected, but industry as well. We must consider how the industrial sector would be damaged if, as colleagues in the House have suggested, there was an early run-down and we did not support British Energy in the Bill. If restructuring of the company proves successful, the Government must ensure that they deliver their part of the deal, as financial assistance will be needed for nuclear liabilities. If restructuring goes wrong and British Energy goes into administration, the Government must be sure that they can acquire the power station business by acquiring the company or its assets directly, assuming that no third party wants to do so.
  Mr. Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that point? The Bill obviously gives the Government the ability to acquire British Energy in those circumstances, but what would happen if it did not

  653
  complete its passage through Parliament and British Energy was unable to continue? Would the company automatically revert to the Government in any event?
  Mr. Brown: I am pleased that a member of the Scottish National party has turned up, but I expected the SNP to be here earlier. The hon. Gentleman assumes that the Bill will not go through.
  Mr. Weir: That is another question.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman made that assumption. I am not about to assume that the Bill will not go through, because it clearly will.
  I asked the Opposition spokesman about a third party, but I am not convinced that a creature of that ilk exists. So we have a difficulty, which the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry have identified.
  We are duty bound—my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian raised this point, too—to consider those who work in the sector. We must not write off people; we are talking about highly skilled work forces. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned the figure of £5 billion and gave a breakdown of possible costs—f2 million 150 years from now, £2 million in 50 years' time and perhaps £1 billion now.
  A moral duty lies behind all that. This is not a game of figures and what we must do in 50 or 150 years from now. I know that only too well because we are already preparing for the closure of the Magnox site in my constituency that will take us into the next 15 or 20 years. BNFL has identified the liabilities and how the matter must be dealt with in the communities affected. My hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening remarks that we cannot simply switch off reactors and make moves toward de-fuelling—there is a cost attached to that. The economics show clearly that it makes sense to run the businesses and to utilise precious assets.
  Clauses 3 and 4 of this narrow, enabling Bill amend schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989. The proposed removal of the financial ceiling has allowed restructuring to go ahead. If the current ceiling is strictly interpreted, it could block the Government's delivery of their part of the deal, because we must guarantee British Energy's liabilities. The ceiling also makes no provision for inflation and does not reflect the industry's standard practice of discounting large sums in the distant future.
  The changing of the tax status of grants under schedule 12 is important: it will ensure that the Government can deliver their part of the restructuring plan without incurring a massive tax liability. That is why the Minister referred to giving with one hand but not taking away with the other.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said, this is a small Bill. It is pragmatic, but it will go a long way to assisting in the future.
  9.7 pm
  David Hamilton: It was not my intention to speak in this debate, but there have been several speeches on which I should like to reflect. My hon.
  654
  Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) talked about people on the left queueing up to participate in this debate. Obviously, I am not on the left, although I remember demonstrating against the opening of Torness power station in the constituency next to mine. I must always remember that Tony Benn signed the paper allowing nuclear power to start.
  One important issue is the security of Britain's long-term interests. Two or three colleagues have commented on the work force and it is important that I start with that point. We should remember that the work force will be very concerned at the moment. As someone who came from the coalmining industry, I understand that concern. We have all been listening to this debate intently. The work force will be looking to their future security.
  I am concerned that the ex-chairman of the company has walked away with a golden handshake and with a pension that many pensioners would be extremely pleased to enjoy. That matter needs to be investigated. We need to look at some of today's chairmen and the deals that they get when they go.
  It has been said that some 22 per cent. of fuel is generated by nuclear power. In Scotland, the figure is 50 per cent. I understand that the White Paper will be published in February or March and I look forward to the debate on it because the diversity of Britain's requirements is key. Whether we like it or not, we all have to play the game, but I am not a supporter of nuclear power. I have opposed it and nuclear weapons all my life. However, that is not the issue. We have many nuclear reactors throughout the country, and there is no question of closing them down. They should be allowed to come to the end of their natural life. In the long term, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, we should look at reinvesting in other renewables and in clean coal. What concerns me is that the money that has to be spent to bail out nuclear power could have been used in other ways, and can be in future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said that the accident rate in the nuclear power industry was very small—one per year, I think he said—but all it would take is one major disaster at a nuclear power station to make that figure seem infinitesimal. Let me give an example. When I served on a council, we looked at the question of energy requirements and what would happen if a disaster occurred in the neighbouring county. Edinburgh would be taken out, Midlothian would be taken out, East Lothian would be taken out and Fife would be taken out. There would not be a firth of Forth; there would be a sea. That is what you have to think about as you listen to the debate.
  Dr. Ladyman: The 11,300 people killed in the conventional power industry whom I mentioned earlier did not include the 8 million people whom the United Nations believes will die as a result of burning carbon over the next 10 years.
  David Hamilton: That is why we need green coal—[Laughter.]—and long-term investment in other options. Conservative Members talk about privatisation of the industry, and then cry over spilled milk because the shareholdings have gone pear-shaped, and reject the

  655
  criticisms that we make. Investment in health and safety is for the long term. You talk in terms of historical significance. I am too young to remember, but you may remember the smog in London and the 4,000 people who died. We moved away from that by introducing clean air Acts. Europe is moving towards that, which I welcome. With new technology, we can consider renewables and other options. Wind and wave power may sound ludicrous, but such energy sources must be developed.
  When we speak about security, let us think about what is happening in Iraq. Is it not all about oil? That is security, and in Britain we have to act.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is starting to stray slightly outside the Bill. Also, may I remind him not to use the word "you" when referring to hon. Members in the Chamber? He must use the correct parliamentary language.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): Youse!
  David Hamilton: I said youse. That is a Scottish word, which is collective, but I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your guidance. I did digress slightly on Iraq. I dare say that we will return to that in another debate.
  On the issues raised by the Minister and the billions of pounds involved, I see no alternative to what is proposed in the Bill. I will support it, because it contains the possibility that British Energy may come back into public ownership, if necessary. We do not have the luxury of voting against the Bill, when everyone knows full well that no other option is available to us. There is no third party that would be interested in picking up a dead duck.
  When I came to the House a year and a half ago, I was reminded many times of my responsibility to my constituents and the people who put me here. That is partly what the Bill is about. Some of the matters that we have to deal with in Parliament are unpalatable. If the public purse must be used to secure the long-term interests of energy, that is what we must do, rather than arguing about it when there is no alternative.
  Some important points have been made in the debate. I agree with the unions at the TUC conference when they decided unanimously—unusual nowadays—that the industry should be taken back into public ownership. I look forward to that day.
  9.14 pm
  Albert Owen: It is difficult to speak at the end of a debate without repeating the points that have been made, but I have been here for most of it, while the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who will speak from the Conservative Front Bench, has not, or at least his hon. Friends have not. That is not the point, however: it is difficult to make new contributions, but I shall try to do so.
  As has been pointed out, the Bill is an enabling Bill. While it is a technical Bill that enables the Government to deal with financial problems relating to British Energy, it is difficult to limit our comments and observations to this unique situation and not to discuss the wider ramifications for the electricity industry and
  656
  nuclear energy in particular. Indeed, some clauses have a general application. The financial problems of British Energy have attracted wide interest, as has the impact on any future energy policies. I realise that you will call me to order if I stray on to the White Paper on energy policy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I point out that it is very significant, for reasons that I shall explain later.
  As the only Welsh Member with a nuclear power station in their constituency, I bring to the debate a Welsh dimension that I believe is current and relevant, even if it is not universally accepted by Plaid Cymru Members. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) referred to Welsh Water—he called it south Wales water—but I must correct him, as Dwr Cymru, Welsh Water, covers the whole of Wales. The Welsh model has some relevance in discussing a future model that is a halfway house located between full renationalisation and the private sector—a point that he made most forcefully.
  When the British Government announced the first loan to British Energy in September, I was approached by interested parties in my constituency—BNFL, managers, unions representing the workers in the local power station at Wylfa, environmental groups and individuals. They were concerned about the impact that such a decision would have on the electricity industry. Some blamed the managers of British Energy, while others blamed the Government or botched privatisation by the previous Government. A number of concerns were also expressed about the future of nuclear power. I believe that what is needed and will be provided in the White Paper is a mature debate about the right energy mix for this country and for the future.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman see in that mature mix, as he describes it, the need for new nuclear energy plants in Wales? Does he accept that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has ruled that out?
  Albert Owen: I shall not stray into that debate—I know that you would not allow me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker—for which there will be ample opportunity. However, I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman, as I said that we needed a mature debate to get the right mix. All hon. Members will agree that we need to have that mature debate without being sidetracked by individuals' comments.
  When the loan was further extended and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House about the plans to introduce the measures before us today, the focus of attention shifted from the blame culture, whereby people tried to decide whose fault it was, to exactly how—not whether—we were going to introduce legislation enabling the Government to provide a safety net. The blame game was over. After all, British Energy is a major generator in crisis. Like every crisis, this one requires crisis management. The Government could not sit idly by and do nothing. That is why I support the Bill and the measures that it is introducing for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister set out.
  The Bill may not he good, old-fashioned nationalisation—a measure that a number of my colleagues, as well the groups and individuals that have

  657
  contacted me, have mentioned—but, while I do not advocate renationalisation of British Energy, it is not such an absurd proposition, especially with plans to set up an authority to deal with public sector nuclear liabilities. While it would be wrong to engage in political point scoring, let us not forget that the privatisation of British Energy was a privatisation too far, as was privatisation of the railways. We now have to revisit the Railtrack fiasco and the privatisation of British Energy.
  The Government are right to implement plans to provide the necessary mechanisms in the event of administration or solvent restructuring. We cannot simply shut down nuclear power stations. I appreciate that some hon. Members on both sides tackled that, but it is important to emphasise it. We should reject simply shutting down nuclear power stations because of the job factor. It would also cost more to shut them down than to keep them open.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said earlier, many British Energy power stations are located in areas of high unemployment. They have links with other manufacturing industries in the area that would be severed if the power stations were simply closed, resulting in job losses downstream. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with that and assure us that jobs and contracts will be safeguarded if the Bill is enacted. I appreciate that it is a difficult matter for the Minister to tackle, but people in the nuclear industry who are worried about the knock-on effects have raised it with me time and again.
  Let us consider the interdependency of major employers. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. owns the station at Wylfa in my constituency. As I said earlier, it is the only operator in Wales and it has some 500 employees and 100 permanent contractors. More than 75 per cent. of the work force is local, and it is well trained. Jobs there are the highest quality jobs in my constituency. Wylfa contributes £20 million per annum to the local economy. That is a quarter of my area's gross domestic product. Nuclear power stations therefore have a significant impact on the GDP of the areas where they are situated.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) mentioned the union stance. He rightly said that there was unanimity at the TUC conference, and I accept that that is rare. However, individual unions and leaders have approached me about the subject. They look to the Government to get matters right and ensure job security in future. Some advocate Railtrack-style solutions and others go as far as good old-fashioned renationalisation. However, safeguarding the quality jobs should top the agenda. Again, I press my hon. Friend the Minister for that assurance in his winding-up speech.
  The reasons for the Government's intervention are security of supply and guarantee of safe operations. They are important matters and, again, I call for a mature debate to get the right mix of energy needs for the United Kingdom. I believe that we all support that.
  Brian White: My hon. Friend makes a strong case for British Energy to continue processing. However, does
  658
  he accept that British Energy could operate in different ways rather than simply continuing with the current contracts?
  Albert Owen: Yes, but insecurity exists. Some contracts could be jeopardised and we must therefore get the Bill right now.
  The Californian experience shows that if we do not provide the right incentives for new investment—in any sort of energy—we could end up with a worst case scenario. Fulfilling the demands of low carbon needs requires planning—proper planning, not knee-jerk reactions. The Bill will provide stability, albeit in the short term. It provides opportunities to re-examine the matter in future and perhaps accept good old-fashioned renationalisation or the Welsh model that some people advocate. However, we need the prospect of sustainable energy. We also need to deal properly with British Energy so that we can approach the White Paper on a level playing field. The Bill may be narrow but it has wide ramifications for nuclear power, the electricity industry and the review to which I look forward in a few weeks.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I must tell the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) that if the Whip asks him to speak for 15 minutes, he should not simply speak for 10 minutes. I could see the Whip saying that.
  Madam Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Madam?"' I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Perhaps I shall sit down; that would put the Minister in a difficult position.
  We are debating a Bill that will cost the British taxpayer perhaps £3 billion. I am glad to see the Secretary of State here now, because it is important that she registers by her presence the significance of the Bill. We regret that she was not here at the beginning of the debate, but I am sure that she was very busy.
  Nigel Griffiths: Where is the shadow Secretary of State?
  Mr. Robathan: I am sure that he will walk through the door as I speak. He was here for the first couple of hours.
  The Bill is very short, comprising two-and-a-half pages and five brief clauses. That has made the debate difficult in that many hon. Members—looking around, I see several of them—wanted to contribute at greater length to the more general aspects of energy policy, but were prevented by Madam Deputy Speaker from doing so. That is a pity, because some of those contributions would have been interesting.
  The Bill faces opposition from inside and outside the House. It comes on the one hand from free marketeers and on the other from what one might call the green lobby. I find myself in a rather schizophrenic, or hybrid, position, because I am both a free marketeer and—I do not want any hon. Members to tell my Conservative colleagues—I have been a member of Friends of the Earth for longer than I have been a member of the Conservative party. Moreover, I have a photovoltaic roof, which is kindly supported by the Department of Trade and Industry—it has not generated much electricity yet, but we long for sunshine—and I am

  659
  looking to have a wind generator installed on some land in my constituency. I should say, however, that I do not support Friends of the Earth's position on nuclear energy, and I am not anti-nuclear. I detach myself from its arguments in that respect.
  The key question is whether the Bill is the right way forward for British energy and for our energy policy. I want to consider some of the contributions to the debate. The Minister made one of the funniest speeches that I have heard in the Chamber about Liberal Democrat energy policy. It is one to cut out and keep, and I intend to do so. He seemed very unhappy when he was speaking—indeed, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) thought that he looked sombre. I suggest that that is because, through the Bill, he is presiding over a failure of policy and over chaos, to which we shall return later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made a powerful and well-researched speech in which he highlighted the said chaos and failure of policy. He spoke about the blank cheque that hon. Members are being asked to sign today— we shall not do so—and the unlimited liability that the Government may face. He made an extremely well-argued alternative case and demolished the Government's policy on nuclear energy. Whatever the way forward may be, the Bill certainly is not it.
  The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who chairs the Select Committee, brought to the debate his knowledge and long experience of the DTI and pointed out the shortcomings of management. Up to a point, he made a sensible analysis with which I would not disagree, but his conclusions were somewhat unusual. He criticised the high dividends that British Energy had paid to its shareholders, then said that we could not let down the investors who had bought shares at ludicrously low prices. That involves a dichotomy or clash of logic that he may like to consider. In my view, it is not the business of the British taxpayer to bail out those who have made bad investment decisions.
  Mr. O'Neill: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman through his problem. There are a great number of very small shareholders in privatised utilities, some of whom worked in them and some of whom bought their shares. It is the one investment that they have made in their lives. They do not have the sophisticated background of wealth and privilege that Conservative Members have. In several instances, they were mesmerised by the easy money period of the 1980s and early 1990s. Sometimes foolishly, they devoted undue amounts of resources to a single bet on the stock exchange. Those people need some degree of protection and assistance.
  Mr. Robathan: I have every sympathy with those people who will lose money through poor investments, but I quote the hon. Gentleman again. He referred to ludicrously low prices for the shares and, in particular, criticised the high dividends that they paid to those same investors. He will recall that the taxpayers who are bailing those investors out are also elderly and they, too, have to struggle by on pensions. There is no dichotomy in my argument.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, described the Government as a gambler manically stuck at the table and thinking that
  660
  the luck will turn, but when I looked at the Minister he did not strike me as a Michael Owen look-alike and he did not look much like a refugee from Las Vegas either. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) returned to the manic gambling analogy, and there is a certain truth in it.
  Although it may have been faint, the hon. Member for Twickenham gave some praise to the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, which is always a bit worrying. The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that safety is not threatened, contrary to what people have been saying, nor is security of supply. A real issue of competition is involved, and he said that administration is the logical way ahead, because there is no shareholder value in the shares.
  The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate of being dishonest.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Of what?
  Mr. Robathan: Of being dishonest. Contrary to what the hon. Member for South Thanet said, the Bill is not a good start, and he will rue the day that he said it was. He also said that it would be judged by its impact on shareholder value. I disagree, and he will rue those words as well.
  Dr. Ladyman: I think I said that the hon. Gentleman's policy, not Government policy, would be judged on shareholder value. He is a friend of the earth, but does he not realise that the change in carbon dioxide concentrations since the second world war is equivalent to that associated with our coming out of the last ice age? Therefore, if we want to address climate change, we must do something about carbon dioxide reductions. That means that the policy of closing down the nuclear power industry suggested from the Front Bench by the hon. Member for Reigate is not the way forward.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the policy that my hon. Friend put forward, because it is not about closing down power stations. It is about letting the market run its course. The power stations will continue to operate, as was pointed out very ably by the hon. Member for Twickenham, with whom I do not always align myself.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, rightly pointed out the calamitous impact of the new electricity trading arrangements on the energy market from the point of view of the producer. Whatever the rights and wrongs of NETA, the Minister knows that we shared an Adjournment debate some 18 months ago on the bad impact that it also had on combined heat and power. My hon. Friend spoke with authority.
  The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) gave us a history lesson on the past 19 years of nuclear energy. I was not aware of the Prime Minister's hand in nuclear energy, so that point was of interest. I hope that the colliery in his constituency, which he was not allowed to mention, benefits from his support. I wish that he had been able to mention it. He agreed with us that taxpayers should not just compensate shareholders.

  661
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made a sensible and knowledgeable speech pointing out that the Government are anti-competitive. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) wanted to talk about wind farms, and I was looking forward to that. He pointed out British Energy's failure of management, and there is broad agreement across the Chamber on the tremendous mistakes that have been made. Whether they could have been avoided is, as always, a matter for dispute. He also pointed out the immense cost involved and made a sensible long-term point about the desirability or otherwise of cheap energy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who is a member of the Trade and Industry Committee, spoke without a note and made logical arguments. He criticised British Energy's failures, made a spirited defence of the free market and of NETA's contribution, and opposed renationalisation. We might not agree on every word he said, but his speech was excellent.
  I missed most of the speech of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), as I went out for dinner. However, I know that he has a sustainable energy Bill coming up, which sounds helpful.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: Steak and kidney?
  Mr. Robathan: No, it was not steak and kidney pudding actually.
  We agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), although I was not here for his speech. He agreed with the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate about security of supply and how the Bill was distorting the market. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is unlikely to vote with us—
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am voting with you.
  Mr. Robathan: I am delighted to hear that. I thought that he had supported renationalisation.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said that safety was better in the public sector. I think that there is no justification for that.
  Mr. Clapham: If the hon. Gentleman remembers privatisation of the railways and the history of Railtrack and if he reads the report that the nuclear installations inspectorate published about 18 months ago, he will realise that industries are safer in the public sector.
  Mr. Robathan: I am sorry that I cannot agree. With his name, the hon. Gentleman should remember the Clapham rail disaster, which happened long before privatisation. He should remember King's Cross and the underground. He should perhaps remember that a crash happened only this weekend on the underground, which has not, I think, yet been privatised, unless the Government have done so without telling us.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove repeated the gambling analogy, saying that we needed objective external assessment of liability costs. We agree with that
  662
  entirely. We also agree that the market must play an important part and that the regulatory framework should be set by the House.
  I am afraid that I came in to the Chamber as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) was making her speech. I know that she spoke on behalf of her constituents at Torness, but the idea that wind and wave power will immediately take the place of other forms of energy is misguided. I understand, however, why she spoke on behalf of her constituents.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) spoke of Tory dogma, something of which I know nothing. He suggested that the matter is a safety issue. The hon. Member for South Thanet had already pointed out that British Energy has an exceptionally good safety record, and that there is one death a year in the worldwide nuclear industry. We may dismiss the argument about the safety issue. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East theatrically gave us some great analogies, telling us that storm clouds were gathering and that there had been breathtaking complacency, but he must learn to keep a straight face on these occasions.
  The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) also referred to botched privatisation, then spent his entire speech blaming management. He made the profound point that some forms of generation are more expensive than others. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) is of course a cheerleader for renationalisation. The hon. Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton)—possibly a pressed man—said that he was anti-nuclear power and a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I was glad he spoke about his responsibilities to his constituents, however, because we all share those.
  Many good points and informative speeches have been made on both sides. The collapse of British Energy is due to several factors. Poor management—management mistakes for those who prefer that phrase—is one. The climate change levy—the carbon tax—has certainly contributed. The higher level of business rates at nuclear power stations is another factor. The nuclear legacy is, of course, another issue. NETA, whether or not it is good for consumers, has created low prices, which has reduced revenue.
  The company is failing—indeed, it has failed. We say that that is the working of the market and that the company should go into administration. The Bill is a renationalisation measure. The Trades Union Congress was unanimous, we have been told, in wanting British Energy to be renationalised. Is that the spectre of old Labour coming out from under the skies of new Labour? [Interruption.] I can hear hon. Members saying yes.
  We must ask whether the Bill is good for the nuclear energy industry, taxpayers or the country. It is certainly not good for taxpayers. Taxpayers will bail out the company, perhaps paying £3 billion or more. The Bill is a blank cheque. Why, for instance, should taxpayers pay a £336,000 pay-off and £150,000 pension for the chairman and chief executive? If, under his leadership, the company failed and went into administration, he would not get that. My hon. Friend the Member for

  663
  Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is promoting a Bill on Friday that would prevent failed directors from getting such pay-offs if they were not justified.
  Mr. David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robathan: I will not because I am about to sit down.
  We say, "Let the company go into administration." The true value of the power stations and their generating ability will ensure their continued existence, with better management. This is purely a short-term palliative, at enormous cost to the taxpayer. What will happen if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, the Bill is hybrid and is thrown out? What will happen if the EU countermands the state aid subsidy? What will happen if the Minister does not get his Bill, as he may not? We think that this is a bad Bill, at huge cost, and we oppose it.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Wilson: With leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. Through most of that speech I wondered whether it was a winding-up speech or an amateur dramatics adjudication. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) got the award for the best performance from his Front-Bench colleague.
  I am sorry that I did not amuse the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) earlier, but one would need to work pretty hard to make the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill into a comedy turn. If the charge is that I was sombre, my reply is that I would rather be sombre than sanguine. What we heard from all Opposition parties tonight seemed to be remarkably sanguine on a number of scores. The best description of the Bill and its limited objectives came from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), who said that it was a good and pragmatic Bill. That is all it is meant to be and it reacts to a particular set of circumstances.
  Opposition Members were remarkably sanguine about security of supply. There were some extraordinary comments, as if it would be all right on the night and that we could wish away the contribution of the power stations that we are discussing; we could take 22 away from 22 and still have security of supply. That is absolutely nonsense, and we heard that from members of all the Opposition parties who spoke, and particularly from—
  Mr. Stunell rose—
  Mr. Wilson: I was just going to mention the Liberal Democrats. On the basis of their casual approach to security of supply, I would not put them in charge of the street lighting, never mind the nation's energy policy. Simply to say that there is not a security of supply issue in terms of the problems of British Energy seems downright bizarre.
  Mr. Stunell: Is the Minister's opinion shared by the regulator, Ofgem? I got the impression that it did not support the Minister.
  Mr. Wilson: This has been sprung on me—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to nitpick
  664
  with Ofgem, he is welcome to do so. Since Ofgem's prime responsibility is to maintain security of supply—that is also my prime responsibility—we are at one on this question. I have certainly heard nothing from Ofgem in that regard; of course it recognises the importance of the contribution from British Energy. That, largely, has motivated us throughout this affair.
  We heard speeches from Tories, Liberal Democrats and from Welsh nationalists. The Scottish nationalists thought it was an 8.30 kick-off. After all, only 50 per cent. of Scottish electricity comes from nuclear power. We could not possibly expect any of the six Scottish National party MPs to turn up for a debate of this significance. It is, after all, still the Burns season.
  Opposition spokesmen who did participate were remarkably sanguine about the interests of the work force. The Tory spokesman, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), gave them a mention towards the end of his contribution, but only after he had devoted his entire speech to making the strange point that the company should go into administration. I do not know whether he, the Liberal Democrats, the Welsh national party Members or Members of any other party have taken the trouble to talk to the British Energy work force or to the trade unions who represent them, but I can assure them that the one thing that people representing the work force do not want is for the company to be put deliberately into administration.
  We have always been honest with the unions—as with everyone else—that administration remains a possibility. However, to pursue that course of action, as the Opposition parties recommend, is certainly against the interests of the work force, in their perception. It is noteworthy that the only contributors to the debate to raise the interests of the work force were Labour Members: my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Anne Picking) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and others.
  Mr. Blunt: The Minister acknowledged that I referred to the interests of the work force during my remarks, but he cannot maintain that the interests of everyone else must come second to the interests of the work force. Clearly, the work force are in a wretched position, but their interests are not paramount over those of the rest of the country or of the taxpayer.
  Mr. Wilson: Nobody made that suggestion. I am pointing out that the hon. Gentleman was inconsistent. He advocated administration in 95 per cent. of his speech—an odd position in any case—and then, only at the end, expressed concern about the work force, who do not see administration as their preferred option.
  Many of the Opposition speeches were remarkably sanguine about the environment. The whole performance of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), was supposed to be about carbon saving, yet he wants to close down the nuclear industry without the remotest regard for the economic consequences. He is prepared to forgo the revenues from nuclear power stations for the rest of their natural life in order to pursue the objective of turning the key on them at the earliest possible moment.
  How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that approach with his supposed commitment to the imperative of carbon reduction? When it comes to the

  665
  point, he and the organisations which he prayed in aid are much more anti-nuclear than pro-low-carbon. They refuse to face up to that dichotomy, but the public can see through it. They cannot have it both ways; they cannot preach a low-carbon message while walking away from a source of electricity that gives the United Kingdom 22 per cent. of our non-carbon generation at present.
  Opposition spokesmen were remarkably sanguine about safety, which is the other reason that we believe that what we are doing is essential for the future of British Energy and the only way for a responsible Government to act. The principal Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Reigate, put forward his plan for administration, but there was no clue as to who, apart from the Government, would take the company out administration. Rather belatedly, the hon. Gentleman sprang up to say that he was against the Government taking the company out of administration.
  The hon. Gentleman blithely said that if someone turned up to take the company out of administration or if it continued in administration there should be no bureaucratic impediments to the transfer of licence. Does he understand for a moment what is involved in transferring the licence to operate a nuclear site? Has he spoken to the nuclear installations inspectorate or to the Health and Safety Executive? I am delighted to say that they have made plain to me that there would be no automatic transfer of licence. Anybody who wants to operate a nuclear site, whether an administrator, a company or the state in some form, has to demonstrate that they are capable of doing so. We cannot simply brush aside concerns about security of supply, the impact on the work force, the environmental effects and the safety implications of licence transfer.
  Opposition parties vaguely think that they should be against the Government's proposals, but they do not have a clue as to what they would put in their place. At the end of the debate, I am reinforced in my view that what we are doing is the only plausible, practical and pragmatic way to approach the problems of British Energy.
  Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is another important factor—the international aspect of the nuclear industry—and that one of the problems with losing one of the major firms in this country is that it would have a dramatic impact on our ability to work internationally in dealing with all manner of nuclear issues?
  Mr. Wilson: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, but that is not one of the specific purposes motivating us to take action. Some people casually denigrate the nuclear industry, but thank heavens we have that degree of expertise in the United Kingdom, and we can send it out to other parts of the world, particularly parts of the former Soviet Union, where it is valued and where, as a result of the skills that have been developed in the United Kingdom, we can make plants less vulnerable to incidents. We can contribute to the international effort to make those plants safer.
  Of course we wish that we did not have the problems that we are addressing tonight. I have personally known about the circumstances at British Energy for a long
  666
  time and those at Scottish Nuclear even longer, but those problems are not of our making and the choice that we face is how to respond to them in the most responsible way possible. The actions that we have taken since September have passed those tests. The official Opposition have changed their attitude since then because they recognise that we took the only responsible course of action in the immediate aftermath of those events. We could not walk away from the industry.
  Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend has rightly identified the expertise— we disagree about the pronunciation of that word —of the British nuclear industry and its personnel, but does he agree that one way in which we could sustain the industry and make it an attractive occupation and a lifetime career would be to give some more positive indications that it will be sustained beyond the next five to 10 years, which is the furthest horizon that most of us can see at the moment, without any positive statements and other positive documents that might be produced in the near future?
  Mr. Wilson: In the current circumstances, no one expects any document to say, "Go out and build nuclear power stations", even if it were in the power of a document to say such a thing. That is not to give away anything at all. However, there is a recognition that the industry will be with us for some time to come and that the worst of all worlds would be to lose the skills base on which it will continue to depend, so the future lies in that territory.
  I want to return to the point that the Bill is relatively narrow; it is an enabling Bill. It will provide parliamentary authority for the Government to incur expenditure on British Energy, which is necessary in case the company goes into administration. It will amend the Electricity Act 1989 to remove the ceiling on the financial system in relation to nuclear energy, and it will ensure that the Government can acquire British Energy's operating companies if it goes into administration. Those are the narrow purposes of the Bill.
  Dr. Ladyman: An issue that has not been touched upon at all in the debate is how we move forward to a hydrogen economy, so that we can really start to make an impact on carbon emissions. How would we achieve a hydrogen economy without a continuing and successful British Energy and a continuing and successful nuclear power industry?
  Mr. Wilson: I do not want to second-guess what you might say, Mr. Speaker, but I suspect that one of the reasons why that issue has not been touched on is that it is not the subject of the debate, but, as always, my hon. Friend makes a valuable and constructive point.
  I want to try to answer some of the specific points that have been made. The hon. Member for Reigate seemed to blame BNFL for British Energy's difficulties. We had a little bit of an exchange about that, and I utterly refute what he says. I stress that the agreement that BNFL and British Energy eventually reach will be similar to that which the companies discussed last year. It ultimately became clear last year that BNFL could have done

  667
  nothing on its own that would have been sufficient to help British Energy, given the company's position at the time.
  As I said, I find the Tories' support for administration strange, but that is their business. For our part, we responded to the company's plan for solvent restructuring. We assessed its implications with our financial advisers, and decided that we would play our part and support it. Administration has always remained an option for the company if its plan did not succeed. Whatever route we go down, British Energy's historic costs will be borne by the Government, and we know that there is not exactly a queue of buyers waiting to acquire the company. As the Opposition story unfolded, I waited for the final chapter, in which, with one leap, they would be free by telling us who are the mysterious people who are going to take the company out of administration—I am still waiting to hear. That reaffirms the point that it would have been irresponsible of this Government to push or to seek to push the company into administration.
  We have already pointed out that stations generate more revenue than their operating costs, and I am surprised that anyone even questions that—it is a pretty straightforward calculation. Because of the high capital costs of nuclear power stations, the operating costs are relatively marginal, and the revenue generated by every station outweighs them. As I said at the outset, it would be economic madness to shut the stations down and lose the revenue. I extrapolated from that that because it is economic madness—although it has a certain populous ring to it—it defines the economic policy of the Liberal Democrats.
  I also want to take issue with the hon. Member for Reigate about the Bruce station in Canada. He was the first to point out the risks involved in the leaseholder of the Bruce station repossessing the plant in the event of administration. I stress, however, that the decision to dispose of Bruce Power was not imposed as a condition of Government support and was taken by British Energy in October to preserve value against the risk that I have just highlighted.
  While it seemed at one point that we would have rather long winding-up speeches, we are now having fairly short ones. I will undertake to write to other hon. Members who have raised substantive points tonight.
  Mr. Barron: The major issue in this small Bill is that of lifting the ceiling or cap that is set in schedule 12 of the original 1989 Act from £2.5 billion to whatever figure is decided. Is my hon. Friend secure in the knowledge that, whatever money the industry receives, given that it is in the private sector, it will be used solely for the liabilities left by the industry and not for other things?
  Mr. Wilson: The sums to which my right hon. Friend refers are for historic liabilities. That point was well made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who made a good contribution to the debate. A distinction is made between historic costs and future operating costs, which must be borne by the industry and the company.
  Earlier, someone said that waiting for the White Paper was like waiting for Godot. After this debate, we can rework that cliché, and say that it is like waiting for
  668
  the shadow Secretary of State to come through the door. Sadly, he has still not arrived. This is an essential, pragmatic, good Bill to deal with a situation that is not of our making. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Second time: —
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
  The House having divided. Ayes 314, Noes 167.

  Division No. 66]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coaker, Vernon

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Coleman, Iain

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corston, Jean

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin, John

  Crausby, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cruddas, Jon

  Baird, Vera

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cummings, John

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Begg, Miss Anne

  (Copeland)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Benn, Hilary

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bennett, Andrew

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Denham, rh John

  Borrow, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Doran, Frank

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bryant, Chris

  Edwards, Huw

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Efford, Clive

  Burden, Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burgon, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burnham, Andy

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Burnside, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Cairns, David

  Foster, rh Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Casale, Roger

  Foulkes, rh George

  Caton, Martin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Challen, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  669

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McWilliam, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hermon, Lady

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Michael, rh Alun

  Heyes, David

  Miliband, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mole, Chris

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Moran, Margaret

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hutton, rh John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  Olner, Bill

  Ingram, rh Adam

  O'Neill, Martin

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Organ, Diana

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prescott, rh John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Purnell, James

  Kidney, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Linton, Martin

  Ruane, Chris

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salter, Martin

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McDonnell, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacDougall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKechin, Ann

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Simon, SiÔn (B'ham Erdington)

  670

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Trickett, Jon

  Singh, Marsha

  Truswell, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Ward, Claire

  Soley, Clive

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Southworth, Helen

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Spellar, rh John

  Watts, David

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stevenson, George

  wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Williams' rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams' Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wilson, Brian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Strang, rh Dr Gavin

  Woodward, Shaun

  Straw, rh Jack

  Woolas, Phil

  Stringer, Graham

  Worthington, Tony

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wray James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Dan Norris

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Allan, Richard

  Amess, David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Doughty, Sue

  Bacon, Richard

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Baker, Norman

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Barker, Gregory

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Fallon, Michael

  Barrett, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Bellingham, Henry

  Flight, Howard

  Bercow, John

  Flook, Adrian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, rh Eric

  Blunt, Crispin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Boswell, Tim

  Francois, Mark

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Goodman, Paul

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Burns, Simon

  Grayling, Chris

  Burt, Alistair

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Greenway, John

  Cameron, David

  Gummer, rh John

  Cash, William

  Hammond, Philip

  Chidgey, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Heath, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Hendry, Charles

  Curry, rh David

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Holmes, Paul

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  671

  Howard, rh Michael

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jack, rh Michael

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ruffley, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Keetch, Paul

  Sanders, Adrian

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Selous, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lamb, Norman

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Lansley, Andrew

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

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Streeter, Gray

  Loughton, Tim

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Syms Robert

  Maclean, rh David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Tatlor, Matthew (Truro)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Thomas, simon (Ceredigion)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Thurso, John

  Mithchel, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Turner Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Moore, Michael

  Tyrie, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  viggers Reter

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Watkinson, Angela

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Webb Steve (Northavon)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Weir Michael

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Whittingdale, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Page, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Paice, James

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Paterson, Owen

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  (Macclesfield)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Wishart, Pete

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Randall, John

  Young, rh Sir George

  Redwood, rh John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rendel, David

  Hugh Robertson and

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. Desmond Swayne

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That at this day?s sitting the Motion relating to Select Committees in the name of Mr Robin Cook may be proceeded with, though opposed, until and hour.—[Mr. Heppell]
  Question put and agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (MISCELLANOUS PROVISIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Electricity (Miscellaneous provisions) Bill:
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Proceedings in Committee, on Robert and on Third Reading
  2.—(1)Proceedings in committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day?s sitting.
  (2)Proceedings in committee, and any proceedings on consideration, shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
  (3)Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previsouly concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
  Other proceedings
  3. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 167.

  Division No. 67]

  [10:17 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Cohen, Harry

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Coleman, Iain

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Austin, John

  Corston, Jean

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cousins, Jim

  Baird, Vera

  Crausby, David

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Hilary

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  (Copeland)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brennan, Kevin

  Denham, rh John

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bryant, Chris

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Burden, Richard

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Cairns, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fisher, Mark

  Casale, Roger

  Flint, Caroline

  Caton, Martin

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  673

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  MacDougall, John

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McFall, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKechin, Ann

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  McWilliam, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Michael, rh Alun

  Heyes, David

  Miliband, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mole, Chris

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Moran, Margaret

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hutton, rh John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  Olner, Bill

  Ingram, rh Adam

  O'Neill, Martin

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Organ, Diana

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prescott, rh John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Purnell, James

  Kidney, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt. Tom (High Peak)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Linton, Martin

  Ruane, Chris

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salter, Martin

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  674

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheridan, Jim

  Truswell, Paul

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg. Derek (Halton)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vaz. Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Ward, Claire

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Luncesdale)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  white, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Southworth, Helen

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, rh John

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wilson, Brian

  Steinberg. Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stevenson, George

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woolas phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wray James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Straw, rh Jack

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Tellers for the Ayes: Jim Fitzpatrick and Dan Norris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Curry, rh David

  Allan, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bacon, Richard

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Baker, Norman

  Barker, Gregory

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Barrett, John

  Doughty, Sue

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Berth, rh A. J.

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Boswell, Tim

  Flight, Howard

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Flook, Adrian

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brady, Graham

  Francois, Mark

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Brazier, Julian

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burns, Simon

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Burnside, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Burt, Alistair

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Grayling, Chris

  Cameron, David

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Clappison, James

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Cotter, Brian

  Heald, Oliver

  675

  Heath, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Paterson, Owen

  Hermon, Lady

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Holmes, Paul

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Howard, rh Michael

  Randall, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Redwood, rh John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Rendel, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Keetch, Paul

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Ruffley, David

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Sanders, Adrian

  Lamb, Norman

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lansley, Andrew

  Selous, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Lidington, David

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

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Maclean, rh David

  Spring, Richard

  Maples, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Syms, Robert

  Mercer, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Thurso, John

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Tredinnick, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  676

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  (Macclesfield)

  Weir, Michael

  Wishart, Pete

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Whittingdale, John

  Young rh Sir George

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Wiggin, Bill

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

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred with the approval of the Treasury by the Secretary of State with a view to or in connection with—

  (a)the provision by the Secretary of State of financial assistance to British Energy plc or any company which either is or immediately before the passing of the Act was a subsidiary of British Energy plc (within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985);

  (b)the acquisition by the Secretary of State or his nominee or by a Crown company of—

  (i)any securities of any of those companies;

  (ii)any part of the undertaking or assets of any of those companies;

  (c)the carrying on of any undertaking acquired as mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) or any undertaking using assets so acquired; and

  (2) any increase in the sums payable out of money so provided under Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989 which is attributable to the repeal by the Bill of paragraph 4 of that Schedule or to any other amendment of that Schedule. —[Mr. Heppell.]

  Question agreed to.

  Select Committees
  10.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I beg to move,
  That —
  (1)Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related Government departments) be amended as follows:
  In the Table
  Item 7, column 2, leave out from 'Office;' to 'and administration' in line 7 of that item;
  After item 8 insert—

  'Lord Chancellor?s Department

  Lord Chancellor's Department (including the work of staff provided for Department the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments)

  11';

  and

  the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended as follows: Paragraph (2), after 'International Development' insert 'Lord Chancellor's Department'.
  With the leave of the House, I should like to introduce this simple motion, which seeks to establish a new departmental Select Committee to scrutinise the Lord Chancellor's Department. Paragraph (2) provides that the Chairman of the new Committee will be a member of the Liaison Committee. I commend the motion to the House.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: That is all very well, but I think that the motion deserves more attention from the House than that. Of course, a case can be made for an additional Select Committee—I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the work of our Select Committees is of great importance—but it should not be so straightforward. Setting up a new Select Committee is not merely an administrative whim, but something of importance to the House and the taxpayer—a point that I shall touch on in a moment.
  The case for setting up the Committee is relatively straightforward. One has only to glance at the list of ministerial responsibilities to appreciate the extent of those of the Lord Chancellor's Department. They cover matters as diverse as the constitution, criminal justice and the courts. When we talk about courts, we immediately involve our constituents. Although the Lord Chancellor, who presides over the Department, is a Member of the other place, he has responsibilities that bear directly on the constituents of all hon. Members.
  I was surprised that the Electoral Commission was listed as one of the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Why the Lord Chancellor, magnificent though he undoubtedly is, should preside over the Electoral Commission, which deals with elections and is, one would think, our responsibility, is a subject on which we might want to dwell, perhaps not now but on another occasion. Perhaps that could the first subject that the Select Committee considers.
  Perhaps even more surprisingly, the Department is responsible for party funding. The responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor and his Department cover a remarkably wide range of activities, many of which are of direct interest to hon. Members and our constituents.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is not so surprising that the Department is responsible for party
  678
  funding. My right hon. Friend will recall that the Lord Chancellor has been intimately involved with that subject.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will expand on that in the debate, for which, unusually, we have unlimited time. There is therefore ample opportunity for hon. Members to examine such aspects of the Lord Chancellor?s responsibilities in detail.
  There is adequate rationale for the House to try to become involved through a Select Committee in the Lord Chancellor's Department. However, the remit is even wider, because the motion contains a teasing reference. In describing matters that the Select Committee covers, it refers to
  "Lord Chancellor's Department (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments)".
  I assume that that is origin of the intriguing piece in The Times today, which is headed, "Tribunal move to double Irvine's empire". It explains that the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is currently an astonishing 12,000 strong, will increase to some 25,000 by 2006–07. That provides a further rationale, if we needed it, for establishing the proposed Select Committee. The remit of the Lord Chancellor's Department will apparently be expanded to cover all tribunals in the country, with a staff of no fewer than 25,000 souls. It is difficult to imagine 25,000 people at the beck and call of the Lord Chancellor; that is a scary thought.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend eloquently outlines the destruction of the local basis of much of our business. The decision, which the Select Committee will doubtless examine early, to centralise all the staff who are currently employed by local magistrates courts committees will take the vital filter for advice to our local magistrates service away from the committees and hand it over to a central bureaucracy.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making point. It shows that, for all the Government's rhetoric and spin about decentralisation and local responsibility, the reality is different. My hon. Friend gives a classic example. Huge and growing central bureaucracies are being created and they are reaching out with their tentacles to every aspect of local life and our local communities. The worst aspect of all is that the Lord Chancellor will be at the head of one of those gigantic bureaucracies. That is another clear-cut case of why we in the House should have a Select Committee to examine the proceedings of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend will have seen on page 38 of the list of ministerial responsibilities, the Law Officers' Department—that of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. Will my right hon. Friend invite the Minister to say whether the responsibilities of that Department are to be scrutinised by this Select Committee, another Select Committee or no Select Committee at all?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister might seek to catch your eye, Madam

  679
  Deputy Speaker, and, with the leave of the House, respond to the debate, as he was obviously reluctant—embarrassed, probably—to go into too much detail about why the proposal has been introduced. I hope that, through your good graces, he might answer the question that my hon. Friend has just put. There is a genuine question whether there is a Select Committee covering the Law Officers' Department, although I shall make a few comments on the desirability of increasing the number of Select Committees per se.
  In passing, I utter a word of warning to the House. In this case there is, as I have suggested, ample justification for the new Select Committee. However, we voted last year to pay Select Committee Chairmen—I support that, and I think I am right in saying that the matter is with the Senior Salaries Review Body, which will, I expect, report to the Leader of the House in the foreseeable future—so taxpayers might be forgiven a touch of cynicism if they were to think, although I hope that none would, that we are in the business of increasing the number of Select Committees in order to increase the number of chairmanships in order to pay ourselves or some of our lucky colleagues higher salaries. That, of course, would not and could not be the case, but it might just flit across the odd taxpayer's mind, hanging as they are on every word of the debate.
  Mr. Swayne: Given the breadth of responsibilities that the Committee will encompass, has my right hon. Friend given some thought to the large number of travel opportunities that could arise?
  Mr. Forth: I was just about to come to that point. I am probably giving away a trade secret in saying this, so I shall lower my voice in the hope that it does not travel too far: recently, there has been a request for an increase in the Select Committee travel budget. One reason given for that is that we are increasing the number of such Committees. The logic, I suppose, is in some ways inexorable—more Committees, more need for travel. One begins to see a picture building up of a House of Commons voting itself more Select Committees with more Members wanting to travel more to more countries around the world for more fact finding.
  I would have thought that those colleagues who are familiar with e-matters know that people can surf to their heart's delight, chat in ghastly rooms and do all sorts of other e-things and that that virtually eliminates the need for Select Committee travel. But not at all. Even those colleagues who are cyber freaks, familiar with the e-world, seem still to feel the need to travel extensively to do their fact finding, but that is a matter for another day.
  Mr. George Osborne: A visit to the Lord Chancellor's apartment so that its members may see how public money was spent on the wallpaper would be a relatively cheap travel opportunity for the Select Committee. Given that the Leader of the House is such a good friend of the Lord Chancellor, he could arrange it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The scope of the debate does not extend as far as the hon. Gentleman might wish.
  Mr. Forth: Fortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was not going to talk about wallpaper, as that is perhaps
  680
  a matter for another day. I hope, however, that the House pays at least some attention to the point I am making. We want to be careful about how far we go in the direction that we are now taking. It will be important to justify each new Select Committee strictly on its merits and to give no hint that we are creating it for any other reason.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: There is one serious and worrying point to make. There is a question of possible interference by the new Committee in judicial appointments. It is axiomatic in our constitution that Parliament should not become involved in judicial appointments. Has that concern flitted across my right hon. Friend's mind?
  Mr. Forth: It would have, but for the fact that the motion says that the Committee's work will be
  "including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments".
  I hope that that covers my hon. Friend's point. I would share his concern if there were any hint that Members of the House, even under the aegis of a Select Committee, would seek to involve themselves in the sort matters to which he referred. I hope, and believe, at this stage, that the motion's wording gives sufficient security against that.
  As far as I know, we only ever increase the number of Select Committees. I do not think that we seek ever to reduce it. There may well be a good case for increases, as there is on this occasion, but is this a one-way process? Can we only ever increase the number of Select Committees? Might there not, with the passage of time, be occasions on which we would be justified in saying that the work of a Committee was otiose or redundant, or that one Committee could be readily combined with another? In that way, we could reduce the number of chairmanships and the amount of travel and give the taxpayer some relief.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Along those lines, does my right hon. Friend agree that one answer might be to use the same solution that the Government have available to them when it comes to deciding how many Ministers they may have and pay? Would not putting a ceiling on the number of paid Chairmen of Select Committees meet my right hon. Friend's point?
  Mr. Forth: That is a possible approach. Putting an arbitrary statutory limit on the number of Select Committees and having to prioritise within that number might well be the way forward.
  I am worried that we have a tendency only ever to expand our role and the institutions, and therefore costs, of the House of Commons. It would be more responsible to look at ourselves much more critically. We are, after all, the custodians of the taxpayers' purse. We represent taxpayers and are supposed to be here to scrutinise not only the Government's expenditure but our own. In that spirit, although I believe that there is ample justification for the setting up of the Select Committee proposed tonight, I hope that such an action will not be seen as automatic, axiomatic or something that can be put through simply on the nod.

  681
  I recommend the motion to the House and to my colleagues but add that we must be ever vigilant against further suggestions that we should increase the number of Select Committees. Someone, somewhere—perhaps the Liaison Committee—will have to take a good look at that.
  Mr. Leigh: I want to explore further the point that I raised earlier. Although the new Select Committee may not become involved in the appointment of a judge, we constantly receive complaints about judges, which we refer to the Lord Chancellor's Department. He often replies telling us that he cannot interfere in judges' work, and our constituents write back to us again. Might not Parliament try to become more involved in what judges do in their courts, and does that not worry my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. I was satisfied that the Select Committee could not interfere in the appointment of judges, but given that the Lord Chancellor is ultimately responsible for our judicial system, there is a distinct possibility that it will inevitably become involved in cases in which, for example, there have been complaints about judicial matters or other matters that should be strictly for the courts. I am not sure that I know the answer. Perhaps we should have foreseen that and sought to amend the motion. The best that I can offer my hon. Friend is that we, as a House of Commons, will have to keep a close watching brief on the Select Committee and how it conducts itself to guard against any temptation to do what he suggested might happen.
  Mr. Swayne: I sense that my right hon. Friend wants to move on, but he has urged us to support the motion. In view of what he said earlier about the ratchet effect, can he reassure me in respect of the Select Committee on Public Administration—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the Public Administration Committee.
  Mr. Swayne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to draw attention to the fact that some of the responsibilities taken on by the Lord Chancellor's departmental Committee, as proposed, are currently matters that come before the Public Administration Committee?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Forth: If what my hon. Friend states were the case, I am sure that the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee either would have sought to amend the motion or would have been here to take part in the debate. Since neither event has happened, I must assume that he is content.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), with which my right hon. Friend was inclined to agree. Would it not be more
  682
  appropriate for a Committee of this House to scrutinise judicial appointments than to leave them wholly in the hands of the Lord Chancellor?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is getting into some interesting territory. That is the kind of matter that may well emerge in a different form from the debates about the reform of the House of Lords and the role that the Law Lords play. There is undoubtedly a case for having a separate supreme court. Following that, there may well be a case for considering the election of judges rather than their appointment, and so on. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not the occasion for that debate. I detect from your demeanour that were we to pursue this matter at all—never mind much further—we would get into some trouble. I take a certain pride in the fact that I am rarely called to order; I do not say that it never happens, but it happens relatively rarely, even when I am tempted by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. Robert Syms rose—
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend is not going to tempt me to stray, but I will give way to him. Then I really must sit down.
  Mr. Syms: As the Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the judicial system in England and Wales, will my right hon. Friend consider whether the membership of the Committee should consist only of English and Welsh Members rather than those from, say, north of the border?
  Mr. Forth: You know better than I, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there will be a separate motion to consider membership. It is not a matter for today and my hon. Friend might like to consider the sensible point that he has raised in the context of that further debate. I believe that there is an amendment on the Order Paper that will allow him to deal with that very matter, since it touches on what he suggests.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I have listened to this claptrap, which is demeaning Parliament, particularly since so many Conservative Members are great travellers. On this point, the Lord Chancellor does not cover Scotland, but he certainly covers Northern Ireland, where he makes all the judicial appointments.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman's charm school refresher course does not seem to have done him much good. In trying to be helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), I said that a future debate would touch on the matter that he raised and allow it to be aired in a more relevant way. If the hon. Gentleman is going to get so tetchy at this time of night, he should go home earlier.
  I hope that I have made the case for supporting the establishment of the new Select Committee, but I hope equally that, in future, we shall be careful not to rush too far, too readily or too frequently in such directions.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am sure that the House will be relieved to hear that I shall speak briefly.
  When I saw the motion on the Order Paper, I had a hunch that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would want to speak. No doubt he has been wrestling with the temptation all day. The right hon. Gentleman has a Pavlovian reaction; the magic words "until any hour", especially at 10 o'clock, always encourage him to be in his place, although he may not be there earlier in the day when we are discussing matters that require longer and more careful scrutiny.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, must feel that, given the terms in which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has just expressed his support, it would have been preferable to have the right hon. Gentleman's opposition —it might have been shorter. However, I hope that the whole House will support the motion. I notice that the Conservative ranks have suddenly diminished, so perhaps an advantage of my speech is that I have cleared them out of the House.
  We are delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, is in the Chamber this evening. The key issue is that there is a lacuna at present. The Lord Chancellor's Department has taken on important responsibilities. It is extremely important that when a Department of State has a wide range of responsibilities, there is a corresponding Committee of the House that can monitor its activities.
  As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out, in addition to its judicial responsibilities and its responsibilities for the law offices, the Department has important responsibilities for the way in which our constitution operates and for its future. The Electoral Commission and party funding are just part of that remit. It is thus extremely important that the Department has the attention of Members of the House through the scrutiny that only a Select Committee can give. Hitherto, the Select Committee on Home Affairs had most of the responsibilities in this field and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), suggested that given the Committee's responsibilities to the Home Office, it was time to deal with the omission as regards the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  We strongly support the motion and recommend its acceptance. We hope that the Select Committee will be up and running shortly. Through no one's fault, we have had a long wait for it. Since the last general election and certainly since the last reshuffle, which gave the Lord Chancellor's Department new responsibilities, it has been suggested that there should be a Select Committee. We believe that the new Select Committee has an important duty to perform on behalf of the whole House.
  10.58 pm
  Peter Bottomley: The agencies of the Lord Chancellor's Department, such as the Land Registry, the Public Record Office, the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office deserve attention from a Select Committee —not in opposition to the Government but to raise some of the issues that
  684
  Members of Parliament and their constituents face when dealing with the systemic success or failure of parts of the Department.
  We should recognise that some of the ministerial responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor and the Parliamentary Secretaries merit the attention of the Select Committee—in which I have an interest—in terms of either support or questioning. The Committee could get Ministers and their leading officials to justify their approach to matters that affect people the length and breadth of the land.
  One might make a series of party political points, but they would not be appropriate at present. It is important to realise that all Departments, including the Lord Chancellor's Department, and Government agencies have serious responsibilities.
  To refer to one of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), we have too many Departments and it is not sensible to load responsibility for matters such as information technology on to Under-Secretaries in each Department. It is not sensible to tie such responsibilities to a junior Minister, when we do not get a cross-cutting Government report on what is happening with IT across the board. Such a report need not be in great depth, but just enough depth so that people can understand. One could take up various issues if there were a way to use perhaps the Liaison Committee to talk to the Prime Minister about unpacking some of the public relations spin that the Government put out.
  This motion is overdue. Although the Select Committee may not be the most exciting in terms of the television cameras and the microphones, there will be possible benefits to the population. If the Lord Chancellor's Department and its agencies are helped to carry out their responsibilities, the public at large will benefit. There are degrees of justice and injustice in the Department's purview that deserve attention, which is why I hope the House will support the motion.
  11 pm
  Mr. Mark Francois: I should like to make just a few points in contributing to the debate. First, the proposed Select Committee will have a particular responsibility, because it will attempt to shadow a Department, the principal Minister of which is based in the other place and therefore unable to answer questions on the Floor of the House. Apropos of that, it is worth recalling that in last week's debate on House of Lords reform, a very interesting suggestion was made: that it might be possible to change the arrangements of the House. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is nodding. In fairness, he may have made that suggestion.
  Andrew Mackinlay: It was one of my good ideas, which will not be implemented in my lifetime—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Francois: If I recall correctly, to do the hon. Gentleman justice, he suggested that it might be possible to change our arrangements, by mutual agreement between both Houses, to allow Ministers in another place to come here occasionally to answer questions.

  685
  I presume that that would be reciprocated in turn. That interesting suggestion bears further examination, and it is worth putting it on record again in the context of this evening's debate, perhaps to try to keep the suggestion alive, as it could be valuable.
  Secondly, I should like to reiterate some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the dangers of the so-called ratchet effect. We are not here this evening to debate the economic condition of the country, but having read the business pages of the national newspapers, it is fair to say that the economic conditions are now turning a little more difficult than they were a year or so ago—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right: we are not here to discuss the economic conditions of the country. Perhaps he will return to the mot ion under discussion.
  Mr. Francois: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that we both agree. However, the point is that at a time when people will be looking more closely at how we in Parliament spend their money, it is very important that we can justify to all our constituents that we spend it effectively. If they see more and more Select Committees taking more and more overseas trips—in effect, ultimately, at their expense—there is a risk that they will grow increasingly irritated.
  It is fair to say that the Select Committee might be tempted to travel the world to see other judicial systems in action—perhaps those in Europe, the United States and Asia to cite three examples off the top of my head —to compare them with our own. The Select Committee, if it is established, will therefore have to show restraint in that regard. May I say briefly in my own defence that the Select Committee on which I serve—the Environmental Audit Committee—has been particularly abstemious in that regard. We have had one overseas trip—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion relates to the proposed Select Committee's terms of reference.
  Mr. Francois: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In that case, I shall not mention that the Environmental Audit. Committee spent two nights in Germany at very small public expense.
  Another issue is that the Chairman of the proposed Select Committee will, of course, be a member of the Liaison Committee. That will give its Chairman a right to ask the Prime Minister questions at the sittings that will be arranged from time to time. The practical issue is that I am given to understand that there is some friendly competition and jockeying of position among the various Committee Chairmen about who gets the chance—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the membership of the Committee, but merely the establishment of it.
  Mr. Francois: I shall abide by your stricture, Madam Deputy Speaker. My sole point was that there would be more competition over who got to ask the question.
  686
  On modernisation, since the introduction of the changes, there has been tremendous pressure on all of us—even more than previously—to be in two or even three places at once. I notice that that issue even cropped up in the national press over the weekend. Establishing yet another Select Committee, on which some Members will wish to serve, increases the pressure on Members across the House to be in even more places at once. That additional pressure results from the introduction of changes by the Leader of the House, and the establishment of this Committee will impose an additional burden.
  Mr. John McWilliam: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that we should not have another Select Committee to scrutinise public expenditure that has not heretofore been scrutinised?
  Mr. Francois: I am attempting to make the point that if we create an additional Select Committee, and we appoint Members to it, that will increase the pressure on those Members to be in different places at once during the week. All Members are experiencing that pressure as a result of the changes.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, we are not this evening discussing the membership of the Committee.
  Mr. Francois: I was simply doing my best to respond to the question that was asked of me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am riot responsible for the questions that are asked.
  Peter Bottomley: If my hon. Friend looks at the list of ministerial responsibilities on page 41, he will see that one Under-Secretary—not one on the Front Bench now—has responsibility for freedom of information. If Members were criticised for not being in the House, would it be fair for that Under-Secretary to be on the Bench the whole time, while the number of MPs, journalists—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is not relevant to this debate, either.
  Mr. Francois: I know that this question is close to the heart of the Leader of the House because of the close and fraternal relationship that he enjoys with the Lord Chancellor. I am therefore sure that he will read our deliberations with tremendous interest in Hansard tomorrow morning, and that he will be forever grateful for everything that we have had to say about his noble Friend.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I want to refer specifically to the motion. It refers to
  "consideration of individual cases and appointments".
  Thus it specifies "individual cases", but does not qualify "appointments". The value of these debates comes from Parliament doing its duty: we are trying to tease out from the Minister exactly what the Select Committee will do. I am sure that the Minister will be able to assure me that although the word "appointments" is not

  687
  qualified, the Committee will not be allowed to consider individual appointments. I think that he is nodding, but he can take up the matter when he makes his speech. Does that mean that the Committee can consider the question of judicial appointments in general? That would be a way in for the Committee, as it could argue that it is considering a certain type of person. There has been a lot of criticism from certain parts of the House about judicial appointments in relation to background and being out of touch. It is therefore important that the House knows exactly what is the Committee's remit in relation to appointments, as the Minister's words will be scrutinised with great care.
  Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has said, the motion also refers to
  "the administrative work of courts and tribunals".
  Will the Minister also lay down the ground rules clearly in relation to that when he replies? On reading that, one will think that it is absolutely clear: the Committee will not become involved in appointments; it will not become involved in what the judges are deciding in their courts; it will be involved only in administrative work.
  However, I put to the Minister the point that I put to my right hon. Friend: our constituents write to us and complain about judges; we reply "I'm sorry. Parliament cannot interfere in the discretion of judges." I am in a long-running correspondence in which my constituent says "I'm complaining not about the judge's decision, but about his demeanour. He was out of touch. He wasn't listening to the arguments."
  Therefore, I should like a clear steer from the Minister that the Committee really will be concerned with the pure administrative work, and that nothing in the wording of the motion will give a lead for it to start interfering in the way in which judges are running their own courts.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Bradshaw: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I am tempted to agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that, although no one has spoken against the motion, one reason why we are here has more to do with the withdrawal symptoms of the shadow Leader of the House from his previous late-night sittings—
  Mr. Tyler: Something of the night.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Absolutely.
  It might be helpful if I reminded the House why this matter is before us. It is because of a unanimous recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee. Much of what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have said this evening has been about the powers—some of them real and some of them imagined, some of them possibly in the future—of the Lord Chancellor's Department. But are they suggesting that those powers should not receive proper parliamentary scrutiny? No, they are not, because the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he supported the setting up of the Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) said, I think rightly, that it was overdue. Therefore, I think that we can all
  688
  agree on the importance of setting up the Committee. We are not here to discuss setting up any other Select Committees or the Committee's membership. It is a simple motion.
  I should like to address the point raised at the end of the debate by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I am assured by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who is with me on the Front Bench, that he is right. The Committee will not be scrutinising the appointment of individual judges, but, in as far as the Lord Chancellor's Department oversees the work of the Appointments Commission, it may have a role in scrutinising overall the work of the Commission in terms of how the Lord Chancellor's Department already does so.
  There is nothing more I need add to delay the House further.
  Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I hope that the microphones carried the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to the Minister about whether the Select Committee that we are debating, or any other, oversees the work of the Law Officers.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I am happy to respond, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am told that that competence remains with the Home Affairs Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENTS IN MATRIMONIAL MATTERS AND IN MATTERS OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
  That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8395/02, draft Council Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000 and amending Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 in matters relating to maintenance, and the unnumbered explanatory memoranda of 14 November 2002 and 9 January 2003 from the Lord Chancellor's Department and Scottish Executive Justice Department on the Presidency proposals for amendment of the draft Regulation; supports the underlying aim of extending the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on parental responsibility by establishing a clear and coherent set of rules for attributing jurisdiction, and putting in place arrangements for co-operation between the courts and central authorities of the Member States; considers that the proposed amendments would achieve the objectives of the United Kingdom in relation to child abduction; and welcomes the reinforcement of support for the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction whilst providing Community measures to supplement its provisions to enable enhanced European co-operation against the wrongful removal and retention of children.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  Question agreed to.

  COMMITTEES
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 8 and 9.
  Ordered,

  That Mr Mark Hoban be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr Robert Key be added to the Committee.
  TREASURY
  That Kali Mountford be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Angela Eagle be added to the Committee.— [Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
PETITION

  Health Choice
  11.14 pm
  Lady Hermon (North Down): I have the great pleasure of presenting what I believe to the first petition from Northern Ireland on herbal medicines. The 136 signatures have been collected in my constituency by Mr. James O'Brien, who has been the proprietor for 25 years of the health store At Harvest in Bangor, County Down, of which I am a customer.
  The petition reads:
  "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 requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Charlotte Atkins.]
  11.15 pm
  Helen Jackson: The reason for my seeking this Adjournment debate is to highlight a problem that is well known to every Member of the House, and to suggest some solutions, which entail a co-ordinated approach being taken by Government, and spending that triggers longer-term savings. What I am after is fast-track access to a Government-backed incentive scheme for the installation of level-access showers as a major contribution to the goal of independent living for everyone.
  Poor housing is sometimes seen as a Cinderella issue in the House, yet we all know that comfortable homes make for better health, safer communities, more independence and increased dignity of life. I am focusing on a particular aspect of the home: the need, and I suggest that it should really be seen as a right, for everyone to be able to bathe daily in warm water in their own home. Access to hot water is recognised as an emergency repair for landlords, but the hot water is no use if the individual cannot get in and out of their bath.
  This is a particularly Anglo-Saxon problem. In warmer countries on the continent, and indeed in many parts of the developing world, showers— level-access showers—with the drain in the floor are the norm. In England, however, lounging in the bath became fashionable, so much so that the bath became a far more accepted piece of bathroom furniture than a shower. The problem was made worse when showers became fashionable because they were always installed over a bath, so that the stiff joints and infirmity that prevent access to the bath also prevent access to the shower. Surely in these days of central heating we could follow the example of warmer countries and redesign our bathrooms.
  How many of us in the House have letters from constituents pleading for help? I quote from one:
  "My husband is 80 and I am 78. There is no way I can help him in and out of the bath as I am only 4ft 10."
  How many constituents are there whom we never hear from but who are struggling with a daily wash at the basin in a chilly bathroom because they are unable to climb into the bath, but have never applied for an adaptation? The number of friends to whom I have spoken about this debate who have had a friend or relative in that situation has certainly surprised me. How often have we had profuse letters of thanks from disabled people whose life has been transformed by the installation of a level-access shower?
  More seriously, how often have we heard from constituents whose application has been turned down? A housing office turned down a constituent of mine
  "because she said he was able to have a strip wash and was not incontinent."
  It is commonplace for such cases to be classed as non-urgent, and even if people apply for help they can wait for years before they are considered for a bathroom conversion. The delays can mount up.
  The first problem is discovering how to make the application. Some 30 per cent. of those questioned in the Joseph Rowntree survey in August 2001 had a problem
  692
  gaining access to a disability grant. The second problem is waiting for an assessment. In many authorities, that has to be carried out by an occupational therapist, but they are in short supply, which can lead to a wait of eight months or more. The time that it takes for the occupational therapist to submit a report and for the authority to consider the recommendation can vary widely. If the recommendation is yes, there is another wait for the builder to assess and carry out the work, but if the answer is no, because the individual can manage a strip wash, the application may become non-urgent and take an additional 18 months at least. I have known people to wait three years: that is simply not acceptable in the new century.
  Some 1,370 individuals are waiting for bathroom adaptations in Sheffield alone; some 658 of them are classed as non-urgent. The council recently allocated a welcome additional £500,000 to reduce the numbers, but I am not sure how that will affect the non-urgent cases. The 2001 Joseph Rowntree survey found that the most common reason for applications for major adaptations is the inability to bathe. Age Concern found that nearly a quarter of applicants mention bathing as the main reason for needing alterations to their homes.
  I believe that I am speaking to a Minister who is sympathetic to my argument. The Government recognise that people want to live in their own homes and communities as they get older and are a little more unsteady. They also know that moving to residential establishments can be distressing, sad and hard for relatives and carers. The Minister's colleagues in the health team also have a huge interest in speeding up the number of bathroom adaptations to relieve the problem of bed blocking. The Community Care (Delayed Discharges Etc) Bill, which recently went through the House, has put pressure on local authorities to respond, but speed is crucial when a hospital bed is needed by someone else. It is often the bathing facility at home that is the biggest block to a patient's discharge from hospital.
  In preparing for the debate, in addition to speaking to my constituents I consulted the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the Federation of Master Builders, the Institute of Plumbing, the Bathroom Manufacturers Association, Age Concern, both locally and nationally, the National Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing, Shelter, public health officers, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, disability organisations, Barnado's, which had specific concerns about disabled children, Sheffield local authority and its social services department, and the local primary care health trusts. They all gave me wholehearted support.
  I want to attack the issue from two directions. Clearly there are ways in which we can make the grant systems more accessible and better funded, but if bathrooms were normally designed to include a level-access shower, rather than one over the bath, the problem would be hugely eased. Just as in the 1980s, when the provision by the Government of insulation grants for owner occupiers or private and public landlords raised the standards for all housing and made a significant input into energy savings across the country, a more universal approach to level-access showers in our bathrooms could make all our houses last as our homes for longer.

  693
  I pay tribute to the movement for lifetime homes, which is to be wholly supported. In one of its press releases it quotes someone as saying:
  "The ability to gain access to the whole house is wonderful. I'm no longer a prisoner"
  in my own home. The pepper-pot approach to funding one-off bathroom adaptations is not as good value for money as further reform of building regulations and house improvement regulations that assume that bathroom design will include a sealed corner with a plug in the floor and a shower in the wall. It is a little like the proponents of diesel motor cars who argue that if diesel fuel had been discovered first no one would ever have used petrol for the internal combustion engine. We should note that the high-level and rather posh bathroom design journals include pictures of children, elderly people, adults and families using level-access showers, making bathing easy and efficient for the whole family.
  In consultation with interested bodies, we have discussed the way in which a level-access shower grant scheme could work. There could, for example, be a modest flat-rate grant for universal access subject to building regulation checks, which would offer an incentive to owner-occupiers, tenants and landlords alike. For many, a simple incentive contribution like the old insulation grant would be all that it would take for large-scale work to be done. The Government could also consider issuing further guidance on housing improvement schemes, whether in the private landlord or housing association sector, so that level-access showers were considered an element of the work normally undertaken, and consider providing a financial incentive to achieve that.
  That incentive would be additional to the existing disabled facilities grant scheme for people whose disabilities or hospital discharge mean that their needs require urgent attention, or installing a shower could be combined with other extra building work throughout their home. Another aspect that the Government may consider is the need in every case for an occupational therapy assessment, as that often leads to delays. Perhaps we should recognise that a simple request for help is often all that we should require. There should be a clear directive from the Government to local authorities about what should be classed as non-urgent and a further reminder should be given about the mandatory nature of disability facility grants. In some areas, the requisite six-month period applies in the private sector but not where housing stock is publicly owned. I believe that that is the case in many of the larger metropolitan authorities. As the prospect of years of waiting drives people who have a little cash to spare to invest in the work anyway, the Government have a duty to offer an incentive. My constituent Mr Chisnall struggled for many months following his wife's stroke to get help so that work could be done. Eventually he had a shower installed at his own expense, and in his words it has "transformed their lives".
  Finally, installing the showers would offer a stream of useful work for local accredited builders and plumbers. The Federation of Master Builders believes that the industry could cope and has made many useful
  694
  suggestions about quality control, simplicity and speed. As we await the publication of the draft housing Bill and the draft disability Bill, the Government have a chance to consider how such a proposal may be developed. I would be delighted to meet the Minister again with some of the bodies that I have spoken to after this debate to consider the issues further. We can be quite certain about one thing—my proposal would receive active and enthusiastic support from the public throughout the country, and bodies working with the elderly, the disabled and disabled children. Like me, they believe that it is simply unacceptable in the 21st century to fail to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a warm all-over wash or shower to maintain dignity and independence in their home.
  11.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing a debate on such an important subject. I thank her for describing me as a sympathetic Minister. I hope that she still takes that view by the time that I have finished speaking. I am grateful to her not least for bringing to my attention the problems encountered by some of her disabled constituents in Sheffield concerning delays to the installation of level-access showers. I agree with her absolutely that those delays are wholly unacceptable. In this day and age, such facilities are an absolute must.
  To pick up one of my hon. Friend's points, I should like to make it clear that the Government's overall position remains that access to a bath or shower is a mandatory right for disabled people who are eligible for a disabled facilities grant. We consider the grant programme to be very important in assisting disabled people to remain in their homes and live independently for as long as possible.
  That is why, when we recently reviewed local authority powers to provide assistance for housing renovations and adaptations, we decided to keep DFG as a mandatory right for eligible applicants. That is also why we have kept the money ring-fenced; it can be used only to help the disabled. My hon. Friend will know that we have unhooked much of what we give to local government, but we felt that it was important to keep DFG ring-fenced. For all other types of renovation assistance, we have given—I think quite rightly—local authorities much greater local discretion on how their funds are allocated. We cannot send a message that such a grant should be a mandatory right for those disabled people eligible and at the same time somehow retain flexibility.
  In addition to preserving the mandatory DFG, we have since coming to power significantly increased the resources available to the programme. The Government meet 60 per cent. of the grant paid by local authorities, which must find the remainder from elsewhere in their budgets. In 1997–98, central Government resources available for DFG totalled £56 million for England, but the budget for 2002–03 is £88 million.
  Securing additional resources for the programme is also one of the priorities for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and we are considering it as part of our work on preparing the communities plan. We will

  695
  announce our conclusions in the next few weeks as well as announcing the DFG allocations to local authorities for 2003–04.
  The problems in delivering a first-class adaptations service go wider than the DFG programme. Both housing and social services authorities have responsibilities to meeting the needs of disabled people in their area, either for advice or for the provision of equipment or adaptations. There is therefore a need for close co-operation between the two departments, and Government guidance has stressed the need for jointly agreed policies and procedures on how the various services should be delivered. In general, as my hon. Friend has said, it has become established practice for social services to provide equipment and minor adaptations, and for the DFG programme to deliver major adaptations such as stair-lifts and level-access showers, which may require structural alterations.
  All owner-occupiers and all tenants, including those of the local authority, are eligible to apply for DFG, but the Government do not subsidise the local authority to carry out work on its own stock, so it is important that the authority also budgets carefully and makes resources available to provide an adaptations service to its tenants that is at least as good as that to owner-occupiers.
  The local housing authority has additional discretionary powers, which it can use to top up the mandatory DFG system. Indeed, we have just legislated to simplify those powers under the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) Order 2002. The order gives local authorities much greater discretion on how they provide assistance for housing repairs, improvements and adaptations. Those powers could be used to provide specific forms of adaptations and to speed up delivery—providing, of course, that the local authority is able to make the necessary resources available.
  Owing to the complexities involved, we have been working closely with the Department of Health to produce new best practice guidance to authorities on how an effective adaptations service can be delivered. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend and the House that we will in the next few weeks be publishing new draft guidance for consultation.
  Let me turn to the specific issue of the provision of level-access showers under the DFG programme. As I said, it is a mandatory right for disabled persons to receive a grant for the provision of certain facilities to their homes. Section 23(1)(f) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 provides that grant must be paid to facilitate access by the disabled person to a room with a bath or shower, and to facilitate the use of such a facility by the disabled occupant.
  In deciding whether to approve a DFG application, the local housing authority must consult with social services. In practice, that usually means that an occupational therapist employed by social services will assess the disabled person's needs. This must be with regard to the provisions of the DFG legislation that I have just quoted. If the disability of the applicant is such as to prevent access to the existing bath or shower, a new accessible adaptation will have to be provided, usually by means of a level-access shower. I entirely accept my hon. Friend's comments that that part of the process—
  696
  the occupational therapist's assessment of the applicant—is in many cases the cause of the delay. That needs to be looked at.
  The DFG legislation is also specific about the timetable for delivering the adaptations. Under the 1996 Act, the local authority is required to respond to any full grant application for DFG within six months. The local authority may delay the payment of any grant in cases where it has exhausted its annual budget, but for no longer than one year after the date of the full application. Government guidance states clearly that such delays should not occur in urgent cases where there is a serious health risk to the applicant. I accept my hon. Friend's point that often people go through the process of applying for such adaptations in times of adversity or trauma—for example, after a partner has suffered a stroke, as in the case of her constituent, which my hon. Friend quoted. Such cases should be treated as urgent.
  I am aware that many local authorities use various methods of prioritising DFG applicants to highlight cases where urgent action is necessary. This is a sensible procedure which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister encourages. I am also aware that some local authorities do not give very high priority to access to a bath or shower. Although that is a matter for the local authority, I must emphasise that it cannot lawfully override the mandatory right of a disabled person to have access to a shower or a bath.
  Further delay can also occur because there are a number of procedures that have to be completed before a full DFG application can be made and the six months' clock starts to tick. It is at this stage that delays of two or three years can begin. An assessment by social services must be undertaken, and the applicant must submit tenders for the work to be carried out. Guidance from the ODPM has emphasised that the procedures should not be used to delay applications unduly, and we will repeat this advice and set out target times for the complete adaptation process in our new guidance. The guidance will state that waiting times for any adaptation of more than 250 working days, from the point of initial inquiry to completion, are unacceptable.
  I have described the DFG process in some detail in order to point out that the legislation in place adequately provides for the provision of level-access showers to disabled persons who cannot use existing facilities. These mandatory provisions apply to disabled persons in the private sector as well as to tenants, including those in local authority-owned stock. It is for local authorities to honour their statutory duties.
  Nationally, we have provided additional resources for DFG to ensure that that can happen, and in Sheffield's case we have provided all the DFG resources that the council has asked for and it is now taking action in that regard. In relation to their own stock, the Government provide authorities with significant resources to invest in council housing. These resources are not hypothecated to particular items of expenditure. It is for an authority to decide how much of those and other available resources it should allocate to renovation, improvement or other work such as adaptations for disabled persons, having regard to its legal obligations. I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend that Sheffield council has decided to allocate additional resources for that purpose.

  697
  My hon. Friend also raised the issue of what more can be done in the design of new homes to facilitate the provision of level-access showers where needed. I take her point about that being a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon problem that is not of much concern or interest on the continent.
  Since late 1999, part M of the building regulations has provided that new houses must make provision to manage the needs of family members who may become disabled. New homes are now required to include reasonable provision for disabled people to gain access to and make use of them, and a WC and washbasin should be provided on the same storey as the entrance. We keep the building regulations under review. We are currently reviewing the relevant sections that apply to non-domestic buildings and we may wish to review the sections covering domestic buildings at a future date, but my hon. Friend will understand that I can give no precise undertakings to that effect tonight.
  However, I can say that, following the changes made in 1999, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a guide entitled "Meeting Part M and Designing Lifetime Homes", which contained a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, then Minister with responsibility for construction. The guide sets out a lifetime homes standard that includes a wheelchair-accessible entrance-level WC with drainage provision enabling a shower to be fitted. I can do no more than quote from and heartily agree with my right hon. Friend's words in the foreword:
  "This guide highlights the benefit of a little extra thought and care that needs to go into housing design in order to add the flexibility and adaptability found in lifetime homes. A number of
  698
  local authorities also encourage use of Lifetime Home standards and house builders may also wish to go beyond Part M, as a minimum regulatory standard as they strive for excellence."
  I completely endorse that view. As my hon. Friend said, if the lifetime home standards are endorsed, they will eventually eradicate the problems. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is encouraging new home builders to go for the lifetime standards model.
  These are important matters and my hon. Friend has raised some important ideas. I shall not stand here at 11.40 pm and say, "Yes, they're all lovely and I'll go off and implement them", but I am more than happy to meet her and some of her colleagues—I fear that if she brings along the entire list of consultees, there will be no room in the Department, let alone my office—further to discuss this important matter. DFG has worked well in the past and it will continue to do so. Many of the issues that she highlights, including lifetime standards, delays and others are worth exploring further and I shall happily discuss them with her and some of the consultees with whom she worked.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing the debate and raising these important issues, which concern a range of people in her constituency, mine and everybody else's. Such people very often fall through the cracks and disappear for want of strong voices. She is clearly a strong voice in support of her disabled constituents and raises issues whose importance is writ large throughout the country. I hope that we can together take matters forward and turn a good system into an even better one.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Twelve o 'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Security
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with airport authorities regarding security at British airports. [92837]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend meets regularly with airport management, and security issues are prominent amongst the topics discussed. There is in addition a very active dialogue at official level.

  British Transport Police
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his policy to increase the number of British Transport Police; and if he will make a statement. [91671]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of BTP officers has increased from 2,095 in 1998 to 2,123 in 2002. It is a duty of the BTP Committee, not of the Secretary of State, to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police service and determine the number of persons of each rank in the force.

  A180
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Habrough to Stallingborough section of the A180 will be resurfaced with low-noise material. [93310]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from T Matthews to Shona McIsaac, dated 27 January 2003:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when the Harborough to Stallingborough section of the A180 will be resurfaced with low noise material.
  As I said in my letter of 28 November 2002, it is not possible to provide a better idea of timing until the review of the maintenance programme is complete. I shall write to you as soon as the results of that review are known.
  If you require any further information, please contact Mick Spink, the Highways Agency's Area Manager for the A180. He can be contacted on 0113 283 5397 or by e-mail mick.spink@highways.gsi.gov.uk. For further information on resurfacing of concrete roads, visit our website at www.highways.gov.uk and use our search facility to find 'concrete roads'.

  Airports
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy on the public funding of airport infrastructure development. [93285]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's approach to the funding of future airport development schemes is described in paragraph 15.3 of 'The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East' consultation document. This states that the Government expects the current pattern of private sector financing to continue and that it does not expect to commit public funds to future airport developments.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants have been employed by(a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each year from 1994–95 to 2000–03; and if he will make a statement. [92385]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, Mr. Alexander, on 22 January 2003,Official Report, columns 333–34W.

  Coastal Shipping Freight
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the freight carried by coastal shipping was in UK flagged ships(a) in the year to May 1992, (b) the year to May 1997 and (c) the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [91760]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Statistics of freight traffic carried by coastal shipping in UK flagged ships are compiled on an annual basis only. The percentages carried in UK flagged ships for years 1991, 1996 and 2001 (the latest available year), in terms of goods lifted (tonnage) and goods moved (tonne-kilometres), were as follows:

  Year

  UK flag share (percentage of goods lifted)

  UK flag share (percentage of goods moved)

  1991

  36

  24

  1996

  24

  16

  2001

  13

  9

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases of computer misuse there were in his Department in each of the last five years, broken down by each category of misuse; and how many of those cases resulted in disciplinary action. [93036]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Coinciding with the creation of the Department for Transport in May 2002, a new policy was introduced dealing with the use/misuse of the Department's ICT resources. This policy was brought to the attention of staff in a departmental Bulletin and is contained within the departmental Staff Handbook.
  521W
  No cases of misuse have been raised since the introduction of the new policy. Similarly, there are no identifiable cases relating to the Department for Transport in the previous four years.

  Congestion Charges
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Mayor of London and (b) the Metropolitan Police regarding the impact of congestion charging on traffic police; and if he will make a statement. [92836]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter between the Mayor of London, Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward regulations under paragraph 11 of Schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to extend exemptions from the Central London road user charge; and if he will make a statement. [93352]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Exemptions from the central London congestion charge are primarily a matter for the Mayor. We are committed to providing a uniform minimum standard of exemptions or concessions from local road user charges in England. In considering the scope of these we will take into account experience gained in London and Durham.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body spent on external consultancy in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [92248]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 16 January, given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow),Official Report, column 698W.

  Foreign Commercial Vehicles
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 30W, on foreign commercial vehicles, what plans he has for implementing routine checks at ports of entry. [93212]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Each European member state is required by law to ensure that vehicles bearing its registration are covered by motor insurance. Routine checks on foreign vehicles at ports would be illegal. Random checks involving all vehicles, foreign and domestic, are allowed and are carried out, away from the ports, by police forces and vehicle inspectors.

  Health and Safety Strategy
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [89508]
  522W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work on 20 January 2003,Official Report, columns 85–86W, in respect of Revitalising Health and Safety.

  In addition to including a section on health and safety issues in the Department's Annual Report, separate annual reports on Occupational Health and Safety have been produced for the past four years. These detail performance for the Department and each of its Agencies and identify key occupational health and safety issues for action in the following year.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) 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; [89510]

  (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. [89509]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work on 20 January 2003,Official Report, columns 85–86W.

  Heritage Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sales of heritage assets and antique assets have been made by his Department since May 1997; if he will list such assets; and if he will estimate the total sales proceeds. [92387]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department came into being in May 2002. No heritage assets or antiques have been sold by my Department.

  Investment Strategy
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Departmental Investment Strategy will be published. [93226]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We expect to publish our Departmental Investment Strategy, incorporating the latest detailed expenditure plans for the next three years, shortly.

  Late Trains
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains were late in reaching their destination within (i) Railtrack's southern zone, (ii) the south-eastern network and (iii) Kent and Sussex in each month since November 1997. [93818]

  Mr Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority publish performance statistics for all train operating companies every three months in "National Rail Trends" and every six months in "On Track". The figures for each operator are not broken down to route level. The most recent editions of each were published on 12 December. Copies of these publications are available in the Libraries of the House.

  M6
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of vehicles that use the M6 in Staffordshire each day. [93279]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Ms Joan Walley, dated 27 January 2003:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent question about the number of vehicles that use the M6 in Staffordshire each day.
  The annual average daily totals of vehicles using the M6 between Junctions 12 and 16 in Staffordshire for the period September to December 2002 were as follows:

  Average daily totals of vehicles using M6 between junctions 12 and 16—September to December 2002

  Junction

  Northbound

  Southbound

  12 to 13

  53,367

  52,657

  13 to 14

  52,653

  52,546

  14 to 15

  49,754

  49,673

  15 to 16

  54,326

  55,675

  Note:

  These figures are averaged over a seven-day week. The equivalent figures for a five-day (Monday to Friday) period would be approximately 3,000 above those shown.
  I hope this is helpful. If you would like any further information, the Highways Agency's Route Manager for the M6, Godfrey Short, would be pleased to help. He can be contacted at our offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8135.
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to start on widening the M6 in Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement. [93280]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At this stage it is too early to say when work on the M6 widening scheme will start. The Secretary of State announced his response to the Midlands to North West Multi-Modal Study on 10 December 2002. At the same time he asked the Highways Agency to carry out further detailed work on the implementation and timing of the widening between junctions 11A and 19 and to bring forward a scheme for inclusion in the Agency's Targetted Programme of Improvements in the first half of 2003.

  Marinair
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the costs of the Marinair scheme for a proposed new airport in the Thames Estuary. [93257]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A broad estimate of the costs of the former Marinair scheme, based on historical information, was made during the 'Preliminary Site Search of Options for New Airport Capacity to serve the South East and East of England'. No cost estimate has been made relating to the proposal for a new airport on an artificial island in the Thames Estuary, submitted by the Thames Estuary Airport Company Limited (TEACO) as a written response to the airports consultation.

  MIDMAN Multi-modal Study
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will respond to the MIDMAN multi-modal study; and if he will make a statement. [93278]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our response to five multi modal studies, including the West Midlands to North West (MEDMAN) study was announced on 10 December 2002 both in an Oral statement to the House of Commons and Press Notice.

  The letter which we sent to the West Midlands Regional Planning Body concerning MIDMAN was copied to all constituency MPs in the West Midlands as part of the briefing pack covering the announcement. This letter is also available on the Government Office for the West Midlands website at: http://www.go-wm.gov.uk/static/gems/news/Midman.doc

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the total expenditure by his Department on ministerial travel(a) in the UK and (b) abroad, in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92454]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on Wednesday 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Motor Cycling Strategy
  Dr. Vincent Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress in drawing up a national motor cycling strategy; and when he expects it to be published. [93995]

  Mr Jamieson
  The Advisory Group on Motorcycling has established five Task Forces to consider integration and traffic management, vehicle safety and security, environmental and fiscal issues, research, and statistics.

  Good progress is being made including the publication of guidance to assist local authorities in installing secure parking for motorcycles, the start of monitored trials of motorcycles in bus lanes, congestion studies and safety research.

  Some of the key work streams including safety research, congestion research and environmental assessment, will not reach fruition until 2004. The Interim Report of the Advisory Group on Motorcycling published in April 2001 (and placed in the House Library) explained that when these results were available the Government would be able to determine its strategy for motorcycling.

  Oil Spills
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further assessment he has made of the possibility of the satellite tracking of oil spills around the coastal waters of the United Kingdom; what assessment he has made of the Maritime and Coastguard pilot experiment into such tracking; and if he will make a statement. [93624]
  525W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Trials and operational use of radar satellites in a number of countries, including the UK, have proved that this technology can be used to detect oil spills.

  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry completed several satellite trials last year. The report on the trials indicated that the integration of satellite images with routine flights of surveillance aircraft would increase visual detections of slicks and promote opportunities for evidence gathering on polluters.

  During the next financial year the MCA will be using radar satellite technology operationally. In addition the MCA is working very closely with the EC and Bonn Agreement Members with a view to establish a collaborative approach to funding of such operations.

  Private Hire Vehicle Regulations
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what role he had in approving the regulations under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 written by the Greater London Authority; and if he will make a statement. [92855]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Private Tolls
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the consultation paper on the introduction of VAT on privately operated tolls. [93326]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have arranged for a copy of the paper titled "The introduction of VAT on privately operated tolls" that has been sent to operators of privately owned statutory tolled undertakings to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Sector Workers (Public Transport)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the proportion of public sector workers who commute to work via public transport. [92669]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Autumn 2001 Labour Force Survey showed that 13.4 per cent. of public sector workers usually travelled to work by public transport.

  Rail Services (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) punctuality, (b) reliability and (c) number of complaints for rail services running to and from Shrewsbury in each year since 1997. [93084]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority publish performance statistics for all train operating companies in their quarterly National Rail Trends publication and their six-monthly "On Track" publication. Figures giving the number of complaints by train operating company are included in "On Track". The figures for each operator are not broken down to route level, but reflect the performance of their services in aggregate. The most recent editions were published on 12 December. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Road Safety
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority last carried out a spot check on road vehicles being unroadworthy and untaxed; what action was taken against the owners; and if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of effort between the DVLA and local enforcement authorities in tackling unroadworthy and untaxed vehicles. [92587]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA co-operates closely with the police and other enforcement agencies in attending joint roadside checks to target untaxed and unroadworthy vehicles.

  The Agency took part in 656 roadside checks in 2000–01, and 1,102 in 2001–02. The keepers of all unlicensed vehicles detected by these checks were pursued for using an unlicensed vehicle on the road. So far in 2002–03 the Agency has taken part in 842 checks, 79 of which were held in conjunction with vehicle excise duty campaigns involving the Agency's wheelclamping teams and the Stingray camera units. Any unlicensed vehicles detected in these checks were also clamped as well as being pursued for having no tax disc.

  The last two roadside checks on untaxed cars were undertaken on Friday 17 January at Stratford in East London and the St. Paul's area of the City of London.

  DVLA can only tackle instances of unlicensed use identified at roadside checks. The police pursue cases of unroadworthy vehicles. Other enforcement agencies involved in roadside checks include Vehicle Inspectorate, Customs and Excise, Benefits Agency and the Immigration Service.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what guidelines his Department has set for the Strategic Rail Authority on consultation with(a) hon. Members, (b) local authorities and (c) passengers' representatives in advance of proposed changes to and withdrawals of rail services; [93462]

  (2) what consultations the Strategic Rail Authority undertook with (a) hon. Members, (b) local authorities and (c) passengers' representatives on the proposed withdrawal of Virgin train services from Blackpool North station; [93463]

  (3) how his Department was consulted by the Strategic Rail Authority on changes to the May 2003 timetable; [93464]

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation on changes to the May 2003 timetable. [93461]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Directions and Guidance to the SRA state:"Section 206 of the Act requires the Authority, in formulating its strategies, to consult Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Rail Regulator and such other persons as it thinks fit and paragraph 7.11 of these Directions and Guidance requires it to obtain the Secretary of State's consent. Subject to these specific requirements, the Authority will need to judge with whom and how it should consult. There is no general requirement to consult in relation to the exercise of the Authority's other functions… Even where there is no specific

  527W
  obligation to consult, the Secretary of State expects there to be the appropriate level of consultation with persons likely to be affected by the actions."

  The timetable changes were driven by the need to improve performance urgently in the interests of passengers. In order to secure these improvements at the earliest opportunity, by incorporating the changes in the May 2003 timetable, the Authority had limited time for consultation. The Authority consulted Department for Transport officials and Ministers about the implementation of the timetable changes announced last week, and informed other parties including the relevant Rail Passengers Committees in relation to Virgin Cross Country services.

  Traffic Calming (A49)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will review the decision by the Highways Agency regarding traffic calming at the junction between the A49 and the Condover turning; [93078]

  (2) what accidents have occurred in the last 10 years at or near the junction between the A49 and the Condover turning. [93079]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am satisfied that the Highways Agency's decision not to extend the existing 30 mph speed limit on the A49 to include the Condover turning is correct. On the basis of the criteria that we use to decide appropriate speed limits, an extension would be very difficult to justify. In addition, West Mercia Police have confirmed that they would not support an extension in this case.

  The Route Management Strategy for the A49 between Ross-on-Wye and Shrewsbury is looking at all existing speed limits along the route in the light of the criteria to ensure consistency. That work will include the Condover turning where there have been two personal injury accidents in the last 10 years. A report is due in the spring.

  The introduction of speed limits is very carefully controlled as, to impose an inappropriate limit that would not appear reasonable to most drivers in the prevailing conditions could bring the national system of speed limits into disrepute and lead to greater non compliance.

  Trains
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains broke down in each of the last five years, broken down by train operating company. [93164]

  Mr Jamieson
  That information is not held centrally.

  Transport Infrastructure Projects
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost was of the largest transport infrastructure project in the United Kingdom constructed without recourse to public sector funding since 1973. [93281]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport does not hold information on the cost of private investments over this time period.

  Transport Safety Statistics
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost of a life figure used is in cost benefit calculations relating to safety improvements in(a) rail, (b) road, (c) air, (d) pedestrian (e) cycling and (f) other modes of transport. [92620]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The value used for the prevention of a fatality in cost benefit analyses of all surface transport policies and schemes was published in DFT's "Highways Economics Note No. 1: 2001" which is in the Libraries of the House. There is no formal value set for measures affecting our passengers.

  Transport Targets
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets the Government have for increasing(a) rail freight and (b) rail passenger use; and when he expects the targets to be met. [92947]

  Jamieson
  The Government published a report on its targets and progress in meeting them in relation to the 10 Year Plan on 17 December 2002. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets the Government have for reducing traffic(a) pollution and (b) congestion; and when he expects the targets to be met. [92948]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's PS A targets and progress against the objectives in the 10 Year Plan are set out in 'Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report' which was published 17 December 2002, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Virgin Train Services (Blackpool)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the(a) economic and (b) other effects of withdrawing Virgin train services to and from Blackpool North station. [93460]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority made the changes to improve performance which had deteriorated with the introduction of Virgin's winter 2002–03 timetable. Frequent services will continue to be provided from Blackpool North to Preston from where passengers will be able to join Crosscountry and other main line services. This, by and large, was the position up to the end of the Summer 2002 timetable.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her policy on the status of the BBC as a public sector, public service broadcaster in relation to the round of GATS negotiations. [91350]

  Dr. Howells
  Services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority are excluded from the scope of the GATS, provided they are supplied neither on a
  529W
  commercial basis nor in competition. The Government will not make commitments that could call into question the role of the BBC as a public service broadcaster.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many cases of computer misuse there were in her Department in each of the last five years, broken down by each category of misuse; and how many of those cases resulted in disciplinary action. [93052]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS has had 11 cases of computer misuse in the last five years, all occurring in one year, 1999.

  Category: Accessing inappropriate material on the Internet:

  2 cases

  one final formal written warning issued

  one resignation

  Category: Inappropriate use of e-mail:

  9 cases

  1 instant dismissal

  5 oral warnings issued

  3 final formal written warnings issued

  English Tourism
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who was on the short list for the appointment of the Head of English Tourism. [93131]

  Dr. Howells
  In the interests of confidentiality, we do not release the names of those who apply for DCMS public appointments, including those who are shortlisted. Shortlisting is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who made up the board that has the responsibility to appoint the Head of English Tourism. [93132]

  Dr. Howells
  The appointment of the Chair of the relaunched tourism body is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, taking into account the advice of an interview panel. It is not our policy to publish the names of interview panel members, in order to avoid the risk of their being subjected to unwarranted pressure.

  I can confirm that, in line with the Commissioner for Public Appointments Code of Practice, the interview panel included a senior official from DCMS and at least one independent assessor who is not connected with any of the Department's public bodies.

  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what qualifications the new Head of English Tourism has. [93133]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 10 January 2003 that Sir Michael Lickiss will be the new chairman of the relaunched tourism body from 1 April 2003, this is a British Body. Sir Michael recently retired after four years as the first chairman of the South West England Regional 530W
  Development Agency. From 2001 he was the lead spokesman for tourism on behalf of all RDA's. Before taking his last appointment in the south west, he was founder President of the Association of Accounting Technicians (1980–82), President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (1990–91), Senior Partner of Grant Thornton (1991–94) and Chairman of the Business Technology and Education Council (BTEC; 1994–2000). He has worked in several countries around the world. He is a Governor of the London School of Economics and he was knighted for his services to his profession in 1993.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners have claimed free television licences in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since 1997.[93080]

  Dr. Howells
  Free television licences for the over-75s were introduced in November 2000, but no free licences were available prior to that date. TV Licensing, who administer the free licence scheme as agents for the BBC, are not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 6,500 people aged 75 or over living in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency, and 23,800 in Shropshire.

  Licensing Reform
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with church groups and religious leaders on the impact of the proposed licensing Bill on places of public religious worship; and if she will make a statement. [93287]

  Dr. Howells
  The White Paper "Time for Reform", published in April 2000 was the subject of a full public consultation. It was sent directly to 231 organisations and over 650 organisations produced responses. We received eight responses from religious organisations, including one from the Churches Main Committee. None of these were concerned with the proposal to licence public entertainment in churches and other places of religious worship. Since then, officials of my Department have had discussions with officials of the General Synod of the Church of England about a possible mechanism to exempt churches from licensing controls.

  As I stated in the House of Commons on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 517, the Government have made a commitment to reconsider their position on the licensing of churches and will announce their conclusions as soon as possible.

  Lottery Awards
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Lottery money Haltemprice and Howden received in 2002; and what the average amount of Lottery money awarded to constituencies was in 2002. [92913]
  531W
  Mr. Caborn
  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, £387,414 of Lottery funding has been awarded to Haltemprice and Howden during 2002. The average amount awarded to constituencies during 2002 was £1,644,892.

  Production Quotas
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she plans to reform the independent production quota to make it a floor by ensuring that(a) the quota is calculated per channel, both by qualifying hours and spend and (b) exclusions to qualifying hours are minimised. [93104]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: The Government responded to the ITC's UK Programme Supply Review on 15 January. In this response we indicated that we accepted all of the ITC recommendations in the area of support for independent production in the UK, and will be introducing the necessary amendments to the Communications Bill and BBC Agreement. These amendments will introduce binding codes of practice governing broadcasters dealings with independent production companies, give OFCOM the power to measure the independent productions quota by value as well as volume if necessary, apply the quota separately to BBC1 and BBC2 and strengthen OFCOM's powers to enforce and monitor the independent production requirements.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportions of the members of the governing bodies of sports clubs that receive funding from her Department are(a) male and (b) female. [91916]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not collected.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what information her Department collates relating to the composition of(a) sports clubs and (b) governing bodies of sports clubs in respect of (i) gender, (ii) ethnicity and (iii) socio-economic groups. [91917]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England collects information in respect of the affiliated members of governing bodies of sport in respect of gender, ethnicity, age and disability. Sport England, through its grants management system, also collects this information in respect of sports clubs membership. Applicants for awards from the Lottery Sports Fund in respect of community sports facilities and provision are asked to provide information on types of user by gender, ethnicity, age and socio-economic group against which applications are assessed.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State or Culture, Media and Sport 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. [88023]
  532W
  Dr. Howells
  The number of Statutory Instruments (including Orders in Council) subject to negative procedures made by the Department which came into force in each of the last three sessions are as follows:

  Session

  Number

  2001–02

  32

  2000–01

  4

  1999–2000

  15

  All of the above Orders were copied to the delegated legislation committee for consideration.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Children's Commissioner
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to create a children's commissioner for England. [89552]

  Mr. Denham
  The pros and cons of establishing a children's commissioner are under consideration.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people enrolled to begin advanced modern apprenticeship courses in each of the last three years for which information is available. [92635]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The numbers of starts on Advanced Modern Apprenticeships, in the last three years for which data are available, are as follows:

  Date

  Starts on advanced modern apprenticeships

  29 October 2001 to 27 October 2002

  150,300

  30 October 2000 to 28 October 2001

  67,700

  1 November 1999 to 29 October 2000

  76,900

  1Subject to revision. Data for this period is incomplete because not all the information has reached the database.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many asylum seekers sought education in Bedfordshire in each of the last five years. [92709]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  It is not possible to provide figures for each of the last five years because there is no requirement on local education authorities or the Learning and Skills Council to provide information on the number of asylum seekers in education.

  Information from the local Learning and Skills Council suggests that, at the end of July 2000, 60 asylum seekers were known to have sought education within Bedfordshire. These figures include both children of compulsory school age and young people and adults aged over 16. In Luton over the past two years (2000–01 and 2001–02), an average of 130 pupils under 16 from both asylum seeking and refugee backgrounds were in education. The number of asylum seekers participating

  533W
  in further education institutions within Bedfordshire and Luton was 318 during 1999–15 during 2000–01.

  However, the high mobility of some asylum seekers and refugees makes any data collected unreliable.

  Child Nutrition
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the contribution breakfast clubs and the school joint scheme can make to reducing childhood obesity and poor nutrition; and if he will make a statement. [90784]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Initial evaluation of breakfast clubs and the national school fruit scheme indicates that they have the potential to make an important contribution to improving children's diet, as do the compulsory nutritional standards for school meals. Measures to increase physical activity can also make a contribution to reducing childhood obesity. Further evaluation of breakfast clubs will be carried out under the food in schools programme. An assessment of the impact of the national school fruit scheme upon children's diets will be undertaken over the next two years.

  Services and projects commissioned by Sefton Children's Fund partnership

  Project name

  Lead agency

  Funding committed 2002–04 (£)

  Status

  A.B.S (Anti-Bullying in Sefton)

  Behaviour Support and Reintegration Team (Sefton LEA) and Child and Family services)

  243,500

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Children's Choices

  Queens Road Neighbourhood Centre

  67,812

  Project commenced November 2002

  Everyone Can Play

  Fun 4 Kidz

  45,902

  Project commenced summer 2002

  Young Carers Project

  PSS Sefton Young Carers

  48,340

  Project commenced summer 2002

  Inclusive Play Training Project

  Sefton EYDCP

  19,277

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Kindred Spirits II

  Children With Disabilities Sub-group (Sefton Teaching & Educational Psychology)

  13,200

  Project due to commence March 2003

  Empowering Parents in the Community (EPIC)

  Merseyside Partners in Policy Making

  40,900

  Project commenced November 2002

  Special Needs Toy Library

  Sefton Social Services

  37,817

  Project commenced November 2002

  Link Nurse Team for Children with ADHD and Autistic Spectrum Disorders

  South Sefton PCT

  94,950

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Support for children affected by domestic violence

  SWACA

  68,100

  Project commenced summer 2002

  Link Worker for children affected by parental substance misuse

  Sefton Social Services

  60,000

  Project due to commence February 2003

  Development of integrated service information systems

  3TC

  20,000

  Project due to commence February 2003

  Environmental Transformation post

  Sefton CVS

  18,120

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Going for Gold Plus

  Sefton Education Business Partnership

  17,613

  Project commenced September 2002

  Parent Support Project

  Parenting 2000

  38,500

  Project due to commence February 2003

  Child and Adolescent Mental Health

  South Sefton PCT

  23,000

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Services Co-ordinator Multi-disciplinary Teams in Schools

  Various agencies

  165,000

  Workshop/ conference planned for January to develop project in conjunction with local PCTs, schools, Sefton YOT

  Approaches to supporting children and families from minority ethnic backgrounds

  NW Ethnicities Project

  21,000

  Conference planned for March 2003. Programme Manager involved in planning meetings

  Research into the needs of children from asylum seeking families

  Sefton Social Inclusion Unit

  4,000

  Research to begin March 2003

  Arts Inclusion Worker

  Sefton Leisure Services

  40,000

  Project due to commence January 2003

  JETSET 2003

  Greater Merseyside SETPOINT

  6,400

  Project due to commence February 2003

  Children's Fund
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been received by Sefton Council from the Children's Fund since its inception; how the funds were allocated, broken down by project; what posts have been funded and by how much; and in which organisations these posts arise. [89477]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 January 2003]: Under SR2000 Sefton's Children's Fund partnership received a total allocation of £million up to March 2004 for its Children's Fund programme. The partnership has been paid £89,471.75 to date. A total of £66,107 was allocated in FY 2002–03 to personnel costs, of which £36,508 has been paid to date. Sefton experienced a shortfall in expenditure against profile in its first year of operation because of early recruitment difficulties and the impact this has had on service delivery. The partnership also received an allocation of £200,000 for activities undertaken as part of the Street Crime initiative from July 2002 to September 2004, and to date have been paid £25,000. The partnership has profiled to spend its full SR2000 allocation by March 2004.

  The following table provides a full funding profile for Sefton Children's Fund partnership and a breakdown of its allocation by project.
  535W

  Services and projects commissioned by Sefton Children's Fund partnership

  Project name

  Lead agency

  Funding committed 2002–04 (£)

  Status

  Enhancing partnership working between Social Services and Sefton Children's Fund

  Social Services

  10,000

  Research brief agreed and circulated to potential consultants

  Centre of Excellence for Children and Families

  Parenting 2000

  28,000

  Centre expected to open March 2003

  Peel Road Youth Encouragement Programme

  Peel Road Residents Association

  22,500

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Services for Deaf Children and their Families

  Merseyside Society for Deaf People

  41,634

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Police and Youth Encouragement Scheme

  Police and Youth Encouragement Scheme (PAYES)

  15,000

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Healthy Schools Initiative

  Sefton LEA

  6,000

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Education Action Zone Manor Projects

  EAZ Manor Partnership

  6,810

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Thornton Summer Activities Programme

  Edge Lane Community Association

  937

  Activities took place during summer 2002

  PHAB Families Summer Activities

  PHAB Families

  340

  Activities took place during summer 2002

  Flexible Short Breaks Project

  Sefton Carers Centre

  61,000

  Project due to commence February 2003

  Out-of-Schools Project

  TBC

  40,000

  Project proposals still under development

  Adventures for All

  Sefton Social Services

  5,000

  Project to take place during March 2003

  Play Inclusion Worker

  Sefton Leisure Services

  15,000

  Project due to commence February 2003

  Healthy Lifestyles Projects

  South Sefton PCT

  7,000

  Projects due to commence January 2003

  Learning Their Language

  Sefton Social Services

  2,733

  CF Street Crime Initiative Projects

  Sefton LEA and Parenting 2000

  200,000

  Project due to commence January 2003

  Voluntary and Community Sector Support Worker

  Sefton CVS

  34,826

  Project commenced January 2003

  Children's Voices Project

  Sefton CVS in conjunction with Social Services

  54,000

  Project commenced October 2002

  Parent Participation Officer

  Sefton CVS

  37,000

  Post to be re-advertised January 2003

  Consultancy
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body spent on external consultancy in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [92240]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table shows expenditure on administrative external consultancy by my Department.

  £ million

  Actual expenditure

  Estimated outturn

  1996–97

  9.14

  1997–98

  4.54

  1998–99

  5.21

  1999–2000

  4.45

  2000–01

  4.74

  2001–02

  5.66

  2002–03

  2.77

  These figures exclude programme consultancy costs spent directly by the Department and its agencies, 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 spent directly by the Department. The table also excludes all consultancy spend for non-departmental public bodies, as they are not required to provide the Department with detailed information on consultancy expenditure.
  536W
  Expenditure information for 1995–96 could not be readily obtained as information is not held electronically for that year.

  Figures for 1996–97 to 2001–02 include consultancy spend incurred by central functions that subsequently transferred to Other Government Departments under Machinery of Government changes.

  Dyslexia
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people serving sentences in(a) prisons and (b) young offender institutes in England and Wales have been diagnosed as suffering from dyslexia, in each year since 1992; and what estimate he has made of the numbers serving sentences and suffering from dyslexia, in each year since 1992. [91824]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We do not have robust data for the numbers of prisoners and young offenders diagnosed as suffering from dyslexia.

  Many of the experts in this field hold differing views on whether or not the percentage of the prison population suffering from dyslexia is higher than that of the wider community. Some feel that what may appear to be indicators of dyslexia are in fact the result of a whole range of social factors that could include the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, physical injuries, interrupted schooling and lack of parental support. Conversely, others suspect that there is a high incidence of dyslexia among this specific group and that the frustrations arising from this learning difficulty have contributed to their offending behaviour.
  537W
  Research has also provided conflicting results. In 1998 research from Cambridge University's Institute of Criminology, based on a survey of 323 prisoners at nine establishments, found that only around 4 to 6 per cent. of prisoners were dyslexic.

  The most recent research (1999), from the Dyslexia Institute, is based on a survey of nearly 100 young offenders at HMYOI Feltham. This study, which measured cognitive ability as well as dyslexia, found that 17.5 per cent. screened positive against indicators for dyslexia.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which(a) prisons and (b) young offender institutes in England and Wales have facilities for (i) diagnosing dyslexia and (ii) providing education for inmates suffering from dyslexia. [91825]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  A survey carried out in 2001 indicated that around a quarter of establishments had staff trained to support learners with dyslexia. Under the Government's Skills for Life strategy, staff in all prisons and young offender institutions will have access to training so that they can identify indicators of dyslexia, know when to refer learners for specialist assessment, and provide appropriate educational programmes for them. This will be further enhanced in those young offender institutions caring for 15 to 17-year-olds by the appointment of special educational needs coordinators, and of learning support assistants on a ratio of one to every 10 learners.

  New diagnostic assessments for prisoners, to be administered after initial assessment by a specialist teacher, will offer guidance on when to refer learners for a full dyslexia assessment with an educational psychologist or other appropriately trained person.

  The majority of people with dyslexia do not require specialist teaching. They need high quality basic skills teaching which adopts a variety of inclusive strategies to support the needs of all learners. An inclusive learning handbook for all staff in prisons and YOls to be published this spring will increase the understanding of the needs of those with dyslexia.

  Empty Homes
  Mr Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many empty homes his Department(a) had five years ago and (b) has now, by region; if he will establish an empty homes strategy within his Department; and if he will set a target for reduction in empty homes. [92923]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills has not had any homes, empty or otherwise, in the last five years nor does it intend to do so.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the total spending of his Department on entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92380]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  All expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based 538W
  on the principles set out in Government Accounting. The following table sets out spending in £000s for DfES and its predecessors in the relevant years.

  Year

  Department of Employment (including Employment Service)

  Department for Education

  Department for Education and Employment

  DfES

  1994–95

  32

  86

  1995–96

  28

  77

  1996–97

  24

  1997–98

  21

  1998–99

  31

  1999–2000

  21

  2000–01

  20

  2001–02

  11

  2002–031

  13

  1Estimated outturn

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether his Department has released free school meals figures for individual secondary schools to organisations for research purposes within the last 12 months. [92833]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department has released free school meals figures for individual secondary schools to a number of organisations for research purposes within the last 12 months. Before doing so, the organisations signed confidentiality declarations which committed them to maintaining the confidentiality of the data and limited their use of this information to the stated research purpose.

  Heritage Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what sales of heritage assets and antique assets have been made by his Department since May 1997; if he will list such assets; and if he will estimate the total sales proceeds. [92381]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills have not held any heritage or antique assets during the period and therefore no sales have been made.

  Higher Education (Armed Forces)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many people who recently left the armed forces took up higher education courses last year; [84763]

  (2) when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, Ref 84763. [92578]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not held centrally.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the total expenditure by his Department on ministerial travel(a) in the UK and (b) abroad, in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92446]
  539W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the public service agreements targets it was set in the 1998 comprehensive spending review. [89295]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There is ongoing assessment of progress against PSA targets, including those agreed as part of the 1998 CSR. We recently reviewed our targets in the context of the 2002 Spending Review. The Department publishes progress against all its PSA targets in its spring departmental report and also its autumn performance report, together with commentary where appropriate. The first autumn report was published in November 2002 and a copy is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement; [92239]

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

  £000

  1995–96

  1n/a

  1996–97

  1n/a

  1997–98

  10,879

  1998–99

  13,426

  1999–2000

  9,902

  2000–01

  14,595

  2001–02

  11,688

  2002–032

  14,172

  1Not available

  2Estimated

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

  £000

  1995–961

  8,296

  1996–97

  7,538

  1997–98

  9,992

  1998–99

  15,673

  1999–2000

  11,900

  2000–01

  29,066

  2001–02

  20,489

  2002–032

  12,215

  1Employment Department and Department for Education

  2Estimated

  Information on expenditure by agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  Pupil Ethnicity
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what percentage of pupils their ethnicity has been(a) declared by parents or pupils and (b) determined by the pupil's school. [88888]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The figures requested are not yet available.

  New guidance was issued last year regarding the procedures schools should follow for the collection and recording of pupils' ethnic group. Schools should in the first instance seek information via parents, and any response (including a refusal to provide information) must be respected. However if there is no response at all to the school's inquiries it has the option of ascribing an ethnic group to the pupil based on its own best judgment. In this event various steps have to be taken in order to comply with data protection rules, and the fact that ascription has taken place must be shown alongside the ethnic group itself—both in the school's own records, and in any information passed on to the LEA or to the Department in the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC). This year's PLASC returns from schools will reflect the ethnic group information which they have collected under the new guidance, including details of whether that was provided by parents or pupils or ascribed by the school. However these returns will not be received and processed until about April.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the research projects (with duration and name of contractor) commissioned by his Department in each of the last five years; if he will indicate(a) the duration of each project and (b) the name of the organisation contracted to undertake the research; and what the aggregate cost was of research projects in each year. [92641]

  Mr. Miliband
  Details of the Department's research programme contracts and their value since the financial year commencing April 1998 are published in the Department's annual reports on research and research conference reports, copies of which may be found in the House of Commons Libraries.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will define the term employer-led when applied to sector skills councils; [93246]

  (2) what plans he has to make sector skills councils financially independent; [93247]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the terms of ownership of the sector skills councils; and what the terms of ownership are of the retail skills council, Skill Smart. [93248]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To meet the standard to become a Sector Skills Council, an organisation should be employer-led. This means it should be launched and led by employers but should also involve other important organisations in the sector, such as trade unions. We recognise that a component of many SSCs will be support from their trade association but the SSC, as an organisation licensed by Government and in receipt of
  541W
  public funds, must be wholly independent of it or any holding company. In the case of Skillsmart, we have made it clear that to become a fully licensed SSC it will need to be independent of the British Retail Consortium.

  On the question of funding, my Department will meet part of the costs of an SSC (up to £1 million core contribution) to give capacity to allow SSCs to take a more strategic approach underpinned by proper research and avoid being compromised by commercial interests. But we have always expected our £1 million would lever significant additional private investment into skills and productivity development in the sector.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will give an update of progress on the foundation of Sector Skills Councils. [93293]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Five trailblazer Sector Skills Councils were announced in December 2001 covering audio visual industries: land based industries; apparel, footwear and textiles; oil and gas extraction, chemicals manufacturing and petroleum industries and the retail sector. There are nine further sectors in the final phase of developing Sector Skills Council proposals for consideration by the Sector Skills Development Agency. The trailblazer SSCs together with those in development cover over 50 per cent. of the workforce. We expect the first SSCs to be licensed early in 2003.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90549]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 160W.

  Special Needs
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what alternative provision he will put in place to meet the needs of people with special needs who are excluded from attending their clubs on attaining the age of 25; [92320]

  (2) for what reason it was decided to set 25 as the age at which to exclude people with special needs from the clubs they had been attending; and if he will make a statement; [92323]

  (3) whether it is his policy, with reference to the document "Resourcing Excellence in Youth Services", launched in December, that people with special needs should be excluded from youth services when they reach the age of 25; [92322]

  (4) what provision he will make for people with serious learning difficulties to continue to be able to attend their clubs after reaching the age of 25; [92321]

  (5) what his policy is on the exclusion of people with serious learning difficulties from youth and other clubs at the age of 25; and if he will make a statement. [92324]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Local education authorities (the statutory sector) and a range of voluntary organisations provide the Youth Service. The priority age group for the service is 13 to 19-year-olds but the target age group may extend to 11 to 25-year-olds in some cases.
  542W
  Provision is usually in the form of youth clubs and centres, or through "detached" or outreach work aimed at young people at risk from alcohol or drug misuse, or of drifting into crime. There is an increasing emphasis on youth workers working with disadvantaged, disaffected, and socially excluded young people.

  In December 2002 the Government launched the document "Transforming Youth Work Resourcing Excellent Youth Services" which provides a cross Government view of the key elements of a high quality, well managed and properly resourced Youth Service. The document underpins the Transforming Youth Work programme and the Government's commitment to work with local authorities to ensure the delivery of a high quality Youth Service for young people which is at the heart of the Connexions Service. The document emphasises that local authorities should ensure the delivery of a service which targets the 13–19 age range but may also be working at the margins with 11–13 and 19 to 25-year-olds. The document confirms this existing age range criteria for the Youth Service.

  Under the Learning and Skills Act, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has a specific responsibility to help both young people and adults with learning difficulties and disabilities. The broad remit of the council enables it to fund a wide range of learning provision when considering their particular needs. This includes activities offering opportunities for non-formal types of learning, and learning which does not lead to a qualification. For adults, particularly those with special needs, this provision will be more suitable than a youth work curriculum provided by the Youth Service.

  I do not intend making a statement at this time.

  Sure Start
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the role of Early Years Partnerships will be in the new Sure Start programme; [87615]

  (2) if the Sure Start advisors in the regions will be responsible for all Early Years initiatives within their region. [87616]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 18 December 2002]: To make life better for children, parents and communities, on 11 December we launched the new Sure Start Unit. This brings together at a national level responsibility for early education, child care and health and family support in one, cross-departmental unit. Drawing on best practice in early education, child care and Sure Start local programmes, the guiding principles of the new unit are:

  Working with parents and children;

  Services for everyone (responding to varying needs);

  Flexible at the point of delivery;

  Starting very early;

  Respectful and transparent;

  Community driven and professionally coordinated;

  Outcome driven (core purpose—better outcomes for children);

  These national changes will be reflected in some reorganisation of the local support the unit provides to ensure that mainstream services for children and parents

  543W
  are delivered in accordance with the unit's guiding principles. We are currently considering how best to achieve this.

  This national change does not, however, alter the existing roles and responsibilities of Local Authorities and Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs). Local authorities will retain their significant responsibilities under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 for early years and child care. This includes setting up and maintaining EYDCPs to assist in preparing early years strategic plans and developing the local provision of child care.

  At a national level, responsibility for Sure Start, early years and child care have been brought together in one cross-departmental unit (the Sure Start Unit). This unit led by Baroness Ashton who is a joint DfES/DWP Minister will continue to provide support to the local delivery of services through a network of regionally-based teams and advisors, ensuring that people with the most appropriate skills and experience are available to assist delivery of this important area of the Government's agenda.

  Truancy
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to reduce the number of children failing to attend school; and what discussions he has had with officials and Ministers in the Home Office regarding truancy from schools. [92013]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  On 12 December 2002, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, set out his strategy to improve behaviour and attendance in all schools. In doing so, he underlined our commitment to the Public Service Agreement: by 2004, to reduce truancies by 10 per cent. compared to 2002, to sustain the new lower level, and improve overall attendance levels thereafter. To achieve this objective, we have introduced a range of initiatives, such as the co-ordination of national truancy sweeps, funding for electronic registration systems, the development of guidance for more effective prosecutions and a sustained publicity campaign aimed at parents and pupils. In addition, we are proposing a new package of support and sanctions, such as behaviour and attendance training and audits available to all secondary schools from September, fixed penalty notices for parents of persistent truants and the introduction of parenting contracts.

  Ministers and officials in this Department and the Home Office are in regular contact on truancy issues, for example through the Government's Street Crime Initiative and in developing measures for the proposed Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Flooding Insurance
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the competition implications of 544W
  discrimination against applicants for household insurance on the basis of postcodes as a proxy for flood risk. [93000]

  Mr. Morley
  Postcode rating is, I understand, the method used by insurers for all household insurance policies and not just for flood risk. Whether this method has a detrimental effect on competition is a matter for the Director General for Fair Trading, who can then consider any appropriate action.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Association of British Insurers about problems experienced by householders in the KT postcode areas in obtaining flood insurance since 3 January. [93001]

  Mr. Morley
  There has been no discussion since 3 January specifically about insurance in KT postcode areas. The Association of British Insurers and the Environment Agency are in regular discussion over provision of better flood risk information for England, taking into account flood defences, to enable insurers to understand the risk for particular areas. A meeting took place this week to consider the initial data provided in December 2002 and how best this can meet insurers' requirements in order that they can continue provision of insurance in line with their Statement of Principles.

  Aircraft Fuel
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies she has evaluated on the effect of the dumping of aircraft fuel into airspace on(a) the ozone layer, (b) human and plant health and (c) water quality; and if she will make a statement. [92265]

  Mr. Meacher
  None. There is no evidence that this is a significant problem. Aviation fuel can only be legally jettisoned in an emergency, when Air Traffic Control would advise the pilot to do so, if at all possible, either over the sea or over 10,000 feet above ground level so that the fuel would vaporise. Emergencies are by definition rare occurrences. There is no incentive for jettisoning fuel illegally—it is an expensive commodity. If aviation fuel were to be jettisoned it would biodegrade readily and therefore would not be expected to have a long-term impact. As aviation fuel contains no more than the smallest traces of chlorine or bromine, it will make no contribution to ozone layer depletion.

  Alternative Fuels
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the British Cement Association on the use of alternative fuels. [91847]

  Mr. Meacher
  Officials of the Department have occasional contact with the British Cement Association on a range of environmental issues. A meeting on 18 December 2002 included discussion in general terms of the potential for the cement industry to burn alternative fuels.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on(a) 17 December 2002, (b) 20 December 2002 and (c) 8 January; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep, how many of the

  Sailing date

  Total animals certified

  Where consignments were certified

  Animals rejected at certification

  Animals rejected at Dover docks

  Destination

  17 December

  2,278

  England and Wales

  57

  0

  France

  20 December

  2,616

  England, Wales and Scotland

  74

  0

  France

  8 January 2003

  3,066

  England and Wales

  132

  0

  France

  8 January 2003

  479

  England

  0

  0

  Belgium

  The sheep for the consignments listed above were certified within 48 hours prior to export. These consignments were fattening animals transported to holdings. The animals which were rejected at certification remained in Great Britain.

  Commercial Whaling
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government intend to take to discourage the resumption of commercial whaling by Iceland; and if she will make a statement. [93067]

  Mr. Morley
  We have written to the US Government, in its capacity as depositary for the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), to object formally to Iceland rejoining the International Whaling Commission with a reservation to the moratorium on commercial whaling. A copy of this letter has also been sent to all IWC members.

  The Government of Iceland have undertaken, while submitting its Instrument of Adherence to the ICRW, not to resume commercial whaling before 2006 at the earliest.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she intends to take to persuade Norway to desist from catching whales; and if she will make a statement. [93069]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Government takes every opportunity, both within the International Whaling Commission and in other relevant fora, to express its opposition to Norwegian whaling and to persuade Norway to cease its whaling activities.

  Company Environmental Performance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place an updated list of FTSE 350 companies that report on their environmental performance in the Library. [93271]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department conducted a survey last year of the progress made by companies in the FTSE 350 in voluntary reporting of their environmental performance. An account of the results of this survey was placed in the Library of the House in July 2002. The exercise has not been repeated since then, so the information from last July is the most up-to-date available.
  546W
  sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey (i) during inspection for health certification purposes and (ii) at Dover docks, and to where those sheep were taken; and what was the address of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [90901]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of computer misuse there were in her Department in each of the last five years, broken down by each category of misuse; and how many of those cases resulted in disciplinary action. [93040]

  Alun Michael
  The Department seeks to ensure that all users of computer systems are fully aware of their responsibilities and legal obligations. This is done by a variety of methods such as through system training programmes, published user guides and usage policies together with general security policy guidance and advice. This material is subject to regular review and is easily accessible through the Departmental Intranet. Regular Office Notices also provide reminders of key points.

  The Department does not maintain a central list of all cases of computer misuse because in the vast majority of instances these are correctly handled through the line management chain or local Personnel Units.

  Since 9 June 2001 the IT Directorate have assisted with providing information in a number of cases of suspected computer misuse. This has led to formal disciplinary action in five cases. The Department was formed on 9 June 2001 so figures are not available prior to that date.

  Dolphins/Porpoises
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government will take to discourage the killing of dolphins and porpoises by Japan this year; and if she will make a statement. [93068]

  Mr. Morley
  At this year's annual International Whaling Commission meeting, which takes place in Berlin from 16 to 19 June 2003, we intend to raise our concerns over the lack of regulation and the methods used in the hunts for small cetaceans that take place in Japanese waters and elsewhere.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many empty homes her Department(a) had five years ago and

  547W
  (b) has now, by region; if she will establish an empty homes strategy within her Department; and if she will set a target for reduction in empty homes. [92919]

  Alun Michael
  On 1 April 1998, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had vacant dwellings at the following locations:

  Three in Littlehampton, West Sussex.

  One in Liscombe, Devon.

  One near Lymington, Hants.

  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs currently has vacant dwellings at the following locations:

  Two at Cawood, near Selby, north Yorks.

  Two at Martyr Worthy, Winchester, Hants.

  The Department already has a strategy for empty dwellings. If they are not any integral part of a bigger property such as a farm, they will be sold as soon as possible. If they cannot be sold, they will be offered for letting subject to any security considerations.

  Arrangements are already in hand for the disposal of the dwellings which are currently empty. The sale of the Cawood properties should be completed by the end of March 2003 and the sale of the Martyr Worthy properties should be completed by or around the end of June 2003.

  Energy Efficiency
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of buildings built as part of the Government's estate in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 made use of the Government's design advice scheme on energy efficiency. [90240]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Carbon Trust runs the Action Energy programme (formerly Government's non-domestic Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme), which includes the design advice scheme on energy efficiency.

  Only two Departments, Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development, made use of the design advice scheme between 2001–02. However, the scheme is provided as a service package to Departments, and information is not collected on a building-by-building, or annual basis. Data are not maintained centrally on new builds on the Government estate.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures she has taken to encourage energy efficiency. [92000]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the publication of the UK's Climate Change Programme in November 2000, the following main actions have been taken to promote energy efficiency in the domestic, business and public sectors:

  The Climate Change Levy, a levy on the business use of fuel, was introduced in April 2001. Receipts, forecast at £1 billion a year, are recycled back to business—including £50 million for business energy efficiency.

  Climate Change Agreements have been reached with 44 sectors of energy intensive industry. Participants in these agreements pay a reduced rate of Climate Change
  548W
  Levy (20 per cent. of the full levy) in return for meeting challenging energy efficiency targets over a 10-year period.

  The Carbon Trust was launched in April 2001, and receives two-thirds of its annual budget from recycled receipts from the Climate Change Levy, it encourages and promotes the development of low carbon technologies to support the transition to a low carbon economy. It offers an interest free loan scheme for small and medium-sized businesses and provides funding for the development of low carbon technologies through the Low Carbon Innovation Programme.

  The Enhanced Capital Allowances Scheme enables businesses to claim 100 per cent. first year capital allowances on investments in a range of approved energy saving technologies.

  The UK Emissions Trading Scheme was launched in April 2002. Companies in Climate Change Agreements can trade within the scheme to help meet their targets. Participants entering directly into the scheme can trade to meet emission reduction targets delivering 1.1 MtC by 2006. Energy efficiency measures help participants to meet their targets.

  New requirements have been introduced for local authorities. Authorities have to know their buildings' energy consumption and carbon emissions. From 2002–03 they are required to benchmark their energy use in operational property and street lighting, and will set local improvement targets from 2003–04.

  The Energy Efficiency Commitment for 2002–05 (EEC) places a challenging but realistic obligation on electricity and gas suppliers to promote improvements in domestic energy efficiency. Suppliers will achieve individual EEC targets by encouraging and assisting consumers to take up energy efficiency measures. It is expected to save 0.4 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2005. It will also help those on lower incomes—who spend a larger proportion of their incomes on energy—by focussing at least 50 per cent. of energy savings on consumers in receipt of benefits or tax credits.

  Since its launch in June 2000, the new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme—which is now marketed as Warm Front—has helped over 400,000 households through the installation of a range of insulation and heating measures. Warm Front is the Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty, aimed at the most vulnerable groups in the private sector in England.

  The Community Energy Programme is a £50 million grant programme operational from 2002–04 aiming to promote community heating in the UK, primarily through the use of CHP. It will install and refurbish community heating schemes, benefiting people on low incomes while contributing to the Climate Change Programme by reducing carbon emissions by an estimated 0.15 million tonnes of carbon a year.

  Part L of the Building Regulations covering energy efficiency provisions was revised in October 2001 and the changes came into effect in 2002. These require work on new buildings and the refurbishment of the existing stock to conform to higher energy efficiency standards including those relating to building insulation, air-tightness, lighting, space heating, hot water, boiler performance and replacement glazing. It is estimated

  549W
  that the package of measures introduced in October will reduce carbon emissions from the domestic sector by 0.8 million tonnes per year by 2010.

  The Treasury introduced in the 2002 Budget, a VAT reduction on certain energy saving materials installed under grant schemes.

  The Government have provided funding for the Energy Saving Trust (EST) to help individual households, local authorities and others improve domestic energy efficiency. Since 2000, EST has created the Practical Help advisory service, expanded its local authority support programme providing dedicated staff to 23 areas across the UK, introduced a new grant scheme for innovative projects and expanded its network of Energy Efficiency Advice Centres providing households with advice and support. EST has developed the Energy Efficiency Recommended (EER) labelling scheme (with energy efficiency manufacturers, retailers and installers) to provide easy identification of energy efficient products. EST has also developed EEI—the network of accredited installers in the insulation and heating industries.

  Environment Agency
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has given the Environment Agency about ethical and sustainable investment of its pension fund. [90143]

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she has given to the Environment Agency on the investments made by its pension fund. [90244]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the regulatory framework governing the Local Government Pension Scheme, to which the Environment Agency belongs. The investment practice of the agency's pension funds is a matter for their fund managers, supervised by the relevant investment committee, within the regulatory framework set out in SI 1998 No 1831 (the Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations 1998), as amended. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no authority to offer specific advice or guidance on what individual investments should or should not be made.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost of(a) setting up and (b) running the Environment Agency website, 'What's in Your Backyard' is; how many users on average it has attracted per month; and if she will make a statement. [92796]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency spent £245,000 in setting up its 'What's in Your Backyard' site, and it incurs running costs of £215,000 per annum.

  The website attracts an average of 35,000 users monthly.

  Equids
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what 550W
  representations she has received about the proposed EU directive requiring all equids to have passports; and if he will make a statement. [91829]

  Alun Michael
  We consulted on implementation of the EU legislation on horse passports in summer 2000. The proposal for all horses to have passports received the support of the equine industry as represented by the British Horse Industry Confederation (BHIC).

  We have received 16 representations from Members of Parliament on this subject and approximately 100 from horse owners and members of the Association of British Riding Schools.

  We expect shortly to consult further on a proposed order implementing the EU legislation.

  EU Rice Regime
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what account the European Commission took of the impact of a 50 per cent. cut in the price of rice on the economy of Guyana in its proposals for reform of the EU rice regime. [92725]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: The European Commission's proposals for reform of the EU rice regime were published in detailed form only on 22 January 2003. According to the Commission's own explanatory memorandum they are designed to correct current imbalances in the market and to prepare for the liberalisation of trade already agreed under the Everything But Arms initiative.

  Bringing the internal EU rice price closer to world market levels may in the short term reduce the value of certain existing preferential market access arrangements to beneficiaries such as Guyana and others in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries. But in the longer term CAP reform should improve market prospects and opportunities for all developing country exporters.

  We recognise the interests of the ACP countries in the proposals and will be exploring these issues further when negotiations begin.

  Exmoor
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance she(a) has given and (b) plans to give to Exmoor following the foot and mouth epidemic. [88301]

  Alun Michael
  The Government has helped businesses adjust to the impact of foot and mouth disease and its aftermath through:Setting up the £80 million Business Recovery Fund. This fund, administered by the regional development agencies, funded business improvements, training, and loan interest costs, together with local/regional tourism promotion and rural regeneration projects which helped bring visitors back to rural areas more quickly. The South West Regional Development Agency—covering Exmoor—benefited from an additional

  551W
  £14 million from central Government and the RDA made a further £3 million available from their budgets for FMD-related business recovery measures.
  Deferring tax, VAT and National Insurance payments, without interest charges, for businesses severely affected by foot and mouth disease (with a total amount deferred in excess of £250 million throughout England).
  Helping local authorities defer rate payments and/or give hardship rate relief through the non-domestic rates system by increasing the central Government contribution towards local authority costs of providing relief to rural businesses. 151 rural local authorities could underwrite the cost of giving relief to businesses with properties under £12,000 rateable value generally, and properties under £50,000 rateable value in the 39 worst affected rural authority areas for the 2001–02 financial year, which includes the rural authorities that cover Exmoor. North Devon District Council granted over £240,000 of relief under the scheme; West Somerset District Council granted nearly £390,000; over 95 per cent. of the cost was met by central Government.
  Fast tracking other measures to speed up rural regeneration, for example rapid introduction of mandatory rate relief for pubs, garages and other food shops in small settlements and extending the market towns programme to include towns badly affected by FMD;
  Matching over £14 million in donations from the public to charitable organisations helping farmers and rural communities hit by FMD, including over £40,000 for the Exmoor Trust.
  Providing £0.5 million for the Countryside Access Recovery Fund to promote access to and/or understanding of the countryside.

  In addition, the Exmoor Environmentally Sensitive Area agreement holders, in 2002, collectively received in excess of £1.8 million in management payments and a further £1.44 million in capital grants for Conservation Plan works.

  Farm Plastics
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she offers to farmers in respect of the disposal of farm plastics. [91533]

  Mr. Meacher
  We will be addressing the question of how to deal with waste non-packaging farm plastics in the forthcoming consultation document on the application of the waste framework directive to agricultural waste, which is due to published in May 2003.

  Farm Subsidy
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much subsidy was received directly by farmers in the last 12 months; and what the average subsidy received by(a) arable and (b) livestock farmers was. [82897]

  Mr. Morley
  Direct subsidies paid to farmers in the United Kingdom in the financial year 2000–01 totalled £2,348 million. The Farm Business Survey provides an estimate of average subsidy receipts by full-time farm businesses in England. The table shows average direct subsidies received by farm businesses of different types in 2001–02. Payments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were the responsibility of the devolved authorities in this period.
  552W
  These figures include all production related payments, together with agri-environment and rural development payments. They do not include payments made to farmers during the FMD crisis for reasons of disease control or animal welfare. Farmers may also have benefited from payments of market support, though these are also available to traders.

  Average direct payments for full-time farm businesses, England, 2001–02

  £ per farm

  Direct subsidies

  Livestock

  14,300

  Arable

  36,800

  Notes:

  1. Average account year end February.

  2. Full-time businesses are defined as those greater than eight European Size Units, an economic measure of size.

  3. 'Livestock' farms cover the following farm type categories used in the Farm Business Survey: cattle and sheep (hill and lowland), dairy and pig and poultry.

  4. 'Arable' farms cover the farm types: specialist cereals and general cropping.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 372W, on fisheries, for what reasons a copy of Opinion of the Legal Service, Council of the European Union, No. 13585/02, Limite, JUR424 PECHE164, dated 29 October 2002, was not passed by her Department to the (a) Scottish Fishermen's Federation and (b) National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. [92645]

  Mr. Morley
  Documents bearing the classification "Limite" are internal to the Council of the European Union and are not intended for disclosure to the public. Moreover, the Council Legal Service provides legal advice to assist the Council in the course of its work. The opinions are excluded from the categories of Council decisions subject to publication under the Council rules of procedure.

  Under the terms of European Parliament and Council Regulation 1049/2001 it is not open to the Government to decide unilaterally to release a Council Legal Service opinion, unless there is a strong public interest to do so. Recent case law and Council decisions confirm that it is not in the public interest to release documents containing Council Legal Service advice. Release would also run contrary to the principle of Legal Professional Privilege.

  GM Crops
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the release consents that contain the GM oilseed rape transformation events Ms8 and Rf3 for each of the years from 1990 to 1999 in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland. [90617]

  Mr. Meacher
  The consents under which the GM oilseed rape transformation events Ms8 and Rf3 had permission for release in field trials for each of the
  553W
  years from 1990 to 1999 are given in the table PGS became AgrEvo in 1999 and is now known as Bayer CropScience.

  All the listed consents apply to England, Scotland and Wales but most of the releases took place in England. Some of the consents give permission for a programme of releases covering more than one year and in these cases the years in which sowing the GM oilseed rape was permitted are given.

  Year

  Date of consent

  Years between 1990–99 in which releases permitted

  Reference and consent holder

  1995

  22 March 1995

  1995

  95/R15/7 PGS

  22 March 1995

  1995

  95/R15/8 PGS

  9 August 1995

  1995

  95/R15/14 PGS

  1996

  27 March 1996

  1996

  96/R15/16 PGS

  21 August 1996

  1996

  96/R15/17 PGS

  1997

  18 March 1997

  1997, 1998 1999

  97/R15/18 PGS

  3 April 1997

  1997

  97/R15/19 PGS

  1 August 1997

  1997

  97/R15/20 PGS

  1 August 1997

  1997

  97/R15/21 PGS

  4 September 1997

  1997

  97/R15/22 PGS

  1998

  19 March 1998

  1998

  97/R15/23 PGS

  10 July 1998

  1998, 1999

  98/R15/24 PGS

  20 August 1998

  1998, 1999

  198/R20/2 NIAB

  1999

  22 March 1999

  1999

  98/R19/18 AgrEvo

  1National Institute of Agricultural Botany

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions on industries important to the delivery of Government initiatives aimed at reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions. [90810]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK Climate Change Programme published in November 2000 sets out the range of policy measures—regulation, economic instruments, information programmes and public expenditure—that the Government and the devolved administrations are introducing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to meet the UK's climate change targets. The measures in the Programme will deliver wider environmental, social and economic benefits. Measures to stimulate more efficient use of energy by business, for example, will help improve competitiveness. The Programme is also designed to offer incentives to industry to develop new, low carbon technologies and to exploit the growing international market for more efficient processes and renewable technologies.

  The Programme includes two legislative measures that affect industry directly, each of which was subject to individual regulatory impact assessments as part of the normal policy development process. The industries affected by the legislation will include some that are important to the delivery of the policy measures in the Programme, but the Government has not produced a separate assessment of the specific impacts on them.

  The first legislative measure is the EC Directive 96/61 on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC), which applies an integrated environmental approach to the regulation of certain industrial activities and, inter alia, contributes to the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases, as well asimproving the energy
  554W
  efficiency of most of the energy intensive sectors of industry. The impact of the Directive, and the legislation implementing its requirements in England and Wales, was considered in the regulatory impact assessment published on 26 April 2000. It is available on the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/ippc5/pdf/ippc5.pdf. The Directive has some impact on combined heat and power (CHP) technology, which the Government is supporting because of its high efficiency.

  The second legislative measure is the energy efficiency provisions contained in Part L of the Building Regulations for England and Wales, which were amended by the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001. The aim is to improve the energy performance of all types of building, including those used for industrial and commercial purposes, to reduce energy use and therefore emissions of carbon dioxide. The Building Regulations are the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The amendments came into force on 1 April 2002. A regulatory impact assessment for the Regulations was published by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (now the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) when the Regulations were made. It is available on the ODPM website at http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/brpub/ria/ria-01/index.htm. I understand that, in accordance with normal practice, the Office intends to investigate how the amended Regulations are being implemented around 2004, when there is a sufficient sample of works compliant with the new requirements.

  Heritage Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what sales of heritage assets and antique assets have been made by her Department since May 1997; if she will list such assets; and if she will estimate the total sales proceeds. [92390]

  Alun Michael
  Since Defra was created on 8 June 2001 no heritage or antique assets have been sold.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to prevent illegal meat imports into Britain. [91996]

  Mr. Morley
  Significant progress has been made to implement the Government's action plan, published in March 2002. The action plan will be revised shortly in consultation with stakeholders to include a longer-term enforcement strategy, further development of detection initiatives, and enhanced and coordinated publicity materials.

  A Cabinet Office review of enforcement structures concluded that all activity against smuggling of meat, animal products, fish and plant matter will move to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, to objectives agreed with Defra. A new ministerial group will oversee improved coordination between the main control agencies.
  555W
  The results of the disease risk assessment commissioned by Defra from the Veterinary Laboratory Agency, are being subjected to processes of quality assurance and peer review. The full report will be published in the next few weeks when these are complete.

  Extra funding this financial year has been used primarily for additional enforcement officers to perform checks on imports at a number of ports and airports. Legislation was amended in May 2002 to provide enforcement officers with additional search powers, and written guidance was provided to them on the use of these powers, especially with regard to checks for illegal meat imports in passenger baggage.

  Enforcement officers have improved access to intelligence to aid them in deploying anti-smuggling measures since a central computer database was established in April 2001. Notably they receive monthly reports of products seized and notified to Defra.

  We are carrying out a six-month pilot using detector dogs to find illegal animal products in passenger baggage and freight. The pilot is proving valuable in determining the attributes and level of training required for both dogs and their handlers and the back-up services we need to support the dog teams.

  X-ray equipment is being used, on a trial basis, at a seaport to detect illicit material hidden in commercial freight. Defra is working with the Foreign Office and Customs on a pilot to test x-ray technology on air passenger baggage.

  Public awareness is being increased through penalty posters and information leaflets at airports and seaports. Public information videos have been produced and are being broadcast on television. Negotiations are on-going with airlines to show them in-flight. The posters have been updated, and new literature is being produced, to highlight the new tighter personal import rules which came into effect on 1 January 2003 as a result of UK pressure on the European Commission.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish the Veterinary Laboratory Agency risk analysis report into animal health from illegal meat importation. [92612]

  Mr. Morley
  Emerging results of the risk assessment are currently being subjected to peer review and quality assurance procedures. The complexity of the work, and the necessity to complete the quality assurance and peer review processes, have delayed publication. We now hope to be in a position to publish by early March.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what instructions her Department has issued to local authority environment health officers and port health authorities about illegal meat importation. [92614]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department produced new enforcement guidance in conjunction with the enforcement agencies. This was published in August 2002 and has just been updated to take account of the new European personal import rules that came into force on 1 January. We are also discussing prosecutions policy with enforcement agencies.
  556W
  The Food Standards Agency has also issued guidance letters to port health authorities and local authorities to ensure there is continued vigilance and checks on imported products both at the point of import and at the retail level. In collaboration with Defra, the FSA is developing a training programme to provide information to all local authorities on imported food issues.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to prevent the illegal entry of meat into the UK. [92880]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: Significant progress has been made to implement the Government's action plan, published in March 2002. The action plan will be revised shortly in consultation with stakeholders to include a longer-term enforcement strategy, further development of detection initiatives, and enhanced and coordinated publicity materials

  A Cabinet Office review of enforcement structures concluded that all activity against smuggling of meat, animal products, fish and plant matter will move to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, to objectives agreed with Defra. A new ministerial group will oversee improved co-ordination between the main control agencies.

  The results of the disease risk assessment commissioned by Defra from the Veterinary Laboratory Agency, are being subjected to processes of quality assurance and peer review. The full report will be published in the next few weeks when these are complete.

  Extra funding this financial year has been used primarily for additional enforcement officers to perform checks on imports at a number of ports and airports.

  Legislation was amended in May 2002 to provide enforcement officers with additional search powers, and written guidance was provided to them on the use of these powers, especially with regard to checks for illegal meat imports in passenger baggage.

  Enforcement officers have improved access to intelligence to aid them in deploying anti-smuggling measures since a central computer database was established in April 2001. Notably they receive monthly reports of products seized and notified to Defra.

  We are carrying out a six-month pilot using detector dogs to find illegal animal products in passenger baggage and freight. The pilot is proving valuable in determining the attributes and level of training required for both dogs and their handlers and the back up services we need to support the dog teams.

  X-ray equipment is being used, on a trial basis, at a seaport to detect illicit material hidden in commercial freight. Defra is working with the Foreign Office and Customs on a pilot to test x-ray technology on air passenger baggage.

  Public awareness is being increased through penalty posters and information leaflets at airports and seaports, Public information videos have been produced and are being broadcast on television. Negotiations are ongoing with airlines to show them in-flight. The posters have been updated, and new literature is being

  557W
  produced, to highlight the new tighter personal import rules which came into effect on 1 January 2003 as a result of UK pressure on the European Commission.

  Landfill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) number and (b) total size is of landfill sites due to close in each year up until 2015, broken down by region. [85892]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: This information is not available in the form requested. Landfill are operated by private companies and the commercial decisions in relation to closure are a matter for them. Some landfills will be closed as a result of regulatory action by the Environment Agency, but predicting how many and when is not possible.

  Information that is available relates to England and Wales and comes from the conditioning plan exercise conducted by the Environment Agency. The number of landfill sites that will remain operational post July 2002 and post 2004, broken down by classification (hazardous, non-hazardous and inert) and by region is as follows:

  Region

  Non-hazardous

  Inert

  Hazardous (post 2002)

  Hazardous (post 2004)

  Anglian

  43

  60

  47

  9

  Midlands

  50

  74

  42

  4

  North East

  89

  58

  39

  11

  North West

  49

  37

  27

  8

  South West

  39

  46

  16

  1

  Southern

  30

  35

  13

  1

  Thames

  31

  49

  19

  0

  Wales

  23

  30

  15

  3

  Total

  311

  329

  218

  37

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the total expenditure by her Department on ministerial travel(a) in the UK and (b) abroad, in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if she will make a statement. [92458]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 344W.

  Recycling
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much recyclable waste was collected in Somerset in 2002. [93122]

  Mr. Meacher
  This information is not held centrally. I would advise the hon. Member to contact the Head of Waste Services and Rural Affairs at Somerset County Council on 01823 356014 for this information.

  Recycling (Household Waste)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what statutory 558W
  performance standards local authorities are required to meet for the percentage of household waste sent for recycling or composting in (a) 2003–04 and (b) 2005–06; and what the performance against target for waste recycling was in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [92056]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: Statutory performance standards for individual authorities in the relevant years are set out in a table which has been placed in the Library. It also shows performance targets for household waste recycling for 2001–02 and is published on Defra's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/ guidance/mwms/10.htm.

  Recycling (Tyres)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the UK's submissions to the EU discussions and decision-making process on the packaging waste recycling targets under the new Packaging Waste Directive. [91497]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has been in close contact with the Department of Trade and Industry throughout the discussions of the draft Directive to ensure that environmental considerations are fully taken into account in arriving at an agreed Government line. Officials from DEFRA attend meetings in Brussels along with representatives from the DTI.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has for promoting the use of old tyres as a surfacing material; [91846]

  (2) what targets she has set for the recycling and retreading of tyres. [91848]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are supporting a number of end-use studies for used tyres, including the incorporation of tyre granulate in road surfaces.

  The EC Landfill Directive, in banning the disposal of almost all tyres to landfill, effectively sets a 100 per cent. recovery requirement. Within that overall recovery requirement, there are no individual targets for the recycling and retreading of tyres, and the Government have no present plans for introducing such targets. Figures for 2001 show that value was recovered from over 60 per cent. of the estimated 480,000 tonnes of tyres disposed of in the UK that year. Significant additional recovery capacity has since been brought forward and is anticipated to be taken up as the landfill directive requirements bear down.

  The Government in partnership with the tyre industry through the Used Tyre Working Group (UTWG) are investigating alternative disposal, recycling and recovery options for those tyres displaced from landfill with the aim of ensuring that sufficient capacity is available to handle those tyres.

  Refrigerator Disposal
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what
  559W
  arrangements are in place to monitor compliance with her Department's guidelines on the disposal of refrigerators; and if she will make a statement. [91644]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: To monitor the disposal of refrigerators, we have asked local authorities to report on the number of fridges they have dealt with as part of the national waste monitoring questionnaire.

  To monitor recycling processes, the Environment Agency have been working closely with plant operators to ensure that they meet the performance standards set out in their permit conditions.

  Treatment plant have been operating in the UK since the summer, local authorities are in the process of letting contracts with operators, and the backlog of stored fridges is decreasing and expected to disappear within a year.

  Sickness Absence
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many working days have been lost in her Department and its predecessors due to illness in each year since 1997–98. [92717]

  Alun Michael
  Records are not yet available for the number of days lost due to sickness absence in 2002, but these will be announced in due course. Sickness absence figures for previous years are published in the Cabinet Office annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service", copies of which are placed in House Libraries.

  Figures for the most recently available years for the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the former DETR and are shown as an average per staff year. These are:

  MAFF

  Year

  Days

  1997

  7.8

  1998

  8.7

  1999

  9.3

  2000

  9

  2001

  7.2

  DETR

  Year

  Days

  1997

  9.7

  1998

  8.7

  1999

  8.7

  2000

  9.0

  2001

  10.5

  The Department is committed to the effective management of sickness absence, and to meeting its Service Delivery Agreement of reducing sickness absence to 6.9 days for 2003.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many 560W
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest there were in (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire for each year since 1997. [93075]

  Mr. Morley
  The figures for the number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1997 are:

  Number

  1997

  125

  1998

  26

  1999

  26

  2000

  28

  2001

  28

  2002

  28

  2003

  28

  1 One more than previously reported in 2001 due to improved mapping and boundary definition.

  In Shropshire as a whole:

  Number

  1997

  1103

  1998

  2107

  1999

  2108

  2000

  2110

  2001

  2110

  2002

  2110

  2003

  2110

  1Of which two are partly in Shropshire

  2Of which three are partly in Shropshire.

  Thames Barrier
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she intends to carry out in the next 12 months to determine whether the Thames Barrier is sufficiently able to protect London in the event of a tidal surge.[92650]

  Mr. Morley
  The Thames Barrier and associated defences provide a high standard of protection to London and the Thames Estuary against a combination of tidal/fluvial flood risks, the principal risk being from tidal surge events.

  A generous allowance for sea level rise was built into the design for the Thames Barrier and associated defences and thus we have today a standard of 0.05 per cent. risk of flooding from tidal surge in any one year. As sea level rises, this standard of protection will reduce as planned to the design standard of 0.1 per cent. risk of flooding from tidal surge by the year 2030. This will provide a level of protection equivalent to 2 metres above the maximum level of the 1953 flood event and is the highest standard of protection in the UK.

  The Environment Agency, with Defra support, is engaged in a number of studies and investigations which are reviewing the current and future needs of London's tidal defences, including the overarching planning and research project "Planning for Flood Risk management in the Thames Estuary". This is developing a flood risk management strategy for London and the Thames Estuary for the next 100 years, and includes climate change research, geomorphological and flood modelling, engineering studies and the development of management intervention and decision-testing models. This is the first

  561W
  year of a six year project which will provide a plan for the establishment of the next generation of tidal defences for London and the Thames Estuary post 2030.

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the local authorities which(a) have responded to the Environment Minister's letter on timber procurement from 19 September 2002, (b) have confirmed that they have policies to ensure that all timber purchased is from legal and sustainable sources and (c) do not have policies to ensure timber procurement from legal and sustainable sources; and what percentage of local authorities have taken action under (a), (b) and (c) [89078]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 January 2003]: My letter of 19 September 2002 asked chief executives of local authorities in England to pledge their support to a commitment to purchase timber from legal and sustainably managed sources, and to put in place the necessary procedures to ensure its effective implementation. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 947W, on how Central Government sets its policy.

  Replies have been received from the following local authorities: Basingstoke and Deane, Blackpool, Bolton, Bournemouth, Braintree, Bristol, Broadland, Buckinghamshire, Bury, Calderdale, Camden, Chelmsford, Chichester, Copeland, Cornwall, Cotsworld, Derbyshire, East Cambridgeshire, East Lindsey, East Staffordshire, East Sussex, Eastbourne, Eastleigh, Epping Forest, Fareham, Gateshead, Gloucester, Gosport, Hampshire, Harlow, Harrogate, Harrow, Hart, Havant, Huntingdonshire, Kensington and Chelsea, Kent, Kerrier, Kirklees, Knowsley, Lewes, Lincolnshire, Liverpool, Malvern Hills, Manchester, Mansfield, Melton, New Forest, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Norfolk, North Devon, North Shropshire, North Somerset, Northumberland, Purbeck, Reading, Redcar and Cleveland, Richmondshire, Rochdale, Salford, Sheffield, Shepway, South Oxfordshire, South Ribble, South Somerset, South Staffordshire, St. Albans, St. Edmundsbury, Staffordshire, Stockport, Swindon, Tandridge, Tendring, Tonbridge and Mailing, Tunbridge Wells, Wandsworth, Wellingborough, West Lindsey, Westminster, Wirral, Wolverhampton, Worcester, Worcestershire, Wyre Forest and Yorkshire.

  The 88 authorities that replied represent 23 per cent. of the 387 written to. Of those that replied, 46 (52 per cent.) confirmed they had policies in place, and 36 (41 per cent.) were either putting or considering putting policies in place. Some of the respondents, however, did not specifically stipulate that timber should be sourced from both legal and sustainably managed sources. Six (7 per cent.) were using other strategies such as procuring through regional buying consortiums that had sustainable procurement policies in place. The information received is now over three months old and, therefore, it is possible that more of these authorities will now have policies in place.
  562W
  I am in the process of writing again to request a response from those that did not reply. I will be updating them on progress being made by the Government on implementing its policy and stressing the importance we place on them declaring their position.

  Waste Disposal Plants
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she sets county councils when deciding on permission for waste disposal plants.[93123]

  Mr. Meacher
  Guidance on the siting of waste management facilities is provided in Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 'Planning and waste Management', which was published by the then DETR in September 1999. Applications for planning permission have to be decided in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, including taking account of national and regional policy and planning guidance.

PRIME MINISTER

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister what his estimate is of the total spending of his Department on entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92416]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 28 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1444–48W.

  For 2001–02, the total cost of official entertainment to my Office at 10 Downing Street and Chequers was £53,050.

  Information prior to 1997–98 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each(a) year and (b) quarter from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement.[92419]

  The Prime Minister
  Information on the number of press releases issued by my Office is given in the table.

  Number of press notices

  1997 (from 1 May)

  86

  1998

  143

  1999

  138

  2000

  129

  2001

  120

  2002

  114

  The majority of press releases issued by my Office relate to appointments. The numbers do not include my speeches or statements made to the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cayman Islands
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Leader of the Government of the Cayman Islands and (b) the Cayman Islands Financial Reporting Unit on money laundering. [92842]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My noble Friend Baroness Amos, Overseas Territories Minister, is in close touch with the Leader of Government Business in the Cayman Islands. They spoke most recently on 20 January.

  There have been no Ministerial discussions with the Financial Reporting Unit (FRU) in the Cayman Islands.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases of computer misuse there were in his Department in each of the last five years, broken down by each category of misuse; and how many of those cases resulted in disciplinary action. [93053]

  Mr. Rammell
  I regret that the detailed information requested is not available. But over the last five years disciplinary action has been taken in the following cases:

  1999—Two cases of browsing inappropriate Internet sites

  1999—One case of downloading pornographic material

  2001—Two cases of browsing inappropriate Internet sites

  2001—One case of using offensive language in an e-mail.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government supports the Franco-German proposals for the President of the European Commission to be elected by the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement.[93621]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government welcomes the French and German joint contribution to the Convention on the Future of Europe. We are studying their proposal for the President of the European Commission to be elected by the European Parliament and I am holding consultations with other EU partners on what is, at this stage, merely one of many proposals put to the convention.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role the British Government are playing in the negotiations to unify the island of Cyprus. [92958]

  Mr. MacShane
  We fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General and his special adviser on Cyprus, Mr. Alvaro de Soto. The Government believe that a crucial opportunity has now arisen for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in Cyprus. While it is for the two sides in Cyprus to agree on the details of a settlement, we strongly urge the parties to 564W
  reach agreement, based on the UN Secretary-General's 10 December 2002 proposals, by the UN deadline of 28 February.

  This would enable referenda to be held on both sides of the island and a reunited Cyprus to sign the Treaty of Accession with the EU on 16 April. Our aim remains for a reunited island to accede to the EU. We believe this is in the best interests of Cyprus, of Greece and Turkey, and of the wider European community.

  This is a vital opportunity: we urge the two sides not to let it slip away.

  We have taken every opportunity to convey these points to the parties. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary expressed these points to Turkish Ministers at the Copenhagen European Council. The Defence Secretary did likewise during his visit to Ankara on 8 January.

  The UK Special Representative for Cyprus, Lord Hannay, will visit Athens and Nicosia this week, and Ankara at the beginning of February, in order to help facilitate negotiations at this crucial time.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effect Cyprus' accession to the EU will have on the status of the British sovereign bases on the island.[92993]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 10WS, and to the answer given in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Symons on 14 January 2003, Official Report, column 123.

  The UK's policy is that, following Cyprus's accession, the SBAs should remain outside the EU, with technical adjustments to ensure the continued smooth functioning of the relationship between Cyprus and the SBAs. We expect final agreement to take the form of a protocol which will be part of the terms of Cyprus's accession. The accession treaty is due to be signed on 16 April, and a Bill introduced to enable its ratification by the UK.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many empty homes his Department(a) had five years ago and (b) has now, by region; if he will establish an empty homes strategy within his Department; and if he will set a target for reduction in empty homes. [92920]

  Mr. Rammell
  It is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's policy to limit empty properties to one of four categories:(a) those that must be vacated while undergoing refurbishment or adaptation; (b) those that are surplus and in the process of disposal; (c) those we cannot occupy because of a break in diplomatic relations or a similar eventuality, but we expect to need in the future; (d) those that are vacant for short periods between officers' overseas tours.
  565W
  Routine management of the FCO estate is devolved to our overseas posts and information is not held centrally. It is therefore not possible to identify these properties or their costs without disproportionate cost.

  Energy Supplies (Security)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions with other(a) Departments and (b) Governments his Department has had over the last 12 months with regard to the British Foreign Policy objective of ensuring secure energy supplies. [92177]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has participated in regular cross-Whitehall discussions on the security of energy supply, most importantly, in the context of the Energy White Paper.

  The FCO has had regular bilateral and multilateral discussions on a range of energy issues, including the security of energy supplies, with both energy producing and energy consuming countries.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the total spending of his Department on entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92374]

  Mr. Rammell
  Comparable information is only available for the years 2000–01 to 2002–3. The following figures show the actual spend on entertainment within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the first two of these years, with a forecast for year three based upon expenditure to date:

  £

  2000–01

  8,337,306

  2001–02

  8,708,262

  2002–03

  8,566,545

  All expenditure on entertainment within the department is carefully monitored to ensure that it is made in accordance with departmental guidance that is based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  Industrial Action/Illness
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many working days have been lost in his Department and its predecessors due to(a) industrial action and (b) illness in each year since 1997. [93165]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not lost any days due to industrial action since 1997. The number of days lost due to sick absence are as follows:

  Average days per officer

  1997

  8.9

  1998

  8.0

  1999

  n/a

  566W

  Average days per officer

  2000

  6.3

  2001

  6.6

  2002

  5.7

  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 only be provided at disproportionate costs, the method of recording changed part way through 1999.

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

  Kenya
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on compensation for alleged victims of repression by the British authorities in Kenya during the period of the Mau Mau rebellion and before Kenyan independence; and if he will make a statement. [90681]

  Mr. Rammell
  Ten different individuals and organisations have made representations to the British High Commission in Nairobi since January 1999 to ask for compensation for alleged victims of repression by the British authorities during the period of the Mau Mau rebellion. The latest approach was on 19 October 2002 on behalf of the "Mau Mau Original Trust". In addition, BHC officials received a delegation of Mau Mau veterans on 23 October 2002. Responsibility for the actions of the colonial Government of Kenya passed to the Government of Kenya at Independence in 1963.

  United Nations Organisations
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official representations have been made during the last six months to UN organisations on behalf of the United Kingdom at the UN; and what the results were of those representations. [93346]

  Mr. Straw
  The UK makes daily representations to UN organisations and agencies, and to other members of the UN, on a wide range of issues.

  Examples of the UN's achievements in the last six months to which UK representations have contributed include:

  The unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq;

  The successful transition of the International Police Task Force in Bosnia to the European Union Police Mission;

  The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1445 strengthening UN action against Al-Qaida;

  The adoption, by a large majority, of a new international human rights instrument to combat torture: the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture;

  The adoption of General Assembly Resolutions on major human rights thematic issues, including torture, rights of the child, rights of the disabled and honour crimes;

  Significant agreements on international sustainable development governance at the World Summit for Sustainable Development: e.g. access to sanitation, biodiversity, chemicals management and sustainable production and consumption;

  Lifting sanctions in Angola.

  Visas
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many applications for a visa to visit family members in the UK were(a) received, (b) determined and (c) refused by entry clearance posts, in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002; [93093]

  Family visit applications

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  2000

  Received

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Determined

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Refused

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  Received

  13,612

  15,975

  20,811

  22,560

  32,220

  32,292

  Determined

  11,432

  14,574

  19,533

  22,142

  30,182

  28,156

  Refused

  2,305

  2,831

  4,205

  3,979

  5,178

  5,610

  2002

  Received

  15,904

  18,759

  23,207

  27,137

  33,299

  26,706

  Determined

  13,477

  15,306

  19,221

  24,765

  28,465

  21,023

  Refused

  3,208

  3,881

  4,363

  5,497

  5,908

  3,425

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  2000

  Received

  —

  —

  —

  20,809

  15,868

  12,456

  Determined

  —

  —

  —

  20,530

  15,758

  12,386

  Refused

  —

  —

  —

  2,022

  1,893

  1,283

  2001

  Received

  36,998

  28,899

  17,981

  13,908

  16,251

  14,551

  Determined

  35,559

  26,895

  17,858

  13,256

  15,587

  13,886

  Refused

  5,887

  5,138

  4,225

  3,344

  4,136

  2,706

  2002

  Received

  31,235

  23,382

  17,591

  17,896

  19,307

  13,617

  Determined

  29,360

  22,984

  16,641

  17,149

  17,780

  12,197

  Refused

  5,184

  6,187

  4,959

  4,713

  4,668

  2,714

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assistance the Government has provided to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to undertake investigations into the activities of arms dealers involved in the illegal supply of weapons to(a) West Africa and (b) Iraq; [93487]

  (2) what the outcomes of his meeting on 6 November 2002 with the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were regarding the illegal supply of weapons to (a) West Africa and (b) Iraq; and if he will make a statement;[93488]

  (3) what assistance (a) the EU and (b) the UK have provided to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to develop arms export legislation. [93489]

  Mr. MacShane
  When he met President Kostunica and Foreign Minister Svilanovic in late 2002, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our serious concerns about reports of arms sales from the Federal
  568W
  (2) how many applications for a visa to visit family members in the UK were (a) received, (b) determined and (c) refused by those entry clearance posts that provide monthly statistical information in each month since 1 October 2000. [93092]

  Mr. Rammell
  The figures for Family Visit Applications received, determined and refused since October 2000 are set out as follows.

  Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) to Iraq and Liberia, in breach of UN sanctions. He urged them to ensure a thorough investigation, leading to prosecutions of those responsible. Since then Mr. Cekovic, Head of Jugoimport, and Mr. Djokic, Assistant Minister for Defence, have been sacked, the Jugoimport office in Baghdad closed and a commission established to investigate Jugoimport's activities. The FRY has also cancelled a bilateral agreement with Iraq and suspended bilateral military industrial agreements with all states that are subject to UN sanctions. Svilanovic has promised further investigation and possible prosecutions. The United Kingdom is considering the provision of technical assistance to the FRY to ensure effective regulation of arms exports. On 10 December UK experts visited Belgrade to conduct a preliminary assessment; a follow-up visit will take place soon. The EU provides support to the FRY's reform process, including improving the democratic control of the armed forces, from its Common Foreign and Security Policy budget.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his meetings in the last 12 months with representatives of Zimbabwean(a) Government, (b) opposition, (c) churches, (d) humanitarian organisations, (e) sports organisations and (f) commercial interests. [91260]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the former Zimbabwean Minister of Finance, Dr. Simba Makoni, on 6 February 2002, who was transiting the UK on his return to Zimbabwe from the World Economic Summit in New York.

  FCO officials are regularly in contact with a range of Zimbabweans, including from all the groups specified.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he collates on the extent of Government inspired murder and torture in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement.[91261]

  Mr. Rammell
  We monitor closely the situation in Zimbabwe and regularly receive detailed information on human rights violations there from a number of sources, including human rights organisations and other NGOs. The UK Government, along with other members of the international community, has consistently condemned the Government of Zimbabwe for its appalling record on human rights and have called on it to respect its obligations under international human rights conventions. Along with our EU partners, the UK Government will continue to focus international attention on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the steps taken by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the Commonwealth troika to end misgovernment and reintroduce democracy and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. [91262]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK Government have taken a number of measures in response to the situation in Zimbabwe including; an outright rejection of the conduct and outcome of the Presidential election in March 2002; a complete embargo on arms sales since May 2000; a suspension of non-humanitarian aid and the withdrawal of our military training team. Working with our EU partners, we have also imposed targeted sanctions, a travel ban and assets freeze, on 79 members of the Mugabe regime.

  The Commonwealth suspended Zimbabwe from its Councils in March 2002. The Commonwealth Troika is pressing for good governance and the rule of law to be restored in Zimbabwe. It last met in Abuja on 23 September 2002. It deferred a decision on further Commonwealth measures, but stated that it would stick to its task over the next six months "at which point further measures might need to be considered". It is due to meet again in March.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when in the last 12 months representatives of Her Majesty's Government have visited each province of Zimbabwe. [91266]
  570W
  Mr. Rammell
  Officials based at the High Commission in Harare regularly visit provinces throughout Zimbabwe in the course of their duties. London based officials have also visited provinces in Zimbabwe in the last twelve months. It would entail disproportionate cost to list the details. No Government Minister has visited Zimbabwe in the last twelve months.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resolutions have been tabled on behalf of the United Kingdom at the UN concerning the application of more international pressure on Mr. Robert Mugabe and his government. [93347]

  Mr. Straw
  As a UK initiative, EU member states tabled a draft resolution on Zimbabwe at the 58th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in March/April 2002. Regrettably, the African Group blocked discussion. Despite this, the UK's attempt to secure a resolution served to highlight the Zimbabwe Government's appalling human rights record.

  We welcome the UN Secretary General's recent statement that: "At the heart of the problem is the crisis in Zimbabwe—a country which used to be the region's breadbasket, but is now wracked by hunger and HIV/ AIDS. This tragic situation is caused partly by forces of nature, and partly by mismanagement".

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evaluation she has made of the impact of suspension of the UN Oil for Food programme on civilians' food needs in Iraq. [92888]

  Clare Short
  Suspension of the UN Oil for Food Programme could have an extremely serious impact on civilians' food needs in Iraq. My Department is considering a range of eventualities in Iraq and is in regular discussion about them with other governments and UN agencies.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the ability of the UN Oil for Food programme to continue in the event of military action in Iraq. [92889]

  Clare Short
  I am concerned about the ability if the UN Oil for Food programme to continue in the event of military action in Iraq. It is important for all parties to ensure that humanitarian provision for the people of Iraq is given priority under all eventualities.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the US Government regarding the protection of food supplies in the event of military intervention in Iraq. [92890]

  Clare Short
  My Department is in regular contact with the US Government on contingency preparedness planning for a range of eventualities in Iraq.
  571W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Defence Secretary regarding co-ordination of the military and humanitarian strategy in Iraq in the event of war. [92869]

  Clare Short
  My Department consults regularly with the Ministry of Defence on a variety of issues at official and ministerial level. This includes consideration of a range of eventualities in Iraq.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Robert Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent reports she has received on female education in Afghanistan; what assessment her Department has made of the level of female education in Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement. [92759]

  Clare Short
  During my visit to Afghanistan in late October I visited a school in Kabul, this was one of many that have reopened across Afghanistan. In the past year 3 million children have returned to school and girls now make up 30 per cent. of school children. Estimates are that 7,000 schools for 4.5 million children will re-open on 21 March for the new year. Women are also seeking education to make up for a time when they were unable to study. Accurate figures are not available, but estimates are that literacy rates for women over 15 are less than 25 per cent. It remains difficult for women and girls to gain education in some parts of Afghanistan but we are supporting the fghan Government in assisting all those who wish to, to access education.

  Dr. Jenny Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the outcome was of the December meeting of donors in Oslo to discuss aid to Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement.[92853]

  Clare Short
  The Afghanistan Support Group (ASG) in December brought together the Afghan Government, the United Nations and donors to discuss progress already made in Afghanistan and the next steps in the reconstruction process. A key element of the ASG was the launch of the 2003 UN appeal for the Transitional Assistance Programme for Afghanistan. Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani also made a brief presentation on the budget for the coming year. Few donors were in a position to make specific pledges 2003 but most were able to confirm that they expected to provide a similar level of funding as they had provided for 2002; around $1 .Sbillion.

  It was also agreed by all present that this would be the final ASG. A new Development Forum, designed to ensure greater Afghan leadership of the reconstruction effort will supersede it. The new forum will have 12 Consultative Groups within its structure where selected donors can work with government on specific sectors. Until such time as the first Development Forum in March, the Japanese agreed to lead a transitional humanitarian group on humanitarian issues in Afghanistan.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent progress has been made towards the reconstruction of Afghanistan. [93012]
  572W
  Clare Short
  A great deal has been achieved since January 2002, when we pledged £200 million to the reconstruction of Afghanistan at the Tokyo conference. A broad-based Transitional Administration has been elected. A new currency has been issued. 3 million children have returned to school, and polio has almost been eradicated.

  The 2002 harvest saw grain production rise by 80 per cent. compared to 2001. The power station and airport in Kabul are being refurbished. The rebuilding of the roads system has begun, and work is continuing on customs reform and the drafting of a new constitution.

  However, much remains to be done. One of the most pressing issues is to improve security for those living outside Kabul, and to extend the authority of the elected government beyond the capital. This is of fundamental importance to both the reconstruction effort, and in order to ensure human rights are respected. In December President Karzai issued a decree setting out plans for a multi-ethnic national army, and in the last month the first Provincial Reconstruction Team was deployed in Gardez province, under US leadership. First reports indicate that the security situation has improved as a result. The UK is actively considering leading a PRT in the future.

  An important development has been the signing by Afghanistan's neighbours of Good Neighbourly Relations declaration by Afghanistan's neighbours. The declaration, essentially an agreement to maintain constructive relations and not to seek influence by exploiting ethnic rivalries, was signed by all Afghanistan's immediate neighbours in December 2002.

  Work on humanitarian relief is also continuing. We contributed £1 million to the UN's Winterisation programme to help ensure that vulnerable communities had adequate shelter and food over the winter, and a further £2 million to the UN snow-clearing operation to ensure that aid reaches remote communities. Early indications are that this programme is going well, helped by a relatively mild winter. DFID will shortly be conducting a humanitarian assessment mission to formulate our strategy for the coming year.

  The Development Forum meeting in Kabul in March will be important in setting the priorities for reconstruction and international assistance over the next year.

  Alternative Crop Projects
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts regarding damage to alternative crop projects funded by EU, following fumigation with pesticides by United States helicopters.[92630]

  Clare Short
  I have held discussions with my European Union colleagues how to reduce production of illegal narcotics in developing countries by providing viable alternative livelihood opportunities for producing farmers. I have not specifically discussed damage to European Commission-funded alternative crop projects from fumigation with pesticides, or any other sources

  Colombia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made with the EU contribution to Plan Colombia.[92631]

  Clare Short
  The EU supports the efforts of the Colombian Government to put an end to the violence affecting the country. However, the EU does not contribute to Plan Colombia because it has reservations about some aspects of the plan and it does not support with aid any initiative with a military dimension.

  In October 2000 the EU announced an aid package of euros 140 million towards the support of ongoing Colombian activities in the search for peace, targeting the roots and causes of the conflict and providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the estimate is of the total spending of her Department in all forms of entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement.[92404]

  Clare Short
  The following table shows recorded DFID spending from the running cost budget on entertainment for the years in question, to the nearest £000.

  Year

  £

  1994–95

  7,000

  1995–96

  9,000

  1996–97

  10,000

  1997–98

  24,000

  1998–99

  43,000

  1999–2000

  62,000

  2000–01

  48,000

  2001–02

  55,000

  2002–031

  74,000

  1Estimated

  For the earlier years some expenditure may not have been separately recorded.

  All expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to secure resources to assist rural investment in Ethiopia and prevent future food crises. [91682]

  Clare Short
  One of the priorities for our assistance programme in Ethiopia is to help address the roots of food insecurity. This means looking at long-term approaches to reducing poverty and vulnerability—such as promoting broad-based economic growth, market development and rural roads. We are working with other bilateral and multilateral donors to achieve this whilst continuing to respond to short-term humanitarian demands.
  574W
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to secure international commitment to increased interim aid for Ethiopia. [91683]

  Clare Short
  We are committed to long-term partnership with Ethiopia, which includes support to addressing the underlying causes of food insecurity. In addition, we continue to play our part in providing humanitarian assistance, including food aid when necessary. We plan to substantially increase our development budget for Ethiopia over the next three years. Whilst doing this, we are in agreement with the Government of Ethiopia that donors should harmonise their efforts to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of development assistance.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia. [92512]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation in Ethiopia is a matter of great concern. However, we consider that the Government of Ethiopia, donors and NGOs are coordinating their response well to ensure that this does not become a crisis.

  As always we remain committed to playing our part in the international response. During 2002 we committed £32.3 million to food and non-food humanitarian assistance. This included £15 million for food aid to be distributed by the World Food Programme in late January and February 2003.

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department intends to move to direct budget support for Ethiopia. [92860]

  Clare Short
  During my visit to Ethiopia last week, along with the Ethiopian Finance Minister, I signed a Memorandum of Understanding covering the long-term development partnership between the UK and Government of Ethiopia to tackle poverty. The Memorandum indicates that we plan to provide at least 60 million of direct budget support over the next three years. We expect to disburse the first 10 million of this within the next month.

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of her Department's budget for Ethiopia will be disbursed by(a) direct budget support and (b) NGOs (i) as a proportion of her Department's assistance to Ethiopia and (ii) by value. [92861]

  Clare Short
  We currently expect development programme spending in Ethiopia, where the total will be split approximately two-thirds direct budget support and one-third technical assistance. We will continue to do some work with civil society and local and international NGOs where this can help deliver our poverty reduction objectives.

  On current plans we hope to commit at least 60 million on direct budget support and 30 million on technical cooperation over the next three years. In addition to the development programme spending a proportion of our humanitarian assistance will also continue to be provided through NGOs.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) her Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body spent on external consultancy in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned); and if she will make a statement. [92252]

  Clare Short
  DFID expenditure on consultancies from the development programme since 1995–96 is given in the table:

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  143

  1996–97

  161

  1997–98

  204

  1998–99

  199

  1999–2000

  198

  2000–01

  209

  2001–02

  1198

  1Expenditure is understated due to the move to Resource Accounting. DFID issued contracts valued at £302 million.

  The figures for agencies/Non Departmental Public bodies are not held centrally and it would require disproportionate cost to obtain them.

  Figures for planned expenditure on external consultancy are not available. DFID has issued contracts from 1 April 2002 to date, valued at £222 million.

  Fraud and Theft
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money has been lost by her Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies through(a) fraud and (b) theft in each year since 1996–97. [92481]

  Clare Short
  The estimated cost to DFID's budget of theft and fraud in the period l April 1996 to 31 March 2002 is some £367,000 of which £207,000 can be attributed to contractor fraud. Of the remaining sum, £129,000 relates to the theft of assets and misappropriation of cash, which in line with Treasury guidance has been classified as involving departmental staff either directly or through collusion. Details of suspected or proven fraud are provided to the Treasury on an annual basis. The annual report that the Treasury prepares on fraud is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Health and Safety
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether her 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. [89487]

  Clare Short
  My Department will meet the commitment in its forthcoming Departmental Annual Report covering performance in the calendar year 2002. We have no agencies.
  576W
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which senior officials within her Department and its agencies take responsibility for health and safety at board or equivalent level; and where their names are publicised. [89488]

  Clare Short
  My Department's Health and Safety Policy (which is agreed with the trade unions and published in its Staff Handbook, on its Departmental Intranet site and elsewhere) contains the following:"The Permanent Secretary recognises and accepts responsibility for providing a safe and healthy workplace and working environment for all staff and will take all practicable steps to meet that responsibility."

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information she has collated on the application to her 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 she will make a statement. [89489]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her by the Minister for Work on 20 January,Official Report, columns 85–86W. Within my Department the requirements of the checklist will be reflected in any future revision of our Health and Safety Policy and structured health and safety management systems.

  Humanitarian Contingency Planning
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her colleagues in(a) the US, (b) the EU and (c) the UN, regarding humanitarian contingency planning for humanitarian aid to Iraq in the event of war with Iraq. [92868]

  Clare Short
  My Department has regular discussions with the US, EU partners and the UN on general contingency preparedness planning in a number of countries. In the case of Iraq, planning is underway for a range of eventualities.

  Kenya
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the European Commission on the Westlands-St. Austin Road Project in Kenya; and if she will make a statement. [92219]

  Clare Short
  None. The construction of the road referred to took place from 1990 to 1993. Officials from the then Overseas Development Administration were aware of various complaints from people living in communities (not between Westlands and St. Austin, but further north on the same road) and discussed these with European Commission officials. The EC Ombudsman subsequently investigated and concluded that there had been no mal-administration on the part of the EC.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the timetable is for reviewing UK bilateral aid to Kenya. [93405]

  Clare Short
  I visited Kenya last week and had discussions with Kenyan Ministers on how Britain could best help the new Government deliver quickly on
  577W
  its election promises to stamp out corruption, revive the economy and improve public services. We are already reviewing our bilateral programme to ensure that we respond effectively and flexibly to the needs of the new Government. I am also pressing the international financial institutions and the European Commission to help the new Government fill the large hole in the public finances which they have inherited.

  Malawi
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she plans to support further debt relief to Malawi. [93023]

  Clare Short
  Malawi remains off track with its economic and financial reform programme. An IMF mission which left Lilongwe on 21 January was still unable to give a positive endorsement to the Government's overall performance.

  My Department with the EC and Norway will conduct a separate assessment next month. Meanwhile, in collaboration with other development partners, DFID is continuing a dialogue with the Government of Malawi on measures necessary for resumption of budget support and debt relief.

  Mauritania
  Mr. Robert Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of(a) the level of malnutrition and (b) the number of deaths due to malnutrition in the last year in Mauritania. [92760]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not carried out an independent assessment of the level of malnutrition or the number of deaths due to malnutrition in the last year in Mauritania. A survey carried out by the NGO World Vision in November 2002 found acute malnutrition rates amongst children of between 10– per cent. in some parts of the country.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of food shortages in Mauritania; and if she will make a statement. [92761]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme (WFP) estimate that there are 750,000 people affected by food shortages. Reports by NGOs, such as Oxfam and World Vision, support this analysis. We are monitoring the situation closely and are providing assistance through contributions to WFP and Oxfam.

  Minimum Wage
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the impact of increasing the minimum wage(a) in line with average earnings, (b) to £4.17 per hour, (c) to £4.87 per hour, (d) to £5.00 per hour and (e) to £5.30 per hour, on the cost of salaries of departmental employees (i)in total and (ii) for each nation of the United Kingdom in the next financial year. [90602]

  Clare Short
  The department's current minimum wage under our three year pay agreement is £5.25 per hour based on a 37 hour week. There would be no 578W
  financial impact of increasing the minimum wage on the cost of departmental salaries until £5.30 per hour, when the additional cost in the next financial year would be £287 a year and would apply to 11 employees in Scotland only.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the total expenditure by her Department on ministerial travel(a) in the UK and (b) abroad in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if she will make a statement. [92478]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Multilateral Debt
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on 100 per cent. cancellation of low-income country multilateral debts. [92985]

  Clare Short
  While it is essential to deal with the problem of unsustainable debt in the poorest countries as part of our efforts to assist in eradicating poverty, complete cancellation of debt is not required; nor is it the most effective means of delivering aid resources to reduce poverty. We do not support the proposal for 100 per cent. cancellation of IMF and World bank loans, which is neither desirable nor equitable. For these institutions to provide 100 per cent. relief would risk skewing limited development resources away from other very poor countries, which have handled their debt well. Countries need to borrow—initially only on very concessional terms—to finance their poverty reduction strategies. In this way, they can re-establish their creditworthiness, which will also help them attract private investment and accelerate economic growth and poverty reduction.

  Poverty and Wildlife Study
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to implement her Department's study on Poverty and Wildlife commissioned from Joanna Elliott. [92610]

  Clare Short
  The implications of the findings of the Wildlife and Poverty Study will be discussed in DFID and with DEFRA and FCO. We also hope that it will encourage other government and non-government organisations to prioritise the integration of the needs and voices of the poor into wildlife-related strategies.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much(a) her Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by her Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if she will make a statement.[92251]
  579W
  Clare Short
  Our expenditure on publicity, which forms part of our effort to raise awareness and understanding of international development issues in the UK, has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  568,755

  1996–97

  579,916

  1996–98

  399,755

  1998–99

  674,531

  1999–2000

  879,354

  2001–01

  1,484,281

  2001–02

  1,286,054

  2002–03

  11,300,000

  1Estimated outturn

  We do not hold a separate advertising budget. The majority of advertising relates to recruitment advertising in newspapers and journals. Expenditure for the last three calendar years was as follows:

  Year

  £

  2000

  751,972

  2001

  938,297

  2002

  1,010,930

  Expenditure figures for the preceding years are not available.

  Refugees (Iraq)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with(a) Jordan, (b) Syria, (c) Turkey, (d) Iran, (e) Kuwait and (f) Saudi Arabia regarding their policy towards accepting refugees from Iraq. [92870]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made on education projects in Southern Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [92638]

  Clare Short
  This financial year we have committed £220,000 to support scholarships programmes in Sudan, particularly for women, and £300,000 to UNICEF for schools rehabilitation and teacher training in the Nuba Mountains. We are also planning a significant intervention in the education sector in government and SPLM/A controlled conflict affected areas.

  Western Sahara
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding food security in Western Sahara. [92639]

  Clare Short
  I have not had any specific discussions with Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on food security in Western Sahara.

  DFID continues to provide support to the Saharawi refugees through its contributions to the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

  Western Sahel
  Mr. Robert Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much emergency aid her Department is giving to the World Food Programme's Emergency Operation Appeal for the Western Sahel; and if she will make a statement. [92802]

  Clare Short
  We have agreed to provide £1,000,000 for the World Food Programme's Emergency Operation Appeal for the Western Sahel.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many civil servants have been employed by(a) her Department and (b) each of its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [92367]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, (Mr. Alexander) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 333W.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the President of the Council how much producing the Privy Council 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. [90888]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on Wednesday 22 January,Official Report, column 333W.

  As in previous years, my Department's latest Annual Report is published in the same document as the Cabinet Office's.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Congestion Charge
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will arrange for a payment point to be set up in the precinct of the House to enable hon. Members and others to pay the Congestion Charge. [93401]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Over recent months House officials have sought to make arrangements with Transport for London for a Congestion Charge payment point to be installed at a convenient location in the Palace of Westminster, and they will continue to press TFL for early action.

  Meanwhile, hon. Members may wish to know that there is a payment machine at the entrance to the Abingdon Green car park, and that other methods of payment include:

  Online at www.cclondon.com;

  By telephone on 0845 900 1234;

  By mobile phone text message, having registered online or by telephone;

  At a range of petrol stations and retail outlets;

  E-mail
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the estimated cost is of the system introduced to block the delivery of e-mails to members containing profanities or other language considered objectionable; what criteria are being used for this editorial system and by whom; how many e-mails have been blocked; and if he will make a statement. [93384]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  PCD is using existing software to block inappropriate e-mails and therefore the new system has minimal cost. In the first week the system blocked 908 inappropriate e-mails sent to parliamentary e-mail addresses. The system filters incoming e-mails from non-parliamentary addresses and will not affect internal communications, outgoing e-mails or e-mails received from remote workers attached to the parliamentary data and video network (PDVN) via Citrix. The sender of any e-mail that is blocked will be notified and invited to contact the intended recipient to arrange for the blocked e-mail to be unblocked. This will prevent any genuine e-mail from being lost.

  PCD recognises that on occasions, constituents might use strong language: for example, if they are writing about a constituency issue on which they have firm views, or of which they have had a bad direct experience. Incoming e-mails that contain only a few mild expletives will be unaffected. Only those e-mails which contain a high proportion of the most offensive obscenities are blocked automatically.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Further education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the review of Further Education in Northern Ireland will be published; and what plans he has to change the number of Further Education(a) colleges and (b) campuses in Northern Ireland. [93277]

  Jane Kennedy
  A consultation paper oh the role of the statutory FE sector, was published on 5 November 2002. The consultation period closed on 10 January 2003 and responses are being considered. Concurrently, evidence is being gathered on the range of issues covered by the review. The publication date for any conclusions or proposals is not yet known. It is too early, therefore, to comment on any particular matter.

  Hub Arts Centre
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much Laganside Corporation proposes to offer as its contribution to the overall cost of the Hub Arts Centre. [92930]

  Mr. Browne
  Plans are not sufficiently developed at this stage to give a precise answer to this question. An economic appraisal is currently being carried out by the Arts Council for Northern Ireland to determine the scale and usage of the proposed building subject to its board approval. Laganside Corporation plans to
  583W
  contribute land upon which to site the Arts Centre and the value of this land will be determined further into the project.

  Wind Farms
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to consult(a) the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and (b) the RSPB on future wind farm applications in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [92274]

  Angela Smith
  All applications for wind farm developments are considered against prevailing planning policies, taking account of representations received following normal advertising and consultation procedures.

  The main policy guidance in this area is contained in "A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland". This states that all proposals for wind farms will be assessed in respect of their implications for the visual, ecological and historic landscapes; the implications for agriculture; and the safety and amenity of local residents. It also makes it clear that permission will not be granted for wind turbine development in any location where it would have a seriously detrimental impact on the amenity of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or on any area designated for its conservation, scientific, archaeological or historic interest.

  Consultation on wind farm proposals will normally include the Environmental Health Department of the relevant local Council, the Department of the Environment's Environment and Heritage Service, the Department for Regional Development's Roads and Water Services, the Ministry of Defence, and the Civil Aviation Authority.

  In addition, under the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, the Department may require an Environmental Statement where a proposal is located in a 'sensitive area' and/or involves the installation of more than two turbines, or the hub height of any turbine or height of any other structure exceeds 15 metres. This Statement will provide the Department with detailed information about the impact that a proposal may have on the environment.

  It is not normal procedure to consult the Northern Ireland Tourist Board on planning applications that, although in scenic areas, do not have a direct impact on tourism, and thus do not fall within the statutory remit of the Board. It is not, therefore, the practice of the Planning Service to consult the NITB automatically in relation to planning applications for wind farms and there are no plans to introduce such a practice.

  The English Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG 22) 'Renewable Energy' states that, apart from the movement of the blades, the development of a wind farm warrants no different approach in terms of ecological considerations from any other development, and evidence suggests that the risk of collision between moving turbine blades and birds is minimal both for migrating birds and for local habitats.
  584W
  Applications for wind farms will sometimes be made in, or close to, areas designated as of ecological importance, and such applications will be rigorously examined under the policies and guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 2, 'Planning and Nature Conservation'. However, in terms of any potential direct impact of a wind farm proposal on the integrity of sites designated as of wildlife importance, including those designated for the conservation of birds, the Planning Service's main source of advice and guidance will remain the Department's Environment and Heritage Service and there are no plans to introduce a practice of consulting the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on wind farm applications.

  Landfill Directive
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what criteria a decision on the implementation of the EC Directive 1999/31 on the landfill of waste will be based. [92278]

  Angela Smith
  The Landfill Directive contains two separate components—targets for reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) going to landfill and the introduction of detailed regulatory requirements in relation to the design, operation and aftercare of sites.

  The decision on how the BMW targets will be achieved in NI will be based on the outcome of a consultation exercise which has just ended. An analysis of responses is underway to determine the preferred option for NI.

  The implementation of the regulatory requirements of the Directive will be based on the detailed prescriptive criteria already contained in the Directive.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated cost is of implementing EC Directive 1999/31 on the landfill of waste in Northern Ireland; how much of this cost will be borne by district councils; and if he will make a statement. [92275]

  Angela Smith
  The Landfill Directive contains two separate components—targets for reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) going to landfill and the introduction of detailed regulatory requirements in relation to the design, operation and aftercare of sites.

  A consultation paper, published in October 2002, set out four options for achieving the BMW targets. The paper was accompanied by a partial regulatory impact assessment (RIA) which gave indicative costs relating to four options for dealing with the waste which has to be diverted from landfill. The consultation exercise has just ended and an analysis of responses is underway to determine the preferred option for NI. Actual costs will not be known until a full regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken on the preferred option.

  The estimated cost of implementing the regulatory requirements of the Directive will not be known until a RIA has been undertaken. This is planned for later this year.
  585W
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the locations are of wind farm applications seeking planning approval in Northern Ireland; and what stage the current applications have reached. [92272]

  Angela Smith
  Planning Service is currently dealing with six planning applications for wind farms; these applications and their current status are as follows:

  (i) Planning application J/2001/0291/F for a wind farm for Bin Mountain, in the district of Strabane, in the townlands of Bolaght, Lettercarn, Binnawooda, Drummahon, Castlecraig, Curraghmacall, Ally, Meenabog and Meenacloy, and Drumquin, Co. Tyrone. This application was presented to Strabane district council on 26 February 2002 with a recommendation to refuse. The reasons for refusal were that the proposal would:
  be significantly detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the area;
  have an adverse effect on nature conservation interests;
  have an adverse effect on Lough Lee from construction activity and contamination.

  The application was deferred by the council to allow a site meeting to take place. This meeting took place on 31 May 2002, and as a result the applicant indicated verbally that he will withdraw the application.

  (ii) Planning application K/2001/048/F for a wind farm in the district of Omagh, in the townlands of Lough Hill, Castlecraig, Curraghmacall and Drummahon, Co. Tyrone. The access would be from the Meenacloy Road via an existing forestry road through the townlands of Meenacloy, Meenabog, Ally and Sloughan, and Drumquin, Co. Tyrone. Planning Service is awaiting further consultation responses and the proposal is still under consideration by the Department.

  (iii) Planning application L/2001/1346/F for a wind farm in the district of Fermanagh, in the townlands of Garrane, Mullaghfad, Corraleek and Corragunt, and Rosslea, Co. Fermanagh. Planning Service is awaiting further consultation responses and the proposal is still under consideration by the Department.

  (iv) Planning application L/2001/1514/F for a wind farm in the district of Fermanagh, in the townlands of Callagheen and Garrison, Co. Fermanagh. This proposal was presented to Fermanagh district council on 16 January 2003 with a recommendation to refuse. The reasons for the refusal were that the proposal would:
  be detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the proposed area of outstanding natural beauty;
  have an adverse impact on nature conservation

  The council deferred the application to allow for an office meeting, the date of which is to be arranged.

  (v) Planning application L/2002/1042/F for a wind farm in the district of Fermanagh, in the townlands of Glenarn, Stranahone and Stranadarriff, Tappaghan Mountain and Lack, Co. Fermanagh. Planning Service is awaiting further consultation responses and the proposal is still under consideration by the Department.
  586W
  (vi) Planning application L/2002/1183/F for a wind farm in the district of Fermanagh, in the townlands of Caricknabrattoge, Carrowmaculla, Eshmeen and Tully, and Lisnaskea, Co. Fermanagh. Planning Service is awaiting further consultation responses and the proposal is still under consideration by the Department.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will consult the public on the creation of a new offence of commencing development without the benefit of planning permission. [92782]

  Angela Smith
  The Government do not consider that a sufficient case has yet been made for the creation of a new criminal offence in Northern Ireland of commencing development without planning permission. To enable me to recommend the creation of a new offence, I would need to demonstrate:that the impact of unauthorised development upon the planning system is so serious in Northern Ireland as to warrant a departure from policy elsewhere in the UK;
  that there is factual evidence to support this;
  that all the options for addressing the problem have been considered and this is the best option; and,
  that a regulatory impact assessment of the potential options has been made and taken into account in recommending the best option.

  I am not in a position to make such a case without further work, and this needs to be done before a consultation paper can be produced that will generate an informed public debate. I want to think about the issue very carefully, before deciding on the way forward.

  Ulster Covenants
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Ulster Covenant records will be available online by March 2003; and if he will make a statement. [92936]

  Angela Smith
  The Ulster Covenant records are due to be available online by 28 March 2003.

  US-Ireland Alliance
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been provided from Government funds to the US-Ireland Alliance in each of the last three years; whether he has made representations to the US Government about the charitable status of the US-Ireland Alliance; whether a representative of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland sits on the honorary board of the US-Ireland Alliance; and what plans he has to review funding for the US-Ireland Alliance. [92304]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Employment and Learning has committed financial support to the Mitchell Scholarship Programme, which is managed by the US-Ireland Alliance, for the period 2000–05; contributing £22,619 in the financial year 2000–01, £24,717 in 2001–02 and £23,900 in 2002–03. No representations have been made to the US Government on the charitable status of the US-Ireland Alliance. The Department is unaware of any representative membership of the honorary board from the Unionist
  587W
  community in Northern Ireland. The Department plans to review funding for the Mitchell Scholarship Programme in 2005.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  ADSL
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of UK households and businesses are able to receive ADSL telecommunication services in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland. [92724]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: Oftel statistics for 1 November 2002, available at www.oftel.gov.uk, show that 63 per cent. of UK households and businesses were able to receive ADSL services at that date. Research undertaken by Analysis for the Government shows that at the end of August 2002, 39 per cent. of households in Scotland were able to receive ADSL services. This rises to 53 per cent. of households in Scotland counting ADSL and cable modem together.

  Broadband
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help will be given to rural communities to enable them to access broadband. [93127]

  Mr. Timms
  In November 2002, the Government launched the UK Broadband Task Force, which has the aim of stimulating the take-up and roll-out of broadband across the UK, particularly in rural and remote areas. The Task Force's regional broadband co-ordinators, located in each of the English regions and the Devolved Administrations, will seek to address this issue in their particular regions or nations.

  Also at a regional level, the Government have provided the Regional Development Agencies and the Devolved Administrations with the £30 million UK Broadband Fund, which was set up to help develop innovative schemes to extend broadband roll-out. Projects from this Fund are on-going and being monitored to identify examples of best practice that can be shared around the country.

  In addition, the Government have pledged £1 billion over 2003–06 towards broadband connectivity in the public sector. It is anticipated that this will lead to broadband networks being extended more widely. The aggregation of public sector demand, which is a main focus of the UK Broadband Task Force, will help accelerate this roll-out and ensure its efficiency.

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many commitments made by her Department in the 1998 Competitiveness White Paper have been met; and if she will make a statement. [91652]
  588W
  Ms Hewitt
  Of the 77 commitments made in the 1998 White Paper, "Our Competitive Future—Building the Knowledge Driven Economy" (Cm 4176), 70 have been fully achieved. The delivery dates of six commitments have not yet been reached.

  Full details of progress against targets can be found in the White Paper Implementation Plan, published on the DTI website at: www.dti.gov.uk/comp/impl.html

  Fossil Fuel
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the existing surplus of fossil fuel levy funds in Scotland is. [91741]

  Mr. Wilson
  £10.1 million. This is held by the Collector and invested in accordance with the regulations.

  Renewable Energy
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what she expects the proceeds to be of the auction of the renewable obligation certificates. [91742]

  Mr. Wilson
  Future income from auctions of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) will depend on the output of renewable energy auctioned and the market value of ROCs.

  In England and Wales an auction was held on 12 August and income from the electricity, LECs and ROCs will be paid between October 2002 and March 2003. The auction related to output during this period from 486MW capacity of renewable energy.

  In Scotland, the proceeds of the first auction of ROCs were just under 4.4 million. The second auction has just been held on 16 January at which the average price for ROCs was £47.46 per ROC. A total of 64,337 ROCs were successfully auctioned.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many empty homes her Department(a) had five years ago and (b) has now, by region; if she will establish an empty homes strategy within her Department; and if she will set a target for reduction in empty homes. [92918]

  Ms Hewitt
  The answer, in both cases, is none.

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89940]

  Ms Hewitt
  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 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.

  Export Control Act
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to introduce secondary legislation under the Export Control Act 2002. [93032]

  Nigel Griffiths
  It is expected that the Act and the secondary legislation to be made under it will enter into force in the second half of 2003, following the appropriate period of consultation.

  Fraud
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the operating cost in each year since 1997 was of her Department's(a) ORACLE RAB and (b) anti-fraud control system; and if she will make a statement. [88827]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: The information is as follows:

  (a) The ORACLE RAB system became operational in December 1998. Operating costs for the system for the financial years in question were as follows:

  £million

  1997–98

  0.00

  1998–99

  1.04

  1999–2000

  2.12

  2000–01

  2.53

  2001–02

  2.62

  (b) The Department has anti-fraud control built into all its financial systems, and it is therefore not possible to quantify the overall operating cost.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services upon(a) teaching and research and (b) the knowledge economy. [88944]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We have just completed a public consultation on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and are now analysing the responses received. GATS might only have an impact upon teaching, research and the knowledge economy if we were minded to meet liberalisation requests made to us by our trading partners in relevant areas. The UK negotiates in the WTO as part of the European Community. We have yet to see the Commission's draft proposals on which requests they suggest the EC might meet in the offer to be tabled in the WTO by the end of March 2003. Their proposals will be discussed with the Department for Education and Skills and the Devolved Administrations, as part of our internal assessment process.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated cost is of providing(a) banking; and (b) insurance facilities to Huntingdon life sciences. [91536]
  590W
  Ms Hewitt
  Huntingdon Life Sciences is reimbursing to the DTI the full cost of facilitating insurance and of the facilitation of banking services. DTI has recognised possible contingent liabilities consequent on the provision of insurance services.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) trades unions and (b) individuals have been (i) charged with offences resulting from industrial action and (ii) convicted of offences resulting from industrial action in each year since 1973. [92763]

  Alan Johnson
  Although there have been a number of charges and convictions resulting from offences committed in the course of industrial action, the Government do not collect statistics relating to the circumstances in which offences took place.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with(a) representatives of British industry and (b) trades union representatives concerning (i) the number of days lost to industrial disputes over the last 12 months and (ii) the state of the manufacturing industry in the UK. [92765]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly attend meetings with representatives of British industry and trade unions at which employment relations and manufacturing issues are discussed.

  Information Society Initiative Centres
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ISI centres are open; if she will list their locations; and if she will make a statement. [88809]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: ISI Centres were established as part of the Information Society Initiative, which was re-branded as UK online for business in 2000. The centres themselves were established to provide independent and impartial advice to SMEs about information and communication technology. When the re-organisation of the Small Business Service and the Business Link Organisation took place, it was agreed that the provision of this ICT advice would be delivered through the Business Link network and the equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Many of the ISI advisers were subsumed into the Business Link organisation. There are therefore no ISI centres still in existence.

  Innovation Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many industrial secondees there were in the Department's Innovation Unit in each year since 1998; and if she will make a statement. [91653]

  Ms Hewitt
  During the period 1998–2002, the Innovation Unit had the following number of part-time industrial 'secondees' engaged within the Unit at some point in the year: 1998–33; 1999–29; 2000–28; 2001–29 and 2002–23. The Innovation Unit has now been restructured and its work incorporated across the new Innovation Group within the DTI.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many grants for job creation her Department awarded in(a) south-east Northumberland and (b) Wansbeck in 2002; and what the value was in each case. [93026]

  Alan Johnson
  The table sets out the numbers, value and associated jobs for grant offered in 2002 under the Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) and Enterprise Grant schemes for Wansbeck 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

  Wansbeck

  South-east Northumberland

  Number of offers

  2

  20

  Grant value

  £177,500

  £5,327,460

  Associated jobs

  40

  842

  Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department will provide from its Innovation Budget to fund the Manufacturing Advisory Service; how this amount will be spent; and if she will make a statement. [93288]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department will allocate £14.2 million from its Innovation Budget to fund the Manufacturing advisory Service. This money will be allocated to Regional Development Agencies and the Welsh Development Agency to match fund the Regional Centres for Manufacturing Excellence (RCMEs) that we have established in partnership with them to deliver the Manufacturing Advisory Service in their respective regions and in Wales. Our allocated Innovation Budget funding will also cover the cost of a contract that DTI has awarded to Inbis to establish a National Network of Centres of Expertise in Manufacturing and a website for the MAS. All 10 RCMEs and the national website have been launched and are in operation (the site is at www.dit.gov.uk/ manfacturingm/mas).

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses with(a) five employees or fewer and (b) over five employees have received assistance from the Manufacturing Advisory Service since it was established; and if she will make a statement. [93289]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department does not collect data from the MAS which allows us to separate or help given companies of more or fewer than five employees. The thrust of the MAS is however, very much on helping what the EU defines as being Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) employing up to 250 employees. In the period to 30th September 2002 the MAS:592W
  Responded to around 5,000 enquires through its Regional Centres for Manufacturing Excellence
  Undertook some 670 diagnostic and advisory visits to companies
  Included some 4,700 in regional training and other events
  Undertook over 100 in-depth consultancy projects with manufacturers
  Completed 21 Case studies that have been published on the MAS website (at www.dti.gov.iik/manufacturing/mas).

  Initial monitoring data show that achievements within companies included:

  Average people productivity improvement of 28 per cent.

  Average scrap or wastage reduction of 35 per cent.

  Average on time delivery improvement of over 40 per cent.

  Average improvement in stock turnover of some 90 per cent.

  Average value added to each SME client company is just over £50,000.

  Miners Compensation
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims have been lodged to date under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme for(a) COPD and (b) vibration white finger; and what percentage of those claims have (i) been settled in full and (ii) received an interim payment but not full settlement in the parliamentary constituencies of (A) Leigh, (B) Makerfield, (C) Wigan, (D) St. Helens North, (E) St. Helens South, (F) Warrington North, (G) Warrington South, (H) Bolton North East, (I) Bolton North West, (J) Bolton West, (K) Salford, (L) Worsley, (M) Eccles, (N) Knowsley North and (O) Knowsley South. [93428]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department's claim handlers, IRISC, are unable to provide details of how many individuals have received interim payments, as some claimants have received more than one interim payment.

  The figures for claims received and percentage of claims settled is:

  COPD

  VWF

  Constituency

  Claims registered

  Percentage settled

  Claims registered

  Percentage settled

  Leigh

  1,781

  25

  685

  30

  Makerfield

  1,284

  20

  622

  33

  Wigan

  1,032

  22

  350

  32

  St. Helens North

  878

  21

  496

  34

  St. Helens South

  922

  23

  503

  36

  Warrington North

  85

  27

  59

  25

  Warrington South

  22

  5

  17

  6

  Bolton North East

  124

  27

  30

  30

  Bolton South East1

  336

  31

  86

  42

  Bolton West

  222

  36

  74

  41

  Salford

  27

  22

  14

  50

  Worsley

  816

  23

  255

  38

  Eccles

  143

  30

  30

  47

  Knowsley North

  25

  32

  14

  36

  Knowsley South

  193

  24

  110

  29

  1The figures have been given for Bolton South East. Bolton North West is not a constituency.

  A full breakdown of constituency statistics is available on the DTI website: www. dti.gov.uk/ coalhealth

  National Minimum Wage (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire have benefited from the national minimum wage in each year since 1997. [93076]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 27 January 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of workers in the Shrewsbury and Atcham parliamentary constituency and in Shropshire who have benefited from the national minimum wage (NMW) in each year since 1997. (93076)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) calculates estimates of the number of jobs paid less than NMW rates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions. These are available on the National Statistics website at:
  http://www. statistics. gov.uk/themes/labour_market/pay_and_earnings/measuring_low_pay.asp
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies and counties are not available.

  Ofgem Board
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were interviewed for each position on the Ofgem Board. [86191]

  Mr. Wilson
  The numbers interviewed for a single non-executive post vary according to the field. Tyupically, three to five candidates are interviewed.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out the process for appointing members of the Ofgem Board. [86192]

  Mr. Wilson
  The process followed for the chair and for non-executive members is as for other public appointments, with guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The process involves advertisement and search; interviews by panels including independent members; and recommendations to Ministers, who take the final decision, from the shortlist presented. Other executive members are appointed on an ex-officio basis.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money Ofgem has spent on(a) political advisers, (b) attendance at party conferences and (c) corporate hospitality in each year since it was established. [86193]

  Ms Hewitt
  These are matters for the Gas and Electricity markets Authority. The Chairman of the Authority will write to the hon. Member, and I have asked for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria she uses to assess the performance and salary of each member of the Ofgem Board. [86195]

  Mr. Wilson
  Executive members of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority do not receive any additional remuneration for their role as members.594W
  Their pay and conditions as executives are matters for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. Non-executive members are not eligible for performance-related pay, but their performance is assessed as required by the guidelines for public appointments before re-appointment.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the recruitment consultants used by her Department advised on the appointment of members of the Ofgem Board. [86201]

  Mr. Wilson
  A number of firms of recruitment consultants were retained by the Department under call-off contacts, one of which assisted with the process of appointment of the combined post of Director General of Gas supply and Director General of Electricity Supply (and Chairman-designate of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority).

  Post Office
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will discuss with the management of the Post Office its(a) complaints handling arrangements, (b) response times and (c) response to complaints concerning the Royal Mail from honourable Members; and if she will make a statement. [93071]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters which fall within the day to day responsibility of Royal Mail. If the hon. Member has specific points to raise in relation to these matters, I will be glad to take them up with the Chairman.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many subpostmasters have completed the training necessary for the operation of post office card accounts. [92876]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: This is a matter which falls within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Post Office Raids
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations she has received concerning security for local post offices against armed hold-ups in rural sub-post offices; and if she will make a statement; [93008]

  (2) what representations she has received from sub-post office masters about recent raids on local post offices in North Yorkshire. [93009]

  Mr. Timms
  There have been no representations. Security arrangements at all post offices are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. in conjunction with sub-postmasters.

  Post Offices (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial support is available to rural post offices in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [93016]
  595W
  Mr. Timms
  Rural post offices across the UK will benefit from the £450 million package of financial support for the rural post office network that I announced on 2 December 2002.

  The package is underpinned by the appointment of rural transfer advisers by POL and a £2 million fund to support community post office initiatives.

  The rural network also benefits from investment in the network generally. The rural network benefits from the considerable investment in the network's IT, and in new products, including universal banking services. On automation alone, the Government have made the largest ever investment in the Post Office—£480 million—much of it on the rural network.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) urban and (b) rural post offices closed in (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (ii) Shropshire in each year since 1997. [93074]

  Mr. Timms
  I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that current and historic data on the post office network is not held on a parliamentary constituency or county basis.

  Power Cuts
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with energy regulators to ensure energy companies receive lists of vulnerable people who are a priority for reconnection in the event of a power cut. [93319]

  Mr. Wilson
  Ministers and officials meet the Energy Regulator regularly and discuss a wide range of issues.

  The licence for Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) require them to maintain a register of customers who have special communication needs or depend on electricity for medical reasons, and who require advance notice of planned interruptions to supply. This ensures that the DNOs are aware of vulnerable customers, and can prioritise accordingly. The DNOs are also required to give advice via a code of practice (provision of services for persons who are of pensionable age or disabled or chronically sick).

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many press releases have been issued by her Department in each(a) year and (b) quarter from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [92471]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of DTI press releases issued since April 1995 were as follows:

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Total

  1995

  Not available

  195

  224

  246

  665

  1996

  265

  231

  224

  245

  965

  1997

  287

  142

  194

  252

  875

  1998

  212

  217

  194

  272

  895

  1999

  232

  258

  180

  239

  909

  2000

  213

  200

  181

  191

  785

  2001

  175

  109

  160

  185

  629

  2002

  184

  193

  177

  217

  771

  These quarterly statistics include a number of statutory type announcements (merger clearance, power
  596W
  station consents and company winding up petitions) that the Department is required to issue when individual decisions are made.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the Regulatory Impact Assessments produced by her Department since 1 May 1997; and if she will make a statement. [88836]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: Regulatory Impact Assessments were first introduced in August 1998. The Cabinet Office, in a bi-annual Command Paper, publishes lists of all Departments' Regulatory Impact Assessments, and their predecessors, Compliance Cost Assessments. Copies of the Command papers are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments published by my Department since July 2002, for which a Command Paper is yet to be published, are as follows:

  The Offshore Installations (Emergency Pollution Control) Regulations 2002

  The National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2002

  Wireless Telegraphy (Licences charges) Regulations 2002

  The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002

  The Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002

  The Maternity and Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2002

  The Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002

  The Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2002

  The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002

  Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill

  The Flexible Working (Procedural Requirements) Regulations 2002

  The Community designs (Fees) Regulations 2002

  Communications Bill

  Communications Bill—Media Ownership Rules

  Communications Bill—TV and Radio Services

  Communications Bill—Spectrum Trading

  Communications Bill—Newspaper Mergers

  Communications Bill—Setting up OFCOM as a Single Regulator

  Enterprise Act

  Enterprise Act—Competition Reform

  Enterprise Act—Consumer Protection

  Enterprise Act—Insolvency Provisions

  EC Directive 1999/44/EC on certain aspects of the sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees

  The Electricity (Approval of Pattern or Construction and Installation and Certification) (Amendment) Regulations 2002

  The Measuring Instruments (EC Requirements) (Electrical Energy Meters) (Amendment) Regulations 2002

  The Gas (Calculation of Thermal Energy (Amendment) Regulations 2002

  Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2002

  Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2002

  Rural Transfer Advisers
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to review the effectiveness of the Rural Transfer Advisers referred to
  597W
  in the report by the Scottish National Rural Partnership of November 2002, Section B.13 of Implementing Services in Rural Scotland; [93193]

  (2) where the six Rural Transfer Advisers referred to in the report by the Scottish National Rural Partnership of November 2002, Section B.13 of Implementing Services in Rural Scotland, are; and what progress they have made in preserving rural post offices. [93199]

  Mr. Timms
  The employment and effectiveness of Rural Transfer Advisers are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Scottish Post Offices
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which post offices in Scotland referred to in the report by the Scottish National Rural Partnership of November 2002, Section B.13 of Implementing Services in Rural Scotland, received funding from the Sub Post Office Start Up Capital Subsidy Funding; how much each has received; and what proportion this represented of the successful applications from throughout the UK. [93194]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. who operate the Sub Post Office Start Up Capital Subsidy Fund on behalf of the Department that 13 applications from Scotland had been approved, out of a total of 133 approved for the UK, as at end December 2002. As at that date, the amounts approved and paid in respect of applications from Scotland were as follows:

  £

  Approved

  Paid

  Achnasheen

  20,000

  289

  Almondbank

  17,750

  17,750

  Arnisdale

  1,810

  1,657

  Bernisdale

  11,131

  8,880

  Bowden

  5,000

  2,184

  Drinishader

  4,550

  —

  East Mains of Carseburn

  315

  315

  Glenboig

  17,500

  17,500

  Glencoe

  10,307

  10,307

  Laxay

  2,213

  1,664

  Ollaberry

  3,411

  3,411

  Strathkinness

  17,963

  —

  Struan

  3,898

  3,898

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90547]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 20 January, Official Report, column 12W.

  Sizewell
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which organisations were responsible for security at Sizewell B at 6.00 am on 13 January 2003; and what their responsibilities are; [93219]
  598W
  (2) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) of 20th January 2003, Official Report, column 9, what lessons were learnt from the Greenpeace UK incursion to Sizewell B in October 2002; and what actions were taken as a result of those lessons; [93220]

  (3) pursuant to her oral statement of 14 January 2003, Official Report, column 547, on the Sizewell security breach, when the Government's preliminary conclusion from the inquiry will be acted upon. [93254]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator, is reviewing security following the incursion into Sizewell B nuclear power station on 13 January by demonstrators organised by Greenpeace. Some security enhancements have already been identified and any others arising during the review will be implemented as soon as practicable. An earlier review was conducted following the incursion in October 2002 and action taken.

  Responsibility for security at the Sizewell B nuclear power station lies with British Energy, the site licensee. Site management comply with the company's security plan in respect of the site as required by the Nuclear Generating Stations (Security) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No. 665). OCNS, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, advises site management about security threats, specifies the security standards to be followed, approves the security plan and monitors compliance. OCNS had already required the station to implement several additional measures in response to the heightened terrorist threat.

  Space Industry Club
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the British National Space Centre's Best Practice in the Space Industry Club is self financing; how many United Kingdom companies are committed to the Club; and if she will make a statement. [91655]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Space Industry Best Practice Club is working towards achieving self-sufficiency. Including associates, it now has 60 members.

  I welcome the activities of the Club. It was set up under a joint commitment by the British National Space Centre and the United Kingdom Industrial Space Committee, and was launched by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science in 1999. Since then, it has worked hard to improve the competitiveness of British companies working in the space sector and has developed relationships with other sectors and within the European Space Agency.

  Transco
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many British Gas employees were qualified to purge and relight domestic premises affected by a major gas supply failure in 1994. [91408]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Health and Safety Executive that this information is not available.
  599W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Transco employees are qualified to purge and relight domestic premises affected by a major gas supply failure. [91409]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have been advised by the Health and Safety Executive that on 16 January 2003, Transco's statutory registration by the Council for Registered Gas Installers (CORGI) covered work by 2,707 emergency service operatives holding valid certificates of competence under one of the three recognised assessment schemes: the Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) scheme; the Nationally Accredited Certification Scheme (ACS); and the aligned National Vocational Qualification.

  Transco is also able to contract other CORGI-registered installers if additional resource is considered necessary due to the scale of the failure.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what tests her Department has conducted to establish the capacity of Transco to respond to a major gas supply failure without requiring the closure of power stations. [91410]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has carried out no such tests. However, I am advised by the Health and Safety Executive that Transco, in its capacity as the national Network Emergency Co-ordinator, has duties to test its arrangements for responding to a major gas supply failure and minimising its effects. Arrangements are also in place for activating a Government/industry Joint Response Team to co-ordinate action should a major supply failure occur, and these arrangements are periodically tested by means of joint exercises.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what capacity Transco(a) is required by regulation to maintain and (b) has to purge and relight domestic premises affected by a major gas supply failure. [91411]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996 (GSMR) require Transco as a gas conveyor to prepare a safety case which (a) demonstrates how it will minimise the risk of a gas supply emergency; and (b) gives particulars of the procedures it has established to restore safely the gas supply to consumers, should a supply failure occur.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contracts are in place between Transco and other companies to supply suitably qualified engineers to purge and relight domestic premises affected by a major gas supply failure. [91412]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  This commercial information is not available. The requirement of Schedule 1 of paragraph 21 of the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996 (GSMR) is for Transco as a gas conveyor to describe the particulars of the procedures that it has established to restore safely the gas supply to consumers following an interruption of supply.

  Westport Private Equity Limited
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what independent audits have taken place of Westport Private Equity Ltd.; whether these audits are available to Members; and if she will make a statement. [91651]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Westport Private Equity Ltd. has filed audited annual accounts at Companies House on a regular basis. The audited accounts for the year ended 31 December 2001 were filed on 15 May 2002. The accounts are available for public inspection.

TREASURY

  Employment Statistics
  Mr.Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in(a) central Government, (b) local and regional government, (c) agencies of government, (d) the services sector and (e) manufacturing in (i) June 1997 and (ii) December 2002. [92673]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Eric Forth, dated 27 January 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about how many people were employed in (a) central government, (b) local and regional government (c) agencies of government, (d) services sector and (e) manufacturing in (i) June 1997 and (ii) December 2002. (92673)
  The latest information is given below. The Office for National Statistics does not use the term 'agencies of government', so, for completeness, total public sector employment is shown:

  Workforce Jobs by Sector

  thousands

  June 1997

  June 2001

  September 2002

  Central government

  870

  874

  not available

  Local authorities

  2,593

  2,732

  not available

  Public non-financial corporations

  1,491

  1,557

  not available

  Total public sector

  4,954

  5,163

  not available

  Total services (seasonally adjusted)

  21,152

  22,922

  23,158

  Manufacturing (seasonally adjusted)

  4,493

  4,054

  3,835

  Source:

  Economic Trends, June 2002 issue, ONS

  Labour Market Trends Table B.I8, ONS

  Estimates of workforce jobs are based on the results of regular sample surveys of employers which count the number of employee jobs. Full information on public sector employment is published once a year; data for 2002 will be published in an article in Economic Trends in June 2003.

  The Cabinet Office publication 'Civil Service Statistics 2001' shows civil servants in main departments and Next Step agencies separately and a separate Cabinet Office publication, 'Public Bodies 2001' gives details of employment in Non-Departmental Public Bodies. Both these publications are available from the House of Commons Library.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will place in the Library evaluation
  601W
  reports on advertising campaigns conducted in each of the last five financial years by (a) National Savings and (b) the Office for National Statistics. [92830]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  National Savings and Investments

  Every advertising campaign run by National Savings and Investments is monitored and evaluated.

  Methods of evaluation:

  Calls/sales evaluation

  All press advertisements are media coded. Calls generated through advertising are monitored, and associated sales are monitored and evaluated in terms of return on investment to ensure the cost effectiveness of campaigns.

  Brand awareness and perception of the brand

  A continuous tracking study measures awareness of the brand and advertising campaigns and associated changes in the perception of the brand and consideration to save with us.

  Independent auditing

  All advertising spend is audited quarterly by independent auditors to ensure value for money is achieved in buying press space and TV airtime.

  As regards to placing the evaluation reports in the Library, much of the information contained in these reports is commercially sensitive. We operate in a commercial marketplace to ensure value for money is achieved in buying press space and TV airtime. Making public the information on our advertising effectiveness would allow media owners the competitive advantage in negotiations and so jeopardise our ability to secure favourable terms for advertising in the future.

  Office for National Statistics

  The Office for National Statistics advertising expenditure for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 was £3,000 and used to promote the availability of statistics.

  Expenditure on advertising in 2000–01 and 2001–02 was £1,272,000 and £1,770,000 respectively. The spend in these two years covered the campaign to raise awareness of the 2001 Census. It aimed to encourage the population of England and Wales to take part.

  Evaluation was by results. These demonstrated that 98 per cent. of households completed and returned their Census form.

  A review of the Census publicity campaign has been published on the National Statistics website. The web address for the report is www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/proj_pub.asp.

  No advertising expenditure was incurred by ONS in 2002–03.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he has received about the likely impact of the introduction of tax-transparent property investment trusts on the supply of affordable housing in the UK. [92568]
  602W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are aware of the arguments for and against the introduction of tax transparent property investment vehicles, including those submitted by the property industry itself. Proposals on tax are a matter for consideration by the Chancellor in the Budget.

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amounts of the capital modernisation fund allocated for financial years(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [92792]

  Ruth Kelly
  As shown in table B 15 of the pre-Budget report 2002, the allocations to the capital modernisation fund are £1.2 billion, £0.9 billion and –1 billion in 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 respectively.

  Of the £1.2 billion in 2003–04, £0.8 billion has already been allocated to Departments.

  Details of all capital modernisation fund projects announced to date are available on the Treasury website (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

  CAT Standard
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the introduction of a common recognisable logo for products which meet the CAT standard. [92566]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government decided that setting appropriate standards would be the best way to establish a range of straightforward financial products that are simple, clear and fair.

  These standards have had a positive influence in the market on behalf of consumers.

  Cigarettes
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 748W, on cigarettes, what assumptions he made regarding affordability and profitability of trips; and if he will make a statement. [92777]

  John Healey
  The profitability and affordability of trips depend on several factors, including the price of tobacco products, the cost of passage to other EU member states and the level of disposable income available to different shoppers. Variations in cost between routes and products, in shoppers' income and in their understanding of existing unlimited shopping rights, prevent explicit or quantifiable relationships being derived about the likely response—in terms of the
  603W
  number of shoppers, the frequency of their trips and the scale of their purchases—to changes in indicative levels for tobacco. The assumptions used to inform the estimates of the revenue impact of the new indicative levels reflect Customs' best judgment on the basis of the available evidence.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 748W, on cigarettes, what proportion of travellers who previously purchased at the indicative level were expected to increase their purchases to the new indicative level; and if he will make a statement. [92797]

  John Healey
  As I stated in my answer of 16 January 2003, HM Customs and Excise's survey data of cross-channel travellers shows that the majority of travellers make no purchases of cigarettes and that, of those who do make purchases, two-thirds purchase below the previous indicative level of 800 cigarettes, and that a further 15 per cent. purchase above. The recent change to the levels can be expected to have little effect on the shopping patterns of these travellers.

  The assumptions for the public finance forecasts relate to the impact on behaviour of those travellers purchasing at the previous indicative levels for tobacco. For this group of travellers it was assumed that:
  those who are purchasing with intent to resell illegally in the UK would increase their purchases to the new indicative level; and
  the remainder would increase their purchases to an average level of 1,600, equivalent to a three-month supply for an average smoker.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to issue a report on the new approach to investigations of company accounts. [92816]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In consultation with representative bodies, the Inland Revenue has recently extended the framework developed for inquiries into Income Tax Self Assessment returns to cover Corporation Tax Self Assessment inquiries. The framework does not involve any new powers and does not affect taxpayers' rights. Rather, it is designed to enhance co-operation in inquiries between the Inland Revenue and tax practitioners. Details of the framework, as it extends to Corporation Tax, will be published in a 'Working Together' newsletter in February or early March 2003. The Working Together Group is a partnership between the Inland Revenue and those bodies who represent tax practitioners. There are no plans to issue a separate report.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of computer misuse there were in his Department in each of the last five years, broken down by each category of misuse; and how many of those cases resulted in disciplinary action. [93051]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows.
  604W

  HM Treasury

  Cases of potential misuse investigated

  Disciplinary action

  1998

  Nil

  Nil

  1999

  1

  1

  2000

  3

  3

  2001

  1

  1

  2002

  1

  1

  The Treasury has about 1,200 employees all of whom have access to the Departmental office IT system.

  Inland Revenue

  Cases of potential misuse investigated

  Disciplinary action

  1998

  61

  56

  1999

  239

  166

  2000

  300

  233

  2001

  226

  188

  2002

  211

  205

  The Inland Revenue has over 70,000 employees the vast majority of whom have access to customer records to carry out their duties.

  The Department's records of these cases are not broken down by category of misuse.

  HM Customs and Excise

  Cases of potential misuse investigated

  Disciplinary action

  1998

  2

  0

  1999

  1

  0

  2000

  11

  11

  2001

  37

  18

  2002

  101

  42

  The cases of potential misuse break down as follows:

  IT systems

  Database access

  E-mail

  Internet

  Total

  1998

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1999

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2000

  6

  1

  4

  —

  11

  2001

  10

  5

  21

  1

  37

  2002

  6

  4

  83

  8

  101

  HM Customs and Excise employs over 20,000 people. The majority of staff have access to internal e-mail and external Internet services. A limited number of staff have access to databases that contain information regarding the business activities of registered traders. This access is required to enable staff to undertake their duties.

  Congestion Charge
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether payments made by public sector employers to employees working within the Central London congestion charging zone by way of reimbursement of congestion charges incurred on travel to their place of work will be treated as taxable emoluments, subject to(a) tax and NI payments by the recipient employee and (b) employers' NI contributions. [92569]
  605W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes, in the same way as other payments made by employers to employees for travel costs to their normal place of work.

  Corporate Profitability
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the levels of UK corporate profitability were in each year since 1996. [92819]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 27 January 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on levels of UK corporate profitability in each year since 1996.
  Information on profits and rates of return for private sector non-financial companies is available in the "Profitability of UK Companies" First Release which is published by the Office for National Statistics and is available from the House of Commons Library. It is also available from the National Statistics website: www.statistics.gov.uk.
  Tables 1 to 7 give data back to 1989 or earlier. The latest currently available data cover the 3rd quarter of 2002. Data for the whole of 2002 will be published on 2nd April 2003.
  The ONS does not produce estimates of rates of return for financial companies, but estimates of profits for this period are in table A3 of "United Kingdom National Accounts" which is also available from the National Statistics website.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total excess working hours worked by staff in his Department in each year from 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [93448]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information before January 1999 is not available. Information from January 1999 is available in the Library of the House and was referred to in the answer I gave on 25 February 2002 to the hon. member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)Official Report, columns 1045–46W.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held on 21 January; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [93156]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the ECOFIN meeting on 21 January.

  The Presidency and the Commission introduced their work programmes for ECOFIN. The principal objective would be to maintain a stable macroeconomic environment and boost confidence and growth through a renewed commitment to structural reforms.

  The council reached political agreement on the tax package, based on proposals outlined by the presidency at the 3 December 2002 ECOFIN meeting, and discussed at the 11 December 2002 ECOFIN meeting.

  The council confirmed the agreement at the Feira European Council that the objective of the EU should be exchange of information on as wide a basis as
  606W
  possible. And it confirmed the rejection at Feira of an EU-wide withholding tax, which would have had severe implications for the London bond market.

  Political agreement was reached that 12 member states will move to automatic exchange of information on the savings income of EU residents. Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg will move to automatic exchange of information by the end of the first full fiscal year from the date when the council agrees by unanimity that the third countries named at Feira have committed to the OECD standard of exchange of information on request.

  Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg will operate a transitional withholding tax of 15 per cent. from 1 January 2004, 20 per cent. from 1 January 2007, and 35 per cent. from 1 January 2010. The council agreed that the EC should enter into an agreement with Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra and San Marino to adopt the same rates of withholding and maintain the 35 per cent. after adoption of exchange of information to the OECD standard.

  The council assessed that in respect of dependent and associated territories the necessary reassurances had been received that the same measures would be applied as in EU member states, and that in respect of the United States the necessary reassurances had been received that equivalent measures would be applied.

  The council committed itself to formal adoption of the tax package before the European Council in March 2003. This is dependent upon receiving firm offers from Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Andorra, San Marino and Monaco to enter into agreements as outlined, and on the council assessing the work of the Code of Conduct Group on the rollback of the identified harmful business tax measures of member states and of dependent and associated territories.

  In furtherance of the ultimate objective of exchange of information on as wide a basis as possible, the council asked the commission to continue negotiations with Switzerland and the other third countries for the exchange of information and to report back to the council before 2007, and to enter into discussions with other important financial centres.

  On the Stability and Growth Pact, the council adopted Opinions on the Stability and Convergence programmes of Sweden, Finland, Greece, Italy, Germany and France. The council adopted a Recommendation on an Excessive Deficit Procedure for Germany. It also adopted a Recommendation on an Early Warning for France, with France abstaining.

  In view of the lengthy discussion on the tax package, the presidency decided to postpone discussion of energy taxation and VAT administrative co-operation to the 18 February ECOFIN.

  No formal votes were taken at this meeting.

  Employment Distribution
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what the distribution of employment in finance and insurance was in each Government office region and nation of the United Kingdom in(a) 1996, (b) 2000 and (c) the most recent available period. [89905]
  607W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Jim Cousins, dated 27 January 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question (158) about the distribution of employment in finance and insurance in each Government Office Region and nation of the United Kingdom in (a) 1996, (b)2000 and (c)the most recent available period. (89905)
  The attached table shows the number of employee jobs in financial intermediation by Government Office Region for 1996, 2000 and 2002. The latest earlier years also relate to September. figures are for September 2002, and, for improved comparability, the figures for earlier years also relate to September.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has assumed the(a) responsibilities and (b) potential liabilities of the regulatory bodies previously charged with regulating the affairs of the Equitable Life Assurance Society. [93256]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury was responsible for the prudential supervision of insurers between 5 January 1998 (prior to this responsibility rested with the Department of Trade and Industry) and 30 November 2001. Between 5 January 1998 and 31 December 1998 the Treasury undertook this task directly. From 1 January 1999 the Treasury contracted out most of its functions relating to prudential insurance supervision to the FSA. The FSA became responsible for prudential insurance supervision in its own right from midnight on 30 November 2001 when the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) came into force.

  Under the provisions of Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, the Treasury remains responsible for the actions carried out by the FSA on behalf of the Treasury during the period of contracting out. Under the Transfer of Functions (Insurance) Order 1997 (S11997/2781) the Treasury became responsible for all the liabilities of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in connection with the functions which were transferred to the Treasury.

  Under the Financial Services Act 1986, conduct of business regulation was the responsibility of the Personal Investment Authority (PIA), a self-regulating organisation recognised by the FSA. Between 1 June 1998 and 30 November 2001, FSA staff carried out work on behalf of the PIA Board, under contract, in preparation for the implementation of FSMA when conduct of business regulation also became the responsibility of the FSA.

  Under transitional provisions made under FSMA, the FSA assumed the liabilities of the PIA and other Self Regulatory Organisations when the Act came into force.

  Euro
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes, within the assessment of the five economic tests, to verify whether present and planned levels of public expenditure could be maintained if the UK were to join the Euro. [93117]
  608W
  Ruth Kelly
  A comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the Five Economic Tests will be completed within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  The Government remains fully committed to its plans for public spending. These plans provide a much needed boost to public investment in key public services including schools, hospitals and transport, redressing years of under-investment, while maintaining economic stability.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment was made by HM Treasury of the economic consequences of joining the euro in the first wave; and if he will publish it. [93118]

  Ruth Kelly
  "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" was published by HM Treasury in October 1997. A copy can be found in the Library, and is also available on the HM Treasury website.

  Euro Pamphlets
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses were sent the pamphlets, "Do you trade with business or individuals from the euro area?" and "Do you know whether the euro's introduction in the euro area could affect your cashflow and profits"; how many have responded to date; and what the cost was of this exercise. [91618]

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the statement by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, of 15 January,Official Report 307–88WH, what the cost was of the printing and distribution of the factsheets and business case studies on the euro. [92319]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of HM Treasury expenditure on business euro preparations were included in the 'Sixth Report on Euro Preparations', published on 18 July 2002. Copies of the report were deposited in the Library of the House.

  In Autumn 2002, over 1.4 million businesses were sent a mailer containing the 'Dealing with the euro' leaflet. 11,600 requests for additional information on how to deal with the euro as a foreign currency have been received to date and 34,600 copies of material relating to the euro as a foreign currency sent to UK businesses. The cost of this mailing was met from within departmental resources.

  Exchange Rates
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of exchange rates on small businesses in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2002. [93010]

  John Healey
  The effects of exchange rate changes are difficult to isolate with any confidence, but the Government recognise the difficulties that the recent weakness of the euro has caused for exporters, including many small businesses.

  The Government seek a stable and competitive pound over the medium-term, and the best contribution it can make is to deliver low, stable inflation and sound public finances. Previous experience shows that any short-term

  609W
  attempt to manipulate the exchange rate can lead to wider economic instability, with damaging consequences for small businesses.

  Financial Advisers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will relax the requirement on small independent financial advisers with a good claims record to obtain professional indemnity insurance; and if he will make a statement. [93354]

  Ruth Kelly
  This is a matter for the Financial Services Authority (the FSA). The requirement for independent financial adviser firms to have professional indemnity insurance is contained in their rules.

  The FSA is aware of the difficulties facing such firms and will be publishing a consultation document shortly.

  Fraud and Theft
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89897]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been lost by his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies through(a) fraud and (b) theft for each year since 1996–97. [92437]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Members to my answer of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 651W. On the basis set out there, the Treasury's losses to theft and fraud in 2001–02 were £1,000.

  Fuel Poverty
  Estelle Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of fuel duty on low-income families in rural areas. [92354]

  John Healey
  We have made no specific assessment of the effects of fuel duty on low-income families in rural areas. As with all families, they will have benefited from the effective duty reduction on ultra low sulphur petrol and diesel in Budget 2001, and the duty freeze on other oils in that Budget, and on all oils in Budget 2002.

  Health and Safety Strategy
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) 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; [89522]

  (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; [89521]

  (3) 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
  610W
  Safety to summarise health and safety performance and plans in Annual Reports from the year 2000–01 onwards. [89520]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by the Minister of State, Department of Work and Pensions on 20 January,Official Report, columns 85–86W.

  In addition, my Department and agencies are fully committed to supporting the aims of the "Revitalising Strategy" and to continuous improvement in all areas within the checklist circulated by Sir Richard Mottram and the good practice guide issued by the High Level Forum.

  The Treasury and Office of Government Commerce (OGC) summarise health and safety performance within their departmental Annual Reports. The Debt Management Office and the Royal Mint plan to do so in their departmental reports for 2002–03.

  At departmental board level within the Treasury and its agencies the following board members have been given responsibility for health and safety:

  HM Treasury—Managing Director Corporate Services
  and Development;

  Office of Government Commerce—Chief Executive;

  The Royal Mint—Director of Human Resources and Corporate Affairs;

  The Debt Management Office—Chief Executive.

  These details are published in our Health and Safety Policy Statements and made available on our intranet sites.

  HM Treasury
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of total public spending on HM Treasury in(a) current and (b) capital terms in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04 (planned), in 2001–02 prices; and if he will make a statement; [93454]

  (2) what his estimate is of total staff numbers within HM Treasury for each year from 1990–91 to 2004–05 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [93453]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to expenditure figures in the Treasury's annual reports (of which the most recent is Cm 5425). GDP deflators are available in the 'Economic Data and Tools' section of the Treasury website: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk Details on staff numbers are published in "Civil Service Statistics", copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  HM Treasury Staff
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many HM Treasury staff are based at Great George Street in London; and what floor space of office accommodation they are occupying. [92221]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury moved to 1 Horse Guards Road in July 2002, where all staff are now based. The Department occupies 22,223 square metres of net usable
  611W
  area. Details on staff numbers are published in Civil Service Statistics copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Immigration
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the net non EU foreign immigration to the UK was, including the dependants of asylum seekers, in each year from 1992 to 2001(a) before the recent adjustments to take account of the census results and (b) after these adjustments had been made. [93370]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. N. Soames, dated 27 January 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question on the net immigration of non-EU nationals to the UK from 1992 to 2001. (93370) The information requested is provided in the attached table which shows the net migration estimates for non-EU nationals for 1992 to 2001. Two different estimates are shown in the table: (i) interim revised net migration estimates for non-EU nationals for 1992 to 2001 that take preliminary account of the 2001 Census results, and (ii) the original series of net migration estimates for non-EU nationals compiled prior to the results of the 2001 Census becoming available; it should be noted that the latter series has now been withdrawn.
  The estimates shown in the table take account of dependants of asylum seekers. The Office for National Statistics are working closely with the Home Office to ensure that the best use is made of the recently available detailed Home Office information on dependants of asylum seekers in preparation of the revised international migration series which will be published in late Spring 2003. These revised estimates will be based upon more detailed information from the 2001 Census and further research work and will supercede the interim series included in the attached table.

  Net migration to the UK of non-EU1 nationals

  Thousands

  Year

  Interim revised series2

  Original series3

  1992

  + 31.2

  + 68.9

  1993

  + 36.5

  + 72.5

  1994

  + 58.7

  + 95.7

  1995

  + 77.0

  + 116.7

  1996

  + 69.0

  + 105.4

  1997

  + 70.4

  + 110.8

  1998

  + 105.6

  + 150.6

  1999

  + 132.3

  + 182.5

  2000

  + 165.0

  + 222.3

  2001

  + 178.1

  1Figures for all years show EU as it was constituted on 1 January 1995.

  2 These estimates represent interim revised migration estimates, adjusted in light of first results of the 2001 Census. Further revisions to the series, in the light of more detailed 2001 Census data, will be made available in late Spring 2003. This table includes adjustments for asylum seekers, and for persons admitted as short-term visitors who are subsequently granted an extension of stay for other reasons—for example, as students or on the basis of marriage.

  3These are the original published estimates for 1992–2000 compiled prior to the results of the 2001 Census being available. This series has now been withdrawn and superceded by the interim revised estimates released on 28 November 2002 and shown in the first column.

  Income Tax Evasion
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers have been prosecuted for fraudulently evading income tax in each year since 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [90980]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A new offence of fraudulently evading Income Tax, which can be tried in a magistrate's court or in a crown court, was introduced in Finance Act 2000 in response to the recommendations of Lord Grabiner's report "The Informal Economy (March 2000). The legislation applies to offences committed from 1 January 2001. No prosecutions have as yet been completed using the new legislation.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days were lost to industrial action in the UK in each month since January 1991 up to the most recent date for which information is available. [92766]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 27 January 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the days lost to industrial action in the UK in each month since January 1991 up to the most recent date. (92766)
  The table below shows the number of working days lost in each month from January 1991 to November 2002.

  Number of Working Days lost in the United Kingdom 1991–2002 (000s)

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Jan

  44

  56

  49

  2

  24

  51

  Feb

  36

  24

  71

  4

  18

  36

  Mar

  55

  35

  74

  8

  28

  15

  Apr

  105

  24

  154

  15

  34

  13

  May

  105

  28

  30

  33

  51

  8

  Jun

  53

  33

  15

  70

  16

  241

  Jul

  57

  37

  50

  32

  32

  149

  Aug

  64

  54

  19

  39

  19

  442

  Sep

  78

  70

  8

  20

  25

  122

  Oct

  84

  47

  4

  14

  31

  39

  Nov

  46

  65

  175

  17

  77

  162

  Dec

  34

  53

  1

  23

  60

  25

  Total

  761

  528

  649

  278

  415

  1303

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Jan

  25

  16

  9

  11

  52

  92

  Feb

  14

  19

  27

  6

  36

  24

  Mar

  36

  33

  35

  18

  48

  80

  Apr

  48

  14

  4

  11

  16

  15

  May

  36

  7

  50

  14

  93

  81

  Jun

  13

  70

  16

  7

  12

  57

  Jul

  11

  59

  8

  36

  24

  521

  Aug

  6

  24

  10

  115

  18

  13

  Sep

  1

  6

  22

  93

  24

  9

  Oct

  19

  7

  19

  14

  39

  42

  Nov

  14

  18

  22

  115

  62

  371

  Dec

  12

  11

  20

  59

  102

  Total

  235

  282

  242

  499

  525

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the state of manufacturing industry in the UK. [92767]

  John Healey
  The global economic slowdown of 2001 was the principal cause of recent difficulties faced by UK manufacturers. G7 industrial output grew by 4.7 per cent. in 2000. During 2001 it contracted by 3.6 per cent. This was the sharpest slowdown in G7 industrial activity since 1975. But manufacturing output showed signs of stabilising in the course of 2002—in Q3 it rose by over 1 per cent., ending six consecutive quarters of decline.

  The stable macroeconomic framework is creating the right underlying conditions to enable manufacturing to invest, grow and prosper. The UK stands ready to benefit from any sustained recovery in the sector due to strong economic fundamentals and the Government's pro-active enterprise agenda.

  In particular, corporation tax is now lower than in any major industrialised country. Cuts in capital gains tax mean the UK's CGT regime will be more favourable than the US's from April. R&D tax credits for large companies will provide an important boost to UK manufacturing and RDAs have been created to drive growth in every English region.

  New Deal
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expenditure on(a) New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, (b) New Deal for over-25s, (c) New Deal for over-50s, (d) New Deal for lone parents, (e) New Deal for disabled people, (f) New Deal for partners of unemployed people, (g) New Deal for schools, childcare and University for Industry was in each year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [93385]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on the allocation of the windfall tax can be found in the pre-Budget report published in November 2002, which is available in the Library.

  Expenditure within Departmental Expenditure Limit can be found in the departmental annual reports.

  Date

  Event

  4 April 2000

  Public sector EXPO 2000

  20 February 2001

  Gateway Process Launch Transcript

  ¾April 2001

  Public sector EXPO 2001

  22 May 2001

  Greening Government Procurement Conference

  12 June 2001

  PFI Conference

  7 September 2001

  Global Revolution II Conference

  20 November 2001

  GSSA Procurement event II—"Are we getting IT right now?"

  17/18 April 2002

  Public Sector EXPO 2002

  13 May 2002

  OGC/NAO Joint Seminar on Contract Management—"Managing long term contractual relationships"

  28 May 2002

  Public Private Finance Congress—"The procurement policy—A government update"

  12 June 2002

  Government Computing Conference— "Commercial reform in public services"

  28 June 2002

  Worldwide Workplace Web (W4) Conference—"OGC: Catalysing value for money in public procurement"

  23 September 2002

  Successful Delivery Skills Launch

  16 October 2002

  OGC/HMT/PUK Conference on PPP/PFI—"Improving client capability"

  16 October 2002

  Defence Estates Conference for Industry

  614W
  Information on the expenditure of (a) through (f) can be found in Appendix 3 of the Department for Work and Pensions departmental report published in May 2002, which is available in the Library.

  Information on the expenditure for New Deal for schools, childcare and University for Industry can be found in Table 4.2 of the Department for Education and Skills 2002 departmental report, which is available in the Library.

  Other sources of child care expenditure include local authorities and devolved Governments.

  Office of Government Commerce
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how effective the Office of Government Commerce has been at reducing costs for HM Government. [92982]

  Mr. Boateng
  OGC has a target of delivering £1 billion of savings in Government procurement in the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03. After the first two years of this target period, Departments have reported total gains of £815 million.

  Partnerships UK
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 169W, on Partnerships UK, what percentage of Partnerships UK is owned by HM Treasury. [93027]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Treasury and the Scottish Ministers hold 44.56 per cent. and 4.44 per cent. respectively of Partnerships UK's share capital. Further details of the company's structure and business activities can be found on its website, www. partnershipsuk.org.uk, and in the company's Public Information Memorandum and Annual Report for the year 2002 which are available from the House Library.

  Peter Gershon
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the speeches made by Peter Gershon in his capacity as Chief Executive of the Office of Government Commerce since his appointment; and if he will place copies of the speeches in the Library. [93196]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is contained in the table and copies of the speeches made by Peter Gershon, Chief Executive of the Office of Government Commerce are available on the OGC Website www.ogc.qov.uk
  615W

  Date

  Event

  30 October 2002

  Senior IT Forum Product Launch

  30 October 2002

  Property and Construction Forum 2002—"Achieving value for money in property and construction projects"

  6 November 2002

  SOPO Conference—"Defining the future of procurement"

  Public Services
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of HM Treasury spending on improving the cost-effectiveness and quality of public services in each year from 1997; and if he will make a statement. [93440]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1999–2000 figures for expenditure in support of the Treasury's better public services objective have been published in schedule 5 of its annual resource accounts (Cm 5062 and HC 573). The 2001–02 accounts will be published shortly. No figures are available for earlier years.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made in delivering on his public service agreement target to improve the productivity of public services year by year; and if he will make a statement. [93452]

  Mr. Boateng
  Progress against this target is set out on page 6 of the HM Treasury Autumn Performance Report, Cm 5665.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the level of NI employee contribution paid on behalf of individuals in their main job is protected during periods of service as an armed forces reservist; and if he will make a statement. [93341]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Armed forces reservists receive earnings from the Ministry of Defence for periods of service. These earnings are liable to national insurance contributions.

  Reservists' Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether periods of service as an armed forces reservist count as periods of continued employment in a taxpayer's main job for the purposes of the favourable tax treatment given to the share option scheme called Enterprise Management Incentive; and if he will make a statement; [93345]

  (2) whether favourable tax treatment available to taxpayers in continued employment is lost to them during periods of service as an armed forces reservist; and if he will make a statement. [93344]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Enterprise Management Incentive rules dealing with employees' working time do not cater specifically for periods of service by armed forces reservists. Normally this will not cause difficulty in determining an employee's eligibility to the tax advantages available under Enterprise Management Incentives. However, I will be asking my officials to consider whether any issues may arise.
  616W
  I am not aware of other instances where favourable tax treatment will in practice be lost, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind perhaps he will write to me.

  Royal Mint
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 596W, on the Royal Mint, for what reasons the review is commercially confidential; and if he will make a statement. [92825]

  Ruth Kelly
  The review is considered commercially confidential because if made public the review might unfairly prejudice the commercial position of the Royal Mint, to the detriment of the taxpayer.

  Skye Bridge Toll
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will return to the Scottish Executive the revenue derived following the Scottish Executive's decision to pay the VAT on the Skye Bridge toll. [90899]

  John Healey
  Any agreements entered into by the Scottish Executive in respect of the Skye Bridge following the imposition of VAT on tolls will be funded from within the existing 2002 Spending Review settlement.

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the growth rate of the London Stock Exchange in comparison to the other major stock exchanges of the world in the last three years. [92984]

  Mr. Boateng
  Between 1999 and 2002 the number of UK equity transactions conducted on the London Stock Exchange's main market rose by 78 per cent. Other major stock exchanges have also experienced a rise in transactions.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual cost is to the Inland Revenue of the collection of student loan repayments; and if he will make a statement. [91724]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue operates the collection of student loans scheme on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills. All costs are met by DfES.

  Tax Evasion (Construction Industry)
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to combat tax evasion in the construction industry. [93386]
  617W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Since April 2002, the Inland Revenue has increased the number of specialist units which deal with industry compliance with the construction industry scheme from nine to 12.

  In addition, there are around 70 Employer Compliance Units that review businesses' compliance with their PAYE obligations and carry out employment status reviews. Each unit has staff specialising in status and construction industry work. These units are:

  participating in a national project which is examining all contracts between a sample of contractors and sub-contractors to ensure proper compliance with tax obligations;

  ensuring that a minimum percentage of resource is deployed on construction industry reviews (6 per cent.), including those identified by the national project; and

  ensuring that a minimum percentage of reviews relate to cases with a significant construction industry element (6.5 per cent.).

  A consultation paper, "The Inland Revenue and the Construction Industry: Working Together for a New Scheme", was published alongside the Pre-Budget Report. The paper outlines proposals for a replacement scheme that would reduce the burden of the scheme on the industry while providing the Revenue's compliance officers with new systems to enable them to tackle noncompliance quickly and effectively.

  Treasury Building (PFI Deal)
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total professional fees were for the Treasury Building PFI deal, broken down by(a) payer and (b) payee. [93404]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 27 June 2002,Official Report, columns 1051–52W.

  Treasury Expenditure (Parliamentary Bodies)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of his Department's spending on the(a) Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, (b) British American Parliamentary Group, (c) Inter-Parliamentary Group and (d) British-Irish Parliamentary Body in each year from 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [93451]

  Mr. Boateng
  The annual amounts of grant-in-daid paid to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), the British American Parliamentary Group (BAPG), the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the British-Irish Parliamentary Body are set out in the table.

  £

  CPA

  BAPG

  IPU

  BMP

  1997–98

  88,750

  70,170

  843,899

  149,601

  1998–99

  888,750

  82,124

  785,000

  149,000

  1999–2000

  868,300

  73,350

  785,000

  201,700

  2000–01

  2,498,683

  84,600

  853,000

  218,000

  2001–02

  93,750

  85,420

  0

  95,000

  2002–031

  362,710

  96,250

  294,000

  0

  1 Forecast

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the exemption date for vehicle excise duty on classic cars to vehicles made before 1 January 1973. [92805]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor announced in his 1998 Budget speech that rolling forward exemption for vehicles over 25-years-old would stop so that only vehicles manufactured before 1 January 1973 remained eligible for the exemption. Continuing the rolling forward exemption was difficult to justify on environmental grounds. Any changes to taxation policy will be announced by the Chancellor in the context of his Budget judgment.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average length of time is which it takes for a new applicant to receive Working Families Tax Credit; and how much back-dating of Working Families Tax Credit is allowable. [92892]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Specific figures are not available giving average UK processing times for new Working Families Tax Credit applications. But the Inland Revenue aims to decide 91 per cent. of all Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) applications within 30 days of receiving them, and for the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 December 2002, the Inland Revenue assessed 97 per cent. of all WFTC applications within 30 days of receipt.

  Entitlement to Working Families Tax Credit is generally based on a family's circumstances at the date they make their application. Where a late application is made, there are prescribed circumstances in which backdating of up to a maximum of three months may be allowed.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take action to ensure that housing designated as affordable housing when planning consent is given is(a) affordable in relation to the market in the planning authority area rather than solely in relation to the specific site land values and (b) retained within the affordable housing sector for a reasonable period. [93005]

  Mr. McNulty
  Circular 06/98 "Planning and Affordable Housing" advises that local planning authorities should define in their local plans what they regard as affordable housing, based on up-to-date surveys and other data of local need. The circular explains that definitions should be framed to endure for the life of the plan, for instance, through references to the level of local incomes and their relationship to house prices or rents, rather than to a particular price or rent.

  Circular 06/98 also provides guidance on the securing and controlling of the occupancy of such housing by, for example, the involvement of a registered social landlord or through the use of appropriate planning conditions

  619W
  or obligations. The Government are looking at circular 06/98 and whether it needs to be revised. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [90876]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created as a separate Department on 29 May 2002 and will publish its first annual report in the spring of 2003. Material which is relevant to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibilities can be found in the annual reports of the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Cabinet Office.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish his Office's annual report for 2002–03. [91619]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to publish its first Annual Report in April 2003.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Office is taking to promote(a) the decontamination of contaminated land and (b) its development in preference to development of green field sites; and if he will make a statement. [91623]

  Mr. McNulty
  As my right hon Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in his statement on sustainable communities, housing and planning on 18 July 2002,Official Report columns 438–442. the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister needs to make better use of land. The Government target that 60 per cent. of additional homes should be on brown-field land is being met but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister needs to keep up the pressure.

  English Partnerships have been appointed as the Government's expert advisors on brown-field land. They are currently working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to draw up a National Brown-field Strategy to be presented to the Deputy Prime Minister for approval in Spring 2003.

  In addition, The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted in February 2002 on new technical planning advice on the development on land affected by contamination. This emphasised the positive role of planning in bringing about the remediation of contaminated land. It recognised particularly that much of the contaminated land identified under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be subject to voluntary remediation through the planning system as part of the process of redevelopment. This revision of the contaminated land aspects of Planning policy guidance note 23 will be incorporated later this year in a new Planning policy statement, accompanied by a technical annexes on development on land affected by contamination.

  Departmental Credit Cards
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many credit cards have been issued for official use by the Department since May 2002; how many departmental credit cards are in use; what has been the itemised cost for each credit card; and how many departmental credit cards are in use that were issued prior to May 2002. [91629]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister uses the Government Procurement Card and Corporate Card; there is no cost to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is unable to separate figures from Department for Transport without incurring disproportionate cost.

  There were 84 cards issued since May 2002, which brings the total number in use at present to 214. Prior to May 2002 there were 125 cards in use.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90511]

  Mr. Leslie
  The total cost to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on external consultants since it was established on 29 May 2002 is £24,126,108.

  Golden Jubilee Medals
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what reasons underlie the delay in awarding firefighters with their Golden Jubilee medals; and if he will make a statement. [92841]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no delay. The schedule agreed with the Royal Mint when the contract was extended to include emergency services, provided for the issue to be completed by June 2003.

  Headstones
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what mechanism exists for compensating relatives for the cost of raising headstones that have been laid flat for safety reasons by local authorities; [91879]

  (2) what measures he advises local authorities to take to advise relatives of the instability of headstones in cemeteries; [91882]

  (3) how many (a) deaths and (b) injuries have been attributed to unsafe headstones in cemeteries in each year since 1990; [91878]

  (4) if he will estimate the cost to local authorities in 2002–03 of the safety testing of headstones; [91880]

  (5) what guidance is issued to local authorities on funding the safety of headstones in cemeteries. [91881]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the total number of deaths and injuries is not recorded centrally, but I understand that, sadly, there have been at least one death and 14 injuries attributed to unstable memorials in recent years.
  621W
  Advice for all burial authorities on the issues arising from unsafe memorials is currently being considered by the Home Office-chaired Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group. The aim is to supplement and expand on existing advice issued by the Health and Safety Executive and the relevant professional organisations. I expect to issue that advice later this year.

  If a local authority has acted in a way which gives ground for compensation, or is found by a court to have so acted, it will be a matter for the authority to decide whether or how to meet any proper claim.

  Information is not available on the extent of safety testing by local authorities and an estimate on such costs cannot therefore be made.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for each region from the latest available English house condition survey the figures for(a) construction date, (b) unfitness, (c) worst and best condition, (d) unfit vacants, (e) unfitness, broken down by dwelling type, (f) reason for vacancy and (g) variation of general comprehensive and urgent repair costs, broken down by type of tenure. [92068]

  Mr. McNulty
  The 1996 English House Condition Survey (EHCS) regional report provides the currently available EHCS results which can be produced at the regional level. A copy of the report is available in the Library of the House. Copies of the supporting data tables are available on the website at http://www.odpm.gov.uk.

  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many households were classified as homeless

  Average registered social landlords weekly rents in rural areas only—as at 31 March each year

  £

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  North East

  40.30

  42.81

  44.63

  44.79

  45.88

  47.60

  North West

  38.50

  42.07

  43.79

  45.71

  45.13

  47.84

  Yorks and Humber

  41.45

  44.04

  46.55

  48.38

  49.77

  51.25

  East Midlands

  46.93

  49.27

  46.27

  45.84

  46.86

  48.15

  West Midlands

  42.24

  43.94

  45.90

  48.79

  47.19

  49.11

  Eastern

  44.34

  46.61

  49.80

  51.58

  52.99

  55.24

  London

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South East

  51.14

  55.14

  58.48

  60.78

  61.40

  63.77

  South West

  48.92

  51.75

  52.01

  53.02

  53.73

  55.99

  All England (urban and rural)

  46.81

  49.82

  51.92

  53.11

  53.90

  55.81

  Source:

  Housing Corporation, annual Regulatory and Statistical Return.

  Average local authority weekly rents in rural areas only—as at end-April each year

  £

  Region

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  North East

  35.24

  36.45

  37.40

  38.59

  39.59

  41.02

  42.41

  North West

  35.24

  36.62

  37.34

  38.25

  40.12

  42.97

  45.37

  Yorks and Humber

  34.66

  35.60

  36.64

  38.26

  40.35

  42.26

  44.06

  East Midlands

  34.76

  36.61

  38.00

  39.10

  41.22

  42.47

  41.34

  West Midlands

  34.48

  34.88

  36.44

  38.16

  39.70

  42.55

  43.60

  Eastern

  40.40

  41.50

  42.57

  43.30

  45.48

  47.83

  48.70

  London

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  622W
  and in priority need of housing in (a) England and (b) local authorities defined as rural, by region, in each year since 1978; [90828]

  (2) how many people were on the waiting list for social housing in (a) England and (b) local authorities defined as rural, by region, in each year since 1978. [90829]

  Mr. McNulty
  A table presenting available information reported by local authorities in England since 1985–86 in respect of homeless households in priority need accepted annually, and total households on their housing register at 1 April deemed to be "in need", has been placed in the Library of House. Figures are presented for each region, distinguishing activity in authorities categorised as either "mixed rural" or "deep rural".

  Local authorities have different practices for compiling and managing their housing register which mean that comparisons between authorities can be misleading. Authorities' policies and practices may change, which can also affect comparisons over time.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average(a) public sector and (b) private sector rent was for housing in (i) England and (ii) local authorities defined as rural, by region, in each year since 1978. [90837]

  Mr. McNulty
  In all three tables "rural areas" refers to those local authorities classified by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as "mixed rural" or "deeply rural".

  The figures shown do not go back to 1978, as requested. This is because the current definitions of urban/rural apply to current local authority boundaries only. Rental figures prior to 1996 would require us to refer to earlier local authority boundaries and could be determined only at disproportionate cost.
  623W

  Average local authority weekly rents in rural areas only—as at end-April each year

  £

  Region

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  South East

  46.47

  47.55

  48.97

  52.18

  52.65

  53.79

  56.43

  South West

  42.49

  42.79

  44.00

  44.86

  45.92

  47.57

  49.17

  All England(urban and rural)

  40.10

  41.18

  42.24

  43.82

  45.61

  47.87

  49.42

  Sources:

  1. 1996–2000: Housing Subsidies and Grants Advance Claim Forms submitted by local authorities.

  2. 2001–02: Survey of Local Authority planned rent changes, conducted annually by the ODPM.

  Average private sector weekly rents in rural areas, April 2000 to March 2002

  £

  Region

  2000–02

  North East

  74

  North West

  77

  Yorks and Humber

  81

  East Midlands

  77

  West Midlands

  86

  Eastern

  85

  London

  n/a

  South East

  108

  South West

  80

  All England (urban and rural)

  107

  Notes on the table of private sector rents:

  1. Private rent figures are based on assured and assured shorthold tenancies only

  2. The rents shown are before deduction of housing benefit, if any

  3. Average rents are shown for a two-year period because sample size considerations prevent data being shown for individual years.

  4. Analysis of data prior to 2000–02 would incur disproportionate costs

  Source:

  Survey of English Housing.

  Housing Investment
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what capital resources for housing investment have been allocated at 2002–03 prices to Birmingham City Council in each year since 1990–91. [93097]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  £million

  Actual allocations1

  In 2002–03 prices2

  1990–91

  62.3

  87.2

  1991–92

  54.3

  71.6

  1992–93

  54.1

  69.2

  1993–94

  47.7

  59.6

  1994–95

  36.2

  44.7

  1995–96

  41.6

  49.9

  1996–97

  40.0

  46.5

  1997–98

  35.0

  39.4

  1998–99

  44.9

  49.2

  1999–2000

  45.1

  48.2

  2000–01

  80.9

  84.7

  2001–02

  90.2

  92.5

  2002–03

  87.9

  87.9

  2003–043

  74.0

  72.4

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

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

  624W3The reduction in the allocation in 2003–04 mainly reflects a change in the local government capital finance system which means the allocations no longer include an element assumed to be financed from authorities capital receipts. The figure also excludes the allocation for disabled facilities grants which has not yet been announced.
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the annual housing investment that will be needed to ensure that his target for decent homes is met. [93098]

  Mr. McNulty
  To meet the decent homes target for social housing the investment needed has to both tackle homes that currently fail the standard and prevent homes from falling below it. For homes currently owned by local authorities the estimated average annual investment in their stock required to deliver decent homes is £3.5 billion at current prices. This figure will reduce with stock losses from this sector. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not yet have comparable figures for homes owned by Registered Social Landlords.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [90862]

  Mr. Leslie
  Approximately 7.8 per cent. of staff in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Central work part-time. Information specifically on job sharers is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Job sharing forms just one strand of a range of possible alternative and flexible working arrangements. Under Office of the Deputy Prime Minister central posting arrangements, all posts are open to part-time workers or job sharers. In very exceptional cases where line managers consider that a post cannot be filled on a part-time/job share basis, they must make a case to Human Resources setting out compelling reasons for this.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Department for Transport, supports a part-time workers network.

  The executive agencies of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister agencies, in almost all cases, also operate a policy of advertising all posts as open to part-time workers or job sharers. All operate a range of flexible working options.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many local authorities(a) requested meetings with ministers to discuss their funding settlement for

  625W
  2003–04, (b) were granted meetings with ministers as requested and (c) were refused a meeting but were subsequently called to such a meeting; [93355]

  (2) what criteria were used to determine which local authorities were granted a meeting with a minister to discuss their funding settlement for 2003–04. [93356]

  Mr. Leslie
  The cover letter to the provisional local government finance settlement consultation paper stated that meeting requests should be received as early in the consultation process as possible and by the 20 December at the latest. We warned that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to offer meetings to every individual authority that would ideally like one. All meetings had to take place before the end of consultation on the 14 January.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received 51 requests before this deadline and held meetings with each of these delegations. We received nine requests for

  Cash reserves1 at the beginning of the financial year

  £000

  Year

  Somerset

  Mendip

  Sedgemoor

  Taunton on Deane

  South Somerset

  West Somerset

  1990–91

  14,691

  475

  1,999

  3,458

  549

  1,660

  1991–92

  15,933

  1,867

  1,291

  4,330

  1,473

  1,835

  1992–93

  28,183

  2,509

  72

  5,049

  1,872

  1,312

  1993–94

  28,349

  3,201

  46

  5,139

  2,116

  943

  1994–95

  40,560

  2,408

  2,167

  1,674

  5,638

  768

  1995–96

  41,946

  3,407

  1,402

  1,643

  10,582

  874

  1996–97

  26,679

  3,407

  3,040

  6,054

  8,334

  974

  1997–98

  33,617

  3,086

  5,031

  3,265

  9,975

  1,187

  1998–99

  31,859

  3,188

  5,931

  3,838

  9,389

  1,800

  1999–2000

  35,070

  3,824

  6,045

  3,213

  7,396

  1,200

  2000–01

  38,410

  1,348

  2,654

  4,555

  9,860

  800

  2001–02

  45,225

  867

  5,872

  4,942

  10,198

  928

  1Cash reserves include schools' reserves, other earmarked reserves and unallocated reserves. Information is not available prior to 1990–91.

  Source:

  RS forms 1990–91 to 2001–02

  Mobile Phone Masts
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many appeals he has received from mobile phone companies to erect transmission masts in the East Riding of Yorkshire in the last 12 months; and how many appeals were upheld. [92907]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since 1 January 2002, for the East Riding area of Yorkshire, 12 appeals regarding the erection of telecoms masts were received, 10 of which were allowed.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2002,Official Report, column 887W, concerning neighbourhood renewal status, what guidelines are issued to or requirements made of local authorities in receipt of neighbourhood renewal status funds about expenditure of such money; and if he will make a statement. [92670]

  Mrs. Roche
  Guidelines for local authorities in receipt of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) are set out annually in a Special Grant Report.626W
  meetings after the 20 December. These were allocated on a first-come first-served basis and we were able to meet four of these delegations. No authority was refused a meeting and then subsequently called to a meeting during this consultation period.

  We received a total of 385 written responses to consultation, including representations from all those who requested meetings after the deadline but whom we could not accommodate.

  Local Government Finance (Somerset)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cash reserves of(a) Taunton Deane Borough Council, (b) Somerset County Council, (c) Mendip District Council, (d) West Somerset District Council, (e) Sedgemoor District Council and (f) South Somerset District Council were in each of the last 15 years. [92183]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The available information, as reported by local authorities, is tabled.

  Special Grant Report No. 93, which has been placed in the Library of the House, explains the purpose, allocations and spending conditions of NRF grant in 2002–03. The grant conditions include the requirements that: local authorities should agree the use of NRF with their Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), and they should submit my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister an annual Statement of Use, also agreed with the LSP, setting out how the grant is being spent and what impact is expected to be achieved with the grant.

  (Arrangements for 2003–04 will be specified shortly, in a Special Grant Report for that year).

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of bills to his Department since May 2002 were paid(a) in accordance with agreed contractual conditions and (b) within 30 days of receiving goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice where no contractual conditions applied. [91611]
  627W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister only pays invoices which are valid and in accordance with contract conditions 96.88 per cent. of valid invoices were paid within 30 days, this is the latest figure available for the period up to 30 November 2002.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90532]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established following machinery of Government changes in May 2002. The most recent 'Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service' published by the Cabinet Office and announced by Ministerial Statement on 19 December 2002 covered the calendar year 2001. Figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  St. Oswalds Park
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the ODPM will release the findings of the public inquiry on Gloucester's St Oswalds Park development. [93494]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has not yet received the report and recommendations from his Inspector following the Public Inquiry into the proposed development at St. Oswalds Park, Gloucester.

  On receipt of the report my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will aim to make his decision as soon as possible.

  Travellers Sites
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on the provision of permanent sites for travellers; and what action he will take to ensure that all local authorities provide such sites where there is a need. [93109]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities have a power to provide Gypsy and Traveller sites within their areas.

  The Government continues to issue guidelines to local authorities reminding them of their need to establish both permanent and temporary sites with adequate facilities for Gypsies and Travellers who pass through their areas on a regular basis.

  In order to assist with provision, the 2003–04 round of the current Gypsy Sites Refurbishment Grant has been extended to provide funding for transit sites and emergency stopping places as well as to continue to refurbish existing sites.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will issue additional planning policy guidance to make it easier for local authorities to obtain planning permission for local authority sites for travellers. [92954]

  Mr. McNulty
  The procedures dealing with development undertaken by local authorities are contained in the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992. Guidance on the regulations is given in DOE Circular 19/92. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to issue further guidance.
  628W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he plans to impose a duty on local authorities to provide suitable sites for travellers. [92955]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no current plans to reintroduce the statutory duty placed on local authorities to provide gipsy and traveller sites in their areas.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what means he plans to make available to(a) private and (b) public landowners to remove travellers from unauthorised encampments more easily if local authorities have been (i) unable and (ii) unwilling to provide suitable sites for travellers. [92956]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Home Office are proposing to introduce new police powers to manage unauthorised encampments, but these powers will be used only if the local authority has provided alternative site provision for gipsies and travellers.

  If no alternative local authority sites are available then the existing powers under Sections 61 to 62 and 77 to 79 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will still be available to police and local authorities to remove travellers.

  Private landowners will also be able to go through the civil courts for the recovery of their land under Orders 24 and 113.

  Unitary Development Plans (Affordable Housing)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many London boroughs have(a) unitary development plans and (b) revised unitary development plans specifying in an objective or other paragraph that is not a policy what proportion of affordable housing should be provided on suitable sites. [92129]

  (2) how many London boroughs have (a) unitary development plans and (b) revised unitary development plans specifying in a policy what proportion of affordable housing should be provided on suitable sites. [92130]

  Mr. McNulty
  Of the thirty three London Boroughs nineteen have adopted or revised but not yet adopted unitary development plans specifying in policy what proportion of affordable housing should be provided. Three have the proportion specified in supporting text. The proportions are typically expressed as ranges, minima or borough averages rather than a requirement for each site.

  Women's Refuges
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the targets are for numbers of refuge places for women in(a) Coventry and (b) the West Midlands, and how much refuge provision for women there is in each. [92345]

  Mrs. Roche
  Targets are not set centrally for refuge places for women. It is for local authorities to assess need for refuge places in their areas and to take steps to address that need. Supporting People Commissioning Bodies have recently completed shadow strategies setting out their assessment of service provision for local people, including for women experiencing domestic
  629W
  violence, and how they will address gaps in supply. The Government's steer to Commissioning Bodies on preparing these strategies encouraged them to give particular consideration to provision for high risk or vulnerable groups, such as women fleeing domestic violence.

  Data on refuge provision was gathered in September as part of the preparations for the Supporting People programme. In Coventry, 35 household spaces in women's refuge provision for women at risk of domestic violence were recorded. In the West Midlands, 474 such spaces were recorded.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carrier Modernisation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procedures to be followed in the competitive bidding for the contract for aircraft carrier modernisation. [93182]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Aircraft Carrier project has utilised a Continuous Assessment process for the selection of prime contractor. This takes account of all relevant factors in order to ensure that we acquire the capability required at best value for money. Wider industrial issues are also being considered, consistent with the defence industrial policy published in the autumn. Our decision will be announced shortly.

  Iraq
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the assistance the US has requested for possible action in Iraq. [93183]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I told the House on 25 November 2002, the United States has approached a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, seeking support in the event that military action against Iraq proves necessary.

  Armed Forces (Middle East)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the length of time forces deployed in the middle east can remain effective. [93184]

  Mr. Ingram
  While we want Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily, it is evident that we shall not achieve this unless we continue to present him with a clear and credible threat of force. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the House on Monday 20 January 2003, the United Kingdom forces being deployed to the Mediterranean and the middle east have the balance and flexibility for the tasks that might be asked of them. Exercise Saif Sareea II in Oman, towards the end of 2001, clearly demonstrated our ability to deploy United Kingdom ground forces to the middle east and sustain them there. I am confident therefore that we can sustain forces in the region for as long as necessary.

  A-bomb Tests
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to assess the health problems of ex-military staff subjected to radiation from A-bomb tests. [93185]

  Dr. Moonie
  Two epidemiological studies of some 22,000 participants of the British nuclear test programme have been carried out on the Ministry of Defence's behalf by the National Radiological Protection Board. The results of these studies were published in 1988 and 1993. They showed that, as a group, participation in the tests has had no detectable effect on the expectation of life, or on the risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases by those who took part.

  The results of a third study are to be published in a few months' time. There are no plans for any further studies.

  The Ministry of Defence is aware of clinical study programmes being undertaken at various universities worldwide. We have reservations about the applicability to test participants today since any radiation exposures involved in the tests were generally very small and over 40 years ago.

  Royal Navy (Gulf)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the activities of the Royal Navy in the Gulf. [93186]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently six Royal Navy and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships on long-planned deployments to the Gulf. The Type 42 Destroyer, HMS Cardiff, is on Armilla Patrol contributing, with other nations, to the enforcement of UN embargoes against Iraq. It is usual for a United Kingdom tanker to be deployed in the region to support the Armilla patrol. At present, RFA Bayleaf is the Armilla tanker.

  The Type 22 Frigate, HMS Cumberland, is in the Gulf in support of operations against international terrorism. Four Mine Counter Measures vessels, HMS Bangor, HMS Brockelsby, HMS Blyth and HMS Sandown, together with RFA Sir Bedevere, are in the region at the invitation of the Saudi Government, made early last year, to carry out a series of joint exercises. This invitation followed on from the success of similar co-operation during Exercise Saif Sareea II. In addition, the survey vessel, HMS Roebuck, is also on a long-planned deployment to the Gulf.

  Iraq (Post-conflict)
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role British troops will have in a post-conflict Iraq. [93187]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no inevitability about military action against Iraq; this question is therefore hypothetical at this stage. What I can say is that we take very seriously our current and potential responsibilities towards the Iraqi people. In the aftermath of any conflict, Britain would remain at the forefront of efforts to help the Iraqi people.

  US Missile Defence System
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of whether the US missile defence system could protect the UK and her allies from ballistic missile attack. [93188]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United States missile defence programme remains evolutionary and its future architecture has still finally to be decided. The US has offered to extend missile defence coverage and make missile defence capabilities available to the United Kingdom as the evolution of the system permits, subject to appropriate political and financial arrangements. An assessment of how coverage of the UK and allies might be achieved is included in the discussion paper published by the Ministry of Defence on 9 December 2002. The UK will continue this process of assessment, not least through agreeing a technical Memorandum of Understanding with the United States to gain further insight into the missile defence programme.

  First World War (Military Executions)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on the subject of British soldiers executed after courts martial in the first world war; and what replies he has given. [93189]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the last six months, I have received five representations from hon. and right hon. Members and 32 from members of the public on this issue.

  The position has not changed since the detailed and careful review by my right hon. Friend Dr. John Reid, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who announced his conclusions to this House on 24 July 1998, Official Report, columns 1372–86.

  This review resulted in very important steps being taken to recognise these men as victims of the war and to draw them and their families into the nation's consciousness and remembrance. The public commemoration of these men in the National Memorial Arboretum is very fitting.

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of Fylingdales for national missile defence. [93190]

  Serial

  Operational deployment/location

  Period of operational deployment1

  Length of time between operational deployment

  1

  Operation TELIC Location-Middle East

  16 January 2003 to date

  7 months 12 days (Serial 2–1)

  2

  Operation ORACLE Location-Middle East

  11 November 2001 to 4 June 2002

  10 months 10 days (Serial 3–2)

  3

  Operation PALATINE Location-Bosnia

  11 November 1992 to 1 January 2001

  17 months 8 days (Serial 4–3)

  4

  Operation GRANBY Location-Middle East

  5 January 1991 to 3 June 1991

  —

  1 The objectives contained in Royal Navy guidelines include individual personnel deployments being no longer than nine calendar months and the total deployed time in any three-year period not exceeding 18 months. There has been general adherence to these objectives

  632W
  Mr. Hoon
  As I informed the House on 15 January 2003, the Government's preliminary conclusion is that we should agree to the US request to upgrade RAF Fylingdales for missile defence purposes. Ballistic missile early warning would continue to be the station's primary role. The upgrade would enable the radar to track incoming missiles more accurately and guide interceptions by defensive missiles if necessary. We will take full account of the views which have been expressed in public and parliamentary discussion before communicating a final decision to the US Administration.

  Departmental Suppliers (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on suppliers to his Department based in Lancashire. [93191]

  Mr. Ingram
  The importance to the Ministry of Defence of our Lancashire-based suppliers is well understood. Work on defence contracts valued at many hundreds of millions of pounds is currently being carried out by well over 150 suppliers located in the county. The aerospace industry is of particular significance in the area, with BAES maintaining substantial facilities at Warton and Samlesbury. Prime contractors, together with a wide range of smaller companies supplying components and services, play an important role in equipping our Armed Forces.

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the operation of the new joint regional teams in Afghanistan. [93192]

  Mr. Ingram
  We welcome the recent United States announcement on the deployment of Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan, intended to help stabilise further the Afghan regions. We are examining the role we might play in these teams, and the possibility of leading one, but no decisions have been taken.

  845 Squadron
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the last three operational deployments of 845 Squadron and the length of time between them; and if he will make a statement. [92668]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table lists the last three operational deployments of 845 Naval Air Squadron, the period of deployment from their parent Air Station and the length of time between each deployment:

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of success for each of the bidders in the future aircraft carrier programme on the possibility of future co-operation with France on the construction of a new French carrier; and if he will make a statement. [93349]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have made no such assessment. The possibility of co-operation with France on carrier construction has not been a factor in the selection of a preferred prime contractor for the Future Aircraft Carrier programme.

  Anthrax Vaccine
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has established the origin of anthrax and other vaccines washed up on the South Dorset coast; and if he will make a statement. [93167]

  Dr. Moonie
  The anthrax vaccine found on the South Dorset coast is from a batch produced by the centre for Applied Microbiology and Research and purchased by the Ministry of Defence in February 2001. Because ampoules from the batch were issued to a large number of units it has not yet been possible to identify how they came to be in the sea. As far as we are aware, this is the only vaccine found, although a number of other pharmaceutical products, including drugs, have been recovered. Investigations into the source of the items found are continuing.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's relationship with BAE Systems; and what assessment he has made of(a) the strengths and (b) the weaknesses of BAE Systems in delivering his Department's procurement requirements. [93205]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence has an excellent relationship with BAE Systems. The company is a key supplier to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. It has delivered substantial military capability over the years and I expect that it will continue to do so in the future.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the strategic significance to the UK of BAE Systems. [93206]

  Mr. Hoon
  BAE Systems is the largest supplier to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence and is involved in many of our largest and most complex programmes. It is a very successful British and international company, with an excellent track record of winning overseas business. Our defence industrial policy, published in October 2002, made clear the importance the Government places on the whole of the UK defence industry.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has been advised in 2003 of interest by a non-UK company in merging with or taking over BAE Systems. [93207]
  634W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence has not been advised of any interest by any company in merging with or taking over BAE Systems.

  Battalion Deployments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the last three operational deployments of(a) 1st Armoured Division and (b) 102 Logistics Brigade, broken down by battalion, stating in each case the length of time between operational tours. [93260]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Battalion Strength
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions during the last five years were battalions and corps attached to other battalions and corps to bring that battalion up to strength for the purposes of operational deployment, giving in each case(a) the source and size of the attached unit and length of time attached, (b) location of deployment and (c) the length of time that the attached unit was rested before subsequent deployments. [92704]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Challenger
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Challenger II tanks are(a) undergoing desertification, (b) fully serviceable and (c) 1, 2, 3, 4th line inserviceable, broken down by regiment. [92133]

  Mr. Ingram
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in the House on 20 January 2003, 120 Challenger 2 tanks are to be deployed in support of current contingency planning. It is expected that all of these will be modified to improve their performance in desert conditions. In addition to the Challenger 2 tanks that we are modifying for contingency operations, consideration is being given to modifying further Challenger 2s. This decision does not in any way effect those tanks deploying, and will therefore be taken as part of the routine equipment planning process. I will write to the hon. Member with details of availability.

  Clansman
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Clansmen radios have been issued to the task force commanded by Ark Royal; and if he will make a statement. [92134]

  Mr. Ingram
  Clansman portable radios are carried by all Royal Navy warships, including those in the task force commanded by HMS Ark Royal.

  Container Spares
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of spares his Department holds for containers
  635W
  handling rough terrain and how many units would the Ministry of Defence currently be able to deploy on operations; and if he will make a statement. [92662]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are sufficient stocks of spares to support and sustain the fleet of 26 Rough Terrain Container Handlers. Arrangements are also in place with our industrial suppliers to ensure rapid re-provision as needed. There are 17 of these container handlers available for deployment now. Of the remainder three are already deployed in the Balkans, four are required to maintain essential capability in the United Kingdom and two are undergoing in-depth repair.

  Contingency Plans (Iraq)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his medical contingency plans in respect of Iraq with particular reference to military hospitals, after care and convalescence contingency planning for armed forces personnel(a) not involved in Iraq, and (b) based in Iraq. [90912]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our medical contingency plans for Service personnel deployed to the Gulf area in the event of military action against Iraq include the provision of integrated medical support within units, dressing stations and field hospitals and, if necessary, medical evacuation back to the United Kingdom where aftercare and convalescence would be provided as appropriate. Service personnel serving elsewhere overseas and those in the UK would continue to receive medical care under existing arrangements.

  Total professional fees (excluding VAT) paid by the Ministry of Defence to each payee to date

  £

  Payee

  Profession

  Fee

  IBM Business Consulting Services (formerly Pricewaterhouse Coopers)

  Financial Advice and Management/Administration Team

  5.62 million

  DEGW

  Architects and Space Planning

  1.51 million

  Waterman Partnerships

  Structured Engineers

  0.47 million

  Bernard Williams Associates

  Cost Consultants and Facility Management Specialists

  0.47

  DTZ

  Town Planners

  0.18

  Roger Preston and Partners

  Mechanical, Electrical Engineers, IT Infrastructure

  0.64

  Bovis Program Management

  Construction and Programming

  0.65 million

  Herbert Smith

  Legal Advice

  2.12 million

  Fees paid by the PFI Contractor are a matter for Modus Services plc (the PFI contractor).

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria were applied in selecting areas of airspace suitable for testing the Eurofighter; what consultation was carried out with local communities; and what steps he is taking to monitor nuisance caused by test flights. [91153]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Eurofighter aircraft requires large areas of airspace in which to train. Following a review of current allocation of air space, the National Air Traffic Control Services and the Ministry of Defence have

  Defence Reviews
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on defence reviews; and what further defence reviews are planned for the armed forces. [91038]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government published the results of its comprehensive Strategic Defence Review (Cm 3999) in 1998. Following the events of 11 September 2001 we launched work to ensure that our defence policies, capabilities and force structures matched the new challenges we faced. The conclusions of this work were published in the SDR New Chapter (Cm 5566) in July 2002.

  In announcing the publication of the new Chapter and the allocation of increased resources to defence in the Spending Review, I said that this provided a "mandate for accelerating the modernisation and evolution of the Armed Forces" Official Report, column 462. The capabilities and force structures of the Armed Forces must continue to evolve in the direction set by the New Chapter. I intend to publish a Defence White Paper later this year. This will provide an updated statement of Defence policy and explain in detail our plans for modernising the delivery of enhanced defence capability.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the professional fees were to each payee for the redevelopment of his Department's main building, broken down by(a) his Department and (b) the PFI contractor. [93403]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total professional fees (excluding VAT) paid by the Ministry of Defence to each payee to date are as follows:

  therefore agreed to redesignate airspace over the North Sea. Three large managed areas have been designated which, when required, may be "booked" and used for military training. Only the most northerly designated training area covers any land, and within this area all flights will be conducted above 24,500ft. Under Government guidelines public consultation regarding the use of airspace is not required except where flight takes place below 7,000ft.

  The conduct of military flying is taken extremely seriously and any complaints are thoroughly investigated by the Ministry of Defence. Particular rules govern supersonic flight and these will continue to be strictly enforced.

  European Procurement Projects
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress has been made to help deliver major European collaborative procurement projects on schedule. [93175]

  Mr. Ingram
  We remain committed to maximising the benefits that can be derived from collaborative defence equipment programmes. The smart acquisition initiative stresses the need to predict and plan against those issues that have the potential to cause delay. This aims to ensure that risks and opportunities are addressed before we commit to new co-operative programmes. More generally, the development of the international agency OCCAR continues to be an important part of our aim to provide an effective route for the management of defence equipment collaborative programmes.

  Exercises and Operational Deployments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a) exercises and (b) operational deployments were undertaken during (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003 by (A) HQ3 Commando Brigade, (B) 40 Commando Royal Marines and (C) 42 Commando Royal Marines; and if he will make a statement. [92798]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: In 2001, HQ 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines took part in Exercises, ROLLING DEEP, JMC 01, ARGONAUT 01 and SAIF SAREEA 2 and were operationally deployed to Kosovo. 40 Commando Royal Marines took part in Exercises DRUIDS DANCE, ROLLING DEEP, ARGONAUT 01 and SAIF SAREEA 2 and were operationally deployed to Afghanistan. 42 Commando Royal Marines took part in the WINTER Deployment, Exercises TARTAN RELIEF, FASTBALL and BLACKHORSE and were operationally deployed to Sierra Leone.

  In 2002, 40 Cdo who took part in Exercise BLACKHORSE were operationally deployed to Afghanistan, as were HQ 3 Cdo Bde RM. 42 Cdo RM were operationally deployed to Northern Ireland.

  Currently 40 Cdo are deployed with Naval Task Group 03 and will undertake training exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean. There have been no operational deployments in 2003.

  HMS Ocean (Helicopters)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopters, of which type, are aboard HMS Ocean. [92664]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 20 January 2003 the following helicopters aboard HMS Ocean were:

  Helicopter

  Total

  Sea King HC Mk4

  10

  Lynx AH Mk 7

  6

  Gazelle AH Mk1

  6

  HMS Sussex
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he plans to safeguard the archaeological integrity of HMS Sussex. [93176]

  Dr. Moonie
  The project has been developed on the basis of archaeological best practice in deep water condition. An Independent Monitoring Panel of archaeologists, with the participation of English Heritage, has been set up to review the Project Plan. The agreement with the contractor provides for official observers to be present during the whole exploration and recovery process at sea and to oversee the arrangements and standards of conservation work ashore.

  Military Clothing
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks his Department holds of(a) desert boots, (b) desert clothing and (c) Combat 95 clothing; and if he will make a statement. [92136]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 17 January 2003 we held, in central stocks: 16,300 pairs of desert combat boots; 30,800 pairs of desert trousers and 24,000 desert jackets; and 262,986 lightweight jackets, 399,902 pairs of combat trousers and 220,877 field jackets.

  Information on unit level holdings of these items is not held centrally. Contracts have been placed to ensure the supply of sufficient desert boots, desert jackets and desert trousers. Our normal requirement is to hold sufficient stocks of desert boots and clothing to kit to scale the Joint Rapid Reaction Force.

  Mobility
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made since 1997 in(a) making British forces more mobile and (b) increasing their ability to contribute to international peace and security. [91855]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Strategic Defence Review recognised that conflict prevention, peace support, and crisis management require a powerful force that is capable of immediate and, if necessary, sustained operations. It established the concept of Joint Rapid Reaction Forces to provide more capable, more deployable, and better supported Joint Forces. The initial operating capability was achieved in 1999, and elements have been deployed successfully both on operations and exercises. 16 Air Assault brigade, also formed in 1999, combines airborne and air mobile assets with, in the future, the new attack helicopter, and provides a further significant enhancement to our tactical mobility.

  In addition, the lease of four C17 aircraft in 2001, followed by the introduction of the A400M at the end of the decade, the procurement of a new Strategic Sealift Service of six RoRo vessels through a PFI-type contract in 2000, the provision of an interim strategic sealift capability through commercial charters until this new service is fully available (currently expected to be late this year); and the ordering of four new Bay class Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary)s expected to enter

  639W
  service before the end of 2005, all represent a significant enhancement to the current and future mobility of our Armed Forces.

  The ability of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces to contribute to international peace and security has consistently been demonstrated throughout the period since 1997, most recently in peace support operations in Sierra Leone and in Afghanistan.

  Morale
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how Army personnel when last questioned described the morale of(a) themselves, (b) their working group, (c) their unit and (d) the Army as a whole; how many people responded; what percentage responded to each option asked; and if he will make a statement. [92147]

  Dr. Moonie
  On the basis of responses to a Continuous Attitude Survey (CAS) carried out in April/May 2002, the numbers of Army personnel expressing an opinion about their morale, that of their working group, that of their unit and that of the Army as a whole, are as given in the following Of 3,978 surveys issued, 1,867 (47 per cent.) completed forms had been returned at time of analysis.

  Morale of themselves:

  Low

  Neither high nor low

  High

  Officers

  36

  10%

  85

  23%

  245

  67%

  Soldiers

  247

  16%

  413

  28%

  826

  56%

  Note:

  99 per cent. (1,852) of those replying responded to this question.

  Morale of their working group:

  Low

  Neither high nor low

  High

  Officers

  40

  11%

  126

  35%

  196

  54%

  Soldiers

  358

  24%

  542

  37%

  585

  39%

  Note:

  99 per cent. (1,847) of those replying responded to this question.

  Morale of their unit:

  Low

  Neither high nor low

  High

  Officers

  58

  16 %

  152

  42%

  153

  42%

  Soldiers

  461

  31%

  577

  39%

  434

  30%

  Note:

  98 per cent. (1,835) of those replying responded to this question.

  Morale of the Army:

  Low

  Neither high nor low

  High

  Officers

  88

  25%

  184

  52%

  83

  23%

  Soldiers

  499

  36 %

  634

  45 %

  273

  19 %

  Note:

  94 per cent. (1,761) of those replying responded to this question.

  NBC Equipment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many NBC suits are(a) issued to personnel and (b) in stock; and if he will make a statement. [92135]
  640W
  Mr. Ingram
  There are sufficient stocks of NEC suits to meet our contingency plans. I am withholding the information relating to the quantities held, under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Operation Fresco
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service people have been given warning orders for both Operation Fresco and possible operations in Iraq. [92804]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: Over time it has been necessary to make adjustments to the forces allocated to Operation Fresco to ensure that those units that may be required for contingent operations elsewhere were available for duty. Most recently, elements of 16 Air Assault Brigade have been withdrawn from Operation Fresco in a phased manner as they have been assigned for potential future military action in Iraq. Consequently, there are no forces assigned concurrently to both Operation Fresco and possible operations in Iraq.

  Redundant Weapons
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundant weapons there were in each year since 1997; and what the nature was of those weapons. [93575]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested will take some time to compile, therefore I will write to the hon Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of theHouse.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how redundant weapons are disposed of. [93576]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence disposes of significant amounts of munitions annually for a variety of reasons including that they become unserviceable or surplus to requirements. The United Kingdom approved methods are by burning, detonation, dilution by solvent and chemical destruction. MOD employs the first two methods. Small quantities are disposed of in licensed demolition grounds on MOD property. Large quantities of ammunition are normally disposed of under civilian contract either in the UK or abroad.

  Reservists' Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the pensions rights of individuals in their main job are protected during periods of service as an armed forces reservist; and if he will make a statement. [93342]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has arrangements in place to ensure that reservists who are called-out for permanent service with the armed forces are not disadvantaged in pension terms.

  Individuals may have a number of pension options dependent on their personal circumstances. Those individuals who wish to remain in their civilian pension scheme during their period of called-out service can do so and the MOD will meet the cost of the employer

  641W
  contribution to the pension scheme. Alternatively, individuals may opt to have the period of their called-out service covered by MOD's full time reserve service pension arrangements, or they can opt to be contracted-in to the state pension arrangements (state second pension). Those individuals who have previous service that gave them pension rights under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) may opt for an enhancement to their AFPS pension rights.

  Royal Marines
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the main current deployments of the Royal Marines. [92895]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).

  Royal Navy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications his Department has made to(a) Royal Naval and (b) Royal Marines tactical doctrine since 11 September 2001. [92901]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following 11 September 2001 the increased danger from terrorist organisations to the Royal Navy (including the Royal Marines) has been recognised and work undertaken to ameliorate the risks to both deployed forces and those in their base port. Detailed Force Protection advice on countering the Asymmetric threat from terrorist attack is available in both Tactical and Reference publications and is the subject of continual assessment and periodic update as new information and feedback is obtained. This doctrine comprises both a generic description of likely threats and consideration of numerous measures that Commanding Officers need to consider adopting depending on their area of operations. The advice covers methods of reducing ship and personnel vulnerability to attack, enabling Commanding Officers to formulate a defensive posture commensurate with their operational state and location; reducing the risk of attack from an enemy who holds the advantage of surprise and method.

  When ashore, RM tactical doctrine follows Land (Army) tactical doctrine. Events since 11 September 2001 have not forced modifications to existing doctrine but lessons identified in operations since, by the Army and RM, are undergoing evaluation in order to capture them, as necessary.

  Service Personnel (Gulf)
  Mr. Paul Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what contingency plans he has made to replace the troops on their way to the Gulf; which troops from which units and regiments would be used; and if he will make a statement; [93259]

  (2) what the maximum amount of time is that he estimates 30,000 soldiers could be maintained at a high level of readiness in the Gulf before rotating personnel. [93261]

  Mr. Hoon
  We continue to hope that Saddam Hussein will disarm voluntarily but it is evident that we will not persuade him to do so unless we present him with a clear 642W
  and credible threat of force. No decision has been taken to commit British forces to military action, nor is such a decision inevitable or imminent. It is therefore premature to speculate about the duration of military deployments or about the rotation or replacement of those forces involved.

  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.

  Turkey
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what numerical restrictions there are under the CFE Treaty on deployments of armed forces to Turkey. [92532]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty limits the numbers of conventional armaments and equipment in Europe in five categories:

  armoured combat vehicles

  artillery pieces

  combat aircraft, and

  attack helicopters.

  Numerical limits for the armaments and equipment apply within the area of application of the CFE treaty, which covers the entire land territory of the States Parties in Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains. In the case of the Republic of Turkey, an area in the south-east of Turkey bordering the non-CFE states of Syria, Iraq and Iran is excluded from the area of application.

  Furthermore, the Republic of Turkey lies within a specifically defined CFE zone, commonly known as the flank zone. Within this zone additional numerical limitations apply with regard to temporary deployments of conventional armaments and equipment. In the area of application of the CFE treaty these are:

  153 battle tanks

  241 armoured combat vehicles, and

  140 pieces of artillery.

  643W
  Deployments of combat aircraft and attack helicopters are not numerically limited, nor is the number of personnel. There are also no restrictions on naval forces under the CFE treaty.

  UN Peacekeeping Missions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on the operational effectiveness of British contingents in UN peacekeeping missions of the deployment of forces to the Gulf. [92953]

  Mr. Ingram
  We do not expect the deployment forces to the Gulf to affect the operational effectiveness of British contingents in UN peacekeeping missions.

  Urgent Operational Requirement Orders
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what orders in excess of £500,000 his Department has placed for urgent operational requirements in the last three months. [92508]

  Mr. Ingram
  About 90 Urgent Operational Requirements for in excess of 500,000 have been approved in the last three months. These will, inter alia, accelerate already funded programmes, address many of the lessons identified in Exercise SAEF SAREEA II (including Challenger 2 and AS90 desertisation), enhance medical support, maximise interoperability with coalition allies and improve our secure communications capability.

  Vaccines
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the take-up of anthrax vaccination among troops preparing to deploy to the Middle East. [91821]
  644W
  Dr. Moonie
  Immunisation against anthrax is just one component of the range of defensive capabilities available to our Armed Forces which protect them against, and enable them to respond to, chemical and biological threats. These include detectors, warning and reporting systems, physical protection including respirators, decontamination equipment and procedures, and other medical counter measures such as antibiotics. We have assembled a package of information and education materials which we hope will encourage Service personnel to take advantage of the additional protection that immunisation against anthrax provides. We are confident that the majority of personnel now deploying to the Gulf will opt to receive immunisations against anthrax, and expect take-up to improve further as the programme expands.

  Wheeled Support Vehicles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems have arisen in the evaluation of the bids for the contract for the new wheeled support vehicles; how near these are to resolution; and if he will make a statement. [91872]

  Mr. Ingram
  No problems have arisen, but evaluation of the tenders received in June 2002 for the Support Vehicle contract concluded that more information was needed on some aspects of the solution put forward by the bidders to enable a decision to be taken on which proposal represents best value for money. All four bidders have been invited to participate in a further round of tendering and responses are due on 22 January 2003. A further period of evaluation will then take place. An announcement on the award of a contract is planned for late 2003.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent on child benefit for 16 to 19-year-olds in each year since 1997. [90915]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Entitlement to child benefit between the ages of 16 and 18 is dependent on the child staying on in full-time education—up to and including GCE 'A' level or equivalent. Entitlement ceases when the child reaches 19 years of age or when the child leaves full-time education, if earlier.

  Estimated expenditure on child benefit, including the higher rate payable to some lone parents, for 16 to 18-year-olds since 1997 is as follows:

  Estimated child benefit expenditure (inc. lone parent addition) for 16 to 18-year-olds

  £ millions

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  750

  780

  960

  1,020

  11,060

  21,100

  1 Estimated outturn

  2 Plans

  Notes:

  1. Because sample data have been used to obtain the age split the quoted figures are subject to sampling variability. The true figures are likely to lie in a range around those quoted.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Source:

  DSS/DWP accounts and sample administrative data

  Final Salary Pension Schemes
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with business representatives concerning the provision of final salary pension schemes [92828]

  Mr. McCartney
  My right hon Friend met with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry in September and November last year to discuss pensions.

  As part of the consultation exercise on the pensions Green Paper Simplicity, Security and Choice, my right. hon Friend and ministerial colleagues will be attending a number of events to which employer organisations are being invited.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of closing a final salary pension scheme upon a firm's financial risk. [92829]

  Mr. McCartney
  When employers close their defined benefit schemes, they are seeking to put a limit on the long term liabilities of the company. Given the nature of these liabilities, however, closure is unlikely to have an immediate or even necessarily a short term impact. This is because the existing liabilities will still have to be met for the continuing life of the scheme irrespective of whether new members are being accepted. The Green Paper 'Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement' (Cm5677) sets out the Government's view that, for this and other reasons, closing or winding up pension schemes are not in the interests of either employers or employees. The Green Paper, therefore, sets out a range of proposals to 646W
  simplify the regulatory regime for pensions, which could save employers £150 to £200 million a year in administration, and thus make it easier for employers to continue to provide final salary schemes and other types of pension arrangements for their employees. We have launched a wide ranging consultation in which we are seeking views on this approach including its impact on employers.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is taking to strengthen the rights of employees in relation to final salary pension schemes. [91942]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer of 13 January 2003,Official Report, volume 397, columns 361–62W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of proposals in the Pensions Green Paper on the rate of closure of final salary schemes. [93055]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Green Paper 'Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement1 (Cm5677), published on 17 December 2002, sets out the Government's strategy to encourage and support employers providing and contributing to good quality pension schemes through provision of a regulatory framework. The Green Paper,, therefore, sets out a range of proposals to simplify the regulatory regime for pensions, which could save employers £150–£200 million a year in administration, and thus make it easier for employers to continue to provide final salary schemes and other types of pension arrangements for their employees. We have launched a wide ranging consultation in which we are seeking views on this approach including its impact on employers.

  Guaranteed Minimum Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of commuting all entitlements to guaranteed minimum pensions to entitlements to SERPS at the rate used to make such commutations in 1997. [92184]

  Mr. McCartney
  This information is not currently available. However, relevant work on the costs of guaranteed minimum pensions is currently being undertaken as part of the follow-up to the Green Paper "Simplicity—Security and Choice: Working and saving for retirement" published (Cm5677) on 17 December 2002. I will place the information in the Library once this is available.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when each benefit will begin to be paid by automated credit transfer; [91285]

  (2) in what sequence state retirement pensions will be transferred to payment by automated credit transfer. [91287]

  Mr. McCartney
  For some time now the Department has been able to pay benefits into a bank or building society account.
  647W
  We have started to write to customers to request their account details as part of the move to direct payment. People will start to be paid this way rather than by paper-based methods from April 2003. We started with some Child Benefit and Veterans Agency customers, and will begin to contact people in receipt of Retirement Pension from the end of January.

  The conversion exercise will be completed by 2005.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the migration of each benefit case load to automated credit transfer will take place on a common date. [91286]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The conversion exercise from paper based methods of payment to direct payment into a bank or building society accounts will be phased. It began in October 2002 when we started to write out to some Veterans Agency and Child Benefit customers to request their account details. Payment into accounts will start from April 2003.

  Other benefits will be phased in from January this year and the whole exercise is due to be completed in 2005.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when automated credit transfer invitation letters will be sent out to each type of benefit recipient. [91288]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The first invitation letters were issued to some Veterans Agency and Child Benefit customers in October 2002. The first invitation letters for Retirement Pension will be issued later this month. The invitation process for customers in receipt of working age benefits will begin from March 2003. We will start to invite other benefit recipients from July 2003.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on fraud in the payment of benefit through post offices; and what plans he has to protect against fraud when the post office card account is introduced. [88245]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Paper-based instruments of payment can be vulnerable to fraudulent attack in a number of ways: they can go astray in the post, be lost or stolen, or be manipulated or counterfeited by a determined fraudster. We estimate that total benefit and pension losses from paper-based instruments of payment fraud in 2000–01 were around £77 million.

  We have several measures in place to counter fraud, such as the Order Book Control System (OBCS). This makes use of barcode readers in post offices to scan order books that have been printed with a barcode on the front cover. OBCS alerts the post office clerk when a stop notice has been placed on an order book and instructs them to impound the book immediately. Crucially, the stop notice is activated in whatever post office the book is presented for payment and not only in the customer's designated post office. This helps to ensure that order books reported lost or stolen are not cashed, but instead impounded.
  648W
  Introducing direct payment into a bank, building society or post office card account as the normal method of benefit payment for the Department's customers will result in significant savings to public funds. It is a much more secure method of payment. Work is on-going to develop a more secure method of payment to replace existing order books and girocheques for those customers who cannot or choose not to be paid by direct payment.

  The post office card account is a Post Office product and detailed operational questions are the responsibility of the chief executive for the Post Office. However, the Department's officials will continue to work in close co-operation with the Post Office to ensure that the card account is as secure as possible.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what instructions he has given to his staff who are dealing with the programme for migrating benefit payments from order book to direct bank credit, for responding to benefit recipients who express a wish to receive payment in cash via a Post Office card account. [90653]

  Malcolm Wicks
  All DWP staff who deal with customers will receive training about Direct Payment. This will highlight to staff the options that are available to customers who are transferring from a girocheque or order book to payment into an account. This will include the option to have payments made into a Post Office card account which can be collected from a Post Office branch.

  Benefits (Direct Payment)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with(a) postmasters and (b) the National Federation of Sub-postmasters on the introduction of direct payment of benefits into bank accounts. [91078]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Department of Trade and Industry Ministers meet the National Federation of Sub-postmasters (NFSP) on a regular basis. Officials from this Department and the Department of Trade and Industry also meet with the NFSP. The Post Office meet with individual postmasters to discuss the move to Direct Payment.

  Benefits Agency (Fraud)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Benefits Agency staff have been found to have committed fraud in each of the last five years. [92506]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The figures are an extract from the Departmental annual returns to HM Treasury on internal fraud, and show the number of Benefits Agency staff that have been found to have committed fraud in each year since 1997.

  A breakdown by agency for 1997–98 is not available, and the figure given is the total for the then Department of Social Security.
  649W

  Benefits agency staff that have been found to have committed fraud in each year since 1997

  Total DSS figure

  1997–98

  189

  1998–99

  112

  1999–2000

  139

  2000–01

  65

  2001–02

  128

  Although technically defined as fraud cases for HM Treasury reporting purposes, many of the cases above involve little or no financial loss e.g. unauthorised use of software, or trading on official premises.

  While these types of case are treated seriously, and disciplinary action inevitably follows, each case is treated individually and penalties therefore vary considerably, from an oral warning to dismissal, prosecution and custodial sentencing.

  Cash Savings
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list for each year since 1997 his estimate of the average cash savings held by families on low incomes. [91982]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available. The Department's Family Resources Survey provides information on savings, however data are not available for average amounts of savings because this information is not collected for all respondents.

  Child Care Costs
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the basis is for his policy that a couple who are both in receipt of benefits where one receives invalidity or incapacity benefit and the other jobseeker allowance, are not eligible for child care costs when the parent on jobseeker allowance joins the Government New Deal and Training for Work programmes. [88601]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department does not have a policy to refuse help with child care for a couple who are both in receipt of benefits, one on incapacity benefits and the other on jobseeker's allowance, when the latter joins the New Deal. The child care arrangements for people in these circumstances are as follows.

  Within the New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus programmes, child care costs can be met where there is a genuine need and the individual would otherwise be unable to participate in a New Deal option or Intensive Activity Period. New Deal Personal Advisers decide on a person's eligibility for help with child care costs based on that individual's particular circumstances.

  Under New Deal 50 plus, a person starting work receives financial support through 52 weekly payments (Employment Credit) to help them during the transitional period between benefit and work. It is up to the individual whether they use this money to help meet child care costs.

  Jobseekers in Scotland may also be entitled to child care costs when applying for Training for Work. The Training for Work programme is the responsibility of
  650W
  the Scottish Executive. It is delivered by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise who have discretion to fund child care costs for participants.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list for each year since 1997 the change in(a) numbers and (b) percentage of those children taken out of poverty; [91995]

  (2) if he will list for each year since 1992 the percentage of children living in households below the poverty line. [91994]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Poverty is a complex and multi-dimensional problem. We published 'Opportunity for all—Fourth Annual Report' (Cm 5598) in September 2002, which contains information on a range of indicators of poverty for children and young people.

  We expect to publish the preliminary conclusions of our consultation on Measuring Child Poverty in spring 2003.

  Child Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to evaluate the outcomes of the child support reforms IT system testing. [91295]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 317 W.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many CSA cases were referred to the Independent Case Examiner in the last year; what the average time taken to determine each case; what and how many complaints were upheld. [88155]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Further information is available in the Independent Case Examiner's Annual Report for 2001–02, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  April 2001–March 2002

  Complaints

  Number

  Complaints received

  1,498

  Accepted for examination

  772

  Resolved

  424

  Areas of complaint (per cent.)

  Delay

  17.1

  Error

  7.0

  Enforcement

  4.6

  Communication

  23.6

  Failure to take action

  29.1

  Staff bias/attitude

  3.9

  Compensation

  6.8

  Other

  8.0

  Average clearance time (weeks)

  32.28

  Findings

  Fully upheld

  46

  Partially upheld

  141

  Not upheld

  26

  651W
  Notes:

  1. Complaints are only classified as fully, partially or not upheld if they cannot be resolved through conciliation between the client and the Child Support Agency.

  2. It may be of interest for you to know that we are advised by the Agency that at the end of November 2002, the Agency's live and assessed caseload was 1,088,920.

  3. Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if it is his intention to transfer the existing Child Support Agency caseload onto the new scheme on a single common date. [91296]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Current plans envisage that existing cases will be converted to the new scheme on a common date. Where it emerges that a new application for child support maintenance is linked to an existing case, for example, because the non-resident parent is the same person in both cases, then the existing case will be transferred to the new scheme early.

  Clergy
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what effect changes proposed in the recent Green Paper on retirement would have on the retirement age of clergy. [90570]

  Mr. Bell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Currently the majority of Church of England clergy must retire on reaching 70, under the Ecclesiastical Offices (Age Limit) Measure 1975. Since the Government is still consulting on how the Employment Directive—to which Chapter 6 of the Green Paper refers—should be implemented as regards discrimination on grounds of age, it is not yet possible to say what its effect will be and whether changes will be required to the 1975 Measure.

  However, since most clergy choose to retire before reaching 70, I do not envisage significant effect in practice on the retirement age of clergy.

  Computers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer, ref. 88450, on the cost of new PCs installed in his Department, if he will provide a breakdown of the figure of £156.7 million into the cost of the(a) machines, (b) software and (c) network; how many machines were installed; what the average cost of each machine was; and if he will provide a breakdown of the figure of £58.5 million for installation costs, indicating what services were provided in relation to the installation of the machines. [89919]

  Mr. McCartney
  By 30 November 2002 the Department for Work and Pensions had installed 100,120 workstations (desktops and laptops) along with the associated software, smart card readers, printers, servers and switches.

  The £156.7 million capital expenditure up to 30 November 2002 is broken down as follows.
  652W

  £ million

  Desktops

  85.2

  Laptops

  7.5

  Printers

  11.1

  Software

  18.2

  Servers

  24.0

  Network Switches

  10.7

  The cost of a desktop workstation (including base unit, monitor, and keyboard) has been negotiated down from £838 to £804 during the course of rollout. The specification has also improved with each bulk order.

  The £58.5 million installation costs are covered by two contracts with suppliers. The detailed breakdown of costs is commercially sensitive information which could enable suppliers to gain an advantage in pricing negotiations. Such information is not disclosed under part 2, paragraph 13 of the Code of Practice an Access to Government Information. However, the services provided are delivery, on-site allocation and testing, disposal and warehousing, implementation management, ordering, work scheduling, planning, central support, migration of data, network connection, on-site management and problem resolution.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what sales of heritage assets and antique assets have been made by his Department since May 1997; and if he will list such assets; and if he will estimate the total sales proceeds. [92402]

  Mr. McCartney
  No sales of heritage or antique assets have been made by the Department for Work and Pensions since May 1997.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many deaf people were provided with a qualified British Sign Language interpreter when attending a medical assessment for disability living allowance in each year since 1997. [92720]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: The information requested is not available. SchlumbergerSema Medical Services do not keep records of the numbers of requests made for a Sign Language interpreter to attend at medical assessments. All customers are informed of the availability of interpreter services on request.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disability living allowance awards have been made for which deafness is the main disability condition, broken down by(a) age and (b) type of award, including (i) care only component, (ii) mobility only component and (iii) combined care and mobility components. [92721]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: The information requested is detailed in the table.
  653W

  Number of DLA recipients where the main disabling condition was deafness or deaf and blind, by age and component as at 31 May 2002

  Thousands

  Higher care and

  Higher care only

  Middle care and

  Middle care only

  Lower care and

  Lower care only

  Mobility

  All

  Higher mobility

  Lower mobility

  Higher mobility

  Lower mobility

  Higher mobility

  Lower mobility

  Higher

  Lower

  All

  28.5

  0.6

  10.3

  10.2

  0.7

  9.7

  8.1

  10.3

  2.7

  3.4

  10.4

  2.0

  0–4

  1.3

  —

  —

  10.1

  —

  —

  1.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5–15

  7.9

  10.2

  10.3

  10.1

  10.1

  4.2

  2.2

  —

  10.2

  10.2

  —

  10.4

  16–24

  4.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.8

  0.9

  —

  10.4

  10.3

  —

  10.4

  25–29

  1.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.4

  10.4

  —

  10.2

  10.2

  10.1

  10.1

  30–34

  2.0

  —

  —

  —

  10.1

  0.6

  0.6

  —

  10.1

  10.4

  —

  10.1

  35–39

  2.5

  10.1

  —

  —

  10.1

  0.6

  0.8

  —

  10.4

  10.4

  —

  10.2

  40–44

  2.1

  —

  —

  —

  10.1

  0.5

  0.5

  —

  10.4

  0.5

  —

  —

  45–49

  1.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.2

  0.5

  —

  10.1

  10.2

  —

  10.2

  50–54

  1.4

  —

  —

  —

  10.1

  10.3

  10.2

  —

  10.2

  10.4

  —

  10.2

  55–59

  1.8

  —

  —

  —

  10.1

  10.5

  10.4

  —

  10.3

  10.3

  10.1

  10.1

  60–64

  1.5

  —

  —

  —

  10.1

  10.4

  10.3

  10.1

  10.2

  10.2

  10.1

  10.1

  65+

  1.3

  10.1

  —

  —

  10.1

  10.2

  10.2

  10.1

  10.1

  10.2

  10.1

  10.2

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, data taken from 5 per cent. sample.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disability living allowance applications by people whose main disabling condition is deafness were refused at(a) initial application, (b) reconsideration and (c) aural tribunal in (i) England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales in each year since 1997. [92722]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: Information regarding applications which have been refused is not readily available by disabling condition and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  Source:IAD Information Centre.
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disability living allowance awards there were to(a) disabled people and (b) people whose main disabling condition is deafness in each year since 1997; and how many of these were granted at (i) initial application, (ii) reconsideration and (iii) aural tribunal, in (A) England, (B) Wales and (C) Scotland. [92723]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: The available information is set out in the tables. Figures for reconsideration are not available by disability or by region. We are currently unable to supply statistically reliable information on those successful at appeal.

  Number of Disability Living Allowance awards to disabled people in general in England, Scotland and Wales since 1997

  Thousand

  All

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1996–97

  287.5

  233.0

  30.6

  23.8

  1997–98

  248.0

  202.4

  26.5

  19.1

  1998–99

  215.5

  177.4

  23.0

  15.1

  1999–2000

  217.4

  176.8

  24.5

  16.2

  2000–01

  254.0

  208.8

  28.0

  17.1

  2000–02

  252.8

  205.3

  29.0

  18.5

  Note:

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, data taken from 5 per cent. sample (1 June–31 May each year).
  654W

  Number of Disability Living Allowance awards where the main disabling condition is deafness or deaf and blind in England, Scotland and Wales since 1997

  Thousand

  All

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1996–97

  3.0

  2.4

  10.3

  10.2

  1997–98

  4.5

  4.0

  10.3

  10.2

  1998–99

  3.5

  3.1

  10.2

  10.2

  1999–2000

  3.1

  2.8

  10.2

  10.1

  2000–01

  3.0

  2.6

  10.3

  10.2

  2001–02

  2.8

  2.3

  10.3

  10.2

  1 Less than 500 and subject to a high degree of sampling variation.

  Note:

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, data taken from 5 per cent. sample (1 June–31 May each year)

  Number of Disability Living Allowance awards granted on initial application in England, Scotland and Wales since 1997

  Thousand

  All

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1996–97

  234.0

  191.9

  22.9

  19.2

  1997–98

  198.4

  163.9

  19.0

  15.5

  1998–99

  173.5

  144.6

  16.7

  12.2

  1999/2000

  178.3

  146.2

  18.8

  13.4

  2000–01

  207.7

  173.3

  20.8

  13.6

  2001–02

  210.1

  173.1

  21.5

  15.5

  Note:

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, data taken from 5 per cent. sample (1 June–31 May each year).

  Number of Disability Living Allowance awards granted on initial application where the main disabling condition is deafness or deaf and blind in England, Scotland and Wales since 1997

  Thousand

  All

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1996–97

  1.7

  1.4

  10.1

  10.1

  1997–98

  2.3

  2.1

  10.1

  10.1

  1998–99

  1.8

  1.6

  2—

  10.1

  1999–2000

  2.0

  1.8

  10.1

  10.1

  2000–01

  2.0

  1.8

  10.1

  10.1

  2001–02

  1.9

  1.6

  10.2

  10.1

  655W
  1 Less than 500 and subject to a high degree of sampling variation.

  2 Nil or negligible.

  Note:

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, data taken from 5 per cent sample (1 June–31 May each year).

  Number of Disability Living Allowance awards successful on reconsideration in Great Britain since 1997

  All

  1996–97

  68,710

  1997–98

  65,950

  1998–99

  51,650

  1999–2000

  42,755

  2000–01

  33,895

  2001–02

  30,960

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, data taken from 100 per cent. monthly MIS data (1 June–31 May each year).

  Successful includes awards which were increased and awards which were allowed.

  Disability Living Allowance (Deaf Recipients)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disability living allowance recipients, whose main disabling condition is deafness, are aged between(a) 0 to 16 years and (b) 16 to 64 years and live in (i) England, (ii) Wales and (iii) Scotland. [92811]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Number of recipients of disability living allowance aged under 16 and 16 to 64 whose main disabling condition is deafness or deaf and blind at 31 August 2002.

  Thousands

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  0–15

  7.9

  0.6

  0.6

  16–64

  15.6

  1.0

  1.8

  Note:

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, data taken from 5 per cent. sample as at 31 August 2002.

  Disability Living Allowance (Fraud)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what investigations were(a) undertaken and (b) completed in 2002 into fraud in disability living allowance claims. [93559]

  Malcolm Wicks
  During 2001–02, a total of 2,021 disability living allowance benefit fraud cases were investigated, and of these, 1,172 resulted in identification of an overpayment. In addition, a total of 404 disability living allowance instrument of payment fraud cases were investigated, and of these, 229 resulted in identification of an overpayment.Source:
  Disability and Carers' Benefit Unit management information.
  656W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his assessment is of the level of fraud and the amount of money defrauded in disability living allowance in 2002. [93561]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The most recent assessment of the level of fraud in disability living allowance found confirmed fraud in 1.5 per cent. of cases. This equates to approximately £78 million per year.

  Source:

  National Benefit Review of Disability Living Allowance, published February 1997.

  European Year of Disabled People
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many regional and local projects to be funded as part of the European Year of Disabled People are based in(a) the Scottish Borders and (b) Scotland. [92624]

  Maria Eagle
  Of the 171 projects in the UK, 22 are based in Scotland. There are no projects based in the Scottish Borders but three of the 22 projects cover the whole of Scotland and will therefore benefit the Scottish Borders.

  Fair Trade Criteria
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what fair trade criteria he sets when deciding upon what suppliers to use. [89915]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 92W, which sets out the-Government-wide position.

  The Department for Work and Pensions is committed to fair trade and ethical supply routes. There are no prescribed fair trade criteria, and each contract is considered individually on its merits in line with EC procurement regulations and Government policy regarding value for money. However, our supply policy is that supply decisions must be based on a balanced assessment of benefits which must include value for money and ethical issues across the whole supply chain. This policy allows individual procurement exercises to set the right criteria, including fair trade criteria, that are appropriate to the business requirement and the commodity or service being procured.

  Income Support
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people in receipt of income support have full refugee status; [89111]

  (2) how many non-UK citizens who have been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom are in receipt of income support; [89112]

  (3) how many non-UK citizens are in receipt of income support by reason of their status of having suffered a recent upheaval in their country. [89118]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.
  657W
  Nationals from a country which my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, has declared a "country of upheaval" may claim asylum in this country. Asylum seekers no longer have access to income-related benefits, such as Income Support, as the National Asylum Support Service now deals with any claim for financial support.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons have claimed the minimum income guarantee in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since 1997. [93087]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available relates to the number of people receiving Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) and is shown in the table.

  Minimum Income Guarantee: number of people receiving MIG as

  at August each year from 1997 to 2002

  County of Shropshire

  Parliamentary constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham

  1997

  7,900

  2,900

  1998

  7,700

  2,800

  1999

  7,600

  2,800

  2000

  7,400

  2,700

  2001

  7,800

  2,900

  2002

  8,100

  2,700

  Minimum Income Guarantee (Pensioners)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have benefited from the minimum income guarantee in(a) Coventry and (b) West Midlands. [92346]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at August 2002 there were 13,700 people benefiting from the Minimum Income Guarantee in Coventry and 219,800 in the West Midlands region.Source: Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2002

  New Deal
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what number and proportion of those on each option of the New Deal for Young People and for those aged over 25 years went into a sustained job, in the most recent period for which figures are available. [90373]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the tables.

  New Deal for young people (from January 1998 to September 2002)

  Stage of leaving

  Number of people leaving the New Deal

  Number who left New Deal for a sustained, unsubsidized job 1

  Proportion of leavers who moved into a sustained, unsubsidized job (per cent.)

  From the gateway After entering each Option:

  429,500

  187,400

  43.6

  Subsidised employment

  58,800

  28,600

  48.6

  658W

  New Deal for young people (from January 1998 to September 2002)

  Stage of leaving

  Number of people leaving the New Deal

  Number who left New Deal for a sustained, unsubsidized job 1

  Proportion of leavers who moved into a sustained, unsubsidized job (per cent.)

  Full-time education and training

  100,500

  31,000

  30.8

  Voluntary sector

  58,700

  18,900

  32.2

  Environment Task Force

  56,700

  17,400

  30.7

  In addition to these job outcomes, we know from survey findings that around 56 per cent.of young people who leave the New Deal for unknown destinations do, in fact, find work.

  Pre-April 2001 New Deal 25 plus (from July 1998 to September 2002)

  Stage of leaving

  Number of people leaving the New Deal

  Number who left New Deal for a sustained, unsubsidized job1

  Proportion of leavers who moved into a sustained, unsubsidized job (per cent.)

  From gateway After entering each option:

  304,800

  42,200

  13,8

  Subsidised employment

  16 900

  1 800

  10.7

  Full-time education and training

  7,400

  1,100

  14.9

  Work based learning for adults

  23.100

  2,500

  10.8

  In April 2001, New Deal 25 plus was extended and enhanced to provide a flexible, more individually-tailored service to help more people get jobs and remain in them. This included the introduction of an Intensive Activity Period (IAP) for participants after an initial Gateway period. The IAP provides a wider package of tailored help, which might combine, for example, work experience, work-focused training, help with motivation and soft skills, and help with job search. From April 2001, all those eligible for New Deal 25 plus joined this re-engineered programme.

  Re-engineered New Deal 25 plus (from April 2001 to September 2002)

  Stage of leaving

  Number of people leaving the New Deal

  Number who left New Deal for a sustained, unsubsidized job 1

  Proportion of leavers who moved into a sustained, unsubsidized job (per cent.)

  Form gateway After entering each option:

  82.100

  24.900

  30.3

  Subsidised employment

  5,600

  700

  12.5

  Basic employability training

  4.300

  800

  18.6

  Self employment

  1,500

  500

  33.3

  Education/Training opportunity

  700

  200

  28.6

  Work experience

  8,500

  1,900

  22.4

  Intensive activity period training

  9.300

  2.100

  22.6

  Other (includes training for work)

  200

  40

  20.0

  1 Sustained employment is when a client has not returned to claim JSA within 13 weeks of leaving the programme.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the changes to the priority order for winding up occupational pensions proposed in his Pensions Green Paper will apply retrospectively. [93056]

  Mr. McCartney
  Changing the priority order would increase protection on winding up for some scheme members but others would receive less. This being the case, we do not currently propose to introduce regulations on a retrospective basis because, for some, this would mean reducing pension already promised or in payment.

  However, this is a difficult and complex area and we will look very carefully at it during the consultation on the Pensions Green Paper.

  Payments Programme
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will make a statement on the results of the recent review of the modernisation of the payments programme. [86704]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The gated review process within the Department allows for a number of formal reviews. The Payment Modernisation Programme successfully navigated through the Operational Readiness Review approval gateway during September and October.

  This enabled the Programme to commence the first phase in the move towards Direct Payment, including mailings sent to Veterans Agency customers from 7 October and Child Benefit customers from 28 October 2002.

  Pensions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the change as a percentage of gross domestic product in spending on pensions necessary to bring the average pension in the United Kingdom in line with that in(a) the Netherlands, (b) the USA, (c) Australia, (d) Japan,(e) Italy, (f) Germany, (g) France, (h) Sweden and (i) the average in the EU. [90124]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information that is available is set out in the following table.

  Comparable cross-country data on public and private pensions expenditure are available only for European Union countries. According to data produced by Eurostat, the highest rate of old-age pension expenditure per capita is in the UK.

  Expenditure on old age pensions at 1995 constant prices (index of EU average 1990 = 100) per head (population over 65)

  1999

  France

  111

  Germany

  102

  Italy

  113

  Netherlands

  108

  Sweden

  —

  UK

  134

  EU-15

  114

  660W
  Notes:

  1. Production of comparable cross-country estimates is extremely difficult due to substantially different rules in various countries. Eurostat say about their numbers:

  "This indicator is not perfect. Old-age pensions may cover different areas in different countries, and the retirement age differs from country to country (for both the legal age and the effective age)."

  However, Eurostat's: "European Social Statistics—Social Protection Expenditure and Receipts" (ESSPROS) is regarded as the best available measure.

  2. The definition of pensions in the ESSPROS methodology includes basic and supplementary schemes, sometimes known as first-pillar and second pillar schemes, but excludes third-pillar arrangements, for example personal pensions in the UK. The ESSPROS pensions aggregate comprises of only part of periodic cash benefits under the disability, old-age, survivors and unemployment functions in ESSPROS.

  3. In the case of the UK, the pensions aggregate recorded in ESSPROS comprises of benefits payable under the disability, old-age and survivors' functions and occupational pensions. It excludes lump-sum benefits payable on retirement (approximately 0.7 per cent. of GDP in 1999). Personal pensions are also not included in the ESSPROS social protection definition of pensions (approximately 1.5 per cent. of GDP in 1999).

  4. Data are not available for Sweden.

  Source:

  Eurostat-ESSPROS, Statistics in Focus, June 2002, ISSN 1024–4352 www.europa.eu.int

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information the Government's public information campaign on the payment and banking options available for benefit customers has disseminated, with particular reference to the personal invitation documents for the Post Office card account. [91134]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government's information campaign, to support the move to Direct Payment, provides customers with factual information on the banking options available to them, including information on the Post Office card account. The information is presented in a way that enables customers to decide which option is best for their individual circumstances. Customers who want to open a Post Office card account are advised to contact the Department for Work and Pensions, who will issue them with a personal invitation document.

  Prosecuting and Charging Standards
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library the code for prosecutors and charging standards used by his Department when acting as a prosecuting authority. [88472]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Departmental officials follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors when taking the decision to prosecute and deciding what charges should be brought. The code is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and a copy is available in the Library.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many departmental Minutes issued by his Department were outstanding on 30 November 2002 that referred to public-private partnerships, as
  661W
  included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89417]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: There were no departmental Minutes outstanding on 30 November 2002 that refer to public-private partnerships, as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts.

  Racial Harassment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what rights victims of alleged racial harassment in the workplace have to paid legal representation in employment tribunals. [91949]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Generally, legal representation in employment tribunal proceedings in England and Wales is excluded from the scope of public funding, though funding for general legal advice falling short of advocacy is available under the Legal Help Scheme. However the Lord Chancellor has the power under Section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 to authorise funding in exceptional cases where the Legal Services Commission asks him to do so. In Scotland representation before an employment tribunal is available to anyone who meets the statutory tests for Assistance by Way of Representation (ABWOR). ABWOR allows a solicitor to appear on behalf of a client before the Tribunal.

  In addition, under section 66 of the Race Relations Act (RRA) 1976, the Commission for Racial Equality has discretion to provide paid legal representation.

  Same-sex Couples
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate has been made of the number of same-sex couples in long-term relationships living together who are currently treated as separate households for the purpose of state pension and other benefits; [89697]

  (2) for which benefits heterosexual unmarried couples living together as husband and wife are treated as a couple when same-sex couples are treated as individuals; and for each of these benefits what estimate he has made (a) of the cost of treating same-sex couples as individuals and (b) the savings made by not treating such heterosexual couples as individuals. [89698]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: There is very little information about same-sex couples in this country. The Labour Force Survey suggests that there are about 50,000 cohabiting same-sex couples in the UK. Around one in twenty of the individuals in these couples say they are claiming income related benefits or tax credits. There appear to be very few who are pensioners. Same sex couples are treated as individuals for the purposes of determining entitlement to income related benefits.

  We already treat same sex couples as individuals for the purpose of determining entitlement to income related benefits. Any estimate of the savings made from treating unmarried heterosexual couples as couples rather than as individuals would depend on assumptions
  662W
  about, for example, the number of individuals who would otherwise choose to claim benefit and about whether benefit would be paid for their children.

  Notes:

  a. Information is taken from the Labour Force Survey, spring 2002 and the Family Resources Survey 2001–02. However, they are very likely to under record the extent of same sex partnerships. In addition they will not necessarily capture all benefit recipients.

  b. Definition of benefits includes all unemployment related benefits, including JSA (IB), IS, family related benefits or tax credits and housing or council tax benefit.

  c. There are very few pensioners recorded in the Family Resources Survey as being in same sex couples.

  d. Estimated costs are based on the information in the Labour Force Survey and assumes that the proportion of working age individuals receiving benefit is the same for those in same-sex couples as in the wider population.

  Standard Housing Allowance Pilot
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of his standard housing allowance pilot in each of the next five financial years, identifying separately the cost of the evaluation of the pilots; and if he will estimate the eventual cost of the scheme if it were to apply to(a) all private rented accommodation nationwide and (b) all private or social rented accommodation nationwide. [93631]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Ten local authorities have been invited to be pathfinders for the standard local housing allowance pilot. We estimate that the pilot will cost around £20 million per year in additional benefit spending. Evaluation will cost around £2 million over the course of the project. We will be in a position to quantify the cost of supporting the pathfinder authorities in setting up and administering the scheme once all of the details of the pilot are worked out.

  The cost of a nationwide scheme for the private rented sector would depend on the design of the scheme, which will be informed by the results from the pathfinders. We cannot, therefore, estimate the potential cost at this time.

  It is not possible to estimate the cost of a housing allowance for social rented accommodation, which would have to be designed along different lines from the private rented sector pilot.

  Targeting Fraud Campaign
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by what means he assesses the effectiveness of the Targeting Fraud advertising campaign; and what his assessment is of its effectiveness. [92499]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The effectiveness of the Targeting Fraud advertising campaign is subject to a full evaluation after each major phase. In October 2001, a copy of the summary of the evaluation of the March 2001 burst of the Targeting Fraud campaign was placed in the Library. Evaluation shows that public attitudes are moving in a positive direction as a result of the campaign.

  Tenancies
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many households in(a) private

  663W
  regulated tenancies and (b) private deregulated tenancies there were in each English region in each year since 1996. [91690]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The private rented sector is now only some 10 per cent. of the whole housing market, and regulated tenancies have become only a small part of the private rented sector. This means that even though the Survey of English Housing is a large survey, the sample of regulated private tenancies is not large enough to allow reliable figures to be produced for individual regions and for individual years. Tabled is the estimated annual average number of regulated and deregulated tenancies for the period 1998–99 to 2001–02 for London, and for broad regional groupings. Annual estimates of regulated and deregulated tenancies in England are also shown from 1996–97 to 2001–02. There is no reason to expect that the trends in individual regions have been significantly different from those for England as a whole.

  Regulated and deregulated1 private tenancies

  Thousands

  Regulated

  Deregulated

  Regional grouping: annual average (1998–99 to 2001–02)

  North2

  39

  402

  Midlands3

  22

  222

  South4except London

  50

  546

  London

  34

  330

  England

  145

  1,499

  England: annual series

  1996–97

  242

  1,406

  1997–98

  205

  1,486

  1998–99

  189

  1,477

  1999–2000

  154

  1,517

  2001–01

  122

  1,434

  2001–02

  120

  1,511

  1Assured and assured short hold tenancies.

  2North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber.

  3East Midlands, West Midlands.

  4East, South East, South West.

  Source:

  Survey of English Housing, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people over 60 qualify for the £200 Winter Fuel Allowance in Telford. [93282]

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

  However, for winter 2001–02, payments of £200 were made to some 6,500 people living in Telford.
  Note:
  Figure is rounded to the nearest hundred.Source:
  Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuels Payment 2001–02.

HEALTH

  ACT
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research regarding changes to corporate investment behaviour consequential to the changes to ACT announced in the 1997 Budget has been(a) carried out and (b) commissioned by his Department. [92316]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The abolition of ACT was part of a package of measures introduced over the period 1997 to 1999 aimed at creating an improved climate for long term investment. Subsequent tax changes have also been designed to promote enterprise and encourage economic growth. There are practical difficulties in assessing the impact of these changes, and in any case, it does not make sense to evaluate the impact of one part of this series of measures in isolation.

  Acute Beds
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of occupancy of(a) general and (b) acute beds in the NHS is. [91596]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average occupancy of beds in general and acute wards in 2001–02 was 86 per cent. This information is published annually on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Acute Hospital Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the strategic reviews into the provision of acute hospital services that are taking place in the NHS in England; and when those reviews are due for completion. [91479]

  Mr. Hutton
  All strategic health authorities are in the process of developing local delivery plans for the next three years. These will show systematically how improvements will be made locally to deliver the increases in capacity and quality set out in the priorities and planning framework 2003–06 and will include acute hospital services.

  Plans are due to be submitted to the Department by the end of March 2003.

  Acute Hospitals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the changes to working patterns resulting from the Agenda for Change settlement will take effect in acute hospitals. [87535]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to the outcome of staff side consultation, the new national health service pay system is expected to be introduced in 'early implementer' sites, including some acute hospitals, in June 2003 and will be implemented across the rest of the NHS from October 2004. The new pay system will give NHS organisations much greater flexibility to design jobs and working practices around the needs of NHS patients both in the short term following implementation and on an ongoing basis in the future.

  Ambulance Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the diversion policies operated by ambulance services. [88162]

  Mr. Lammy
  National health service ambulance services will decide to which accident and emergency department they will take a patient depending on the local circumstances prevailing at the time. They will use local information to make that decision.

  Anit-smoking Campaigns
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that forthcoming public information anti-smoking campaigns will raise awareness of the link between smoking and stroke; and what targets have been set to reduce the number of stroke deaths caused by smoking. [90553]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's current television advertising campaign is based on testimonials in which real people describe the effects of their illnesses and their feelings about having smoked.

  Since January 2002, one of the testimonials we are showing has featured a 38-year-old man who describes how his life has been devastated by a series of smoking related strokes.

  One of the warnings required to appear on cigarette packets in accordance with the Tobacco Products (Manufacture, Presentation and Sale) (Safety) Regulations 2002 warns that, "Smoking clogs the arteries and causes heart attacks and strokes".

  Although no specific targets have been set for stroke deaths, we have a series of smoking prevalence targets. By reducing the overall level of smoking we will tackle all smoking related illness, including strokes. My officials have recently met with the Stroke Association to examine what more can be done to raise awareness of the risks of smoking related strokes.

  Body Piercing
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to prohibit body piercing of minors without their parents' or guardians' consent; if he will list the statutory provisions which cover the body piercing of minors. [92520]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have no current plans to introduce legislation to make the body piercing of minors without their parents' or guardians' consent a criminal offence, as this might lead to them piercing themselves or each other in an unsafe and unhygienic manner or to going to disreputable businesses. We keep the position under review.

  There are no statutory provisions relating specifically to the cosmetic body piercing of minors. The following statutory provisions are relevant to the regulation of cosmetic body piercing businesses:

  London Local Authorities Act 2000

  London Local Authorities Act 1995

  London Local Authorities Act 1991

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (relates to ear piercing)

  Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981

  666W
  In general, body piercing organisations and local authorities take the good practice view that children, either under 16 or under 18 years of age (depending on viewpoint), should not have body piercing without parental consent. However, practice by individual businesses may vary.

  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the need for further regulation of body piercing; what plans he has for the further regulation of body piercing; and what recent consultations the Government have had with local authorities concerning the body piercing of minors. [92521]

  Ms Blears
  Since January 2002, we have received a small number of representations about the regulation of body piercing businesses.

  We intend to introduce primary legislation to give local authorities outside London specific powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing business, when parliamentary time allows.

  We have had no recent consultations with local authorities about the cosmetic body piercing of minors.

  Cancelled Operations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cancelled operations there were at each NHS hospital in each of the past four quarters. [91480]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on Wednesday 15 January 2003,Official Report, at column 676W.

  Child Offenders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have(a) been convicted, (b) been in the care of a local authority for a year or more, (c) received a reprimand and (d) received a final warning, in each year since 1997. [85639]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is contained in the tables.

  Number of 10 to 17 years cautioned, given final warnings or reprimands, and found guilty of all offences at all courts 1997 to 2001 1

  Number

  Cautioned

  Given final warning

  Reprimanded

  Found guilty

  England and Wales

  1997

  104,520

  —2

  —2

  79,151

  1998

  109,725

  —2

  —2

  86,506

  1999

  103,978

  —2

  —2

  90,280

  20003

  36,764

  42,773

  18,004

  91,423

  2001

  —2

  66,538

  31,504

  95,530

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Not applicable.

  3 Final warnings and reprimands were implemented nationally from 1 June 2000.

  667W

  Children who ceased to be looked after by local authorities during the years ending 31 March 1997 to 2001

  Number

  Number of children

  Of which looked after for 1 year or more

  England

  1997

  30,300

  9,700

  1998

  29,000

  9,600

  1999

  27,100

  8,500

  2000

  26,800

  10,100

  2001

  25,100

  10,700

  Source:

  Department of Health

  Child Organs
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that families of children whose organs were retained without their consent receive compensation on a consistent basis across the country, regardless of which hospital was involved; and if he will make a statement. [92813]

  Mr. Lammy
  The NHS Litigation Authority is dealing with the retained organs litigation action and negotiations are subject to a confidentiality agreement between all parties. Both the Liverpool and nationwide group actions will be dealt with on their legal merits and any settlement will reflect this principle.

  Children (Mental Health Problems)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on his assessment of the risk factors increasing the likelihood of mental health problems in children; [91989]

  (2) if he will list for each year since 1997 the percentage of children who were diagnosed as suffering from each category of mental disorder. [91988]

  Jacqui Smith
  A survey of the mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain was carried out in 1999 by the Office for National Statistics on behalf of the Department of Health, Scottish National Executive and National Assembly for Wales. Prevalence rates were produced for five to 15-year-olds in the three main categories of mental disorder; ie, conduct disorder, hyperactivity and emotional disorder.

  The key findings on prevalence were that:
  about 10 per cent. of children aged five to 15 in Great Britain had a mental disorder in 1999;
  5 per cent. had conduct disorders (eg aggressive and antisocial behaviour), 4 per cent. had emotional disorders (eg anxiety, depression) and 1 per cent. were hyperkinetic (inattention, over-activity);
  mental disorders were significantly more common in boys than girls in both the five to 10 and the 11 to 15-year-old age groups.

  The survey also found that mental disorders were more likely among children:

  in lone parent compared with two parent families

  who had a parent with a mental disorder

  in families of social class V (unskilled occupations) compared with social class I (professional occupations)

  in families with a gross weekly household income of less than £200 compared with £500 or more

  who had a physical health complaint

  who had special educational needs.

  668W
  The prevalence of mental disorders in children were not unexpected nor were the associations between the risk factors and levels of disorder. They are in line with similar studies in Western Europe and the United States. This information has proved very useful in providing a benchmark for further work, such as that being undertaken by the child and adolescent mental health module of the Children's National Service Framework.

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what remuneration(a) the Chairman (b) the Chief Executive and (c) each commissioner of the new Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will receive. [92594]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Chair of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health receives £25,000 per annum. Each commissioner receives £5,305 per annum. The Chief Executive post was advertised at between £80,000 to £100,000 per annum.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will name those people who took part in the interview and selection process for the position of Chairman at the new Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health; and how many people applied for the position. [92597]

  Mr. Lammy
  The selection and interview panel consisted of Sir William Wells, chair of the national health service independent appointments commission, Sarah Mullally, chief nursing officer at the Department of Health, and Harry Cayton, chief executive of the Alzheimers Society and the director for patients' experience and public involvement at the Department of Health.

  The independent assessor, supplied by the office of the commissioner for public appointments, was Cindy Butts. 52 people applied for the position.

  Congestion Charge
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from within the NHS in London about the impact of the congestion charge. [91477]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have received three letters from national health service professionals employed in London about the impact of the congestion charge. No representations have been received from NHS organisations.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 11 September, 8 October, 7 November and 5 December, relating to her constituent, Miss P. V. Kennion; [87005]

  (2) when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of (a) 11 September 2002, (b) 8 October 2002, (c) 7 November 2002, (d) 5 December 2002 and (e) 7 January relating to Miss P. V. Kennion of Broxbourne, a constituent. [90222]
  669W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answers 16 December 2002 and 13 January 2003]: I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sent a reply on 21 January.

  Delayed Discharges
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were subject to delayed discharge in each hospital trust in England as at(a) 31 December 2002 and (b) 31 December 2001. [89936]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the data for England from September 2001 to September 2002. Information for December 2002 is not yet available. The detailed breakdowns of these figures by health authorities and primary care trusts have been placed in the Library.

  England: numbers of delayed discharges of patients of all ages by primary care trust1

  Number

  Rate (percentage)

  September 2002

  5,385

  5.1

  June 2002

  5,489

  5.1

  March 2002

  5,473

  5.2

  December 2001

  6,419

  6.1

  September 2001

  7,065

  6.6

  1 March 2002, December 2001 and September 2001 figures were collected by health authorities.

  Departmental Performance Report
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his Department's Autumn Performance Report, Service Delivery Agreements and Departmental Investment Strategy. [92157]

  Mr. Lammy
  In December 2002, the Department published the chief executive's Report to the National Health Service, setting out progress during 2001–02 and for the first six months of the year.

  This report sets out clearly how the increased resources within the NHS are being used improve performance by providing more care for patients, improving quality and providing investment for the future. We intend to link this report to Her Majesty's Treasury website and will review it to ensure it covers reporting of public service agreement performance in full.

  The Departmental Investment Strategy, which explains the Department's capital investment plans for the years 2003–4 to 2005–6, will be published shortly, before Her Majesty's Treasury's March Budget Announcement.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [90711]

  Mr. Lammy
  Detailed information on administration costs for the Department of Health administration costs expenditure and its agencies, going back to 1998–99 and with projections to 2003–04, is set out in Figure 8.1 of the 2002 Departmental Report (CM5403). Copies are available in the Library.
  670W
  Data for years before 1998–99 are not available on the same basis. Provisional out-turn for gross and net administration costs limits were published in Public Expenditure 2001–02 provisional out-turn (Cm 5574), Tables 4 and 5. 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 Health what the distribution of his Department's wholetime equivalent staff was, 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. [90477]

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

  Draft Mental Health Bill
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of the responses to the draft Mental Health Bill consultation came from Wales; [87732]

  (2) when he plans to publish a summary of the responses to the draft Mental Health Bill consultation. [87731]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 17 December 2002]: We have received over 1,900 responses to the consultation on the draft Mental Health Bill. We are currently considering them carefully. The results of the consultation will be made public in due course. Approximately 17 per cent., have been identified as from people and organisations based in Wales.

  Drugs Budget
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Answer of 8 January 2003,Official Report, column 277W, on the drugs budget, what the budgets were for this provision. [91592]

  Mr. Hutton
  The answer of 8 January, 2003 Official Report, column 277W, gave figures for the total expenditure on drugs for National Health Service trusts in England between 1998–99 and 2001–02.

  The Department does not hold information on resources set aside by NHS trusts for the provision of drugs.

  The resource amounts set aside from the unified allocation for drugs are essentially a local decision for NHS trusts to agree, in collaboration with primary care trusts, strategic health authorities and pre 2002–03 health authorities. NHS trust drug budgets are held and managed locally.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the total spending of his Department on entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92383]
  671W
  Mr. Lammy
  Expenditure arises on hospitality and entertainment only in the context of promoting the Department's business objectives. All such expenditure is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  Information in the required form is only available from 1995–96. The total amount spent by the Department of Health on hospitality since 1995–96 is as follows:

  £

  1995–96

  73,516

  1996–97

  105,192

  1997–98

  90,883

  1998–99

  67,953

  1999–2000

  50,114

  2000–01

  93,091

  2001–02

  121,968

  2002–03

  88,503

  The 2002–03 figure represents expenditure from April to December.

  Fruit and Vegetable Consumption
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 15 January (ref. 84461), what cost benefit analysis has been carried out on expenditure on promoting consumption of fruit and vegetables. [92006]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]Increasing intakes of fruit and vegetables could reduce the risk of deaths from chronic disease, such as heart disease, stroke and cancer, by up to 20 per cent.

  The two major spending programmes to promote consumption, the national school fruit scheme and local Five-a-day community initiatives, are being funded by the new opportunities fund which will be commissioning detailed evaluations of their effect on diet including consumption of fruit and vegetables.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 15 January (ref. 84461), by how much consumption of(a) fruit and (b) vegetables has changed since 2001. [92007]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: National trends in fruit and vegetable consumption since 2001 cannot as yet be fully ascertained due to the considerable time it takes to undertake dietary surveys and their analyses. The latest national food survey data shows that between 1999 and 2000, household weekly purchase of fruit and fruit juice continued to increase, from 1,063 g to 1,121 g, whereas household consumption of vegetables continued to decrease, from 1,095 g to 1,077 g. This information does not take account of wastage.

  National evaluation of pilot five a day community Initiatives—one year intervention between 2000 and 2001—showed that the initiatives stemmed a fall in fruit and vegetable intakes. There was no overall change in fruit and vegetable intake in the intervention group but there was a fall in intake by almost half a portion in the control group. The intervention was found to have had a positive effect in people with the lowest intakes. Those who ate less than five a day at baseline increased their intakes by one portion over the course of the study.
  672W
  Detailed information on fruit and vegetable intakes was collected as part of the Health Survey for England for the first time during 2002. The collection of this information in future years will allow an examination of national trends by age, sex and geographic region.

  Health and Safety
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) 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; [89492]

  (2) 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. [89490]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Smith) on 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 85W.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [89491]

  Mr. Lammy
  Hugh Taylor, the Director of Corporate Affairs, will shortly be appointed by the Chief Executive as the board member with specific lead responsibility for health and safety in the Department of Health. Details of the appointment will be publicised in the annual report and included in the revised health and safety policy statement for the Department. The policy statement will be available on the Department's website.

  Roy Alder, Head of Executive Support, is responsible within the Medicines Control Agency (MCA). His name is publicised on the MCA website and in the Agency's published annual report and accounts.

  Tom Crawley, Branch Head of Corporate Services, is responsible within the Medical Devices Agency (MDA). His name is publicised in the MDA's annual report, though without specific reference to health and safety.

  Peter Wearmouth, Chief Executive of NHS Estates (NHSE), holds overall responsibility within NHSE. This is publicised in the Agency's annual report and to staff at their induction.

  John Short, Health and Safety Officer for the NHS Estates Agency, is the executive officer responsible for ensuring Estates complies with British and appropriate European legislation concerning health and safety. This information is publicised on the Estates intranet, on the health and safety law poster and to staff at their induction.

  Pat Corless, the acting Chief Executive, has framework document responsibility for health and safety within the NHS Pensions Agency (NHSPA). Nigel Holden, the Resource and Development Director,

  673W
  has board level responsibility for health and safety within NHSPA. Nigel Holden is named in the annual report as the lead on health and safety.

  Chris Uden, the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's Director of Corporate Development, is the nominated board level lead for health and safety matters within the Agency. This is publicised within the Agency during staff induction sessions and in the minutes of the health and safety policy group meetings.

  Heritage and Antique Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sales of heritage assets and antique assets have been made by his Department since May 1997; if he will list such assets; and if will estimate the total sales proceeds. [92384]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has not sold any heritage assets or antique assets in the period since May 1997.

  This answer does not include information about the national health service.

  Hospitals (Somerset)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many tasks he has set for each hospital in Somerset; and when they are due to be completed. [91507]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set no tasks specifically for hospitals in Somerset. Service delivery targets for the whole health system were set out in the NHS Plan.

  HPA
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to maintain intelligence and service delivery in health protection after 1 April 2003 across the new structure for health protection. [90051]

  Ms Blears
  We propose to establish the Health Protection Agency as a special health authority from 1 April 2003. As outlined in my response of 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 130W, to the hon. Member, the Department has identified interim organisational arrangements to ensure that the HPA can maintain intelligence and service delivery at national level. Similar arrangements are being finalised at regional and local level, including the identification of interim leads on microbiology services at regional level, to co-ordinate and support the public health outputs of HPA and national health service microbiology laboratories.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the action plan for the creation of the HPA has been updated since 30 November 2002. [90063]

  Ms Blears
  The action plan is regularly updated.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the ability of the HPA to respond to a biological attack on the UK during the first six months of its operations. [90070]
  674W
  Ms Blears
  We propose to establish the Health Protection Agency (HPA) as a special health authority from 1 April 2003. The establishment of the HPA will improve our ability to respond to the deliberate release of biological agents and other hazards. In particular, HPA will be able to tackle incidents in a very structured way, especially those where it is not clear at the outset what the nature of the problem might be.

  We shall be looking to the HPA to deliver a robust service, including the response to outbreaks caused by deliberate release of biological agents. We envisage that local, regional and national public health teams will be assisted by better microbiological services consisting of a complementary network of local public health and regional microbiologists, working with others at the national level, all of whom will have responsibility for operational support in the event of a major incident, including biological attacks. Interim management arrangements are being put in place at national, regional and local level to ensure that the HPA will be able to address key threats from its inception.

  Surveillance to detect untoward events and outbreaks will continue to be monitored by the communicable disease surveillance centre. This new, nationally consistent, coherent and co-ordinated approach offers better public health security to detect and respond to outbreaks of infection.

  Lifestyle Survey
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 15 January (ref. 84467 and 84461), if he will list the programmes and the amount of money spent on each. [92009]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]The Department commissions several annual surveys that include questions on lifestyle issues:

  The Health Survey for England is a series of annual surveys about the health of people in England. This information is used to underpin and improve targeting of nation-wide health policies. The survey was carried out in 1991–1993 by the Office for Population Censuses and Surveys, which is now part of the Office for National Statistics (ONS). From 1994 onwards, the survey has been carried out by the joint survey unit of the national centre of social research and the department of epidemiology and public health at University College, London. The survey includes questions on smoking, drinking, obesity, fruit and vegetable consumption and in certain years, physical activity, but it extends beyond lifestyle questions and covers a wide range of subjects to do with the general health of the population.

  The ONS general household survey, "Living in Britain", is a continuous survey which has been running since 1971 and is based each year on a sample of the general population resident in private; that is, non-institutional, households in Great Britain. It covers a wide range of topics of relevance to households, families and individuals, including questions on smoking and drinking.

  The ONS omnibus survey is a multi-purpose survey carried out by the ONS for Government Departments and other public or non-profit making bodies.

  675W
  Interviewing is carried out every month and each month's questionnaire covers a variety of topics, reflecting different user's requirements. Included among these from time to time will be questions on smoking, drinking and contraception.

  The annual survey of drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England is part of a series established in 1982 and provides national estimates of the proportion of young people aged 11–15 who smoke. drink alcohol and/or take illegal drugs.

  Costs in 2001–02

  £ million

  Health Survey for England

  2.75

  General Household Survey

  10.26

  Omnibus Surveys

  10.24

  Drug Use Smoking and Drinking1

  0.18

  1 Represents the cost of the Department of Health contribution to the ONS.

  M&M Impact Ltd.
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which NHS trusts in the North West have contracts with M&M Impact Ltd., formerly known as M&M Associates; [88012]

  (2) when the tendering process took place for the public relations contract with (a) Warrington Hospital NHS Trust and (b) North Cheshire Hospital NHS Trust; and in each case, (i) where advertisements inviting tenders were placed, (ii) how many applications were received and (iii) how many applications were received from firms based in Warrington. [88013]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 19 December 2002]: The tendering process for the public relations contract with Warrington Hospital took place in December 1994 and there has been no subsequent re-tendering for this contract. Invitations to tender were issued to three external organisations and one in-house bidder. Information regarding any advertisements which may have appeared eight years ago is no longer available.

  Four applications were received; in additional to the in-house bid there was one bid from a company based in Warrington. The lowest bid was successful.

  M&M Impact Ltd. and M&M Associates are separate companies. M&M Impact is a design consultancy. None of the national health service trusts in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority area hold contracts with M&M Impact.

  Three NHS trusts within the StHA area hold contracts with M&M Associates: North Cheshire Hospitals; Wirral Hospitals and Cheshire and Wirral Partnership. In addition, Bebington and West Wirral and Birkenhead and Wallasey Primary care trusts are honouring a contract previously held by the former Wirral Health Authority, which ends in March 2003.

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the report by Dr. Kirkup on Mersey Regional Ambulance Service in the Library. [84283]
  676W
  Jacqui Smith
  I have today arranged for a copy of the Kirkup Report to be placed in the Library.

  Milk
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has assessed concerning the introduction of cows' milk in infant diets before the age of two and the incidence of iron deficiency anaemia. [91077]

  Ms Blears
  The Department undertakes regular surveys to monitor the diet and health of children. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey showed that more than one in ten children aged 1½to 2½ years were anaemic. Early introduction of cow's milk is associated with increased risk of anaemia. The Infant Feeding Survey 2000 reported that by the age of nine months 54 per cent. had introduced cow's milk, compared to 61 per cent. in 1995, while 8 per cent. were giving cow's milk as a main drink, compared to 15 per cent. in 1995.

  The Department recommends that unmodified cow's milk be given as a main drink only after the age of one year and may be used in small quantities in the preparation of solid foods in the second half of infancy. After one year, diet should include a variety of foods to ensure that it is adequate in iron, vitamin C and D.

  Miller Group
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the property portfolio being transferred to Miller Group as part of the acquisition of inventures. [92526]

  Mr. Lammy
  The list of properties in the portfolio being sold to Miller/HBOS is still in the process of being finalised.

  Minimum Wage
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the impact of increasing the minimum wage(a) in line with average earnings, (b) to £4.17 per hour, (c) to £4.87 per hour, (d) to £5.00 per hour and (e) to £5.30 per hour, on the cost of salaries of departmental employees (i) in total and (ii) for each nation of the United Kingdom in the next financial year. [90607]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are unable to provide data on the impact of increasing the minimum wage in line with average earnings as these statistics are not collected centrally.

  There would be no impact on the Department of Health of increasing the minimum wage by the amounts listed.

  The minimum wage in the Department of Health, as of August 2002, is 11,100 (Full time equivalent).

  For staff based in London (36 hours per week) this works out to be 5.90 per hour.

  For staff based outside of London (37 hours per week) this works out to be 5.74 per hour.

  Ministerial Visits
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit a children's hospice. [87470]
  677W
  Ms Blears
  There are no current plans in my right hon. Friend's official diary to visit a children's hospice. Should a request to do so be received in the Department, he will give it his full consideration.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals in the south west have mixed-sex wards. [88004]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected at individual hospital level but at trust level.

  The reasons for measuring at trust level is because hospital wards generally care for both men and women. To provide the required levels of privacy and dignity for patients, wards are split into single sex bays, or single rooms, or otherwise configured to provide adequate segregation of gender. It is the responsibility of each national health service trust to determine the most appropriate configuration to meet their specific requirements.

  In 1998, we set three clear objectives which were designed to deliver separate sleeping areas and separate toilet and washing facilities for men and women, and to safeguard the privacy and dignity of patients who are mentally ill.

  Today, 98 per cent. of NHS trusts provide single-sex sleeping accommodation and have robust operational policies in place which protect patients' privacy and dignity. 95 per cent. of NHS trusts have met additional criteria set for mental health facilities. The target to provide separate toilet and washing facilities for men and women will be met by the end of March. 93 per cent. of NHS trusts currently meet this requirement, and a further 2 per cent. of NHS trusts have works underway to deliver the required standard, affecting just 32 wards, which will be completed by the end of the March.

  Date

  Advertisement

  Countries

  August 2001

  Consultant recruitment

  Spain

  September 2001

  General practitioner recruitment

  Spain

  September 2001

  Consultant and general practitioner recruitment

  Europe, North America, Australasia and the Middle East

  January 2002

  Consultant and general practitioner recruitment

  Germany

  March 2002

  International Fellowship Scheme

  Europe, North America, and Australasia

  August 2002

  Consultant and general practitioner recruitment

  Germany

  September and December 2002

  International Fellowship Scheme

  Europe, North America and Australia

  September 2002

  General practitioner recruitment

  Europe

  December 2002

  Consultant and General practitioner recruitment

  Europe

  December 2002

  Seminar publicity

  Germany, Austria and Switzerland

  December 2002

  Consultant and general practitioner recruitment

  Spain

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the total cost of(a) the recent NHS advertisement in the German press entitled 'Become one in a million' and (b) the seminars referred to in the advertisement. [91116]

  Mr. Hutton
  The most recent advertisement that appeared in the German press entitled 'Become one in a million' cost £5,794 in total. The seminars referred to in the
  678W
  Nationally, over 98 per cent. of NHS wards meet privacy and dignity guidelines. New hospitals and hospital facilities currently being built will bring the remaining wards to the necessary standard.

  Mortuary Provision
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions the Government have taken with regard to the provision of mortuary facilities in the NHS in the past year. [88425]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government have published the NHS estates document, "Health Building Note 20 Facilities for mortuary and post-mortem room services", giving revised guidance on the planning and design of comprehensive NHS mortuary and post mortem facilities.

  The document is available on www.nhsestates.gov.uk.

  NHS Advertising
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the purpose was of the recent NHS advertisement in the German press entitled "Become one in a million". [91114]

  Mr. Hutton
  The aim was to attract suitably qualified senior doctors who were interested in working in the National Health Service.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are for the NHS to advertise for consultants and general practitioners in the foreign media; and if he will list such campaigns since 1 May 1997. [91115]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department did not undertake any advertising in foreign media before August 2001. Since that date the following advertisements have been placed.

  In addition, national health service employers have placed advertisements for specific vacancies.

  The Department plans to advertise the International Fellowship Scheme in March to April and September to October 2003. Plans for additional advertising have not yet been finalised.

  advertisement in Vienna and Salzburg will cost £5,500. Costs for the seminar in Dusseldorf have not yet been finalised.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expected waiting time is for patients to speak to a doctor when calling NHS Direct. [86070]
  679W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]: There is no expected time for a patient to speak to a doctor when calling NHS Direct. NHS Direct is a nurse led service.

  NHS Doctors
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual(a) total and (b) percentage increases in the number of NHS doctors have been in each year since 1992. [91593]

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

  All NHS doctors1 (excluding GP retainers) in England,1992–2001

  Change

  Year

  Total

  Year

  Percentage

  1992

  79,232

  1992–93

  1.9

  1993

  80,739

  1993–94

  0.7

  1994

  81,319

  1994–95

  3.9

  1995

  84,459

  1995–96

  2.5

  1996

  86,584

  1996–97

  3.5

  1997

  89,619

  1997–98

  2.5

  1998

  91,837

  1998–99

  2.3

  1999

  93,981

  1999–2000

  2.5

  2000

  96,319

  2000–01

  3.0

  2001

  99,169

  —

  —

  1Includes NHS Hospital, Public Health Medicine, Community Health Service medical and dental doctors and General Medical Practitioners (GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Salaried GPs, PMS Contracted GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA) and PMS Others). GP Retainers were first counted in 1999 and have been omitted for comparability purposes.

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics. Data as at 1 October 1992–99 and 30 September 2000–01.

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census. Data as at 30 September each year.

  NHS Indicators
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish key indicators about NHS performance and staffing in 2003. [91478]

  Mr. Hutton
  As the independent regulator for national health service performance, the Commission for Health Improvement will be responsible for all future publications of NHS performance ratings. The next publication will be in summer 2003.

  It is intended that statistics on NHS workforce numbers will be published before the end of the financial year. Vacancy data at March 2003 will be published in the second half of 2003.

  NHS Staff (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioners, (b) nurses and (c) consultants are employed in Herefordshire. [91736]

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

  All General Medical Practitioners1, Nurses2 and HCHS Consultants in Herefordshire Health Authority as at 30 September 2001

  Numbers (headcount)

  General Medical Practioners

  137

  Nurses

  1,071

  Consultants

  72

  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.

  2Includes HCHS qualified nurses and General Practice Nurses

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Department of Health medical workforce census

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  NHS Treatment Abroad
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with healthcare officials in Tunisia about possible treatment of NHS patients. [92535]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not held any discussions with healthcare officials in Tunisia about possible treatment of national health service patients, nor has it any plans to do so.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any of his officials have visited hospitals in Tunisia. [92536]

  Mr. Hutton
  No departmental officials have visited any hospitals in Tunisia, nor do they have plans to do so.

  Nursing Vacancies (Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing vacancies there were in each Somerset NHS trust in(a) March 1997 and (b) December 2002; and if he will make a statement. [92561]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's three-month vacancy survey has been collected yearly since March 1999 and is therefore not available for 1997.

  However, the numbers of nursing vacancies in each Somerset national health service trust for the two nearest dates (March 1999 and March 2002) are shown in the tables.
  681W

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 1999—vacancies in NHS trusts in England and Somerset Health Authority area by trust, qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff—three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (excluding HA staff)

  Three month vacancy rate (percentage)

  Three month vacancy (number)

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  England (excluding HA staff)

  2.8

  7,147

  246,965

  304,230

  Somerset HA trusts total

  1.6

  31

  1,857

  2,333

  Avalon Somerset NHS Trust

  0.3

  1

  304

  331

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  0.7

  4

  519

  704

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  2.4

  26

  1,034

  1,298

  Notes

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 1999.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  3. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  4. Three month vacancy rates are calculated using staff in post from the Non-Medical Census, September 1998.

  5. Staff in post data are from the Non-Medical Census, September 1998.

  6. Staff in post data exclude staff employed by health authorities, as vacancy information was only collected from trusts.

  7. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  8. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  9. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  10. Calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  11. HA figures are based on trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of healthcare.

  Sources:

  Vacancy numbers and rates: Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 1999

  Non medical staff in post: Department of Health Non-Medical workforce census September 1998

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002—vacancies in NHS trusts in England and Somerset Health qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff—three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (excluding HA staff)

  Three month vacancy rate (percentage)

  Three month vacancy (number)

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  England (excluding HA staff)

  3.1

  8,394

  265,717

  329,981

  Somerset HA trusts total

  0.4

  8

  2,187

  2,826

  Somerset Coast PCT

  3.3

  6

  181

  269

  Mendip PCT

  0.0

  0

  132

  175

  East Somerset Hospital NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  570

  756

  Taunton and Somerset Hospital NHS Trust

  0.3

  3

  975

  1,263

  Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust

  0.0

  0

  329

  363

  Key notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2002.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  3. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  4. Three month vacancy rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey, March 2002.

  5. Staff in post data are from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2001

  6. Staff in post data exclude staff employed by health authorities, as vacancy information was only collected from trusts, PCTs and Special HAs.

  7. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  8. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  9. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  10. Calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  11. HA figures are based on trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of healthcare.

  12. Avalon Somerset NHS Trust changed name to Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust on 1 April 1999.

  Sources:

  Vacancy numbers and rates: Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2002.

  Non medical staff in post: Department of Health Non-Medical workforce census September 2001.

  Operation Cataract
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the unit cost was of cataract operations carried out at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary under Operation Cataract by a visiting South African team; and what the equivalent cost is(a) normally at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary and (b) on average in NHS hospital trusts in England. [92555]
  682W
  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is currently unavailable for cataract operations at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary.

  A major procurement exercise for clinical services, including cataracts, is currently being undertaken at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary and as such is regarded as commercially confidential. However, the average unit

  683W
  cost of phakoemulsification cataract extraction with lens implant undertaken as a day case in a national health service trust in England is £632.

  Overseas Surgical Teams
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of utilising overseas surgical teams was for each trust up until 31 October. [84098]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information required is not available in the format requested. £24 million has been allocated for various overseas clinical teams initiatives for 2002–03.

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the suppliers are of his Department's(a) paper and (b)paper products. [91899]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has three main avenues for the supply of paper and paper products.

  Paper used in connection with normal business needs is supplied by the Department's contracted stationery supplier, Guilbert Niceday. Paper used in the production of bulk photocopying is supplied by our reprographics contractor, Xerox. Paper products used in publications and reports are not purchased separately but are provided as part of the contract by a range of print suppliers under competitively tendered framework agreements.

  Parkinson's Disease
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received the extension of the exemption from prescription charges for sufferers from Parkinson's disease; what estimate he has made of the average annual cost of prescriptions to sufferers of Parkinson's disease; and if he will make a statement on the age profile of those who suffer from Parkinson's disease. [93203]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since January 2002 we have received 13 letters requesting that Parkinson's disease be included in the list of medical conditions conferring exemption from prescription charges.

  There is no cost of prescriptions to sufferers from Parkinson's disease who are aged 60 or over, who are (or their partner is) receiving income support, income based Jobseeker's allowance or tax credits (where income is below a specified limit, currently around £226 net per week) or who have successfully claimed help under the national health service low income scheme. We estimate that most sufferers from Parkinson's disease who are not entitled to free prescriptions will have sufficient prescriptions each year to make purchase of a prepayment certificate worthwhile. These cost £89 for 12 months.

  There are more than 120,000 people with Parkinson's Disease in the United Kingdom. It is uncommon in people younger than 30; after that the risk of developing it increases with age. The incidence of Parkinson's Disease is approximately 1:1000 in the general population, rising to 1:100 over the age of 65 and 1:50 over the age of 80.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham Refs. 83295, 83289, 86703, 86805 and 86807. [92593]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) gave on 4 December 2002,Official Report, column 901W and on 10 December 2002, Official Report, column 304W and to the reply that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) gave on 15 January 2003, Official Report, column 688W. The other replies were sent on Monday 20 January and Tuesday 21 January.

  Patients Forums
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients forums have been established. [92596]

  Mr. Lammy
  No statutory patients forums have yet been established.

  PHLS Laboratories
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken to minimise the risks from disbanding the PHLS before the Health Protection Agency is fully functional. [90083]

  Ms Blears
  In England, most of the Public Health Laboratories Service (PHLS) laboratories which carry out general diagnostic microbiology are planned to transfer to national health service trusts by 31 March 2003. They are transferring with their current level of funding, which will be maintained for at least the first two years. Each transferring laboratory will have a public health microbiologist, who will work with consultants in communicable disease control, local authorities, the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and other public health agencies. Service level agreements are being prepared to maintain this work. In addition, there will be a regional microbiologist in each of the nine public health regions, who will work with regional epidemiologists in the implementation of key infectious disease programmes as well as in the investigation of outbreaks of communicable disease. Regional microbiologists will also work to co-ordinate the work between the laboratories in the Health Protection Agency and the NHS. In Wales, PHLS laboratories and the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Wales are transferring to the national public health service—Wales, on 1 April 2003.

  The PHLS Board will remain in existence until primary legislation is changed. From 1 April 2003, we intend that it will be responsible for the production of media for microbiology laboratories, following the transfer of its other current functions to the HPA which we propose to create as a special health authority from the same date.

  Pre-hospital Care
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the National Health Service is bound by the Joint Royal College Ambulance Liaison Committee guidelines on pre-hospital care. [92529]

  Mr. Lammy
  The guidelines on pre hospital care were issued to all ambulance trusts and it was for them to decide whether or not to use them.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to public funds was of the preparation of the Joint Royal College Ambulance Liaison guidelines on pre-hospital care. [92530]

  Mr. Lammy
  There was no cost to public funds for the preparation of the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison guidelines on pre hospital care.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each(a) year and (b) quarter from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92451]

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

  Financial Year

  Number of Press Releases Issued

  2002 to 20 January 2003

  378

  2001–02

  609

  2000–01

  697

  1999–2000

  743

  1998–99

  559

  1997–98

  330

  1996–97

  296

  1995–96

  431

  Quarterly figures for the past seven years could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 15 January (ref. 84461), for what reason primary care trusts need to supplement the national expenditure programme on promoting consumption of fruit and vegetables. [92008]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]One of the roles of a primary care trust is to improve the health of their communities. This requires them to take the lead on public health issues in their area, develop health improvement and modernisation programmes based on health needs, and integrate service planning and health promotion. Their public health role encompasses, for example, smoking cessation, teenage pregnancy and healthy eating.

  By 2004, primary care trusts will be managing up to 75 per cent. of the total national health service budget. They will use the money to commission services to meet the needs of their local population, which may include projects to increase fruit and vegetable consumption.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are applied in the selection of non-executive directors of PCTs. [92124]
  686W
  Mr. Lammy
  Details of the qualities required of all primary care trust non-executive directors have been placed in the Library. In addition, particular attributes can be sought for individual vacancies, to ensure that the board has an appropriate mix of skills and experience.

  Prostate Cancer
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the causes of the regional differences in the incidence of prostate cancer in Great Britain. [89670]

  Ms Blears
  Rates of prostate cancer per 100,000 population in 1999, broken down by region, are shown in the table.

  Health regional office of residence

  Rate of prostate cancer per 100,000 population (1999)

  Northern and Yorkshire

  82.3

  Trent

  70.0

  Eastern

  92.1

  London

  71.4

  South East

  93.9

  South West

  101.3

  West Midlands

  89.8

  North West

  80.3

  England

  84.9

  Source:

  Cancer statistics registrations: Registration of cancer diagnosed in 1999, England (Office for National Statistics 2002)

  Prostate cancer is related to affluence. It is also possible that these figures reflect in part differential take-up of prostate specific antigen testing in different parts of the country.

  Public Information
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 208W, on public information, how much it cost to establish his Department's Customer Services Centre; and how many staff work here. [92600]

  Mr. Lammy
  The team has been established within existing resources. There are 38 members of staff managing correspondence from hon. and right hon. Members and members of the public, departmental e-mails and the call centre.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his autumn departmental reports on public service agreement targets; and if he will make a statement. [91007]

  Mr. Lammy
  In December 2002, the Department of Health published the chief executive's report to the National Health Service, setting out progress during 2001–02 and for the first six months of the year. This report sets out clearly how the increased resources within the NHS are being used improve performance by providing more care for patients, improving quality and providing investment for the future.
  687W
  We intend to link this report to Her Majesty's Treasury website and will review it to ensure that it covers reporting of Public Service Agreement performance in full.

  Reconfiguration of Hospitals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2003,Official Report, column 277W, if he will make a statement on his reference to thinking about how to reorganise services safely and effectively as moved on; what his policy is on the ideal population size to be served by an acute hospital; when the consultation exercise for the new project will be published; and what impact he expects that consultation to have on future plans for the NHS. [91595]

  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the document on reconfiguration of hospitals will be published; and whether it includes an assessment of the place of foundation hospitals in the re-organisation of hospital services. [91503]

  Mr. Hutton
  A document on the configuration of hospital services is to be published shortly. The document will be relevant to all parts of the national health service.

  Roaccutane
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the UK have been prescribed roaccutane in each of the past five years; and what proportion of those people have reported symptoms of depression or psychiatric disorders; [91831]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products' review of safety information for roaccutane. [91832]

  Ms Blears
  It is not possible to estimate the precise number of patients who have received Roaccutane (isotretinoin) in the United Kingdom in the last five years. However, it has been estimated that approximately 375,000 treatment courses of isotretinoin have been prescribed between 1983 and May 2002.

  The table provides the total number of suspected psychiatric disorders reported during each of the past five years through the Yellow Card Scheme for Roaccutane. It also shows the number of reports of symptoms of depression, which forms part of the total psychiatric disorders.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Psychiatric disorders

  48

  44

  50

  26

  25

  Depression

  23

  17

  17

  11

  11

  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.

  With expert advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Medicines Control Agency is currently leading a European-wide review of the product
  688W
  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.

  Single-sex Wards
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has met in full its three objectives regarding single sex wards. [92584]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement made on 14 January 2003, Official Report, column 24WS.

  West Midlands Hospitals (Red Alert)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospitals within the West Midlands (South) Strategic Health Authority area were on red alert on each day since 1 December 2002; and if he will make a statement; [90348]

  (2) on how many days since 1st December 2002 hospitals within the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust were on red alert; and if he will make a statement. [90349]

  Mr. Lammy
  The term "red alert" is used by a few National Health trusts. It does not have a standard definition.

  Since 1 December 2002, a total of seven red alerts on seven separate days were issued by the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. No other hospital trusts within the West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority (StHA) area have issued red alerts in the period.

  During this period, the trust experienced a significant amount of pressure, largely due to diarrhoea and vomiting outbreaks, in addition to an increase in thelevels of emergency admissions. Each health community within the StHA has an agreed escalation policy described in winter plans. Each phase of escalation policy is triggered by specific operational difficulties. When the circumstances deteriorate to such a level, patients are diverted to a nearby, alternative hospital, often within the same trust.

  It is the StHA's view that the steps that were taken by the Worcestershire health economy were acceptable within the local guidelines and in line with the escalation policy.

  Worcestershire Acute Hospital NHS Trust
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was to the Worcestershire Acute Hospital, NHS Trust of their preparations for the recent inspection by the Commission for Health Improvement. [91504]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust did not collect this information at the time of the inspection, nor is it collected centrally.
  689W
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what costs have been incurred by the Worcestershire Acute Hospital NHS Trust since September 2000 as a consequence of suspension of consultants. [91505]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust has had one consultant suspension during the period. During that suspension, a locum consultant was employed by trust at NHS locum rates. In this particular case the costs amounted to approximately £30,000.
  Source:Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Speeding (Motorways)
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted of motorway speeding offences, broken down into speed bands, in each of the last five years. [92712]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information held centrally on the number of convictions for speeding offences does not distinguish the classification of road on which the offence took place nor the speedband registered.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been made in the Easington constituency; and if he will make a statement. [91608]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of notifications received by the Home Office of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued, from 1 April 1999 up to 30 September 2002 (latest available), within the Easington district council area, (in which the Easington constituency is situated), are four.

  We are aware that the numbers of ASBOs made nationally have been consistently under reported in returns made by magistrates courts and are considering how reporting can be improved.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that it is easier for the police to issue behaviour orders. [92018]

  Mr. Denham
  Changes under the Police Reform Act 2002 make it easier for all relevant authorities to obtain anti-social behaviour orders (ASBO). Interim orders are now available, as are orders on conviction in the criminal courts. From April orders will also be available in the county courts. In addition, the British Transport Police can now apply directly for orders. The Home Office has issued guidance on these changes to assist practitioners in their implementation.

  Measures to further improve ASBOs are being introduced under the forthcoming anti-social behaviour bill.

  Asylum Seekers (EU Fingerprinting)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the launch of the EU's centralised fingerprinting system aimed at asylum seekers. [92100]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government welcome the implementation on 15 January of the centralised EURODAC fingerprint database. Fingerprint technology is an important tool to cut fraud and prevent abuse of national immigration and asylum systems. Co-operation with our European partners through the EURODAC system builds on this and EURODAC will provide a valuable resource to tackle multiple asylum applications. As it becomes established EURODAC will help speed up the processing of asylum cases under the Dublin Convention and its replacement, the Dublin II Regulation, by improving the detection of multiple asylum applications made within the EU or Norway and Iceland.

  Asylum Seekers (Infant Formula Milk)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether vouchers for infant formula milk are provided for asylum seekers with young children; and if he will make a statement. [91828]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 January 2003]: Asylum seekers and their dependants are not eligible to obtain milk tokens under the Welfare Food Scheme Regulations 1996. On 5 November my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the asylum support regulations 2000 would be amended to allow for additional payments to be made to supported pregnant women and children under the age of three. Supported pregnant women and children aged one to three will each receive £3 per week. Babies under the age of one will receive £5 per week.

  Asylum Seeking Children
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied children applied for asylum within the UK in each year since 1997, broken down by country of origin. [91992]

  Beverley Hughes
  Reliable information on the entry routes of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC), including when UASCs first enter the UK, is not available. However, information on the nationality of UASC applicants who applied at port and in-country between 1997 and 2001, inclusive, is given in the table. Annual figures for 2002 are not yet available.

  Information on asylum applications from unaccompanied children is published annually. The next annual publication will be available later this year.

  Information on asylum applications and initial decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will present data for the final quarter of 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.
  691W

  Unaccompanied1,2,3children, aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom by nationality, 1997 to 2001

  1997

  1998

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Albania

  39

  15

  24

  49

  33

  16

  Czech Republic

  2

  2

  —

  6

  6

  —

  FRY

  119

  —

  119

  1,529

  259

  1,270

  Macedonia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Poland

  18

  18

  —

  44

  44

  —

  Romania

  32

  3

  29

  68

  5

  63

  Russia

  2

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Turkey

  48

  47

  1

  107

  100

  7

  Ukraine

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Other Former USSR

  27

  9

  18

  36

  15

  21

  Other Former Yugo.

  107

  66

  41

  23

  2

  21

  Europe other

  15

  15

  —

  9

  9

  —

  Europe total

  409

  175

  234

  1,876

  475

  1,401

  Colombia

  26

  25

  1

  9

  9

  —

  Ecuador

  4

  4

  —

  5

  4

  1

  Jamaica

  1

  1

  —

  4

  4

  —

  Americas other

  2

  2

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Americas total

  33

  32

  1

  20

  18

  2

  Algeria

  21

  7

  14

  50

  10

  40

  Angola

  12

  8

  4

  10

  9

  1

  Burundi

  3

  —

  3

  6

  4

  2

  Congo

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  27

  16

  11

  19

  9

  10

  Eritrea

  45

  20

  25

  91

  33

  58

  Ethiopia

  23

  9

  14

  66

  38

  28

  Gambia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Ivory Coast

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Kenya

  9

  7

  2

  23

  17

  6

  Nigeria

  18

  8

  10

  53

  34

  19

  Rwanda

  7

  2

  5

  13

  7

  6

  Sierra Leone

  14

  8

  6

  23

  11

  12

  Somalia

  158

  122

  36

  153

  88

  65

  Sudan

  3

  2

  1

  4

  4

  —

  Tanzania

  1

  1

  —

  3

  2

  1

  Uganda

  5

  1

  4

  9

  4

  5

  Zimbabwe

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Africa other

  18

  12

  6

  8

  3

  5

  Africa total

  368

  226

  142

  535

  275

  260

  Iran

  7

  6

  1

  8

  6

  2

  Iraq

  20

  17

  3

  30

  26

  4

  Middle East other

  12

  7

  5

  7

  5

  2

  Middle East total

  39

  30

  9

  45

  37

  8

  Afghanistan

  109

  101

  8

  124

  108

  16

  Bangladesh

  3

  —

  3

  2

  —

  2

  China

  78

  49

  29

  301

  69

  232

  India

  6

  6

  —

  9

  9

  —

  Nepal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  4

  3

  1

  12

  11

  1

  Sri Lanka

  40

  36

  4

  91

  69

  22

  Asia other

  4

  4

  —

  10

  —

  10

  Asia total

  244

  199

  45

  549

  266

  283

  Nationality not known

  9

  9

  —

  12

  12

  —

  Grand total

  1,102

  671

  431

  3,037

  1,083

  1,954

  1999

  2000

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Albania

  126

  116

  10

  94

  25

  69

  Czech Republic

  29

  29

  —

  18

  18

  —

  FRY

  1,522

  188

  1,334

  666

  70

  596

  Macedonia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  47

  47

  —

  13

  13

  —

  Romania

  86

  1

  85

  40

  8

  32

  692W 693W

  1999

  2000

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Russia

  3

  —

  3

  2

  —

  2

  Turkey

  116

  107

  9

  153

  136

  17

  Ukraine

  1

  —

  1

  4

  1

  3

  Other Former USSR

  26

  20

  6

  24

  15

  9

  Other Former Yugo.

  32

  20

  12

  36

  1

  35

  Europe other

  8

  8

  —

  3

  2

  1

  Europe total

  1,996

  536

  1,460

  1,053

  289

  764

  Colombia

  18

  16

  2

  5

  6

  —

  Ecuador

  13

  12

  1

  7

  6

  1

  Jamaica

  6

  6

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Americas other

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Americas total

  40

  37

  3

  16

  15

  1

  Algeria

  12

  5

  7

  23

  9

  14

  Angola

  42

  24

  18

  102

  34

  68

  Burundi

  12

  1

  11

  21

  10

  11

  Congo

  7

  5

  2

  12

  4

  8

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  33

  28

  5

  47

  35

  12

  Eritrea

  93

  49

  44

  85

  34

  51

  Ethiopia

  54

  31

  23

  62

  25

  37

  Gambia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  1

  —

  1

  10

  9

  1

  Ivory Coast

  1

  1

  —

  5

  2

  3

  Kenya

  12

  7

  5

  8

  5

  3

  Nigeria

  45

  38

  7

  24

  20

  4

  Rwanda

  35

  11

  24

  49

  5

  44

  Sierra Leone

  65

  57

  8

  74

  60

  14

  Somalia

  189

  156

  33

  177

  99

  78

  Sudan

  6

  5

  1

  9

  8

  1

  Tanzania

  1

  1

  —

  3

  2

  1

  Uganda

  10

  —

  10

  26

  1

  25

  Zimbabwe

  6

  6

  —

  34

  32

  2

  Africa other

  8

  8

  —

  28

  23

  5

  Africa total

  632

  433

  199

  799

  417

  382

  Iran

  14

  13

  1

  65

  50

  15

  Iraq

  58

  52

  6

  112

  86

  26

  Middle East other

  16

  14

  2

  14

  10

  4

  Middle East total

  88

  79

  9

  191

  146

  45

  Afghanistan

  213

  194

  19

  300

  264

  36

  Bangladesh

  4

  3

  1

  4

  1

  3

  China

  166

  44

  122

  117

  58

  59

  India

  13

  11

  2

  14

  13

  1

  Nepal

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Pakistan

  19

  15

  4

  25

  19

  6

  Sri Lanka

  127

  104

  23

  170

  142

  28

  Asia other

  10

  1

  9

  24

  11

  13

  Asia total

  552

  372

  180

  655

  508

  147

  Nationality not known

  41

  41

  —

  19

  19

  —

  Grand total

  3,349

  1,498

  1,851

  2,733

  1,394

  1,339

  20014

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Albania

  85

  10

  75

  Czech Republic

  22

  22

  —

  FRY

  477

  19

  458

  Macedonia

  99

  4

  95

  Poland

  23

  23

  —

  Romania

  49

  16

  33

  Russia

  4

  1

  3

  Turkey

  95

  83

  12

  Ukraine

  2

  1

  1

  Other Former USSR

  48

  14

  34

  Other Former Yugo.

  79

  2

  77

  Europe other

  —

  —

  —

  Europe total

  983

  195

  788

  694W

  20014

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Colombia

  7

  5

  2

  Ecuador

  4

  3

  1

  Jamaica

  2

  —

  2

  Americas other

  7

  4

  3

  Americas total

  20

  12

  8

  Algeria

  20

  3

  17

  Angola

  147

  32

  115

  Burundi

  20

  7

  13

  Congo

  30

  10

  20

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  82

  28

  54

  Eritrea

  111

  27

  84

  Ethiopia

  141

  23

  118

  695W

  20014

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Gambia

  2

  1

  1

  Ghana

  4

  3

  1

  Ivory Coast

  6

  —

  6

  Kenya

  15

  6

  9

  Nigeria

  37

  28

  9

  Rwanda

  38

  4

  34

  Sierra Leone

  129

  80

  49

  Somalia

  198

  57

  141

  Sudan

  6

  3

  3

  Tanzania

  1

  —

  1

  Uganda

  47

  3

  44

  Zimbabwe

  35

  31

  4

  Africa other

  48

  16

  32

  Africa total

  1,117

  362

  755

  Iran

  23

  18

  5

  Iraq

  182

  129

  53

  Middle East other

  20

  12

  8

  Middle East total

  225

  159

  66

  Afghanistan

  673

  620

  53

  Bangladesh

  14

  1

  13

  China

  137

  84

  53

  India

  19

  16

  3

  Nepal

  2

  —

  2

  Pakistan

  25

  18

  7

  Sri Lanka

  138

  102

  36

  Asia other

  92

  54

  38

  Asia total

  1,100

  895

  205

  Nationality not known

  24

  24

  —

  Grand total

  3,469

  1,647

  1,822

  1Unaccompanied at the point of their arrival, and not known to be joining a close relative in the United Kingdom.

  2May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2001.

  3Figures exclude disputed age cases.

  4Provisional figures.

  Blueprint Research Programme
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the current status of the Blueprint research programme is; and if he will make a statement. [92268]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Blueprint is a drug prevention programme for 11 to 13-year-olds based on the principles that underpin effective school-based drug education. The project aims to recruit 30 schools to the project by April 2003. Invitations to participate in the project (dated 13 January 2003) have been sent to 122 secondary schools across eight local education authorities (Birmingham, Cheshire, Derby, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Leeds, Staffordshire and Stoke). The project is on target.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Skills regarding the Blueprint research programme. [92269]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Blueprint is a partnership of the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Department of Health. The Home Office is the budget holder. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health endorsed the 696W
  programme in October 2001. Subsequently. DfES have been involved at both ministerial and official level in every stage of the project.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department show much his Department has invested in the Blueprint research programme. [92270]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The expected expenditure for Blueprint in the financial year 2002–03 is £397,117 out of a total budget of £5 million. Expenditure will continue until the end of the third quarter of the financial year 2007–08.

  Caythorpe Court
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the letter of 11 December 2002 from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham regarding the possible use of Caythorpe Court, Lincolnshire for the accommodation of asylum seekers; [92087]

  (2) what plans his Department and its agencies have to use Caythorpe Court, Caythorpe, Lincolnshire for the accommodation of asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [92089]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]: I replied to the right hon. Member on 17 and 20 January 2003. As I explained the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is considering the use of Caythorpe Court as emergency accommodation for asylum seekers while their application for support and dispersal elsewhere is considered. No decision has yet been made.

  CCTV
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase funding to police authorities to extend CCTV schemes. [92017]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative over £170 million is being spent funding 684 CCTV schemes. More than 540 of these schemes are already fully operational, with further schemes coming on line weekly.

  Although this strand of funding is now closed, other opportunities for funding of CCTV schemes currently exist through the funds available to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, on which the police are partners. Funding of £94 million was announced on January 21 as being available to partnerships for 2003–04. Potential funding is also available through the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas initiative.

  General Police Grants will increase by 4.3 per cent. to £7.3 billion in 2003–04. These grants are used by police authorities and chief officers to support their policing programme and plans.

  Community Beat Wardens
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of community beat wardens in helping reduce nuisance and crime. [92016]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.
  697W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister warden schemes work in partnership with local communities and are still relatively new. Robust evaluation is not yet available, but interim findings are positive and show that warden schemes can contribute to improving the liveability of neighbourhoods and the reduction of crime and fear of crime. Residents report significant improvements in community spirit and the quality of life in their neighbourhoods where wardens have proven beneficial and popular.

  Community Cohesion (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the police in Lancashire are taking to promote community cohesion; and if he will make a statement. [91185]

  Mr. Denham
  Lancashire Constabulary has conducted successful operations to deal with major criminal activities which affect the community, such as drug dealing, burglary and car crime. The Chief Constable's July 2002 Constabulary Ambition Statement for Lancashire gives priority to leadership, resource management, communication, community engagement and delivering results. All are important for the promotion of community cohesion, which is central to the work of the police across the country and particularly in areas with fragmented communities.

  Specific steps being taken by Lancashire Constabulary include:
  community beat managers in strategic areas around the county, particularly in Burnley and Pendle, each with responsibility for a particular area, providing a constant link with the public, dealing with community issues and reducing crime; they are also the best link with young people, and help respond to rumours and provide reassurance. To raise their profile, they are having a new uniform insignia, and commitment is being made to continuity by not redeploying them to other duties and by maintaining individuals in post for a minimum of two years;
  the proactive work of the newly-formed hate crime unit in Burnley and Pendle, which has significantly improved detection rates for racially aggravated violent crime, enhancing community confidence;
  the community and race relations (CRR) strategy incorporates youth issues, responses to racial incidents and crimes, ensuring equitable service delivery and developing the recruitment, retention and progression of staff with regard to CRR and cohesion issues through training;
  intelligence-led problem-oriented approaches, at all levels of policing and in all departments, which involve monitoring tension indicators and other threats to public safety and working in partnership with outside agencies and members of the public; and
  community safety teams in each of the six divisions, with a central strategic team at headquarters, dedicated to working on community-based projects, particularly those that relate to minority communities; the teams work to reassure the public, provide communities with a link to the police, deal with hate crime and gather intelligence on community tensions.

  I would like to express appreciation of the work of Lancashire Constabulary in these and other measures implementing the recommendations of the Burnley Taskforce (Clarke report), of the Cantle report and of the Ministerial Group on Public Safety and Community Cohesion following the summer 2001 disturbances in
  698W
  Burnley. This has been taken forward by a multi-agency forum with local authorities and other agencies, with a view to ensuring effective partnership working.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department intends to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central dated(a) 28 August 2002, regarding Mr. KK, reference 17982/2, (b) 11 September 2002, regarding Mr. YMY, reference 18812/2, (c) 20 September 2002, regarding Ms NM, reference 19649/2, (d) 7 October 2002, regarding Mr. MA, reference 21454/2, (e) 9 October 2002, regarding Mr. NAM, reference 20892/2, (f) 9 October 2002, regarding Mr. AH, reference 21152/2, (g) 11 October 2002, regarding Miss GM, reference 21144/2, (h) 15 October 2002, regarding Mr. MM, reference 21484/2, (i) 16 October 2002, regarding Mr. FM, reference 21379/2, (j) 16 October 2002, regarding Mr. IK, reference 21489/2, (k) 24 October 2002, regarding Mr. RBZ, reference 23242/2 and (l) 28 October 2002, regarding Mr. SARR, reference 23136/2. [91055]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: The information is as follows:

  (a) I wrote to my hon. Friend on 16 January 2003.

  (b) My noble Friend (Lord Filkin) wrote on 9 January 2003.

  (c) I wrote to my hon. Friend on 23 January 2003.

  (d) I wrote to my hon. Friend on 9 January 2003.

  (e) I wrote to my hon. Friend on 23 January 2003.

  (f) I wrote to my hon. Friend on 23 January 2003.

  (g) I wrote to my hon. Friend on 23 January 2003.

  (h) I wrote to my hon. Friend on 23 January 2003.

  (i) I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  (j) I wrote to my hon. Friend on 23 January 2003.

  (k) I wrote to my hon. Friend on 23 January 2003.

  (l) I wrote to my hon. Friend on 10 January 2003.

  Czech Roma
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Roma from the Czech Republic have(a) sought and (b) been granted asylum in the UK in each year since 1997. [91869]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not possible to say how many asylum applicants from the Czech Republic are of Romany origin. Data on the ethnic origin of asylum seekers are not collated centrally and are therefore not available; the number of those who applied would be available only by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  The tables show the number of applications and initial decisions of nationals of the Czech Republic from 1997 to September 2002.
  699W

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2 on applications, 1997–2001 and January to September 2002, nationals of Czech Republic

  Principal applicants

  Applications3

  Czech Republic

  Total

  Port

  In Country

  Total initial decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  1997

  240

  220

  20

  210

  —

  —

  1998

  515

  490

  25

  180

  —

  —

  1999

  1,790

  1,750

  40

  275

  *

  —

  2000

  1,200

  1,135

  65

  1,800

  10

  10

  20014

  880

  795

  85

  895

  —

  5

  20025

  1,290

  1,220

  70

  975

  —

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2 on applications, 1997–2001 and January to September 2002, nationals of Czech Republic

  Principal applicants

  Initial decisions

  Czech Republic

  Total refusals6

  Certified refusals

  Other refusals

  Third country refusals7

  Non-compliance refusals8

  Grants of ELR under backlog criteria9, 10

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria9, 11

  1997

  210

  105

  25

  70

  10

  —

  —

  1998

  180

  170

  10

  *

  *

  —

  —

  1999

  275

  115

  120

  10

  30

  *

  —

  2000

  1,775

  N/a

  1,495

  5

  205

  *

  —

  20014

  890

  325

  475

  —

  90

  —

  —

  20025

  970

  320

  535

  *

  110

  —

  —

  1Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2

  2Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions

  3May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000

  4Provision data

  5January-September 2002—provisional data

  6May include some refusals under non compliance grounds

  7Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country

  8Paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview

  9Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre-1969 asylum backlog

  10May include a small number of cases where asylum has been granted

  11May include a small number of vases where asylum has been refused on substantive grounds

  Deportations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were deported last year having served a custodial sentence in a UK prison. [92619]

  Beverley Hughes
  634 persons were deported during 2002 on completion of a custodial sentence.

  DNA Data
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what DNA data are held on people with criminal convictions; and if he will make a statement. [91155]

  Mr. Denham
  The DNA profile of people with criminal convictions is held on the National DNA database. The profile is derived from a sample taken by the police from the offender. A part of the original sample is also preserved for possible use in the future. This is to enable the profile to be upgraded if necessary in the light of advances in DNA technology and for quality assurance purposes.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to consult on guidance to police authorities on dealing with perpetrators of domestic violence by police officers. [86422]

  Mr. Denham
  Work is continuing to produce guidance on dealing with perpetrators of domestic violence within police ranks. Consultation will take place with relevant bodies later this month, and guidance issued in spring. Work is also being done to ensure that police discipline procedures complement the guidance when it is issued.

  Drug Treatment Testing Orders
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of drug treatment testing orders in(a) Tunbridge Wells and (b) Kent have been breached; [92105]

  (2) how many drug treatment and testing orders have been made in (a) Tunbridge Wells and (b) Kent; [92107]

  (3) what proportion of those given drug treatment testing orders in (a) Tunbridge Wells and (b) Kent have subsequently reoffended; [92106]
  701W
  (4) what estimate he has made of the cost of drug treatment testing orders in (a) Tunbridge Wells and (b) Kent. [92104]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No unit cost information is available for the specific costs of drug treatment and testing orders (DTTO) in Kent and Tunbridge Wells. The assessed national average unit cost of a DTTO is £6,000, of which £2,400 is retained by the probation service to cover supervision, enforcement and other related costs. The balance of £3,600 per order is transferred to the Department of Health pooled treatment budget to cover treatment and related costs. 234 orders have been commenced in Kent since the national roll-out of DTTOs in October 2000. Kent probation area has been set a target of 160 DTTOs in the current year and 86 orders have been made to 30 November 2002 including six orders in Tunbridge Wells.

  It is increasingly the practice of the courts when considering a breach of an order, to allow the DTTO to continue where good progress has otherwise been shown. Information is collected centrally on the total number of breach actions initiated but is not available in a form which allows the incidence of breaches to be linked to an individual order.

  Since national roll-out in October 2000, Kent probation has initiated breach action which resulted in the revocation of 121 orders: 91 for failure to comply, and 30 following a conviction for another offence. However, some of these offences were committed before the order began. Results from local intelligence sources, including the police, suggest that the volume of offending for this chaotic group of offenders is reduced and maintained over time for those responding to their treatment.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of each type of crime in(a) Tunbridge Wells and (b) Kent in each of the past five years was deemed to be drug-related. [92116]

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

  However, the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) research programme, which involves interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police, confirms a link between drug misuse and crime, although the conclusions do not relate specifically to Kent. Analysis of the data from the first eight sites in the survey, collected during 1999–2000, shows that 65 per cent. of arrestees provided a urine sample that tested positive for one or more illegal drug. The analysis also shows that up to 29 per cent. of arrestees tested positive for opiates (including heroin) and/or cocaine (including crack).

  As a guide to the proportion of crime that is drug-related, analysis of the NEW-ADAM self-report data indicates that while only 21 per cent. Of non-drug using arrestees reported having previously offended in the past 12 months, this figure rises to 75 per cent. for those arrestees who use heroin and/or cocaine/crack. Moreover, while users of both heroin and cocaine/crack
  702W
  represented just under one quarter of all arrestees interviewed, they were responsible for more than three fifths of all the illegal income reported.

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

  Drug-related Offences (Durham)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were for drug-related offences in the Peterlee sub division of the Durham police in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002; and if he will make a statement. [91609]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information relating to illegal drugs, is given in the table.

  Persons1 proceeded against in the Easington petty sessional area for the possession of and dealing in a controlled drug, 1999, 2000 and 2001

  Easington petty sessional area

  Possession of a controlled drug

  1999

  21

  2000

  61

  2001

  118

  Dealing in a controlled drug2

  1999

  21

  2000

  61

  2001

  32

  1Persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with.

  2Includes offences of importation/exportation, production, supplying, possession with intent to supply etc.

  The number of arrests within the Peterlee sub division of Durham constabulary are not available centrally. The 'use' of illegal drugs is not an offence.

  Statistics for 2002 will be available in the autumn. 2001 Criminal statistics is available on the Stationary Office website (http:www.homeoffice.gov.uk.rds.pdfs2hosb402.pdf), and copies are available in the Library.

  Examining Officers' Powers
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2002, Official Report, column 987W, on examining officers' powers, when he will respond to Lord Carlile of Berriew QC on the issue raised in his report on the operation in 2001 of the Terrorism Act 2000; when he will report his response to the House; and if he will make a statement. [92360]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]: I will be giving my full consideration to all of these proposals, including examining officers' powers, and I will be responding to Lord Carlile on the issues raised imminently. I will, of course, report my response to the House.

  Firearms
  Mr. Paice:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions have been recorded in each of the last three years for (i) carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, (ii) acquiring a firearm under the age of 17, (iii) a person under 14 possessing an airgun or ammunition, (iv) a person under 17 having an air weapon in a public place, (v) a person under 14 making improper use of an airgun when under supervision, (vi) supplying an air weapon to a person under 14, (vii) discharging a firearm

  Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for certain firearms offences, England and Wales 1999 to 20011

  1999

  20002

  2001

  Offence description

  Statute

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  (See footnote (3) for definition of

  Firearm Groups)

  Carrying a loaded firearm in a public place

  Carrying loaded firearm in public

  Firearms Act 1968 sec. 19 amended

  81

  63

  71

  49

  66

  52

  place etc.(Group I).

  by the Criminal Justice and Public

  Order Act 1994 sec. 157 sch. 8 part

  III

  Carrying loaded firearm in public

  Ibid.

  25

  21

  22

  17

  22

  13

  place etc. (Group II).

  Carrying loaded firearm in public

  Ibid.

  237

  176

  213

  170

  241

  180

  place etc.(Group III).

  Total

  343

  260

  306

  236

  329

  245

  Acquiring a firearm under the age

  of 17

  Person under 17 acquiring firearm

  Firearms Act 1968 section 22(1).

  3

  3

  2

  1

  2

  2

  (Group I)

  Person under 17 acquiring firearm

  Ibid.

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (Group II)

  Person under 17 acquiring firearm

  Ibid.

  3

  1

  3

  3

  2

  1

  (Group III)

  Total

  7

  5

  5

  4

  5

  3

  Person under 14 having with him

  Firearms Act 1968 section 22(4)

  13

  12

  21

  16

  12

  3

  an air weapon or ammunition

  therefore, (Group III).

  Person under 17 having with him

  Firearms Act 1968 section 22(5)

  68

  54

  66

  52

  66

  46

  an air weapon in a public place,

  (Group III)

  Person under 14 making improper

  Firearms Act 1968 section 23(1)(a)

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  use of air weapon when under

  supervision, (Group III)

  Supplying air weapon to person

  Firearms Act 1968, sec. 24(4)

  2

  2

  4

  2

  2

  2

  under 14, (Group III)

  Person supervising person under

  Firearms Act 1968 section 23(1)(b)

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  14, permitting improper use of air

  weapon, (Group III)

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2Staffordshire Police Force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

  3For the purposes of recording offences, firearms are divided into three groups as below:

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

  Fraud (Asylum Support)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many investigations have been commenced into suspected fraud concerning Asylum
  704W
  within 50 feet of the centre of a highway, and (viii) an adult supervisor of a person under 14 making improper use of an airgun. [92267]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information contained in the table gives the number of defendants proceeded against and convicted of the various firearms offences requested, in England and Wales, 1999 to 2001, apart from 'discharging a firearm within 50 feet of a highway', which is not separately identifiable on the Home Office Court Proceedings database.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

  Support, and what the outcomes have been; and if he will make a statement about the arrangements in place to prevent Asylum Support fraud; [91210]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 8 January, ref. 88475, how many fraud investigators are employed by or contracted to the National Asylum Support Service; and

  705W
  what arrangements are in place for advice and assistance from the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service to NASS; [91212]

  (3) what arrangements are in place for referrals from the Benefit Fraud Hotline and the Targeting Fraud Website to be made to NASS fraud investigators in respect of cases of suspected Asylum Support fraud; and how many reports of suspected fraud have so far been received by NASS. [91211]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: About 40 staff are employed directly by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) to undertake fraud investigations. In the period April–December 2002 investigations were carried out into 3,161 cases of alleged benefit fraud. As a result of the investigation 1,286 support claimants had their NASS support terminated.

  All asylum seekers are being issued with Application Registration Cards (ARCs) which contain photographs and biometric data. Arrangements are under way for NASS support to be paid via the person's ARC. This represents a more secure method of payment and will help to prevent fraud.

  NASS has a full time liaison officer on secondment from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to establish closer working links with that Department's Benefits Fraud Investigations unit. In addition NASS contributes to multi-agency operations aimed at combating illegal working in partnership with other Government Departments including the Department for Work and Pensions.

  There are no formal arrangements for referring calls to the Benefit Fraud Hotline and the Targeting Fraud Website to NASS.

  Gwent Police
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will send to Mr. Alan Bolton, ex-Superintendent of Gwent Police, the final report of assistant chief constable Drane on alleged breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which was presented to the Gwent Police Authority on 11 July 2002. [91537]

  Mr. Denham
  The report referred to is the property of the Chief Officer of Gwent and it is for him to decide whether a copy should go to Mr. Alan Bolton. I am advised by Gwent Police that the report will not be disclosed. The report is currently in the hands of the Police Complaints Authority who will inform Mr. Bolton of the outcome of the investigation into his allegations.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of the inquiry into the conduct of ex-Acting Chief Constable Richard Thomas of Gwent Police will be published. [91543]

  Mr. Denham
  The report referred to is the property of Gwent Police Authority and it is for them to decide whether it should be published. I am advised by Gwent Police that the report will not be published.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the possibility of introducing identity cards in the UK. [92015]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched a consultation exercise on 3 July 2002, with the publication of a consultation paper on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud.Official Report, columns 227–42.

  There are strongly held views on all sides of the debate on entitlement or identity cards. The Government have made it clear that the introduction of an entitlement card would be a major step and that we would not proceed without consulting widely and considering all the views expressed very carefully.

  The consultation period will last until 31 January 2003 after which, the Government will assess and evaluate all the responses received before reaching a conclusion.

  Immigration Detainees
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to prevent immigration detainees who have not been charged with a criminal offence from being held in prison. [93332]

  Beverley Hughes
  Our policy on the use of prisons to hold immigration detainees was set out in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven—Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain". We made it clear that, although the routine use of prison accommodation for immigration detainees had ended, there would remain a need to hold small numbers of individual detainees in prison for reasons of security and control. There has been no change in that policy.

  Juvenile Motor Bike Riders
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the police about means of controlling nuisance by juvenile riders of off-road motor bikes; and if he will make a statement. [92079]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2003]: The Government have responded to public concerns about the nuisance and distress caused by juveniles riding off-road motor bikes across public parks, village greens or the countryside without authority by securing new powers for the police to deal with the anti-social use of any motor vehicle whether on- or off-road. The new powers are contained in section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police (Retention and Disposal of Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2002, both of which came into force on 1 January.

  The new powers build on existing road traffic legislation by enabling the police to seize any vehicle being driven carelessly or inconsiderately or off-road without authority and in such a way as to cause alarm, distress or annoyance. This will enable the police to deal more immediately and more effectively with the nuisance. The new powers will inconvenience those who misuse their vehicles and see them liable to meet the costs involved in seizure and storage in order to recover them.
  707W
  The Home Office has written to all chief officers of police, drawing their attention to the new provisions and advising them on application.

  Minimum Wage
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the impact of

  Impact on the payhill

  Increase

  Total

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  (a) In line with inflation

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  (b) To £4.17 per hour

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  (c) To £4.87 per hour (percentage)

  <0.01

  <0.01

  <0.1

  <0.01

  <0.1

  (d) To £5.00 per hour (percentage)

  <0.05

  <0.05

  <0.5

  <0.05

  <0.5

  (e) To £5.30 per hour (percentage)

  <0.1

  <0.1

  <1.0

  <0.1

  ≈1.0

  Orpheus Centre
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Orpheus Centre; and if he will make a statement. [92044]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I attended a reception at the House of Commons on 13 January 2003, which was organised by the noble Lord Hunt of Wirral, in conjunction with the right hon. Member to celebrate the work of the Orpheus Centre. The Orpheus Centre is doing excellent work, not only by helping young disabled people to achieve their potential in music and drama, but also by drawing attention to the wasted talent that results from negative attitudes towards disability.

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the suppliers are of his Department's(a) paper and (b) paper products. [91904]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The contract to supply paper and paper products to the Home Department is held by the company Guilbert Niceday. In addition to the aforementioned contract the Prison Service also hold a contract with James McNaughton to supply paper and paper products to Prison Service industries.

  In June 2002 the Home Office mandated all offices within the Department to use re-cycled paper in photocopiers, fax machines and printers, unless

  Police force

  March 1997

  March 1998

  March 1999

  March 2000

  March 2001

  March 2002

  Avon and Somerset

  1,438

  1,393

  1,424

  1,436

  1,452

  1,611

  Bedfordshire

  484

  523

  483

  490

  491

  524

  Cambridgeshire

  607

  574

  586

  503

  614

  733

  Cheshire

  735

  781

  785

  823

  833

  884

  Cleveland

  609

  586

  552

  595

  586

  626

  Cumbria

  451

  451

  442

  469

  588

  631

  Derbyshire

  723

  787

  818

  826

  875

  953

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,159

  1,186

  1,215

  1,343

  1,453

  1,639

  Dorset

  615

  651

  702

  686

  682

  741

  Durham

  583

  557

  559

  590

  566

  660

  708W
  increasing the minimum wage (a) in line with average earnings, (b) to £4.17 per hour, (c) to £4.87 per hour, (d) to £5.00 per hour and (e) to £5.30 per hour, on the cost of salaries of departmental employees (i) in total and (ii) for each nation of the United Kingdom in the next financial year. [90603]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information requested is in the table:

  technical reasons precluded them from using this paper. The provision of re-cycled paper is part of the agreed contract with Guilbert Niceday.

  Police (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are employed in Herefordshire. [91748]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 589W, setting out police strength for each Basic Command Unit for each force in England and Wales as at 31 March 2002.

  The deployment of resources between the six territorial divisions and other specialist operational and support units of the West Mercia Constabulary is an operational matter for the Chief Constable.

  Police Force (Civilian Staff)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilian staff have been employed in each police force in England and Wales in each year since 1996–97; and how many of these civilians have been employed as a consequence of the civilianisation of posts formerly performed by uniformed officers. [91080]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures for the number of civilian support staff employed by police forces since 1996–97 are provided in the table. Information for the number civilians employed as a result of the civilianisation of uniformed police posts is not available.
  709W

  Police force

  March 1997

  March 1998

  March 1999

  March 2000

  March 2001

  March 2002

  Dyfed Powys

  322

  341

  341

  359

  401

  459

  Essex

  1,199

  1,252

  1,273

  1,348

  1,447

  1,571

  Gloucestershire

  435

  423

  504

  484

  506

  545

  Greater Manchester

  2,612

  2,661

  2,623

  2,822

  2,858

  3,135

  Gwent

  452

  477

  487

  498

  537

  570

  Hampshire

  1,316

  1,331

  1,381

  1,443

  1,424

  1,597

  Hertfordshire

  818

  831

  835

  890

  935

  1,121

  Humberside

  718

  789

  840

  840

  808

  816

  Kent

  1,384

  1,470

  1,582

  1,647

  1,796

  1,958

  Lancashire

  1,126

  1,143

  1,198

  1,422

  1,369

  1,442

  Leicestershire

  755

  774

  802

  805

  686

  816

  Lincolnshire

  521

  541

  517

  516

  561

  600

  London, City of

  347

  334

  314

  285

  233

  247

  Merseyside

  1343

  1502

  1356

  1458

  1418

  1532

  Metropolitan Police

  13,493

  12,432

  11,257

  10,605

  10,040

  10,459

  Norfolk

  603

  646

  648

  655

  694

  819

  North Wales

  476

  479

  508

  519

  498

  645

  North Yorkshire

  519

  543

  541

  492

  591

  743

  Northamptonshire

  554

  577

  587

  599

  694

  742

  Northumbria

  1,365

  1,362

  1,443

  1,417

  1,344

  1,403

  Nottinghamshire

  1,003

  987

  1,039

  1,024

  1,039

  1,087

  South Wales

  1,206

  1,132

  1,223

  1,081

  1,270

  1,435

  South Yorkshire

  1,291

  1,243

  1,273

  1,391

  1,312

  1,352

  Staffordshire

  763

  866

  1,004

  858

  935

  1,030

  Suffolk

  522

  583

  594

  600

  621

  692

  Surrey

  727

  743

  733

  762

  897

  1,043

  Sussex

  1,149

  1,185

  1,393

  1,328

  1,454

  1,507

  Thames Valley

  1,825

  1,827

  1,799

  1,786

  1,891

  2,061

  Warwickshire

  376

  398

  406

  394

  412

  459

  West Mercia

  942

  975

  975

  1,043

  1,095

  1,116

  West Midlands

  2,739

  2,817

  2,652

  2,695

  2,819

  3,007

  West Yorkshire

  2,234

  2,304

  2,216

  2,199

  2,228

  2,364

  Wiltshire

  475

  519

  555

  563

  622

  649

  Total

  53,011

  52,975

  52,465

  52,588

  53,575

  58,022

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletins—Police Service Strength 1997–2002

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of police officers in(a) England and Wales, (b) Avon and and Somerset and (c) East Somerset district in each year from 1980–81 to 2003–04; and if he will make a statement [92084]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2003]: Information on the number of officers in England and Wales and Avon and Somerset Constabulary for 1980–81 to 2001–02 (the latest available statistics) is set out in the table. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set a target for there to be 130,000 officers in March 2003 and 132,500 officers in 2004, but he has not set targets for individual forces.

  The deployment of resources between the eight territorial divisions and other specialist operational and support units of the force is an operational matter for the Chief Constable.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 2 December 2002, Official Report, column 589W, setting out police strength for each Basic Command Unit for each force in England and Wales as at 31 March 2002.
  710W

  Police numbers; England and Wales and for Avon and Somerset 1980–81 to 2001–02

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Police numbers England and Wales

  Police numbers Avon and Somerset

  1981

  118,102

  2,953

  1982

  119,973

  3,011

  1983

  121,003

  2,970

  1984

  121,053

  2,997

  1985

  120,116

  2,982

  1986

  120,848

  2,958

  1987

  122,236

  3,009

  1988

  124,080

  3,013

  1989

  125,631

  3,014

  1990

  126,777

  3,094

  1991

  127,495

  3,092

  1992

  127,627

  3,081

  1993

  128,290

  3,068

  1994

  127,897

  3,033

  1995

  127,222

  3,000

  1996

  126,901

  2,981

  1997

  127,158

  2,989

  1998

  126,814

  2,976

  1999

  126,096

  2,999

  2000

  124,418

  2,934

  2001

  125,519

  2,960

  2002

  129,603

  3,096

  Police Pay and Pensions
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assumptions the Home Office made about the change in police pay and pension costs between 2002–03 and 2003–04 in determining the police grant distribution. [90217]

  Mr. Denham
  The average increase in Police Grant and Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic Rates income in 2003–04 will be 4.3 per cent. Each police authority will receive an increase of at least 3 per cent.

  Within the total sum available, distribution of Police Grant is based, by formula, on predicted relative demands on policing services for each police authority. Formula changes for 2003–04 do not relate to pay or pension costs. The proportion of the formula attributable to projected pensions costs remains at 14.5 per cent.

  Council tax—police element (Band D)

  £

  Police authority

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Avon and Somerset

  45.32

  45.73

  52.04

  55.09

  60.62

  67.59

  72.66

  83.4

  Bedfordshire

  45.40

  46.46

  52.51

  55.84

  61.36

  66.98

  70.26

  78.69

  Cambridgeshire

  44.64

  45.00

  51.03

  48.24

  52.11

  62.46

  68.04

  94.59

  Cheshire

  44.71

  45.10

  51.16

  53.86

  56.28

  61.06

  64.66

  73.54

  Cleveland

  45.23

  46.02

  54.87

  48.43

  62.55

  65.58

  69.51

  96.13

  Cumbria

  49.54

  51.14

  58.20

  72.35

  78.27

  84.23

  90.60

  100.48

  Derbyshire

  45.04

  45.18

  51.31

  57.30

  65.85

  71.12

  75.38

  91.96

  Devon and Cornwall

  45.60

  45.66

  49.79

  48.30

  53.52

  58.87

  61.81

  73.8

  Dorset

  56.13

  57.49

  63.59

  70.60

  77.12

  84.42

  92.25

  103.5

  Durham

  45.00

  45.45

  52.20

  48.60

  50.40

  52.65

  56.43

  64.44

  Essex

  47.25

  48.42

  54.09

  62.28

  65.07

  67.95

  71.01

  77.67

  Gloucestershire

  44.92

  44.96

  51.17

  57.74

  68.90

  77.98

  82.05

  94.01

  Greater Manchester

  45.53

  45.86

  54.10

  56.28

  60.22

  62.72

  64.66

  68.86

  Hampshire

  45.00

  45.81

  51.75

  50.13

  53.91

  55.08

  59.04

  75.15

  Hertfordshire

  44.89

  46.02

  51.51

  58.83

  63.54

  67.99

  72.39

  81.01

  Humberside

  45.09

  45.78

  52.47

  52.47

  54.81

  60.30

  85.77

  95.4

  Kent

  45.09

  45.81

  51.57

  48.45

  52.48

  55.73

  60.26

  73.64

  Lancashire

  45.18

  45.71

  53.25

  53.48

  57.69

  62.60

  67.89

  73.86

  Leicestershire

  45.27

  45.32

  52.26

  61.21

  63.79

  67.80

  75.52

  95.21

  Lincolnshire

  62.21

  66.96

  69.03

  78.93

  81.99

  86.49

  90.36

  94.86

  Merseyside

  53.42

  57.87

  66.87

  71.78

  77.44

  81.31

  85.37

  94.76

  Metropolitan

  47.83

  49.84

  57.00

  70.73

  77.44

  90.95

  118.85

  130.59

  Norfolk

  45.27

  45.18

  50.58

  53.64

  64.35

  72.09

  83.61

  100.35

  Northamptonshire

  63.29

  64.26

  70.56

  69.29

  76.08

  79.65

  83.00

  105.25

  Northumbria

  44.92

  45.95

  52.73

  47.67

  49.82

  52.06

  55.65

  58.15

  North Yorkshire

  45.47

  45.40

  49.72

  48.46

  52.20

  57.04

  62.59

  88.59

  Nottinghamshire

  45.51

  45.94

  49.78

  54.32

  61.55

  65.17

  70.17

  85.17

  South Yorkshire

  44.95

  45.80

  53.29

  54.28

  56.72

  59.26

  62.79

  74.09

  Staffordshire

  47.87

  48.15

  54.74

  72.42

  78.86

  83.43

  94.37

  100.93

  Suffolk

  44.64

  45.09

  51.39

  52.38

  56.16

  61.11

  67.14

  82.08

  Surrey

  41.94

  42.93

  44.64

  66.06

  75.24

  79.41

  83.08

  96.44

  Sussex

  45.18

  45.99

  51.66

  50.94

  53.19

  55.53

  59.13

  69.84

  Thames Valley

  46.86

  46.96

  52.79

  50.76

  56.53

  60.34

  64.49

  73.49

  Warwickshire

  44.60

  46.70

  52.24

  62.09

  71.18

  77.57

  85.17

  101.78

  West Mercia

  44.94

  45.34

  50.87

  53.64

  59.00

  74.06

  78.50

  104.5

  West Midlands

  44.48

  45.65

  53.20

  48.99

  51.19

  54.77

  57.21

  61.88

  West Yorkshire

  45.28

  45.28

  53.17

  52.41

  54.76

  58.73

  60.82

  75.92

  Wiltshire

  48.45

  49.44

  55.48

  62.77

  68.98

  75.84

  83.26

  91.54

  Police Response Times
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the target time is for the police to respond to 999 calls in(a) Essex Constabulary,
  712W
  Grant is not specifically earmarked for pay and pension costs. Authorities will take grant into account when setting budgets to meet these costs from their total available resources.

  Police Precept
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the level of the police precept in each English police authority, based on(a) Band D council tax and (b) other measures for which comparative information is available, in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92082]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2003]: Precept levels are determined by police authorities.

  Police precepts (Band D level) for English Police Authorities since 1995–96 are set out in the table. Before April 1995 policing in shire areas was provided by county councils. Figures for the police component of county precepts are unavailable.

  (b) Tendring division, (c) Colchester division and (d) England; and if he will list the most recent performance in each case. [91463]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government do not set target times for emergency response.
  713W
  The emergency response targets set by Essex Police Authority within Essex Police are the same for all divisions:

  Rural—20 minutes,

  Urban—10 minutes.

  There is not a national target—forces set their own, although the majority are rural 20 minutes and urban 10 minutes; the others are very similar.

  The latest Essex performance figures are as follows:

  Essex Police—Target 86 per cent. Performance (rolling 12 months to end December 2002) 83.5 per cent.

  Tendring Division—Target 88 per cent. Performance (rolling 12 months to end December 2002) 88.3 per cent.

  Colchester Division—Target 88 per cent. Performance (rolling 12 months to end December 2002) 83.9 per cent.

  The most recent figures available for England and Wales are those given in the Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary annual report 2001–02 published on 9 December 2002. These show that the average response times for attending incidents within target times were 78.7 per cent. in urban areas and 86.9 per cent. in rural areas.

  Police Standards Unit
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police forces have been subject to intervention by the Police Standards Unit since its creation; [92688]

  (2) how many separate interventions the Police Standards Unit has made since its creation. [92687]

  Mr. Denham
  There have been no formal interventions by the Police Standards Unit under the powers provided by sections 4 and 5 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

  The Police Standards Unit is, however, working with police forces in England and Wales—and in conjunction with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary—to share good practice, to provide support where performance issues have been identified and to aid specific initiatives such as the work with 10 forces to tackle street crime.

  Policing (London)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the current level of policing in(a) the London Borough of Havering and (b) other London boroughs; [91333]

  (2) how many police officers there are in each London borough; [91332]

  (3) what recent discussions he has had with police borough commanders on police numbers in the London boroughs; [91339]

  (4) what plans he has to increase police numbers and resources in the London Borough of Havering. [91334]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, has regular meetings with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Sir John Stevens QPM) at which a range of policing issues are discussed.
  714W
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 2 December 2002, Official Report, column 589W. This sets out police strength for each Basic Command Unit for each force in England and Wales, including the London boroughs.

  Under the provisional grant settlement for 2003–04 announced on 5 December 2002 the MPS will receive £2,021.7 million in Government grant.

  Decisions about the allocation of resources, including police officers, to the London boroughs are matters for the Commissioner and the Metropolitan Police Authority.

  Radiological Terrorism
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what liaison has taken place between the Civil Contingencies Unit and the Office of Civil Nuclear Security in respect of preparation of counter measures against radiological terrorism. [91961]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. The Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator, provides advice on protective security of nuclear materials and nuclear facilities in the civil nuclear industry. OCNS does not provide advice on the consequences of terrorism.

  Stray Dogs
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the provision by local police forces of temporary kennels for stray dogs collected by local authority dog wardens. [92590]

  Mr. Denham
  The provision of temporary kennels for stray dogs by the police is a local matter determined individually by each police force. The Policing Bureaucracy Taskforce recommended that this function may transfer to local authorities. The proposals are being discussed in consultation with the relevant stakeholders.

  Sussex Police
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have left Sussex constabulary in the last 12 months because of(a) retirement, (b) early retirement, (c) injury and (d) other employment. [92577]

  Mr. Denham
  The precise information requested is not collected centrally. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has provided the figures set out in the table for the 12 months ending 31 March 2002.

  Sussex police wastage:2001–02

  Number

  Dismissed or required to resign

  2

  Voluntary resignations

  63

  Medical retirements

  16

  Ordinary retirements

  82

  Transfers

  34

  Died in service

  2

  Total wastage

  199

  Terrorism Act
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 14 January 2003,Official Report, column 597W, on arrests made under the Terrorism Act 2000 since 1 December 2002, if he will list (a) the locations where the 50 arrests were

  Date

  Number of arrests

  Location

  Outcome

  1 December 2002

  1

  Manchester

  Released without charge

  3 December 2002

  2

  Manchester

  Released without charge

  5 December 2002

  10

  London

  Released from TACT (6 re-arrested for criminal offences)

  11 December 2002

  6

  London

  5 charged (s11 and s18 TACT)

  1 released without charge

  11 December 2002

  1

  Cheshire

  Charged (s11 TACT)

  18 December 2002

  4

  London

  Charged (s57 of TACT)

  18 December 2002

  3

  Edinburgh

  Charged (s57 of TACT)

  19 December 2002

  1

  London

  Released without charge

  22 December 2002

  1

  London

  Released without charge

  24 December 2002

  1

  Edinburgh

  Charged (s57 and s58 TACT)

  29 December 2002

  2

  Cumbria

  Charged (s15 TACT)

  30 December 2002

  3

  London

  Released from TACT (re-arrested for criminal offences)

  5 January 2003

  8

  London

  2 released without charge;

  3 charged (s57 TACT and s2 Chemical Weapons Act);

  1 charged (s57 and 58 TACT and s2 Chemical Weapons Act)

  2 released from TACT (re-arrested for criminal and immigration offences)

  7 January 2003

  1

  London

  Charged under s57 TACT and s2 Chemical Weapons Act

  8 January 2003

  1

  London

  Released without charge

  12 January 2003

  6

  Bournemouth

  Released from TACT (re-arrested for criminal and immigration offences)

  13 January 2003

  1

  London

  Released without charge

  14 January 2003

  3

  Manchester

  1 charged with murder

  1 detained under ATCS Act

  1 charged (s57 and s58 TACT)

  14 January 2003

  2

  Tottenham

  1 detained under ATCS Act

  1 released without charge

  14 January 2003

  1

  Birmingham

  Released without charge

  15 January 2003

  1

  Birmingham

  Released without charge

  15 January 2003

  1

  Manchester

  Released from TACT into Immigration Service custody

  17 January 2003

  3

  Gatwick

  Released from TACT into Immigration Service custody

  17 January 2003

  2

  London

  Released from TACT (bailed re criminal offences)

  18 January 2003

  3

  Gloucestershire

  Released without charge

  20 January 2003

  7

  London

  All remain in custody

  Traffic Police
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police in England have been allocated to traffic duties in each year since 1990; and what training in road accident investigation is given to police officers. [91852]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The table gives the readily available information on the number of traffic officers in each police force in England. This covers the three years since 1999, in which year the definition of traffic officer used by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary changed. The definition is now "staff who are predominantly employed on motor-cycles or in patrol vehicles for the policing of traffic and motorway related duties". This definition excludes those engaged in accident investigation, vehicle examination or radar duties.

  The adoption of an intelligence-led approach to traffic policing, the integration of such policing with
  716W
  made, (b) the numbers arrested and charged or released at each location and (c) the date of each of these incidents. [92037]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Since 1 December 2002 and to date, a total of 75 arrests have been made under the Terrorism Act 2000. The table details dates, locations and outcomes.

  other core activities, the increased use of cameras and other technology, and the more effective use of police resources can lead to a reduction in dedicated traffic officers without a reduction in performance in meeting traffic-related targets or enforcement levels.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has created a protocol to safeguard expertise and credibility by providing a common standard within the police service for the conduct of collision investigation and reconstruction. Under this, police forces should aim, at the primary level, to train collision investigation officers to the level of the appropriate City and Guilds qualification or an approved equivalent. The recommendation is that the qualification should be achieved within two years of the officer first undertaking this type of work. In addition, specialist officers are required to undergo continuing professional development, which provides a means of maintaining and enhancing their expertise and ensuring the maintenance of standards.
  717W

  Number of traffice officers by police force

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Avon and Somerset

  200.3

  210.5

  214.0

  Bedfordshire

  73.0

  69.0

  68.5

  Cambridgeshire

  93.0

  86.0

  78.0

  Cheshire

  195.6

  187.0

  194.0

  City of London

  22.0

  24.0

  25.0

  Cleveland

  67.9

  62.9

  67.0

  Cumbria

  118.8

  111.0

  108.0

  Derbyshire

  138.6

  135.6

  140.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  215.3

  202.3

  186.7

  Dorset

  83.0

  86.0

  81.0

  Durham

  116.0

  112.8

  112.6

  Essex

  245.1

  249.1

  253.7

  Gloucestershire

  67.6

  68.6

  63.6

  Greater Manchester

  432.8

  422.8

  420.8

  Hampshire

  251.0

  240.0

  239.8

  Hertfordshire

  155.0

  168.0

  149.0

  Humberside

  154.6

  145.0

  136.0

  Kent

  102.6

  103.6

  103.6

  Lancashire

  220.4

  216,8

  219.6

  Leicestershire

  87.0

  95.0

  85.7

  Lincolnshire

  93.0

  88.0

  97.8

  Merseyside

  185.0

  130.0

  126.0

  Metropolitan police

  823.8

  685.7

  602.0

  Norfolk

  108.6

  112.6

  114.0

  Northamptonshire

  51.8

  51.8

  61.4

  Northumbria

  158.0

  158.0

  178.0

  North Yorkshire

  96.0

  129.0

  140.0

  Nottinghamshire

  166.5

  175.0

  111.0

  South Yorkshire

  196.4

  206.4

  208.4

  Staffordshire

  188.0

  35.0

  34.0

  Suffolk

  70.0

  62.6

  67.6

  Surrey

  173.0

  197.0

  109.5

  Sussex

  191.3

  190.0

  174.2

  Thames Valley

  251.4

  250.5

  246.8

  Warwickshire

  102.0

  95.8

  95.0

  West Mercia

  278.0

  322.0

  325.0

  West Midlands

  394.0

  380.0

  385.0

  West Yorkshire

  322.8

  326.2

  336.2

  Wiltshire

  92.7

  91.0

  88.0

  Totals

  6,791.9

  6,718.6

  6,446.8

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Zimbabwean nationals and (b) British passport holders previously resident in Zimbabwe without the right of residence have applied for residence in the UK in each of the last 24 months. [91947]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information relates to the number of Zimbabwe nationals granted settlement. Monthly statistics for 2000 and 2001, the latest available, are given in the table. Data for 2002 are due to be published later this year. Information on the number of applications made for settlement is not available.

  In 2001, 515 British overseas citizens (British passport holders without the right of residence) were granted settlement. The corresponding figure for 2000 was 630. It is not possible to identify how many of these citizens were previously resident in Zimbabwe.

  Nationals of Zimbabwe granted settlement, by month, 2000 and 2001

  Number of persons

  2000

  2001

  January

  85

  65

  February

  65

  75

  March

  55

  105

  April

  95

  50

  May

  85

  90

  June

  110

  90

  July

  90

  100

  August

  90

  125

  September

  75

  90

  October

  75

  100

  November

  70

  55

  December

  60

  30

  Total

  955

  980

  Note:

  Data rounded to the nearest 5.

TRANSPORT

  Aerodromes and Navigation Facilities
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar)
  In order to update the longstanding land use planning arrangements for safeguarding aerodromes, technical sites and military explosives storage areas the existing Circular and Direction to local planning authorities have been revised. This follows the announcement on 27 July 2000,Official Report, columns 775–776W, by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that we would be consulting local government and others concerned about the revision of the consultation process which local planning authorities are required to carry out on development proposals which may have consequences for the safe operation of certain aerodromes and navigation facilities. A public consultation took place during 2001 and discussions with local planning authority and airport representatives continued into last year. We are grateful for their assistance in refining our proposals.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Transport and the National Assembly for Wales are today publishing the revised version of the

  Table 1

  Deaths to UK gulf veterans (Note: 1) 1 April 1991–31 December 2002

  Causes (coded to ICD-9)(Note: 2)

  ICD Chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era3

  Mortality Rate Ratio4

  All deaths

  571

  574

  0.99

  All cause coded deaths

  563

  566

  0.99

  I–XVI

  Disease-related causes

  225

  276

  0.81

  I

  Infectious and parasitic diseases

  4

  2

  1.99

  II

  Cancers

  97

  109

  0.89

  III

  Endocrine and immune disorders

  1

  4

  0.25

  V

  Mental disorders

  12

  15

  0.80

  VI

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs (Note 5)

  10

  9

  1.11

  VII

  Diseases of the circulatory system

  75

  102

  0.73

  VIII

  Diseases of the respiratory system

  10

  6

  1.66

  IX

  Diseases of the digestive system

  14

  18

  0.77

  IV, X–XVI

  All other disease-related causes (Note 6)

  2

  11

  0.18

  EXVII

  External causes of injury and poisoning

  338

  290

  1.16

  Railway accidents

  4

  1

  3.98

  Motor vehicle accidents

  118

  97

  1.21

  Water transport accidents

  5

  1

  4.97

  Air and space accidents

  25

  19

  1.31

  Other vehicle accidents

  0

  1

  0.00

  Accidental poisoning

  12

  14

  0.85

  Accidental falls

  8

  7

  1.14

  Accidents due to fire/flames

  0

  2

  0.00

  Accidents due to natural environmental factors

  2

  2

  1

  Accidents to submersion/suffocation/foreign bodies

  17

  7

  2.42

  Other accidents

  31

  29

  1.06

  Late effects of accident/injury

  0

  2

  0.00

  Suicide and injury undetermined whether accidental

  107

  100

  1.07

  28WS
  Safeguarding Circular, for application in England and Wales. It incorporates a revised Direction to local planning authorities made by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and the Welsh Minister for the Environment. The main change which the Direction makes is that where consultation is required the local planning authority must consult the aerodrome operator rather than the Civil Aviation Authority, with the Authority becoming involved only if the local planning authority does not wish to follow the aerodrome operator's advice. In addition, the Circular describes more fully than previously the importance of safeguarding and the hazards to aviation which can arise from particular types of development. The Direction comes into force on 10 February and the new Circular will replace DOE Circular 2/92 (Welsh Office Circular 5/92) on the same day.

DEFENCE

  Gulf Veterans
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  Figures for Gulf veterans' mortality from 1 April 1991 to 30 June 2002 were published on 23 July 2002,Official Report, columns 909–10W in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron). The latest data, as at 31 December 2002, are shown in Table 1 below. As before, the data for Gulf veterans are compared with that of a control group, known as the Era cohort, which is made up of Armed Forces personnel of a similar age, gender, Service and rank who were not deployed. Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of deaths from cancer (malignant neoplasm) by anatomical site.
  29WS

  Table 1

  Deaths to UK gulf veterans (Note:1) 1 April 1991–31 December 2002

  Causes (coded to ICD-9)(Note: 2)

  ICD Chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era3

  Mortality Rate Ratio4

  Homicide

  6

  4

  1.49

  Injury resulting from the operations of war

  3

  4

  0.75

  Other deaths for which coded cause data are not yet available

  5

  4

  Overseas deaths for which cause data are not available

  3

  4

  Notes:

  1. Service and Ex-Service personnel only.

  2. World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision 1977.

  3. The Era group comprises 53,143 personnel, randomly sampled from all UK Armed Forces personnel in service on 1 January 1991 and who did not deploy to the Gulf. This group is matched to the 53,409 Gulf veterans to reflect the socio-demographic and military composition of the Gulf cohort in terms of age, gender, Service (Army, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force), officer/other rank status, regular/reservist status, and a proxy measure for fitness.

  4. Mortality rate ratios differ marginally from the crude deaths ratio owing to some small differences between the Gulf and Era cohorts.

  5. These figures include 4 deaths from Motor Neurone Disease amongst the Gulf corhort and 3 in the Era group.

  6. Includes cases with insufficient information on the death certificate to provide a known cause of death.

  Table 2

  Deaths due to neoplasms among UK Gulf veterans: 1 April 1991–31 December 2002

  (Major anatomical sites(coded to ICD-9)1

  IDC 9

  Site

  Gulf

  Era

  140–239

  All neoplasms

  97

  109

  140–149

  Malignant neoplasm of lip, oral cavity Pharynx

  3

  4

  150–159

  Malignant neoplasm of digestive organs and peritoneum

  21

  25

  160–165

  Malignant neoplasm of respiratory and intrathoracic organs

  15

  24

  170–175

  Malignant nepolasm of bone,

  170–176

  connective tissue, skin and breast

  14

  10

  179–189

  Malignant neoplasm of genitourinary organs

  2

  6

  190–199

  Malignant neoplasm of other and unspecified site

  20

  27

  200–208

  Malignant nepolasm of lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue

  19

  11

  239

  Unspecified nature

  3

  2

  1World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision, Geneva, 1977.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Magistrates Courts
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper)
  The Government have received the independent report by PA Consulting on the extended court sitting hours pilots that took place last year in magistrates courts in London and Manchester between May and September. Ministers are very grateful for the hard and positive work put in by all the staff involved in the pilots from across the CIS agencies, as well as the judiciary—both magistrates and District Judges.

  Lord Justice Auld recommended in his review of the criminal courts that there be a "thorough examination of the need for and the costs/benefits of extending court working hours….". The sitting hours conventionally used in magistrates courts have remained essentially unchanged and set on a traditional basis for many years. The Government, therefore, decided to pilot alternative working hours in magistrates courts in order to test possible improvements on the courts' efficiency and effectiveness in the interests of the whole criminal justice system.
  30WS
  Three distinct pilots were established with the local criminal justice agencies to test out variations of extended court sitting hours. The three aspects of extended hours that were tested specifically were:

  In London Bow Street magistrates court: the extended hours courts ran on Friday and Saturday night from 6pm to midnight to deal with first appearances of defendants charged in Westminster earlier in the day.

  In Manchester City magistrates court two schemes ran:
  an early morning remand court starting at 9am rather than the normal 10am, in three courts daily from Monday to Friday. These courts heard first appearances of adult defendants arrested and held in police custody the previous night; and
  an evening trial court ran from 4pm to 8pm on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. This court heard adult trial cases for offences where there was no likelihood of custody

  The five main offence types heard in London were theft, failure to surrender, begging, drunk and disorderly and possession of drugs. While in Manchester in the early remand courts the five main offence types were theft, breach of the peace, driving without insurance, failure to surrender, and breach of bail. In the Manchester evening court, the large majority of cases were motoring offences.
  31WS
  During the pilots, 368 defendants appeared in Bow Street magistrates court London, 534 in Manchester magistrates court in the early morning courts and 88 in the evening trial court. It is worth noting that all defendants appearing before the courts had to be "fit to be charged" and not under the "influence" or otherwise incapable.

  PA Consulting has produced a full evaluation report. The report's conclusion has been that whilst there has been some reduction in delays and some qualitative improvements for victims and witnesses, the extended court sitting hours piloted in magistrates courts proved to be disproportionately expensive and were not cost effective especially given the fact that there are only limited capacity pressures facing the magistrates courts during normal sitting hours

  The findings indicated that the early morning sittings did assist the handling of cases and the earlier hearings of overnight remand cases had a beneficial effect on those cases already listed for hearing that day. In contrast there was less demand for the late night trials option, where the relatively low volume of cases led to disproportionate additional costs.

  PA Consulting concluded that there were insufficient benefits in terms of increased throughput, reduced delay, improved attrition or overall quality of justice to justify the higher costs of extending court hours under current capacity conditions. However, they noted that useful lessons could be learnt from the pilots in dealing with increased pressures on court capacity due to increased workloads which might arise in the future, from such initiatives as street crime, increased numbers of police officers.

  The cost of the pilots reflected the fact that most agencies in the criminal justice system currently have staff terms and conditions and working arrangements based on a 'normal' working day, except the police and prisons. Extending court business into the evening or weekends is more expensive due to the need to recompense staff for working unsociable hours and the additional costs of providing more staff to cover evening courts. The high fixed costs of secure transport and custody of prisoners also contributed significantly to the costs of the pilots.

  Preliminary costings for the three pilots were in the order of £5.4m. In fact, partly as a result of reducing the length of the pilots to four months without prejudicing their evaluation, the final total cost was £2.04m, including national project costs. The additional direct cost of handling each defendant was: £3,257 in London; £589 for Manchester morning courts and £1,322 for Manchester evening trials. In particular, the relatively
  32WS
  low number of cases in London affected that particular pilot's value for money. especially as this cost does not include the use of prisons for remanded defendants but the temporary, and certainly not long-term alternative, of police cells. The Manchester morning courts were the least costly due to the higher volumes involved, but the pilots identified important lessons about the actual mechanics of how such courts should be run.

  The inter-agency pilots have greatly assisted the working relationships in two of the country's largest metropolitan areas and a significant number of cases have been dealt with, despite the unpredictable nature of the number of cases that would actually occur during the pilots. Early operational problems, such as prisoner delivery were largely resolved quickly.

  This exercise has meant that the Government have learned valuable lessons that can be shared with all the local criminal justice agencies throughout the country and improvements made to existing arrangements, as well as establishing the ground-work for any future changes. The consultants were also charged to consider other alternatives and these have been taken into account in the Report and its recommendations. The report's findings will be circulated to criminal justice boards, magistrates courts committees and Crown courts so that where capacity problems arise any new arrangements being considered can take into account the lessons learned from this pilot exercise. Manchester magistrates courts committee has decided on the basis of the experience of the pilot to extend the use of early morning sessions at Trafford magistrates court to include early morning fines courts.

  The report's recommendations have been agreed, which are being implemented, are set out below:
  the London and Manchester protocols have been put into "good practice" templates (which have been included in the Appendices to the Report);
  the Report is being issued out to all the agencies involved (so that should specific pressure require extended magistrates' court hours in any particular location or in order to respond to initiatives, advantage can be taken of the work done so far);
  the lessons learnt are being shared with the Crown Court where there is greater immediate pressure in relation to caseload; and
  the most practical elements of the pilots, the early morning sittings (probably focusing on a 9:30 start) and the use of "specialist courts" in the late afternoon, will be actively considered by all Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs)—where the need and practical arrangements will be a matter for each MCC to decided upon in conjunction with their CIS colleagues under the umbrella of the new local Criminal Justice Boards.

  The Government will continue to explore ways to improve and update the working practices of the courts.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Inland Revenue: Interest Rates
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the most recent tax year for which figures are available, what has been the income generated by the Inland Revenue through interest charges for late payment and what has been the corresponding repayment to taxpayers for overpayment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the 12-month period to October 2001, the most recent for which data are available, interest payments received by the Inland Revenue amounted to some £417 million and the Revenue paid out some £397 million in interest.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Will he confirm that if the Inland Revenue is owed money by a taxpayer it charges the taxpayer at 6½ per cent interest, whereas if the Inland Revenue owes money to a taxpayer it pays 2½ per cent interest? Will my noble friend justify the difference?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first thing to be said is that one person is not being charged interest at a higher rate on what he pays than on what he receives. The rate of interest on late payments does not constitute a penalty; it is designed to cancel any financial advantage for those who pay late. The rate of interest is set to encourage payment on time and to compensate the Exchequer for loss. The rate of interest on overpayments is the average commercial rate for return on deposits. The Inland Revenue is not a source of cheap credit.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall the claim of Ken Dodd that he was a pioneer of self-assessment? Is not the problem now with the Revenue itself? Is the noble Lord aware that some offices are now claiming a three-month delay in processing returns? That is before the big logjam caused by the January rush. Therefore, is not there a case for looking for carrots rather than sticks and giving a positive incentive to those who send in their returns early? I understand that that worked very well in persuading people to submit their tax returns online. There is evidence to suggest that instead of expensive advertising campaigns a little incentive to early payers would work very effectively.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I refer to the principal incentive for early payment; that is, if you send in your tax return before 30th September, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McNally, does, the calculation is done for you rather than a person having to go through the self-assessment procedure. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is suggesting that there should be financial benefits from early payment, I believe that those who have more complex tax affairs would find that rather unfair.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is correct in the two rates of interest he mentioned—I must infer that he is, as the Minister did not correct him—is it not the case, therefore, that the Inland Revenue owes the taxpayer a great deal more than the taxpayer owes the Inland Revenue? Will the Minister explain why that is so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my original Answer detailed not the interest charged but the payments received. I confirm the figure of 6½ per cent mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Different figures apply for different kinds of tax. Late payment of inheritance tax is charged at only 3 per cent. However, from the figures available to me, I cannot confirm the rate of interest for overpayment.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is it any wonder that we have this merry-go-round of over and underpayments of tax when just one branch of Her Majesty's Government now generates 1,185 pages of claim forms relating to taxable benefits, non-taxable benefits, allowances, credits, reliefs, tapers, disregards—an endless list of paper?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume that as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, used the phrase "merry-go-round", he assumes that there is a large figure of overpayments and underpayments. In fact, the Inland Revenue collects £215 billion, so the plus or minus £400 million interest on overpayments and late payments is roughly 0.2 per cent of the total. I do not call that a bad figure.

Iraq
2.41 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action the Attorney-General is taking on the evidence presented to him by the chair of INDICT, Ann Clwyd MP, of criminal offences committed by Iraqi leaders under the Taking of Hostages Act 1982.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, INDICT asked me to grant consent to the commencement of prosecutions against Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, Ali Hassan Al-Majid and Taha Ramadan. Having considered the material and with the benefit of the advice of Treasury counsel who

911
reviewed it all, I wrote to Ann Clwyd MP at length on 24th January to explain my conclusions that in none of these cases is the admissible evidence that INDICT provided by itself sufficient to commence a prosecution now and that a full police investigation would be needed. Saddam Hussein is in any event immune from criminal jurisdiction here while serving head of state of Iraq.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that many lawyers would disagree with his attribution of immunity to Saddam as head of state and that, as a matter of public and international law, crimes against humanity and war crimes, whether committed by a head of state or not, are not granted that immunity? Does he also agree that in addition to the evidence which has been submitted by Ms Ann Clwyd, statements have also been made by 1,800 people who were traced and interviewed by the Ministry of Defence in relation to Operation Sandcastle? Is he really saying that in spite of all this mass of evidence, there are not sufficient grounds on which to prosecute Iraqi leaders? Will he place a copy of the letter to Ann Clwyd in the Library of the House so that others may judge the validity of his conclusions?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord raises three questions. First, I do not agree that other lawyers would take the view that Saddam Hussein was not immune from prosecution. The immunity of heads of state was confirmed by the judgment of the International Court of Justice in Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium on only 14th February last year. I understand that INDICT's advisers agree with that view.
Secondly, the noble Lord raises a question about the adequacy of the evidence. Someone believing that they know what happened is one thing, but proving it in a criminal court is a wholly different proposition. Having taken the advice of experienced Treasury counsel and considered the matter myself, although the evidence that INDICT has presented to me is telling at face value, I am not satisfied that it goes sufficiently far to justify a prosecution now.
Thirdly, having regard to the confidentiality of prosecution matters and the fact that the evidence came from Ann Clwyd herself, I shall consider the noble Lord's question about whether I would place in the Library of the House a copy of the letter that I have sent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's explanation of the Government's attitude appears to be wholly satisfactory, but I cannot understand why it should now always be assumed that the evidence would warrant a prosecution. Why should Her Majesty's Government have to prosecute? Is there no one else who would wish to prosecute?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, of course I am grateful for the noble Lord's statement that he finds what I said satisfactory. However, I ought to point out that what I have said is not a government statement: it is a statement of my view as an independent Law Officer, having considered the detail of the evidence in the case.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, while Saddam Hussein is head of state he is immune from prosecution, but would the noble and learned Lord tell us whether, if he were displaced, he would be liable for offences that he might have committed while head of state? Surely he would be.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I have been asked to consider the question as of now, and as of now the point that the noble Lord makes is entirely hypothetical.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a very interesting question as to who could be prosecuted for war crimes. What would be the position if, for example, there was an intervention in Iraq in which civilians were killed by British and American troops operating together, and that was considered a war crime? Would President Bush be immune from prosecution, but Tony Blair liable for prosecution?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, that question, raising a number of hypothetical issues as it does, seems to me to fall outside the terms of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the Minister kindly answer the other question that I put to him, which was whether he had examined the evidence accumulated by Operation Sandcastle, conducted by the Ministry of Defence at a cost of more than £400,000, in which 1,800 witnesses were traced? I believe that statements were taken from more than 1,000 of them. Does he not take all that evidence into consideration, in addition to that submitted by INDICT, in determining whether prosecutions should be instituted?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I most certainly have. The Sandcastle material to which the noble Lord refers does not relate solely to the issue that I was asked to consider, which was that of hostage taking. It covers many other areas as well. I can confirm that that material was looked at in detail.
I give the assurance that I have taken the matter very seriously. I have given it my full and personal attention. In addition, members of my staff have spent days reviewing all the material, including the Sandcastle material. Treasury counsel experienced in such matters has also considered it. I assure the noble Lord that it has all been taken into account.

Barnett Formula
2.48 p m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to scrap the Barnett formula with respect to the allocation of public expenditure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula. The Government's funding policies for the devolved administrations were set out in the updated statement of funding policy published by the Treasury on 15th July 2002.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I think that I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer. However, if he has no plans to scrap the formula, the simple question must be, "Why not?". After all, I am sure he is aware that it is grossly unfair. It was never a formula when I invented it; it became one only after 18 years of the previous administration and under this one. It is grossly unfair and should not have been continued. Will the noble Lord therefore reconsider his Answer and ask the Treasury to look again and consider why it does not propose to scrap it? It can keep the name; I would be very happy about that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnett is fully entitled to disown his offspring; there is no law against that. However, I do not accept that it is wholly unfair. The matter was given great consideration by the Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. Although it has many criticisms to make of the Barnett formula, paragraph 105 of its report states:
"We do not have a neat ready-made alternative to Barnett to propose".
It proposes instead a needs review, the use of a periodic basis rather than an annual one, and a phased transition to any new system. That does not sound very attractive to me.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while the Barnett formula has become a legend and has proved acceptable to public opinion in Scotland, thereby consigning the noble Lord's name to posterity—deservedly—is there not wide misapprehension about its precise effects?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we had a very detailed debate on this matter in the House some 14 months ago. A majority of speakers were broadly in favour of the formula, largely because they came from Scotland and Wales and had a significant interest in that respect. It is important to make clear what the Barnett formula is. It is not the basis on which higher payments are made to Scotland or Northern Ireland in particular, but it may reflect a higher baseline, which was produced on the basis of a needs assessment involving the Scotland Act 1978. It applies only to block payments, not to annual managed expenditure
914
and only to changes in block payments and excludes such matters as the common agricultural policy, National Health Service expenditure, housing expenditure and so on, when those matters are devolved. It does not even involve all devolved expenditure because devolved expenditure funded by Barnett money has to be added to borrowing, local taxation and European Union receipts. It is really not such a big deal as all that.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have plenty of time if we start with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if there is devolution in England, the Barnett formula will not last the course? If there is devolution in England and people are asked to vote for it, should they not know the financial settlement for which they will have to vote?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that, to use the phrase of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, is a hypothetical question. We do not have devolution in England and, even if we had, it is by no means certain that all regions of England would wish to take advantage of it. Under those circumstances, we should face the issue when we come to it.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, although, it is certainly true that the Barnett formula has very little effect on the total grant in Scotland, does my noble friend accept that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is a cult figure in Scotland and that his formula is regarded as immutable? Perhaps we had better accept that lie is immune from prosecution.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has already said in this House that he does not want the arrangement to be called the Barnett formula. I believe that he wants it to be called "the Barnett granddaughter's formula" because that is the nearest relation that he is prepared to have accepted. I certainly accept that he is a cult figure in Scotland, but not just for that reason.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is a cult figure in Wales in his own right, and not on account of his formula. Does the Minister agree that a formula that was devised for the transfer of funding between territorial departments is not acceptable at a time when financial transfers are bound to be the subject of political scrutiny by elected bodies?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not necessarily, my Lords, no. I can see circumstances in which that might be correct but the basic experience of the Barnett formula is that it has avoided the heroic jousts that

915
took place in the Star Chamber between the end of the Goschen formula in 1959 and the start of the Barnett formula in 1978 or 1979. It works and it provides a degree of security and certainty. It is based on known facts about populations and the known baseline. I do not believe that those advantages should be taken too lightly.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, if it is not the Government's intention to apply the Barnett formula to regional assemblies in England if they are established, will that not be very unfair because, as we have heard, Scotland and Wales, where the Barnett formula operates, have done rather well by its use?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that it was the Government's intention not to apply the Barnett formula to regions in England and Wales; I said that we have yet to see finalised legislation involving the regions of England and Wales. In any case, the Barnett formula in the devolved administrations has never been based on statute. There is no legislative backing for it; the current Government's use of it started with the White Paper on Scotland in 1997, not with the Scotland Act.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree—
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is now the turn of the Liberal Democrats, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, while acknowledging, as the Minister said, that the Barnett formula may provide a degree of certainty, having been operative since 1978, does he also recognise that there is growing uncertainty about its equity? Although the Government may be losing the head of steam for constitutional reform, they are in the process of legislating to allow views to be expressed about regional government in England. It can only make sense to give this arrangement some serious discussion, perhaps by establishing a commission with broad terms of reference that can take account of the criticisms being made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and others, and come up with a more dispassionate view of its equity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there has been doubt about the Barnett formula on the grounds of equity since it first came into operation. I do not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, says about there being growing concern about it. After all, it was thought at the time that, because it was applied only to increases, there would gradually be convergence between the government funding per head of population in the nations of the United
916
Kingdom. That has not happened, partly because the formula has been bypassed on a number of occasions, particularly during the 1980s. However, on the whole I do not believe that there is increasing concern, except perhaps in your Lordships' House, spurred on by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, himself.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, says that he is irrelevant, perhaps we should listen to him. Is the Minister aware that people in the south of England, who are being told that their rates might increase by 20 per cent, and people in the north of England, who see Scotland being treated in a preferential way, feel great resentment, especially when they see that in Scotland students are treated better than they are in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Moreover, old people get better treatment in Scotland than they do in the rest of the United Kingdom. Does he understand that that resentment will boil over one day and cause the Government much trouble?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I gather from that that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, feels resentment but, since his resentment is based on so many misconceptions about public finances in this country—in the south of England, the north of England and in Scotland—his claim that there is resentment outside does not stand up very well.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend seemed to argue that the reason for not scrapping the formula is because of all the various changes that have been made and the fact that there are a number of exclusions. Is he now saying that it is all right because it is only a little bit unfair?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say either of those things; I said that the formula works and is understandable, predictable and challengeable only on the grounds of different calculations of population. Those do not seem to be virtues that should be lightly thrown away.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have exhausted the Barnett formula.

Rail Freight Grants
2.59 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in cutting new rail freight grants from over £50 million this year to zero for 2003–04, the Strategic Rail Authority is complying with its purposes under

917
Sections 205 and 207(2)(f) of the Transport Act 2000 to promote rail freight and "to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Strategic Rail Authority is acting in a manner entirely consistent with its purposes under the Act.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that, apart from affecting seriously business confidence in the industry, it is estimated that cutting these grants is likely to put 5 million more lorries a year on the roads? How is that in line with the Government's 10-year plan to reduce congestion and transfer more freight from road to rail?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that we should put this issue in context. The budget of £40 million for freight facilities grant and track access grant has become exhausted for this year. The Strategic Rail Authority has said that, until about the end of this year, no more applications which have not been contractually committed will be entertained. The advantage of doing that, and the purpose of doing so in relation to the purposes under the Transport Act 2000, is to avoid wasted effort and expense by bidders and, at the same time, to honour existing contractual commitments. In the context of a £33 billion budget over the 10-year period and virtually a £12 billion budget over the period of the current spending review, that does not seem to me to bring about the kind of conclusions envisaged by my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister share my concern about conflict of interest where large sums of public money are expended on the railway, mostly in the interests of train services operated by Virgin Trains? Does he agree that the fact that the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, his deputy and the rail regulator were all involved in that deal raises questions, and what does that mean for the rest or the railway, which will get virtually nothing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is to make accusations of conflict of interest, he had better do so other than with the benefit of parliamentary privilege. This is not a matter for me to comment on. He will know that the balance between expenditure on passenger services, which is what I believe he is referring to, and expenditure on freight services has been greatly affected by the freight charging review introduced by the rail regulator, to whom he referred, in October 2001. That has already halved the access costs to freight operators. The £500 million extra cost has been paid for by the Strategic Rail Authority in its grant to Network Rail.
If the substance behind the noble Lord's question is the balance between passenger and freight expenditure rather than accusations of conflict of interest, then I do not believe that he has any grounds to go on.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I return to the Minister's reply to the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Berkeley concerning the relationship of this matter to the 10-year plan. Can we infer from the Minister's reply that the Government are still committed to the 10-year plan? In particular, can we infer that the figure of 80 per cent for growth in rail freight provided for within the 10-year plan is still government policy and that the Government are committed to achieving that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are, indeed, committed to their 10-year plan. As I have already said to the House, a full review of that will take place within the next 18 months. As to the immediate future, it is a little difficult for me to comment because the Strategic Rail Authority will produce its strategic plan only this week, on Thursday, 30th January.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, if certainty and predictability are good arguments for maintaining the Barnett formula, can the Minister tell us why they are not equally good arguments for maintaining rail freight grant where the ability to plan ahead is essential if businesses want to make the transfer? Furthermore, if he is not persuaded that the legal or business arguments are decisive in this case, will he agree that the environmental arguments should be and that the transfer of freight from road to rail is of enormous environmental importance? It is a policy to which the Government are committed. Will they not make an exception in this case to enable the grants to continue? Can he also confirm that, even if the grants are not to be continued in England, they will be continued in Wales and Scotland?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the thrust of the intellectual argument follows the same course in both Questions. Certainty and ability to plan are good things. That applies to the Barnett formula and to the action of the Strategic Rail Authority. The authority said that it has no money for new applications under the freight facilities grant or the track access grant this year. Therefore, it said that time and money should not be spent in producing anything now but that thought should be given to submitting applications towards the end of this year as money will be available next year.
However, that is against the situation where tonnage of rail freight has increased over the past 20 years or so from 17.6 billion tonne/kilometres in 1980 to 19.4 billion tonne/kilometres in 2003. The commitment to the extension of rail freight—this is the environmental argument—is still as strong as ever.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is it not the case that, when Mr Bowker took over as chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, the West Coast Main Line modernisation plan was in such disarray that there was no prospect of that line carrying even existing levels of freight in the future? It is only because

919
of the way that Mr Bowker and his team have rescued that project that it is now able to plan for growth in freight in the future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Mr Bowker and the Strategic Rail Authority inherited from their predecessors and from Railtrack not only a bow wave of renewals, which was inevitably necessary after Hatfield, but, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, also a whole series of projects with unclear specifications and poor project management. The West Coast Main Line was a very good example of that. Happily, not all projects are like that. I refer noble Lords, for example, to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

Harbours Bill [H.L.]
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the procedure for dealing with applications for orders under Sections 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964 and for making orders under Section 15 of that Act, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Berkeley.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
We are here today to debate a Bill that aims to bring an end to widespread delayed discharge, bring increased clarity to the roles and responsibilities of health and social care agencies, and increase the choice available to older people. On any given day in England, on average, 5,000 mainly older people are delayed in acute hospital beds across England. For each of those 5,000 people, something has gone wrong. Each of those individuals remains in a hospital bed unnecessarily when he or she can no longer benefit from acute treatment. First and foremost, that is bad for individuals who are delayed because, with each day that they remain on an acute ward, they are at risk of losing their independence and of becoming institutionalised.
Secondly, the effect upon the NHS of 5,000 delayed discharges per day is extremely worrying. As for each delay, other individuals will be waiting to enter
920
hospital. We must stop this colossal failure of the system. We must ensure that every patient who is likely to need services upon discharge receives a joined-up assessment of his needs as soon as possible and that, where services are needed, those are made available on the day that the patient is ready to go home. That is what the Bill will achieve.
I know there are those who argue that the Bill is unnecessary and suggest that as good progress has already been made on delayed discharges the issue can be tackled in other ways, such as through partnership and central performance management. I am the first to acknowledge the progress that has been made. I do not believe that the current level of heavy central intervention and top-down performance management that has brought about that reduction is consistent with the devolution and earned autonomy that we want to introduce across the health and social care system. It is also true that, even with the recent successes that we have achieved, the level of delay remains unacceptable. I do not believe that any older person should be delayed in an acute bed when he or she is ready to go home.
At Second Reading in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced that an extra £100 million per full year on top of the allocations already announced would be transferred from central NHS budgets to local authorities in order to meet the estimated costs to local authorities of the scheme. That means that lack of funding can no longer be used as an excuse for under-investment in delayed discharges.
Of course, there are issues around care home capacity in some parts of the country but we have a problem if we think that the only way to care for the older people in our society is to place them in care homes in ever increasing numbers. The National Service Framework for Older People makes clear that local authorities need to reduce their reliance on institutional care and instead invest in a wide range of alternate provision, including interim care, intermediate care, extra sheltered housing and intensive support at home. In other words, that means increasing our capacity so that services can be used flexibly to respond to an individual's needs rather than using capacity problems as an excuse for local authorities not having met their responsibilities.
I make clear that the Bill does not place any new responsibility upon local authorities. It does not require them to do anything other than what the best local authorities already do. Put simply, we expect local authorities to meet their existing responsibilities rather than, intentionally or unintentionally, passing the financial burden for some of those responsibilities on to the NHS. The Bill places a strong financial incentive upon local authorities to ensure that all individuals ready to leave acute hospital care are provided with the right care in the right place at the right time. It also places new duties upon the NHS that will ensure that robust discharge procedures are in place. I stress that the robustness of the new arrangements will be just as thorough on the NHS as on personal social services.

921
I shall explain the main provisions of the Bill in more detail. Clause 1 sets out its scope: that is, those patients to whom its provisions will apply. Under the Bill a qualifying hospital patient will be someone who is accommodated in an NHS hospital (or in an independent hospital following arrangements made by the NHS) receiving care of a description that will appear in regulations. In the first instance, the Bill will apply only to patients receiving acute care, but it is our intention that its scope should be gradually extended to other sectors as appropriate.
Clause 2 places a new duty upon the NHS formally to notify a local authority in cases where it looks likely that an individual will not be able to be safely discharged from hospital unless community care services are provided to him or her. We know that the earlier discharge planning begins the more successful the discharge will be, so we shall be stating in official guidance that that notification should take place as soon as the patient is admitted to hospital for emergency admissions and prior to admission for elective admissions.
Under Clause 3, once the local authority has been notified of a patient's case by the NHS, it will, in consultation with the NHS, carry out an assessment of the patient's needs and determine what community care services the patient will need in order to be safely discharged. As I said, the duty to assess the patient's needs is not new. The aim is to improve information flows and assessment procedures so that the NHS informs the local authority as early as possible that an individual may need services upon discharge and the local authority immediately acts upon that notification. That is vital. At the moment around a fifth of delays are due to patients waiting for the completion of an assessment of their future care. At the moment, in some cases the hospital may not even tell the local authority that it has a patient who may need community care services until just a few hours before the proposed time of discharge.
We have also taken the opportunity in Clause 3 to place a new, reciprocal duty upon the NHS to carry out its assessment of the patient's needs in consultation with the local authority. That will benefit the patient because it will ensure that he or she has the complete package of care that he or she needs without any gaps in services. It will benefit the local authority and the NHS because it will lead to improved communication and greater partnership as they work together to determine what is best in the interests of the patient. Under the clause the NHS must also provide the local authority with a formal notice of the proposed day of the patient's discharge. We shall use regulations to state that that must be given at least 24 hours before 9 a.m. on the proposed discharge date to ensure that the local authority has enough time to put the necessary services in place.
Clause 4 of the Bill introduces the financial incentive for local authorities to carry out promptly an assessment of the patient and to put services in place. The local authority will have at least two clear days in which to carry out an assessment of the patient's needs and to put services in place. However, in most cases it
922
will have more time than that because, on past figures, approximately 70 per cent of patients over 65 who are emergency admissions—the group most likely to be delayed—will spend longer than three days in hospital. Therefore, in the majority of cases, the local authority, together with the NHS, will have longer than the minimum to continue planning.
If, by the end of the pre-notified day of discharge, the patient cannot be discharged because the local authority has not carried out an assessment or because the social services needed to discharge him or her are not available, the local authority will be required to make a payment to the NHS for each day that the patient is delayed in order to reimburse the NHS for the costs of providing bed, board and personal care to a patient who should be the responsibility of social services. It will be required to make a payment only where the reason for a delay is that community care services are not in place. If NHS services are also not available, the charge will not apply. I believe that it is completely fair to expect local authorities to meet their responsibilities and where they fail to do so to make a payment to the NHS in that way. We have provided them with the funding to put in place the services and capacity needed to avoid delays, and they also need to live up to their side of the bargain. I do not believe that the NHS should pay the price for local authorities' failure.
I return to the point I made at the beginning of my speech. The Bill is not just about placing an incentive on local authorities. The NHS has responsibilities too. There are many cases where the NHS is responsible for creating the delay because it does not have effective discharge practices and procedures in place. Perhaps I can give an example of one area where consultants used to do a weekly ward round at which decisions to discharge were made with the unbelievable result that some patients had to wait an extra seven days before the decision to discharge was made. The contents of the Bill will be as tough on the NHS as on local government in relation to sorting out its act and ensuring that robust procedures are in place. In effect, the Bill will force local authorities and the NHS to look at how they handle their discharges and to put formal systems in place to deal with them. That alone will make an enormous difference to the numbers who currently experience delay.
Some consider it unfair that there is a financial incentive placed upon local authorities but not upon the NHS. The NHS already has considerable incentives to tackle delayed discharge because it is the NHS that loses out from the delay—both financially and because of reduced ability to meet its access targets. The NHS will also be judged for its star ratings on performance with respect to delayed discharge.
The intention is to introduce a financial incentive only in that part of the system where we believe that it will have a genuinely beneficial effect, rather than simply for its own sake.
In Part 2 of the Bill, the purpose of Clause 12 is to make the provision of intermediate care and community equipment services free of charge.

923
Charging often stands in the way of service integration and patients wait too long for the care they need. Delayed discharges rise too. We want to break that cycle. With charging removed, it will be easier to arrange packages of intermediate care with inputs from health and social services, or a piece of equipment from a joint equipment store. Clause 12 will remove one of the last barriers to integration and should contribute to reduced hospital discharge.
The new powers are general in scope but specific in intent. Clause 13 means that it will be for the National Assembly for Wales to decide how independently of England to exercise the new power. The only limitation to the powers applying to both England and Wales is that accommodation under the National Assistance Act 1948 and personal care, including to carers, may only be provided free for up to six weeks.
The Bill is not intended to penalise local authorities, as has been suggested by some. It is intended to create a genuine incentive for them to use the funding increases that they have been given as we intended—to put a wide range of services and capacity in place for older people in the community. It is also just as much about placing new responsibilities on the NHS to ensure that it notifies local authorities in good time and works in partnership with them to effect prompt and effective discharge.
The Bill represents an important opportunity to ensure that the money invested in older people's services results in older persons having more choice about where they go when they leave hospital. It will bring an end to thousands of older people suffering needlessly each day as they wait in an acute hospital bed. The Bill deserves the support of the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
3.23 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister has—as always—presented a clear and helpful analysis—and for that I readily thank him. Regrettably, however, today is not one for rejoicing. It would have been pleasant for me to welcome the content of the Bill, not just its exposition, but the most I can say is that Part 2 will not cause us to fall out.
Part 1, however, is so fundamentally misconceived that I tend to feel that there is no help for it. At one time I was tempted to table a Motion to defeat the Bill on Second Reading. With some reluctance I concluded that that would have been wrong, bearing in mind the customs and practice of the House. I did feel, however, it right to express my deep reservations about the Bill in the form of an amendment to the Second Reading Motion. In doing so, I align myself fully with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—whose amendment takes precedence over mine.
The fact that my party and the Liberal Democrats are united in opposition to the measure is a reflection not of party politics but of a united opposition in the country at large. This is not a party issue. After all, the Bill is designed to tackle a feature of our health and
924
social care system that everyone agrees is wasteful and damaging; namely, the undue delay that patients often suffer before being able to leave hospital for a more appropriate care setting. The Minister told us that on any one day about 5,000 beds are unnecessarily occupied in that way. It would be wonderful to hit upon a formula or remedy that would solve the problem at a stroke—a problem that, not surprisingly, affects elderly patients more than younger ones.
When someone is fit to leave hospital, it does that person no favours to be left in hospital when they could be looked after at home or in residential care. The longer an elderly person stays in hospital, the more their confidence dwindles and the less accustomed they become to ordinary life. At the same time, other patients in need of that same acute bed have to wait longer. If at the last minute the bed is not available, they may even find that their operation has been cancelled. For the hospital itself, a blocked bed—if I may use that rather insensitive expression—is a serious waste of resources.
One of the Government's achievements, for which I give them full credit, has been to encourage hospitals and local authorities to work in partnership in an effort to minimise delays in discharging patients. In many parts of the country those partnership arrangements have worked well for a number of years. There is no doubt that best practice and a spirit of cooperation are more and more in evidence.
From the statistics, it is striking that not only is the number of people waiting to leave hospital on any one day coming down but also fewer people are waiting for a lengthy period. Of course there is still a long way to go. Even now, more than one third of people who suffer a delayed discharge wait for more than one month. That is unacceptable. Equally unacceptable is the rising number of patients who are discharged prematurely, then readmitted soon after as emergency cases.
Among the root causes of delayed discharges, one above all stands out. That is the current lack of capacity in the care home sector. Estimates vary as to the number of care home beds lost since the Government came to office. The most authoritative indicator is that of Laing and Buisson, who found that more than 60,000 places in long-stay residential settings disappeared between 1997 and 2002—14,000 of those in the past year alone.
That decline has occurred at the very time when the key population group most in need of social care—the over-80s—has been rising. The average level of occupancy in care homes for the elderly is currently over 90 per cent. Some parts of the country, especially southern England, are experiencing an acute shortage of care home places, not only as a result of closures but because London boroughs are able to purchase places outside their own areas at top rates.
The closing down of care homes is a subject that the House has debated on a number of occasions, so I do not intend to take up time today reiterating my diatribe against Government policies that have brought about that situation. The key point in the

925
context of the Bill is that to penalise a local authority for its failure to find a care home place is to blame it for something that is almost inevitably beyond its control.
In Sweden, where the policy apparently originated, there is no shortage of capacity in the care home sector—which, in the main, is publicly owned. In the UK, the care home sector is a diverse mix of private and public. There are simply not the same levers for a local authority to pull to ensure that the right care home place is available when needed. It is not clear, either, that the Swedish experience has been entirely happy. Both in absolute terms and in proportion to its population, Sweden still has more people blocking hospital beds than does the UK. That alone should cause the Government to think again as to whether their policy will actually work.
But other more serious considerations should have instilled doubt. The Government believe in partnership. What happens to a partnership when one partner is issued with a gun and told to fire it at the other? To move from a situation in which trusts and social services co-operate in a common cause to one where trusts have the whip hand over social services and can exercise it with impunity is a recipe for conflict. It moves diametrically against the flow of recent policy designed to cultivate joint working.
Joint working will not disappear, of course, but instead of being creative it will be confrontational. Sometimes it is not easy for two organisations to build up a relationship of trust, but it is easy for that trust to be broken. I have no doubt that some hospital managers, given the opportunity, will decide to put their own budgets before the interests of external partners.
The Bill will foster a claims culture between two arms of the public service. One has to ask whether that is healthy or constructive: I do not believe that it is. We should not underestimate the extent to which local authorities whose budgets are stretched to the ultimate will wish to dispute and contest the payments imposed on them. The threat of such penalties will undoubtedly skew the day-to-day priorities of social services. An elderly person living at home in need of domiciliary care will take second place to an elderly person waiting to be discharged from hospital who is also in need of domiciliary care. The threat of financial penalties will create an imperative to find the hospital patient a place to go before others have a look in. It may not be the right place or the best place.
That will, in turn, lead to a certain culture. We will move from services centred on the needs and wishes of patients to a situation in which the patient becomes a parcel or commodity to be shifted from here to there, so long as he does not continue to occupy a hospital bed. The patient's voice and choice may no longer influence the care setting selected. The Bill says nothing about the right of patients to be consulted on what happens to them.
The Minister may believe it is harsh to call the Bill dehumanising, but I do not think so. It opens up all kinds of questions; for example, patient confidentiality. The Bill contains no rules or criteria
926
governing the way in which a referral to social services should be made; the consent of the patient would be a good start. But what happens when the patient finds out—as he will—that the hospital wants rid of him and that he represents a liability to the local taxpayer?
Not all patients are assertive about their wishes. I dare say we all know people who adopt a stoical approach to life. It is not hard to imagine an elderly person, who is made aware that every day he or she is occupying a hospital bed will mean a fine for social services, deciding that they do not want to be a nuisance to anyone and agreeing to go wherever they are told. The Bill brings no benefit to such people if they find themselves discharged into the wrong setting.
It is not a satisfactory answer to say "Ah well, there is always the local authority complaints procedure". Making a complaint after one has been shunted out to somewhere unsuitable is no substitute for being able to exercise an element of choice in the first instance. Many elderly people will find making a complaint far too daunting and will simply not do so. We will find patients being moved to any old care home as a temporary expedient and then being moved on again; or else having to stay permanently somewhere they do not like. It is in these subtle ways that the dehumanising effects of the Bill will be felt.
All this presupposes that a system of financial penalties—or "incentives" in the new speak of the Bill—will reduce the incidence of delayed discharges. The example of Sweden should suggest that there is a limit to how effective such a mechanism can be. But the shortage of care home capacity means that there is another dimension to the policy; it will create unintended perverse incentives. If a GP is looking for a care home for his patient and is unable to find one, the obvious thing will be to refer the patient to hospital. The problem will no longer he his, but the local authority's. That is not a fanciful hypothesis. The net result will be more hospital beds that are blocked, not fewer.
A further perverse incentive will arise for care home owners. In a suppliers' market, with local authorities managing tight budgets, the existence of penalties will enable some care home owners to hold social services to ransom by ratcheting up their weekly charges. It will be cheaper for the local authority to pay up than to pay the fine. The existence of the fines is therefore unlikely in itself to act as a spur to the one thing we need, which is the creation of additional capacity in the system. It will simply be a spur to inflation and a drain on resources.
That is just one way in which a system of financial penalties risks distorting the market. It would of course be helpful if the new money that has been promised to social services next year were to enable them to launch an expansion of home care services. However, regrettably, that is not likely, at least not to any great degree: the number of households receiving community care has gone down quite sharply in recent years, so there is a great deal of ground to make up at a time when the recruitment and retention of care workers is almost intractably difficult.

927
What we have in this Bill is someone's bright idea for tackling a single symptom of a problem that is much wider than blocked beds in hospital. The Bill does nothing to address inappropriate admissions to hospital—in fact, as I suggested, it may exacerbate them. It does nothing to promote preventive care, which is one of the key ways to help keep elderly people out of hospital in the first instance. I am a paid-up fan of two rather unsung professions: chiropody and physiotherapy. I am convinced that investing in those areas would reap dividends far in excess of any that are likely to emerge from re-erecting barriers between the NHS and local government. Certainly, we should aim to try to spread best practice in hospital discharge procedures, but do not let us imagine that this Bill will help to do that.
It is depressing to have to be so negative about a Bill whose origins, I am sure, are well-intentioned. But it cannot be allowed to pass through this House without the severest of protests. No group of people whom it directly affects will gain from it: not patients, not social services, and not the NHS—despite the extra money that may flow to it. I await the speeches of other noble Lords with interest, but I hope it is not too late for the Government to recognise a poorly thought-through idea when they see one and withdraw this measure before it has the chance to do any damage.
3.39 p.m.
The Lord Clement-Jones The Lord Clement-Jones rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this Bill be now read a second time, at end to insert "but this House regrets that the Bill fails to tackle the causes of delayed discharges of patients from hospitals, creates perverse incentives which will undermine joint working between local authorities and the National Health Service, and will distort priorities for care of elderly people by placing the requirement to meet discharge targets ahead of measures to avoid hospital admission".
The noble Lord said: MyLords, I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in thanking the Minister for his succinct introduction. I did not feel it had his usual enthusiasm, but perhaps I am reading into his speech something that did not exist—perhaps I should hope that it did not have his usual enthusiasm.
In the Bill we have yet another product from the hyperactive Secretary of State for Health's department of bright ideas. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned, the model adopted in the Bill hails from Sweden, yet the Swedish system operates completely differently, with responsibilities for health and social care allocated in very different ways to very different bodies.
Furthermore, the evidence is that the Swedish model has actually worsened relationships between municipalities and county councils, which run the hospitals. As it is, 6 per cent of Sweden's acute beds are apparently still blocked despite the reforms. But the Government have such faith in their health tourism experience that no pilot scheme is planned in the UK.
928
In sum, the Government clearly think that the solution set out in the Bill is like a piece of flat pack furniture that can be bought in Sweden and reassembled here without modification.
The timing planned for the introduction of the Bill ensures the maximum penalty on local government. The increase in funding of 6 per cent to social services announced last year will not have flowed through into improved or new services by this spring. At the very least, pilots should be conducted and implementation delayed across the rest of the country until 2004.
The dangers of the Government's approach are enormous. Their own figures show clearly that taxpayers' money is being wasted in ever greater sums on readmitting the elderly to NHS beds. During the past two years, there has been an increase of 19 per cent in emergency readmissions to hospital within 28 days of discharge. Figures from the second quarter of 2002 show that 8 per cent of people aged 75 and over are now being readmitted within 28 days of discharge.
Delayed discharge figures are running at about 5,000 patients at any one time. As both the Health Select Committee and Wanless reports highlighted, that is due to a major loss of beds in residential and private nursing homes between 1997 and 2001. The Government do not like the Laing and Buisson figures cited by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, so let me put the Wanless figure to them. Wanless estimates the total at 25,700. However, it is only this year that the Government have committed to above-inflation increases for social services to address that crisis.
Allied to that is a great shortage of occupational therapists—15 per cent—who are so necessary to the discharge process. The Government have finally come up with increased funding for social care that will start to match the rise in NHS funding, but it is doubtful that that increase will be enough to make up for past underfunding. It is hardly surprising that in those circumstances, coming on top of that major care bed crisis, the Bill has generated something akin to panic in both the NHS and social services.
The catalogue of problems with the Bill is long. As the Wanless report said,
"targets must be used with care, especially in a service as complex as the NHS. In particular, they must be designed to minimize the risk of creating perverse incentives".
But the Bill will by its nature create a series of perverse incentives. It will mean that the quickest way to get care will be to get admitted to hospital. Social services may concentrate more on those who are in hospital, rather than on those who are at home. More people may therefore try to get admitted because that will be the route to get a fast initial assessment.
NHS trusts will also take the risk of readmission by discharging early, which may lead to more emergency readmissions. The Bill may encourage the simplest residential home solution rather than the more complex home-based solution. There may be pressure to move into second-best residential care if a place is available, rather than wait for a more suitable care home.
As a result of the Bill, social services will prioritise NHS patients over those in hospices, because of potential fines, so the former will be assessed urgently and will benefit from quicker service on home adaptations. We have already had plaintive briefings from the hospice movement, which says that it wants to be included in the Bill because of its fears in that respect.
A further, central criticism of the Bill is that it sets up a blame game between the NHS and local government. The arrangements will be carried out in a punitive, blaming spirit, not one of partnership and collaboration. They tear up the slow and painful progress made in the Health Act 1999 and the Health and Social Care Act 2001 from joint working through to partnership arrangements and care trusts. The Government used to talk of tearing down the Berlin Wall between health and social care. Now we have the equivalent of the reintroduction of Checkpoint Charlie by the same Ministers.
Voluntary and statutory sectors are unanimous in their view that the Bill will do massive damage to joint working. Even before the Bill's details were available, the Select Committee warned:
"There are real risks that perverse incentives will be created that will undermine partnerships that have taken time to develop, and foster an unproductive culture of buck passing and mutual blame between health and social care. We agree that appropriate incentives have a role to play, but we would also urge the development of positive incentives that reward good practice, rather than any precipitate and over-zealous emphasis on penalties. We recommend that any new scheme should be subject to piloting".
How true.
Despite what the Minister said, the sanctions for failure set out in the Bill are totally one-sided. There are no sanctions on the NHS. The Bill unfairly shifts all the blame to local government. Even the Minister, in his briefings to Members of the House, admitted that that is not how to approach the situation. The Government first claimed that local government would be able to cope with the 6 per cent increase and then announced that £100 million extra would be given to local government. But in another place, the Minister, Jacqui Smith, admitted that there had been no consultation on whether that £100 million was adequate. It seems to be based on some spurious calculation of an estimated 4,200 delayed discharges. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify that.
Furthermore, the £100 million, if levied in fines, will go in entirely the wrong direction. The fines will be a drain on local government resources, not directed to creating more capacity in social care. Money spent on fines should go to those needing social care, not to the NHS. At the very least, it should go to primary care trusts and should be applied only following consultation between health and social care stakeholders. To cap it all, under the Bill the dispute procedure between the NHS and social services will not be independently conducted but will be under the aegis of strategic health authorities.
However, for me, the key problem with the Bill is that is puts beds before patients. It sets up the potential for trench warfare between relatives, patients and
930
NHS acute trusts. This is not some disagreement between Opposition parties and the Government on the niceties of a bureaucratic solution to a problem. It involves the fundamental issue of patients' rights. Vulnerable people may be kicked out of hospital to fulfil a Government target, not because they are well enough to leave or will receive appropriate care. Harrowing cases are already coming to light in which inappropriate pressure has been placed on patients to ensure early discharge.
It is well known that early discharge from acute care settings can have ill-effects on older people or the terminally ill. The Hospital Discharge Workbook, a revised version of which will, I believe, be avail able today, may set out the procedures for discharge, but it does not set out the circumstances in which a patient is considered fit for discharge. The definition of eligibility for discharge is crucial, but can be specified by each acute trust. Without provision for proper consultation of patients and carers, the procedure for disputes on discharge, with appeal to continuing care panels, will become ever more frequently invoked. I fear that patients and carers will have to become legalistic entirely as a result of the Bill.
The Bill even runs counter to the National Service Framework for Older People, which states that older people must be treated as individuals and enabled to make choices about their care. I see none of that in the Bill.
As for assessment under the Bill, it is clear that there is no time for comprehensive assessment while patients are in an NHS hospital; there will be only a partial assessment. The Bill will disrupt progress towards the single assessment process between health and social care envisaged by the NHS Plan, which stated that a single assessment process was meant to come into universal effect in 2004. Older people need good care provided at home or a good care home. It is imperative that there is a clear statement of rights of patients and carers and that they have the right to a single assessment process within a set time. The Bill provides neither.
Let me emphasise once again that my criticisms are not criticisms derived only from these Benches. The common theme among all those involved in this field is that the Government have not listened to any alternative. Let us look at some of the responses to the Government's consultation document issued in July 2002. One hundred per cent felt that April 2003 was too soon for implementation of the Bill; all felt that three days for putting together a care plan was unrealistic if patients and carers were always to be involved; 77 per cent of respondents believed that reimbursement proposals could damage partnerships.
Those are substantial criticisms with substantial support. But does the Secretary of State take any notice of that consultation? What is the point of consultation if the Secretary of State takes no notice? It always seems that the Secretary of State knows better. Yet there is massive agreement between the Association of Directors of Social Services, the NHS Confederation and the Local Government

931
Association on alternatives. They want to see a whole systems approach which looks across the board at the care of older people and does not simply concentrate on delayed discharge. In particular it includes preventive services.
The Wanless report, coming with the seal of approval of the Treasury, talked of whole systems modelling to provide better understanding of the interaction between health and social care. "ithink" is the whole systems model being put forward by local government, health service managers and social services directors. It involves joint local protocols and local action plans prepared in co-operation. Yet in another place the Minister, Jacqui Smith, cast doubt on all this in her anxiety to make the argument for the Bill. The Government have not even listened to the Chief Inspector of Social Services. As we often find to be the case, there are also lessons to be drawn from Scotland.
In conclusion, this Bill puts a price on patients' heads. The Government are turning vulnerable older people into commodities to be haggled over by the NHS and social services. Fining social services for delayed discharges is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Our view is that the Bill in summary does not tackle the fundamental problems of delayed discharges. It creates perverse incentives. It will undermine joint working between the NHS and local authorities and will distort priorities for the care of older people.
When this Government were in opposition, the Labour Party bitterly criticised arbitrary mechanisms like the internal market. But this Bill is creating a far worse monster which will be far more divisive to health and social care. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, at end to insert "but this House regrets that the Bill fails to tackle the causes of delayed discharges of patients from hospitals, creates perverse incentives which will undermine joint working between local authorities and the National Health Service, and will distort priorities for care of elderly people by placing the requirement to meet discharge targets ahead of measures to avoid hospital admission".—(Lord Clement-Jones.)
3.53 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful introduction to the Bill. I must declare my interest as a non-executive director of a primary care trust on Merseyside.
Any scheme that reduces the number of delayed discharges from hospitals, particularly acute hospitals, should be welcomed because more patients can then be admitted for essential treatment. Reducing delayed discharges will also reduce the cost of caring for older people who no longer need hospital treatment. The local authority, through its social services, is responsible for putting in place the community care needed by older patients in order that they can be safely discharged from hospital.
932
Through this Bill the Government aim to reduce the number of delayed discharges affecting older people by a system of reimbursement whereby a local authority makes a payment—in reality a fine—to the healthcare provider, usually a hospital. The Bill also provides the power to remove, in circumstances set out in regulations, local authorities' power to charge for certain community services. The Bill makes no mention of any measures to prevent the admission of older people into our hospitals, or to their readmission.
The care of older people in the community requires partnership between local councils and the NHS, as emphasised by the Minister and by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. But the scheme described in this Bill could undermine existing local partnerships by creating financial and practical barriers. Social services are liable to make a payment amounting to £120 per day in London and £100 per day elsewhere in England and Wales for every older person whose discharge is delayed. That payment will be seen as the penalty for social services failing to make or complete the assessment and for failing to provide the community service they decided was necessary.
The NHS trust must give formal notice that a patient is likely to need community care on discharge from hospital. Social services must then assess the patient and determine what community care is needed. Social services have a minimum of three days to carry out an assessment once the NHS trust notifies it of the day of the patient's discharge. After that period social services have to pay a fine for the delayed discharge.
It does not take much imagination to realise how easy it will be for disputes to arise between the NHS trust and social services. My first question is therefore to ask what steps have been recommended to prevent disputes from arising and what mechanism will be in place to deal rapidly with disputes between NHS bodies and local authority social services in order that disputed delayed discharges do not take more than two weeks to resolve.
In order to strengthen local partnerships between the NHS and social services, a preparatory period is needed to ensure adequate numbers of social workers are available to respond to assessments for the discharge of older people from hospital. In many local authorities there continues to be a 20 per cent unfilled vacancy for social workers. The Bill will add pressure to an already understaffed service.
In order to reduce delayed discharges, adequate nursing home beds in the community should be available as one important measure. In Wirral, for example, so many local authority and private care homes have closed in the past five years that there is now a shortage of accommodation. In addition, intermediate care facilities are poorly developed. Equipment for older people with chronic conditions and disability to help them live at home in the community is another essential. But such equipment is currently in short supply as we cope with an increasingly older population.

933
The Government have decreed that the reimbursement scheme should be implemented from April this year—less than three months away. By comparison, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, when a similar scheme was introduced in Sweden a two-year preparation period was in place. I therefore ask my second question: should not more time be given to local authorities to ensure community care provision is adequate for older people before this Bill and the penalties to be paid are introduced?
Finally, the money paid by social services under the reimbursement scheme will go to the NHS hospital where the patient's discharge is delayed. There is no guarantee that the money will be used to improve services for older people. There is a suspicion that it will go to cover the increased costs of general hospital services. Would it not be better to give the money to PCTs to improve community services for older people?
The Government have announced the allocation of £100 million every year for three years from the NHS budget to social services to help fund this scheme. However, the total annual cost of 5,000 patients—the number currently involved in delayed discharges—is estimated to be £180 million. At worst, the scheme could become a perverse incentive so that delayed discharges from hospital do not become a priority to be tackled, particularly if partnerships within the NHS and local authorities break down. It may be more convenient to pay the fine and keep the patient in hospital rather than increase expensive home and community-based services in districts where older people form a substantial part of the population, as in Wirral.
Finally, I ask the Minister to make a statement about money generated by the scheme being used to improve services and equipment for older people in the community. I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
4.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, parliamentarians usually express themselves in fairly measured terms—certainly in your Lordships' House—so it came as something of a surprise to me to discover just how outspoken some of the comments on this Bill had been in another place. In the course of the Second Reading debate there on 28th November, there was general acknowledgement that this Bill addressed a real and pressing problem of bed-blocking in acute hospital wards. I need to declare a non-direct interest as my wife is a non-executive director of an acute hospital trust. She knows all about blocked beds and the problems they create for the trust.
This is a serious and growing problem which exacerbates the related problem of waiting lists for elective surgery and medical treatment and adds to the periodic crises which arise in most acute hospitals over emergency admissions.
Everyone agrees that we need to solve the problem and everyone also agrees that a better and more harmonious partnership between the NHS and the
934
social services is not only highly desirable in itself but is essential if the bed-blocking problem is to be dealt with properly.
So what do we hear honourable Members saying in another place? It is,
"one of the worst Bills [in 30 years]. It is divisive and mean-spirited … It will poison the atmosphere between the two key organisations".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/02; col. 532.]
And:
"It punishes one group for the failure of others over whom they have no control. Of all new Labour's crazy ideas, this is the craziest".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/02; col. 519.]
Or:
"The wording of the Bill sounds like a fed-up parent mediating between two scrapping children … it is a strange sort of partnership where one partner is given a stick with which to beat the other. That sounds more like domestic violence than relationship building".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/02; col. 527.]
And that this is a Bill that is "fatally flawed" and is "bureaucratic madness".
I forbear to repeat the next quotation because I do not believe it is suitable for your Lordships to hear.
Honourable Members would say that, wouldn't they, because they were speaking from the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Benches in another place. However, sharp criticisms were also levelled at the Bill from the Government's own Benches. The Secretary of the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility has called it an "appalling Bill".
I have a strong sense of déjà vu. I am reminded of the Animal Health Bill. There was a real and acknowledged problem, but the Government tried to tackle it with a Bill that was provocative, punitive and divisive. Here, once again, we have a nasty little Bill which really ought to be stopped, but at the very least will need to be amended. Therefore, I gladly support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, regretting only that it did not go further. I would have been glad to see it echoing more fully the Early Day Motion put down on 5th December by Mr Paul Burstow in another place. I quote it because it seems to me to summarise ideally what is wrong with the Bill:
"That this House believes that the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill proposes simplistic measures that fail to address adequately a complex problem; further believes that the Bill treats a symptom rather than tackling the cause, which is a failure of successive governments to invest in community-based services to prevent admissions and support people after discharge; regrets that the Bill will undermine partnerships between health and social care; deplores the Bill's failure to take note of the needs of the patient or the concerns of the carers; believes that it will give rise to an increase in emergency readmissions of older people; notes with concern that the Bill will distort priorities for the care of the elderly and create perverse incentives by placing the need to hit delayed discharge targets ahead of offering timely and appropriate care to those in their own homes".
If the outspoken criticisms of the Bill that I have just quoted may be dismissed as coming from the fevered brains of party politicians, the chorus of condemnation from a very wide range of highly responsible professional organisations simply cannot be ignored.

935
The Association of Directors of Social Services, the NHS Confederation and the Local Government Association joined together to issue a statement. It states:
"Real progress has been made in forging partnerships between health and local government…It would be a retrograde step if the current proposals undermined the trust and led to the development of adversarial relationships rather than cooperation".
There is a clear implication that there is a serious danger of that happening if the Bill is passed.
The Royal College of Nursing remains unconvinced that charging social services for delayed discharges from hospitals will lead to better discharge practice. The British Medical Association is opposed to imposing immediate penalties on social service departments which have been faced with historical underfunding. The move could distort decisions taken by social services departments, influenced by the need to avoid fines, with funds diverted from "non-fineable" areas such as children's services and services for the disabled and people with learning difficulties. Therefore, the BMA is asking at least for some delay and for some kind of pilot scheme. It points to the real risk that money will be taken away from other areas simply to avoid the fines that will be imposed for social services not receiving patients discharged from hospital.
The BMA also points to a seldom-recognised aspect of early discharge simply to release blocked beds, which is that 17 per cent of elderly people currently living in nursing homes no longer need nursing care. The decision to admit to a nursing home may have been prematurely made before it was known how far rehabilitation could go. That argues for constant monitoring and review of what the needs of elderly people really are and for the provision of an adequate range of care home places offering a variety of levels of care.
It has already been pointed out that the statistics for the reduction in the number of such places in care homes are alarming. There was a rapid and fairly unplanned increase during the 1980s, but in recent years there have been dramatic reductions, including a net loss of what I calculate to be 12,800 places in 2001 alone—and that in the context of a rapidly growing population of old people. It is vital to see the whole picture. This Bill addresses one part of what is a huge problem with many interrelated issues.
Concentrating on delayed discharges avoids looking at the whole picture. It is as though we were looking at a jigsaw puzzle with various bits missing. The Government have found one piece of jigsaw which does not quite fit any of the gaps and they are pretending that forcing that piece into one of the holes will somehow do the job as a substitute for a painstaking and thorough organising of all the missing and misplaced pieces.
There are upstream and downstream questions. Why do so many old people go into hospital? It is frequently because of a serious lack of preventive care,
936
sometimes in the simplest areas; for example, a failure to ensure that they have adequate heating or a failure to reinstate presently non-existent home help services. Such services can do so much to keep people at home, stop them deteriorating in health and stop them reaching the point at which they have to be admitted. That kind of simple action could avoid admission to an acute ward.
There are downstream questions, too, about convalescence, follow-up, proper post-hospital care and the whole care pathway. In introducing the Bill, the Minister mentioned that and made some encouraging comments about an attempt to see a slightly wider picture. The trouble is that the Bill as it stands does nothing but address this one particular issue. Financial incentives to discharge people even sooner, in the absence of a total-care package, will add to the problems of readmissions. There were 500,000 readmissions in one single year. It is hardly believable. But if there is further pressure to discharge patients, how many more will there be? And what will that do to the people who are readmitted, having had a great deal more pain and anxiety meanwhile? It is medical and financial nonsense. Worst of all, it is pastorally insensitive and profoundly unkind. It ignores the real well-being of elderly people. As has already been said, it treats them as commodities and as financial liabilities to be shunted around. It is contemptuous of the interests of carers.
My Lords, there must be a warm welcome for the promise of better funding for social services and for the provisions of Clause 12 of this Bill. But it remains deeply unsatisfactory in its present form. It addresses one aspect of a hugely complicated area of care. As we have already heard, it derives, in part, from one aspect of Swedish practice, not fully understood nor related to its own context. It then parachutes this into the United Kingdom system, where, like a piece in a jigsaw puzzle, it just does not fit. Far from encouraging or enabling growth in co-operation and an harmonious partnership, which we all wish to see, it introduces a concept from the criminal law—the concept of the fine. It does not hold out the prospect of a better deal for vulnerable and anxious elderly people, whose needs deserve to be much more imaginatively and sympathetically met. It will encourage suspicion, hostility and confrontation from all the hard-pressed professionals having to cope with this on top of everything else.
I hope that there will be very strong support for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and for further amendments which will be needed at Committee stage.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, improving hospital discharge procedures has always been very close to my heart. In the mid-1970s I wrote a book entitled When I Went Home which detailed the experience of older people when they were discharged from acute wards. I well remember some of the experiences of those interviewed: "They only gave me 10 minutes' notice"; "They told me that I was fit to go

937
home but I knew I wasn't and was back in two days"; "They left me at the gate in a snowstorm", are some of the more memorable comments that I remember from that book.
Over the years I have revisited those experiences, especially in my work with carers, and the story has been depressingly familiar: lack of notice, lack of planning, no consultation with either patients or their families, lack of communication with general practitioners and, above all, the lack of a co-ordinated approach between health and social services. Furthermore, we are all aware of the very distressing number of readmissions that take place because discharge was not properly planned.
The solutions which everyone has agreed upon over the years have also been depressingly familiar, and we have never had any problems agreeing on them: discharge planning must start on or before admissions, the needs of both carers and patients must be properly assessed, information must be exchanged in good time and communication between agencies is vital.
It is my impression and that of many other people, too, I believe, that things have got better in recent years. I speak here not only as a professional but also as a long-term patient on an acute ward. I do believe that some improvements have been made. With the advent of computer-held patient records, it is now common to consider the discharge plan when the patient is being admitted. That would have been unheard of hitherto. The much quoted Berlin Wall which always existed between the NHS and social services departments is, in many areas, a thing of the past. Pooled budgets and agreed care packages have gained momentum. Integrated care trusts are another very helpful development.
Clearly, there are still some consultants who swoop down on a ward on a Friday afternoon and declare the patient not only fit but essential for discharge. However they are very many fewer than they used to be. I am particularly glad to note that the discharge workbook about which I have been asking for some time, has now been updated and reissued today. The Government are to be congratulated on that.
However, there are still some pockets of resistance to proper discharge planning. There are, we know, some 5,000 patients occupying hospital beds when they should be discharged to more suitable care. I am in favour of anything which tackles that. I say that not from the point of view of saving money for either the NHS or local authorities, but because I know only too well how easy it is to become institutionalised in a hospital bed. It is tempting for any person, old or young—and I speak from personal experience—to settle back into that hospital bed and that hospital routine. They then lose, in an amazingly short time—amazingly short—the ability to manage outside in a setting which will enable independence not dependence.
So I do not start from the premise that the Bill is necessarily bad. Indeed, I find elements in it to praise. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that some of these concern carers. The original drafting of
938
the Bill left out any mention of carers. That was of grave concern to Carers UK as research has shown many times, that carers bear the brunt of poor hospital discharge procedures. The issue was consistently raised with the Government and on Report in another place the Government amended the Bill in two vital ways. Part 1 was amended to improve carers' rights upon hospital discharge so that they are assessed if they ask, and carers' services, needed to ensure the patient is safe for discharge, are put in place be fore discharge.
Part 2 was also amended to ensure that, following discharge, certain carer services would be free of charge for a limited period of time, in the same way as disabled and older people's services would be free. Carers UK has warmly welcomed these amendments. They not only improve the rights of carers, but move closer towards ensuring that carers are an integral part, rather than an ignored part, of the hospital discharge process. I should like to pay tribute to the officers and Ministers who worked so hard on these amendments.
The amendments are an important step forward towards ensuring that the assessment is holistic, both in looking at the needs of the disabled or older person, and the carer. They should ensure that carers are assessed quickly at the right time; that their needs for services are considered; and—this is an important development—that services are put in place before discharge. The original drafting of the Bill omitted any reference to carers' services but we very much welcome the amendments which now ensure that certain community care services provided following discharge will be made free for a limited period of time. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that that is essential since carers already save the state an estimated £57 billion annually.
I want also to celebrate the acknowledgement that has been given to the great improvements which have been made in the relationship between the NHS and social services in recent years. I believe that that relationship has been transformed in terms of understanding and co-operation. It is entirely because of those improved relationships that this Bill will apply, we are assured, to so few people. Commitment and partnership working, which these agencies have shown, is very much to be praised.
I turn now to my concerns about the Bill which I want not only to flag up but to suggest ways in which they could be overcome. My first concern, as many other noble Lords have said, is that the Bill may have the effect of influencing negatively the very much improved relationship between health and social services which I have just welcomed. I know that that is not the Government's intention, but I am concerned lest it happen by default.
Secondly, there may not be enough choice for older people and families at a very important point in their lives because the timescale suggested is so short. I understand the reasons for this but I worry that unsuitable decisions will be made simply because of the short timescale.

939
That also links with my concerns about the outstanding issues for carers. As carers still have to ask for an assessment, with the exception of those who requested an assessment in the previous 12 months, they will need to know their rights before they can exercise them. Legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland has placed a duty on local authorities and health trusts to inform carers of their right to an assessment. I believe it is vital to ensure that carers are aware of their rights. I hope that the Minister will be able to acknowledge that making carers aware of their rights is part of the Government's intention.
My concerns could be addressed by placing more emphasis on the fact that this is an NHS as well as a local authority problem. Again, I know that it is not the Government's intention to say that. But the presentation of the Bill thus far has been unfortunate and I am glad to hear the Minister's reassurance that it is a mutual problem. If we emphasise that, it will go a long way towards continuing the development of the co-operation which is now so excellent in many areas, while encouraging areas in which it is not so good to tackle what should be seen as a mutual problem. I certainly do not wish to see the fining element become a cause of suspicion and lack of trust between agencies.
In that regard, increased budgets for social services departments are especially welcome. We must monitor very carefully how the money is spent. We must ensure that it is spent on discharge services and not on extra bureaucracy, a risk run by any new system. Of course we need good systems of paperwork—or, more likely, better computer communication—between agencies, but we must ensure that the money is spent on services which will benefit patients and carers. Of course more money may be spent on residential care places, thus increasing supply and choice for older people, but it must also be spent on innovative services provided in the home.
As to carers, I am particularly concerned lest the fines reduce the funds available for other community care services. In areas where hospital discharge practices are poor, local authorities might be tempted to cut corners in order to avoid fines, with disastrous results for carers should that happen.
I am also concerned about the way in which patients and carers will be able to make complaints. It is important that the principle of patient and carer participation is carried through. The success of the Bill must be judged not by the experience of the provider but by the experience of the receiver of care. We must monitor extremely carefully the timescale and what can be expected within it. Patients must be at the centre. Can that be ensured within three days? I should like to be reassured about what exceptions to the three-day rule will be acceptable. I understand that a panel will be established in each strategic health authority area. How will fast tracking of complaints be carried forward? I hope that the Minister can assure me about that.
Finally, I should like to be reassured about readmissions and how they will be monitored. If too many result from these new proposals, the
940
Government must be prepared to modify them. We must never forget that successful discharge—and I mean successful from the patients' and carers' point of view—depends not on systems but on relationships, in which co-operation and communication are of the essence. If the Bill helps in that respect, all well and good, I shall not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; but if monitoring shows that the Bill is hindering relationships, we must be prepared to review the policy.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I shall speak to the problem from the point of view of a county council. I declare an interest as a member of Oxfordshire County Council.
The plain fact is that we cannot recruit people to give home personal care. For example, in Henley we paid £6 per hour—the national rate—for the provision of such services. This rate has recently been revised to £6.35 by direction of the director of social services. But people in Henley demand £10 per hour to clean middle-class homes and, given the choice between cleaning middle-class homes and providing personal care to an elderly person, I am sorry to say that most people will go and clean middle-class homes.
In north Oxfordshire, we have about 13 people waiting for every home care place. We have done our very best to provide more home care places—one centre is being built by the St John Ambulance care trust in my own town for 60 old people, including the nursing care which is now essential in an old persons' home—but there is an enormous gap in the finances between what is received by the county and what has to be spent. In the year about to end, we have spent £105 million, and yet the SSA applicable for this year was £85 million. Therefore £20 million was required from the general rate account. Because of the extra money flowing through this year the difference will be less, but there will still be a substantial gap between what we believe we have to spend and what the Government believe we should spend. That causes enormous problems in providing the kind of services referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley.
If carers are to receive the kind of help they require to provide services to old people, the local authority must have the resources to pay for it. Those resources are not available. This year there will be a Band B council tax rise of 13.7 per cent—a lot of money—which I am sure many elderly people will have difficulty in paying. A large proportion of that money will be going into social services because we are trying desperately to meet the targets laid upon us—an uphill battle which will not be helped by the Bill at a time when co-operation between the National Health Service and social services is beginning to bear fruit.
While £100 million extra may sound like a lot of money, by the time it is divided up our share will be small and will take time to pass through the system. It has taken nearly three years to build an old people's home, which is quite quick. We have followed the advice of the Government in terms of harnessing the

941
private sector into the process, so it is not a question of ignoring advice. We have appointed a new director of social services to bring fresh energy into the process, but we keep coming up against nasty phrases such as "tightening the eligibility criteria for home help". In plain language that means "You do not get it", although it does not sound like that when you use fancy words to describe it.
I shall not speak for long, but I plead with the Minister not to go ahead with implementation in 2003. We need to see the benefits of the extra money working through into the system now that we can at last see the development of serious co-operative relationships, not the kind of antipathetic relationships that will be created.
We do not have the infrastructure in the county to manage these enormous problems. My county is a nice place in which to retire, which means that it contains an enormous number of elderly people. My own town is very popular for building the kind of residences to which old people are attracted, but it is the council which will be left to care for them. I ask the Minister to think very carefully about the impact of the proposed legislation on social services. They are trying to do a good job but find that the goalposts are ever being moved further away.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, poor and inefficient discharge procedures for elderly people have been a festering sore for more years than I care to remember. In the 1970s, I was involved, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, when an admirable woman, Geraldine Amos, from Birmingham, led a campaign to end poor and delayed discharge practice. The organisation with which I work, Age Concern, was involved in many hospital discharge schemes, as was the Red Cross and other voluntary organisations.
I set out my views and my concerns in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I am still concerned, but I support the Government's aim to try at last to get this matter right. I recognise the important improvement in relationships between health and social services in the past few years. The Government recognise that they have to balance the equation, as the Minister described, by preventing hospitals from discharging patients prematurely. I would like more details about the extent of the tough approach towards the NHS, which the Minister mentioned. The Government need to publicly demonstrate their commitment to fair play and an even playing field between health and social services. They need to demonstrate as well that it is part of a wider and comprehensive reform which includes the free aids and adaptations covered by Part 2 of the Bill and more money for intermediate care and social care announced last year.
Efforts should be made to gain higher status for people working in community care, which I am sure will emerge eventually as the National Care Standards Commission does its work. But we are talking about the problems which exist now. Can the Minister further clarify what those free aids and adaptations
942
will be? Will they be available to adapt people's homes as well as help mobility? Will there be sufficient equipment available? I acknowledge the important amendments made in another place. I support strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said about the work of carers and their right to be assessed.
I shall give three examples of cases which have come to my attention in the past couple of months. The first concerns an elderly gentleman who was delayed for discharge over Christmas and the new year. Nothing was in place until mid-January when his health had greatly deteriorated. He was sent home. That was a relatively straightforward case, but it revealed enormous complexities. It was a nightmare for everyone directly involved.
My second example shows how the use of agencies contracted by social services needs to be looked at because of the importance of social care standards. There is a need to raise competence; otherwise, as we know, it leads to emergency re-admission. Polly Toynbee's articles over the past few weeks show how care workers are very much undervalued and underpaid. That is an importance point which we need to take into account.
The third example involves a person discharged one day after it was decided that she needed a place in a nursing home but before that place had been found. That was not entirely the fault of the social services department. The problem needs to be properly looked at so that procedures can be genuinely improved.
Those cases demonstrate that hospital discharge is a shared responsibility including extra care housing options and nursing home placements, not just domiciliary care. All sectors are involved, including the private and voluntary sectors. The key point is flexibility of approach. It is not always possible for a person to be rehabilitated and to cope at home after six weeks. For people who have had strokes it can certainly take longer. That is the maximum period for intermediate care and for the free aids and adaptations. We must have greater flexibility than that.
Schemes which encourage a convalescent period are very valuable. I hope that the Bill will encourage more of that type of intermediate care. There are some wonderful schemes, not just here, but in Europe. They involve flats where husband and wife can work together to develop new skills because a person needs to be rehabilitated slowly and with care.
Best practice must be shared much more. We must not re-invent the wheel. Many organisations, including Age Concern England and the Local Government Association—I am vice-president of both—have very deep reservations about the date of implementation. I ask the Minister to reassure us that there is enough time for the new social care arrangements and intermediate care schemes to be set up. Has the National Care Standards Commission yet had the impact it needs to raise standards?
It has been suggested that the Bill could be delayed. Can we ensure that any "directions" to the NHS and its robust procedures are speeded up so that both are

943
better synchronised? One possibility is that instead of waiting a full year to introduce this measure there is a compromise of six months so that the NHS procedures can be brought in a little earlier and the local government measures delayed, each by six months, so that they are introduced together. That might help. These are very deep concerns which must be taken seriously.
I have other points for clarification, which I hope the Minister can answer. There has been mention of the danger of perverse incentives by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. A GP might well admit a patient into acute care to get social care packages quicker. The dispute mechanism could be used as a delaying tool because people will be desperate to find ways round the procedure if it is not properly introduced. We know that it is based on an apparently admirable Swedish model, but as we do not have unified health, social care and housing services we ought to consider in the longer term whether these should be brought together. That is a bigger question than this Bill can deal with.
Extra money is always welcome, but can the Minister clarify how much it is, for what and for how long? We also need to know the cost. I understood that the figure was £100 million, but the estimated cost is said to be £180 million. Is there some clarification which would help me in understanding this matter?
Are we certain that the older person's and the carer's consent are always sought on the care plan and for bringing social services into the equation? It is essential that watertight monitoring is carried out on readmission rates; otherwise we shall be unable to tell whether the Bill has worked. I plead for this detailed information to be on the Department of Health's website in full.
I share the regrets of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I shall give the ill my support if the Government can clarify the points I have raised and reassure me it will make life better for a group of very vulnerable older people. I am totally committed to that goal.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I begin by declaring a personal interest in that today I entered my 80th year, so this Bill is of some considerable interest.
While I have much sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and its truncated clone proffered by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I believe that their Bill blocking, to coin a phrase, is perhaps regrettable for the basis of this Bill does address in rather crude terms an extremely worrying problem. Surely, it would be better to live up to all the claims that we made in your Lordships' House last week, that we are brilliant at revision, and ensure through persuasion, debate and sheer common sense, that a thoroughly amended Bill, humane and meaningful, agreed by all noble Lords, returns to another place for its final approval.
944
At least this Bill sets us somewhat unsteadily on our starting blocks. Let the starting pistol be fired as long as we are not arrested under new firearms legislation and let the reformers be the winners.
I now offer my initial contribution with some hesitation. I want, somewhat predictably, to speak as president of Mencap and focus on people with a learning disability. I am sure that I would be ruled out of order if I succumbed to the temptation to link the purpose of this Bill to those of the White Paper, Valuing People, in seeking to rescue people with a learning disability from long-stay hospitals in which about 1,000 of them still live. So with Lent and resisting temptation looming up, the concept of financial incentives to secure homes in the community for people who have spent a lifetime in hospital, before they die, does appeal to me.
But this Bill is not just about older people stuck chronically in an acute hospital. It is about people with a learning disability, younger or older, in the same position. Some hospitals support them very well. I know from personal experience that others struggle: a few hardly try. A busy hospital ward is not a good living environment, at the best of times—most of us want to get up and go home. If you do not know what is going on and you have difficulty communicating with others, and they with you, it is, of course, much worse.
I share the Government's desire that nobody should stay in hospital longer than necessary and should be able to go home—whether home is the family home, a residential home or supported living. But going home must be planned and supported, and it must be going home to live—not going home to struggle and to suffer. Moreover, it should not mean being dumped inappropriately in a nursing home. In short, I am concerned that a policy designed to improve things might inadvertently make them much worse. I commend the care programme approach in its new—how I loathe this phrase—person-centred planning guise in which the individual is consulted, those close to them are consulted, personal wishes are respected and support, accommodation and back-up are all planned.
Sadly, people with a learning disability who have a longish spell of hospitalisation face an increased risk of not going back to their own home, because their family can no longer cope, their residential home is reluctant to provide increased support or their supported housing is not geared up to providing enhanced support.
Fining social services does not and cannot provide an adequate solution if it means rushing into a nursing home place where the person is going to be even more unhappy, and stuck indefinitely. We want planned and tailor-made solutions as a result of this increased financial investment, and a place in the community, not a place in a small institution.
If we are to secure the principles of choice, rights, independence and inclusion, as set out in the White Paper, Valuing People, we need to ensure that choice is not replaced by expediency. The Government have

945
committed themselves to improving the quality and choice of housing available to all, including people with a learning disability. That means investing in housing and in support on a much greater scale than anything we have either had or been promised so far. The Bill, as it stands, does not, of course, address these issues—but I trust that, in the near future, the Government will.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, being unable to leave hospital because there is nowhere else that can meet your needs is a miserable fate. It is one that I have been too close to not to welcome the Government's determination to take effective action on the problem of delayed discharge. For far too long, this has been an area in which older people and disabled people have been particularly vulnerable to the boundary disputes between health and social services.
The Government should be commended on the many broad-ranging measures that they have put in place to encourage health and social services to work together to provide "seamless care". Measures such as the new flexihilities empowered by the Health Act 1999, with its pooling of budgets for agreed projects, the ability to delegate responsibilities to a lead commissioner working on behalf of both agencies and the possibility of integrating NHS and social services staff are all leading to far more effective forms of local partnership.
The working through of the national service framework for older people's standards of care, with the emphasis on integration and prevention—including a single assessment process and the promotion of intermediate care—also challenge local health and social services authorities to work together. Furthermore, the Department of Health's joint health and social care unit is actively promoting "whole system working" throughout the country. That directly encourages local partnerships to focus on hospital discharge, supported by the new manual of discharge practice, and intermediate care and extra-care housing.
However, I join with other noble Lords in serious concern that all this positive activity to encourage joint working could be seriously jeopardised by the Bill's precipitate imposition of fines for delayed discharge. I ask the Minister to think again and delay the date of implementation for at least a year after the proposed date of April 2003.
Surely it would be more effective if the Bill could be seen as a warning shot across the bows of under-performing local authorities. If the implementation of sanctions were delayed for a year, it would give time for the new resources given to social services to be used to good effect in developing alternatives to hospital care. It would also give notice to the under-performing authorities to match the example of those where the complex issues of hospital discharge of older and disabled people have been tackled successfully.
There are many factors involved in the reasons for delayed discharge. The lack of alternative facilities such as nursing homes, convalescent homes and
946
intermediate care settings come first to mind. But they take time to develop and that gives strength to the argument that there should be a delay in the implementation of the Bill and its imposition of fines.
The vast majority of older and disabled people are, however, discharged to their own home and that is what they prefer. Ensuring that those homes are fit and adapted can contribute to fast and efficient discharge, as well as enabling people to live independently.
I argue that the housing dimension needs far greater attention than it receives in the Bill. Home improvement agencies and other service providers have developed fast, effective, small repairs and adaptations services which help to improve discharge arrangements and reduce the risk of hospital admission. The following example, taken from On the Mend, the 2002 publication of Care & Repair England, demonstrates how essential it is that local authorities and health bodies should incorporate housing in the discharge process. It says:
"Mr Watt is a private tenant. He was unable to be discharged from hospital because his landlord refused to mend a dangerously broken banister. Discharge was delayed for 6 weeks whilst both social services and the health sector solicitors were involved in negotiations with the landlord's solicitor. The hospital discharge service was approached and they immediately sent in the handyperson (acting upon Mr Watt's instruction) and the banister was repaired within hours, enabling Mr Watt to return home immediately".
It is where the local housing authority, social services and the health authority all work together and each allocates resources for hospital discharge repair and adaptation costs that the most effective hospital discharge services can be established.
Bristol's rapid response hospital discharge service is an excellent example. The social services department provides the home improvement agency, Care & Repair England, with a budget for small adaptations; the housing authority makes available a ring-fenced home repairs assistance grant budget—operated on a fast-track system for hospital discharge cases—and the health authority co-funds a handyperson service. Consequently, many repair and adaptation jobs are completed within 24 hours and the majority are done within a week. As a result, a very small urgent response team manages the interventions and repairs needed for some 500 older and disabled people to return to their own homes from hospital each year.
It is schemes such as these which need to be replicated throughout the country. Paying attention to the housing dimension is vital if delays in hospital discharge are to be diminished. The Bill puts notice on health and local authorities to put services for effective hospital discharge high on the agenda. However, it would be a tragedy, as many noble Lords have said, if the precipitate time scale in the Bill for the imposition of fines resulted in jeopardising all the excellent work that is taking place.
The Government can take pride in their determination to improve joint working and to end the disgrace of disabled and elderly people being buffeted between authorities, having their needs ignored while the authorities fight interminable turf wars. I hope that

947
the Government will heed the concerns expressed from all sides and that the Minister will be able to see a way to delay the imposition of fines for at least a year.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I share many of the concerns about the Bill outlined by noble Lords this afternoon and, of course, support my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones in his amendment. I wish that I could share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that what we say in this House will have a big effect on what happens in another place.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said that this was only part of a jigsaw. My contribution forms a piece of that jigsaw and concerns the role that the condition of housing plays in the area of delayed discharges. That matter was described eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and forms part of a much wider connection between the condition of our housing and the health of our nation.
Money must go into improving homes if we are to change the health of the nation. I declare an interest in that I am associated with many housing bodies, particularly the National Home Improvement Council. There is a great deal of evidence that putting money into home improvement is an extremely cost-effective way of enabling many patients to return home quicker. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is well-known to many noble Lords, has researched this matter. It reached the conclusion that minor adaptations produce a range of lasting, positive consequences for virtually all recipients and that they constitute value for money.
As other noble Lords have outlined, the installation of aids and adaptations can cause particular problems for people who are waiting to leave hospital. The legal and financial framework for the provision of such adaptations is complex. Often, reaching agreement on the assessment of what a person needs and where the money will come from takes an interminable time and adds to the slowness of discharge.
I refer to the scale of the problem of unfit housing in this country. There are 1.5 million unfit homes in the UK: that is, one home in every 16. The majority of those unfit homes are owner occupied. Some 75 per cent of the people living on the lowest incomes and in the worst housing are of pensionable age and 1.7 million people need adaptations within their homes. The tendency to live in poor housing conditions increases as people get older, particularly after the age of 80. Lone older women are more likely to live in unfit housing.
A proportion of the finance for dealing with home improvements comes mainly from local authorities—the very same local authorities in many cases which will see money taken away from them if the Bill is enacted. The sums spent in this area have diminished over a number of years now. Admittedly, the Government recently freed up the way in which local authorities can tackle home improvements by allowing them to allocate grants. However, the overall spend is still very low. The Minister did not mention that
948
matter in his opening remarks although one of my colleagues searched the relevant website and found a brief reference to housing and the major repairs that are needed.
How can we improve the situation? Obviously, policy making on health and housing needs to be linked up and requires appropriate funding. We do not want money to be taken away from local authorities. The good, joined-up work that is undertaken between health authorities and local authorities needs to continue. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, mentioned some good examples of that. I shall mention others later.
I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of, and has been well briefed on, the work of Care & Repair England in the field that I am discussing. I hope that he can reassure me that priority for financial support will be given to such bodies and to other home improvement agencies that are involved in this area. I draw his attention to a point that has already been mentioned this afternoon; that is, the role of prevention, particularly as regards handyperson schemes, of which there are many around the country. Such schemes are particularly important in terms of preventing people entering hospital. West Devon has a very good handyperson scheme for elderly people to replace light bulbs, fit door chains, repair rotten window frames, rehang doors and put up shelves and pictures. Those involved in the scheme get up ladders and carry out the kind of jobs that can result in elderly people falling in their homes.
I hope that the Minister will reassure us that priority will be given to preventive work. As I said, much of Britain's housing is old and poor. Many people end up in hospital as a result of falls or because their homes are cold. Cold homes have been mentioned briefly. In this country many winter deaths and many winter illnesses are still caused simply because people cannot keep warm in their own homes. I hope that the Minister will mention that point when he replies to the debate.
Handyperson schemes have made a big difference in some areas. In the On the Mend document, Care & Repair England refers to the case study of Mrs Long. The document states:
"Mrs Long is 78 years old and lives alone in her own home. She was referred to the home from hospital service by the hospital social worker and OT who were concerned about the difficulty Mrs Long was having in getting up and down stairs. A second stair rail was installed by the project technician within 3 days of referral. When the caseworker visited she realised that Mrs Long's gas fire had been disconnected following a safety check. Funding applications were made to a number of charities and the money raised to repair and reconnect the fire. A successful claim for attendance allowance was also made".
I refer also to the connection that was made with Sweden. I lived in Sweden some 30 years ago. The standard of housing in Sweden is much higher than that in this country, and was 30 years ago. No one in a hospital in Sweden will have a discharge delayed due to the condition of his or her home or because they cannot keep warm in it. Noble Lords have said that the

949
proposals in the Bill are based on the system adopted in Sweden and that we should study carefully the situation in Sweden and that in this country.
Will the Minister assure me that best practice will be drawn up with regard to partnership schemes and delayed discharge? I could not find any mention of that in the Bill. Perhaps it is the Government's intention to provide best practice recommendations in guidance notes or secondary legislation. Local authorities, which are so often partners in such schemes, will have less money to spend working with others on the kind of issues that I and others have highlighted today. There is a better way to provide the mechanism and funding to assist the work that I have outlined and it does not involve starving local authorities of much needed money.
I hope that the health Minister will put the case for improving housing to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as such a measure would certainly save his ministry much money. If he wonders from where to obtain the necessary funds, I suggest that he talks to the Chancellor about the £6 billion extra that the Government have received since they came to office in stamp duty due to rising house prices. A very small amount of that money would go a long way to improving the condition of housing and our nation's health. As I said, we are talking about just a small part of the jigsaw. However, I believe that it is an important part that has long been undervalued in our country.
4.59 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I declare an interest as a professional social worker and an associate member of the Association of Directors of Social Services. I have links with the board of the National Care Standards Commission. I do not speak on behalf of any of those bodies but, obviously, those interests clearly influence the way I view this issue.
It seems that the Government have made a distinctive impact on services in health and welfare since coming into office. In recent years, they have revolutionised relationships with professionals in the caring sector, which in my working life had reached an all-time low. They have developed an image of being a listening Administration, and were recently praised by Care and Health Magazine, which said:
"The present government has shown a real desire to take the level of professionalism higher in social care and make the delivery of services more client-centred…One notable feature of this approach is that the level of consultation with professionals and service users has sharply increased…For the first time we all have a voice in the changing landscape of social care".
As that commentator points out, the response from the Government is not necessarily a response to majority views, and that is right. However, there are many including me who hope that, as we progress through the Bill, the Government will listen to the voices asking them to think again about much of the proposed legislation.
The principle and aim are splendid: the timely move of people out of hospital into alternative care, either at home or elsewhere, following proper assessment and planning. I welcome the thought that we will have
950
more than two days' notice. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, as a social worker I have faced having to move people very quickly, but replacing two days with fines is hardly an equal-handed measure.
Through that process, hospital beds will be freed up for patients on waiting lists, which meets another government target. However, that is to be achieved by a very curious mechanism, which appears to penalise one part of a complex system without consideration of the whole. I had thought that the Government had started to think in terms of framework and strategic systems.
Of course, there remains a conceptual problem. Are the fines for social services failure, or do they, as a Minister put it in another place, simply ensure "appropriate financial flows" between services? Are they incentives, reimbursements or just plain fines? That is curiously important for local authorities. The Minister has spoken positively about local government throughout my time in the House, but the device in the Bill will further bring down the feeling among local authorities about how the Government perceive what they are trying to do in very difficult circumstances.
Those on the ground working to implement the policy day-to-day know how complex the system and the decisions can be. Most, if not all, want to provide the best service possible to the user. 'Will the listening Government hear the objections raised by those who see the implications for the whole system of care?
During the consultation, it was not only social services that saw flaws in the proposals. Other noble Lords have mentioned the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing. Both indicated that a scheme that penalises one partner can only damage relationships with the others. Partnerships and joint planning, under government guidance and encouragement, have been steadily improving. There will be a very heavy spanner in the works.
If users are central to the thinking, what has happened to the question of choice? When the clock starts ticking on the day that the hospital notifies social services, I fear that all sensitivity will disappear. Where assessment indicates the need for a complex package of care, two days is simply not enough to put the services into place. Instead, between the pressure of targets on the one hand and fines on the other, it would be a case of finding an alternative place.
I can think back to the days when we had to find placements for children in care under fit person orders, and sat in waiting rooms with poor children. I can see how old people and people moving out of acute care from other groups will be placed in real difficulty. If people rather than systems are at the centre of government thinking, I am sure that the Government will listen to the carers' organisations, which relate that 77 per cent of carers—that is a figure for now, not for the past—were not given a choice about taking on caring.

951
When those assessed are old and frail, recovering from a serious illness or facing a future of disability, preparing for that requires time and sensitivity. As we have heard time and again this afternoon, proper planning will avoid readmission, a real and continuing problem in healthcare. What happens if, despite assessment, the patient exercises his or her choice not to accept what is on offer? Delay can arise from a patient genuinely disputing the suitability of an offered placement, possibly through a complaints procedure or judicial review. If the preferred service is not available, will users be forced into the next available slot? Will someone have time to listen and discuss alternatives? Will the clock stop ticking while the reassessment takes place?
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the measures will increase pressure on social services already struggling with problems of capacity. That is not an excuse. However much funding the Government make available—I am sure that every pound is more than welcome—providers know that it takes time to build up alternatives decimated by years of cuts. Capital and revenue projects are affected. Shortage of placements in residential care, and workforce planning problems run throughout the system. Noble Lords have only to read the two recent and powerful reports from the King's Fund, which demonstrate the shortage of skilled workers in residential and domiciliary care. Even without the device in the Bill, that shortage is likely to lead to a crisis, so strategic planning is needed.
Add to that the need for good social work assessment and the problems are compounded. If social services are to meet the assessment timescales to respond to the ticking clock, will social workers be diverted from other areas of social work—from mental health, family support and, most worrying, child protection? Home care is already in crisis. I can tell noble Lords of dozens of old people whom I have met who need only two or three hours, but that time is not available.
I know at first hand what happens when pressure is placed on one part of the system and there is a shortage of capacity in the whole. Something else gives. Next week, when we discuss the Climbié report, we will want to put pressure on yet another part of the system. What else will give?
If the Government take a strategic view, will they also look at the role of the voluntary sector and the problems that it faces in supporting provision of good-quality alternatives? I have campaigned for most of my working life to remove adult disabled people from inappropriate hospital placements, but there are still difficulties. For instance, the problem of agreeing appropriate fees for residents has been well documented, but still needs addressing.
As vice-chair of John Grooms, a charity providing services including cutting-edge residential care for severely disabled people, I am totally disheartened not only by the issues of appropriate fees and raising money to subsidise both capital and revenue projects,
952
but by new legislation about staff pensions, plus the most unbelievable issues about rate disaggregation. Those are real disincentives. Such issues conspire to put voluntary organisations out of business, rather than working in partnership with them to provide even better alternatives for people who need residential care.
Were there more time, I would want to raise issues regarding the dispute panels. Surely the make-up of such panels, if we are to have them, should not be left to draft regulations. Some even-handedness of representation should be placed in statute.
I welcome the introduction of free aids and minor adaptations, but wish to ask questions about funding and assessment. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out that one of the skills shortages was in occupational therapy. The key is that there needs to be more discussion on timing, and questions should be asked as to why the statute cannot wait for better overall planning when it becomes extended to other areas such as mental health.
There are financial questions to explore. The London project on the commissioning of services for older people has worked with London directors of social services to monitor the delayed transfer of care data. It estimates that, at current levels of delay, the potential reimbursement fine for London alone is approximately £24 million. How will that central pot be redistributed?
I have read the arguments and thought carefully about the Bill, but I still cannot understand how, at a time of improving relationships and response, the Government still see a financial penalty as the only means of achieving proper performance from local authorities. With the frameworks, including that for older people, a whole strategy is being developed in the interests of users which gives a sense of value to professionals. This is a mature approach. In such a climate, where there is a complex matrix of service provision, which government adviser could be so ill advised as to see this arrangement as the best way forward? It might move people around the system faster but if my mother was involved, I should certainly want to have the time and space in which to plan for her care, to listen as she moved from independence to dependence and to know that physical and emotional needs had been taken care of for the future.
I realise that this approach is government policy and that we in this House are not here to frustrate it. However, I hope that we can ensure that the arrangement will work for those using the system of care and that it does not create a way of moving funds from the welfare sector to the acute sector when there is no real improvement for people. For it is people who should be at the centre of what we are trying to do, not simple mechanisms for shortening waiting lists. I will therefore support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I want to hear what the Government have to say and how they intend to take the thinking forward.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we spent two days last week discussing various matters involving your Lordships' House. One of the points that came out most strongly was the importance of expertise. In this debate, we have had an immense amount of expertise; practically every speaker has displayed it. I must apologise for not having any particular expertise although, like one or two speakers so far, including the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I have, at this time of life, reached the stage at which quite a lot of my friends and people with whom I have worked over a period of time are running into the kind of problems with which the Bill is meant to deal. I am for ever fascinated and appalled by the difference between the way in which people cope if they are well off as opposed to if they have very little or virtually no money.
Every noble Lord seems to agree that this is a Bill of good intentions, that what it seeks to achieve is worth achieving, and that those behind it should be congratulated on trying to achieve that. There is also a widespread feeling that it is not going the right way about it. If we are to put the people who really matter and should be looked after at the centre of these arrangements—if we are to look after the carers, the old, those who are ill and those who have been discharged—and if we are to give them control over their lives, we must ensure that the Bill is changed significantly.
I do not wish to detain the House by dealing with various points that have been dealt with in this debate by noble Lords with more expertise than I have. However, of all the points that have been raised, the three-day allowance for coming to an arrangement about what should happen is so imbecilic as to be almost unbelievable, it do not see how anyone can think that one could achieve such a target even al the best of times. That must be altered.
I have been briefed, as have one or two other noble Lords, by the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners, which sees that its members will be hardest hit by the Bill if it is not amended. It has produced a number of amendments, which I hope I shall advance in Committee. I hope that I shall do so with the support of other noble Lords, and I hope to support them.
I opened by saying that I thought that one thing about the Bill was agreed by everyone: this is a Bill of good intentions. However, we all know what good intentions do: they pave the road to hell. In the worst cases—there are always worst cases—the authorities do not agree, there is not enough time to consult patients, and there are not sufficient places for people to go. We should also consider what will happen to a person with little money and who feels rather ill, having just come out of hospital. The good intentions could well lead to something that can be described as closely resembling hell for those people. For that reason, I intend to support on behalf of my party the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the approach of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I hope that we will manage to make the Bill a far, far better thing by the time that we have finished with it.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, at this stage, every side of the argument has been put. Having recently become a carer, I have been a recipient of the very service that the Bill seeks to address. I speak with the voice of the consumer and welcome the Bill's passage though the House. The Bill is a package which, with a very few minor adjustments, will work.
The requirement for a written discharge plan is reassuring for the patient and the family. That is vital so that all concerned with the welfare of the patient can be satisfied that all that can be done is in place for the continued care of the patient on leaving hospital. In my case, the written discharge plan was not available because the computer had broken down. That caused me, as a carer, no end of problems. Every family member had a different solution and no one from the NHS was available to answer my very legitimate queries. I shudder to think how those who are in my position but who are less able than me to contact the director of social services would have managed. It was a nightmare and I hope that the Bill will ensure that no one ever gets into the position in which I found myself.
Having contacted social services, the patient—my husband, whom I was removing from hospital on that day—became less fragile when he realised that things could improve. Two days later, after several phone calls and not very pretty language, everything was arranged and has been working satisfactorily ever since. He is now 12 weeks into his care.
That illustrates how well a plan that is put in motion can work if we are patient and give it time. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that social services are not the only authority to be penalised. My experience was that the plan was not in place because the NHS was not able to set it in motion at the time that my husband was expected to leave hospital. That was not because the staff did not know when he would leave but because no one in the hospital was responsible for ensuring that social services would be contacted.
The Bill speaks of "joint working", but joint working will work only if both partners have equal responsibility as well as equal penalties. I am afraid that, in a complex organisation such as the NHS, we shall end up with buck-passing unless there is a named individual whom carers, patients and social services can contact. My experience showed that there was no such person. I want to appeal to the Minister because I heard myself asking, "Where is the matron?".
The Bill needs to ensure that those who need the service feel secure. Social services should not be forced into a position where the patient's needs are secondary to the risk of being fined. I trust that the Minister can reassure the House that patients and their carers will not be left in limbo at the point of discharge. The medical team should be expected to work closely with social services. I believe that that can be achieved only if there is a postholder who can follow through with both partners the patient's best interests. I ask the Minister whether there are plans in the Bill for such a post—I cannot see any.

955
I hope that, by giving noble Lords my personal view, I have not wasted the House's time but have explained that the Bill is needed. The sooner it is on the statute book, the better.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I believe that it is generally agreed that hospital is not a very healthy place for most people—particularly for the elderly and for those whose admission is unplanned and who therefore often end up in wards which are inappropriate for their condition. I recently had experience of an elderly man with a chest infection who was put in an orthopaedic ward. His condition deteriorated, perhaps mainly because the nurses did not have the time or the inclination to help him to feed himself with the food offered. That type of inappropriate admission needs to be looked at carefully. I shall return to that point.
It is in everyone's interests to discharge patients into appropriate care as soon as possible. The intention of the Bill is said to be just that. It is intended to provide an incentive, encourage better communication and increase choice. It seems eminently reasonable that proper notice will be given when the patient is to leave hospital. The patient will be put into the hands of social services where a duty of care already exists and where a proper assessment of needs will take place.
However, the Bill seems to introduce a culture of blame and a system of fines into that mutual arrangement. That threatens the good working arrangements envisaged in the Health Act 1999, with its pooled budgets, integrated provision and commissions.
Many noble Lords have received, as I have done, information regarding creative schemes of community care which are being entered into across the disciplines, including GP and primary care trusts, NHS and social services, and charitable and independent sectors. Those bodies are all seeking to work together to develop new solutions. If those practices are working well, it would seem possible to think ahead about the needs of the elderly person before he was admitted to hospital. Thus, it would not be such a surprise when an assessment had to be made before he left. However, there has not been time for all that to be put into place. The Bill now seems to depart from whole-system thinking and seeks to make one department take responsibility for what could be a failure in a number of those different arrangements.
The Bill also fails to address other issues. One is the inappropriate use of hospital beds in relation not only to discharge but also admission. I am astonished when I see television advertisements saying that, if a person adopts a certain healthcare plan and is admitted to an NHS bed, he can then be paid money. I heard of an elderly gentleman who managed to get himself admitted to hospital three times last year and funded a holiday in the Canaries on the basis of it.
When you ring NHS Direct, in order to cover themselves if their advice is not correct, the staff will often tell you to attend the hospital emergency
956
services. Overworked GPs who seek to help elderly patients know that, if those patients were given appropriate diagnostic services, they would have to attend different hospitals or clinics and wait for the results of those tests for many weeks. The GPs would find it far easier to arrange for their patients to be admitted to hospital where all the tests could be done at the same time. But often that is not in the best interests of the patient.
Once a patient has been admitted to hospital, decisions on future care become acute rather than planned over time. Three days seems to me to be rather precipitate, particularly for putting into place specialist services. Having recently had responsibility for finding dementia care, I know that three days would be an impossibly short time for such a package to be found.
As has already been said, there is a need for additional capacity in community care, with additional services for the inevitable increased demand for homecare services, care home places and housing-with-care solutions. The Bill could divert finance so that local authorities would have to have a line in their budget reserving funds for the payment of fines whereas other initiatives could have been put in place. However, it is not only a matter of diverting finance; it is also possible that energy will be diverted from creative solutions into simply meeting this other need.
Other concerns have been mentioned, such as the fact that it is intended to implement the scheme quickly in 2003, whereas it would seem better to operate a pilot scheme in order to see how it works. It is unclear how the money generated in the scheme will be spent. I know that many of the provisions will be in the form of regulations. To my mind, the Bill will be either helped or greatly harmed by the regulations, which, of course, we have not yet seen.
Not much mention has yet been made of possible disputes arising between local authorities. That is perhaps of more interest to me than most since my husband is in residential care. That care is funded by Calderdale Borough Council in Yorkshire but is supplied by Enfield. I would hate for the decision as to where my husband is normally resident to be in the hands of the Secretary of State.
It is clear that the Bill has not been welcomed without reserve by any of the organisations that will be involved in its implementation. Therefore, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
5.29 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I declare an interest as an employee of Age Concern England. However, the views that I shall voice will be my own. We have had an extremely thoughtful and high quality debate. It is clear that on balance even those who support the intentions of the Bill have significant and grave reservations. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford put the matter most forcefully. He outlined to the House the extent to which a wide range of

957
bodies—not bodies that one could have predicted—believe that the Bill is potentially a flawed and disruptive piece of legislation.
A number of the clauses are quite deep and have been mentioned already. There is a gaping hole in the Bill: the Government have given us no evidence of local authorities failing to fulfil their responsibilities for reasons other than a lack of capacity. Given that that is a fundamental assumption behind the Bill, I believe that it is right for us, as parliamentarians, to ask for evidence of that.
Many speakers have referred to the proposal to levy fines on social services departments as a service model copied from Sweden. In fact, the system currently operating in Sweden originated in the Jutland area of Denmark. The system was adopted in Sweden only after consideration of how it should be modified to apply to the particular needs of the Swedish context. Moreover, it was introduced only after substantial preparation, including radical reform of the taxation system and investment in community services such as extra care sheltered housing, increased home care packages and, crucially, investment in joint planning systems. That is a stark contrast to the situation here.
The proposal to adopt a similar system to that of Sweden surfaced in March 2002 in Chapter 6 of the Wanless report into the future of the health service. That report stated:
"the current balance between health and social care is wrong: in particular, care is too focused on the acute hospital setting".
On delayed discharge it went on to say:
"Effective integration between health and social care, supported by the right financial incentives is the key to tackling such delays".
However, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones pointed out, the Wanless report also noted that approximately 26,000 residential and nursing care places have been lost. The report advised that,
"Appropriate financial incentives are required to sustain a viable nursing and social care home market. The need for regulation and improved standards must be balanced with stable financing to support the quality of care".
Wanless did not say that money should be diverted from the social care sector back into the acute sector, nor that a system that diverts money away from health promotion and prevention of hospital admission should be adopted. On the contrary, he advised that a thorough review of social care needs is crucial to the future of the health service and should be conducted as soon as possible. However, the Minister in another place, Jacqui Smith, in a response to my honourable friend Paul Burstow recently ruled out any such investigation. But without such an analysis, health and social care planning will suffer and be prone to ill-considered measures such as the one before us today.
Noble Lords may not have noticed in the Government response to the Wanless report, Delivering the NHS Plan, published in March 2002, that Chapter 8 contained an explicit commitment to introduce a system of fines on acute hospitals for readmissions caused by inappropriate discharge. That received very little coverage at the time, and although it represents a significant safeguard which would
958
protect older people, it does not appear in the Bill. When challenged on that point in another place, the Minister offered the somewhat lame explanation that in 2004 a new system of financial flows will be implemented under which money will follow patients. The Minister in another place argued that if a patient is re-admitted to acute care, the PCT will simply not pay for that episode of care.
It is impossible to tell from the Bill how such a system could be made to work in the best interests of good patient care. Apart from the unpredictability and unwieldy bureaucracy that must be required to track such a system, a reactive approach to discharge based on fines and failure must inevitably lead to patients being passed around like hot potatoes. A vicious circle of blame is not the basis on which to build good quality, sustainable services.
Like many noble Lords I read the report of the Health Select Committee into delayed discharge and I found myself strongly in agreement with its statement that delayed discharge is always a symptom of something else that is not happening or a failure in the system. If those problems are not addressed, the slickest discharge procedure in the world will not work.
In preparation for the Bill I looked at figures of actual delayed discharges in London. The figures are compiled by the London commissioning of older people's services project, which analyses the reasons for delayed discharges. Those figures for April and May 2002 reveal that the reasons for delay were as follows: 24 per cent was due to people waiting for an assessment; 30 per cent was due to the unavailability of residential and nursing care; 9 per cent was due to lack of funding; 6 per cent was due to people awaiting domiciliary care (in the past two years while the number of hours of domiciliary care has risen, the number of households receiving domiciliary care has dropped); 10 per cent was due to patient choice; 10 per cent was due to other reasons (one discovers that that was housing, especially adaptations, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Maddock); and 11 per cent was due to delays within the NHS. Even a cursory run through those figures is enough to show that fining local authorities, as set out in the Bill, will exacerbate rather than solve the problem.
For many older people a condition which is sufficiently serious to require hospitalisation is likely to lead to a need for either installation of aids or adaptations, as my noble friend Lady Maddock has said, yet there is no mention of that in the Bill. Can the minister confirm that when an assessment has been carried out and a discharge is delayed because of lack of suitable housing and housing adaptation, the local authority will not be penalised for something that is not its responsibility?
This is a short Bill and, as ever, much is left to regulation. However, even as it stands it contains some measures that cause alarm. The proposal to permit discharge to an intermediate care setting on the basis of a partial assessment without any requirement that a full assessment be carried out within a specified period

959
is frankly alarming. It opens up the potential for older people to be discharged speedily from hospital—agreed by all to be desirable—although into a setting which is intended to be temporary but which could become permanent even if it is not suitable for long-term needs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and anyone who works with older people knows, time spent in care, without appropriate support, tends to lead to much greater dependence.
Furthermore, the Bill as it stands has a particularly worrying omission. While it refers to a patient having been assessed as no longer needing acute care, there is scant regard for the fact that moving older people is often damaging and in some cases dangerous. Being able to be treated in a care home, or even with a care package at home, is not the same as being able to withstand the process of moving, which can often be extremely problematic. The Bill does not mention transport, and yet anyone who has been involved with enabling an older person to leave hospital will be aware that not knowing how or when they will be transferred is a matter of immense concern to them and can be deeply distressing.
The priority and focus that the Bill will inevitably place on hospital discharge will undoubtedly mean that in many areas resources will have to be switched from preventive and rehabilitative services. Any local authority desperate to avoid fines will have to invest in OT services. That in itself is no bad thing, but if it is done at the expense of handyperson schemes—I am one of the biggest fans of such schemes—which are an extremely effective means of enabling older people to live independently, it will lead to increased hospital admissions.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw exactly set out the dilemma facing social services departments—not because they are unwilling to get people out of hospital but because they do not have the resources. Any GP with any nous will soon realise that the best way to get patients to the head of the assessment queue will be to get them into hospital. The Bill will cause huge distortions in local care planning and is bound to cut across much of the good work done in the NSF.
As to assessments being done in three days, I will bet money that the Minister's response will be that most patients are in hospital longer than three days so that will be a minimum, not a maximum. True. But the point at which the information passes between social services and the hospital is crucial. It is not often that residential care places become available at three days' notice.
A further concern is the lack of funding. Much has been made of the £100 million but there are other real pressures on social services. Any department that is not planning to increase its children's services is mad.
When the system was introduced to Sweden, the tax system was changed to provide the crucial sustainability. That is in stark contrast to this country, where much of the health and social care funding introduced by the present Government is short term and piecemeal. The 6 per cent increase in funding
960
personal social services is welcome but it does not apply to older people and is not guaranteed beyond 2006.
Furthermore, although the Government have invested much in the personal social services funding formula, as my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, social services throughout the country are spending way in excess of their existing assessment. For example, the Social Policy Ageing and Information Network reported a year ago that local authorities are spending in excess of £1 billion over and above the Government's figure. Spending on promoting independence totalling £155 million and building care capacity costing £190 million comes to an end in March.
When one considers that most social care is labour intensive rather than capital intensive, it can be seen that the churn and turnover in the people required to do this job is a debilitating factor. One can set up the best computer systems in the world but if the people using them change frequently, the resulting lack of continuity is alarming.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said that the Bill is health tourism at its worst and it is. The Government are taking a system from a country, Sweden, that has a high tax base and where health and social care are provided by sole suppliers—public local authorities. This country has a lower tax base and, while the level of private health care remains low, social care is provided by a range of suppliers—including the voluntary sector.
Given that the Bill is such a radical departure from previous health policy, one wonders whether the Government are setting social services departments up to fail—particularly when one considers the amount of administration required to make it work.
Evidence to the Health Select Committee in another place made it clear that far and away the most problematic discharges are those where the older person is mentally frail and the necessary care package is complex. At a time when the number of places for people needing dementia care is decreasing, the Bill's lack of protection for patients and patient choice, of any mention of advocacy and of any requirement for older people to consent to discharge is worrying. There is not even a requirement for patients to consent to information about them being given to a social services department, with which they may previously have had no dealings.
The Minister made much of the fact that the Bill merely compels social services departments to do what they are already required to do. When the noble Lord responds, I am sure that he will make much of varying performance in delayed discharges between different authorities. But he cannot say the extent to which a local authority which has good levels of delayed discharge does so at the expense of other admission and rehabilitation services.
If the Government really wanted to develop good models of integrated health, they would learn from the Swedish system and give time for the development of good practice on information sharing, patient

961
information and involvement. They would enable the development of joint planning by health and social services and consider the role that GPs play in hospital aftercare—one finding of the Swedish system that has not been considered. Models such as ithink should be given time to become established.
I urge noble Lords to visit the Department of Health's website. The draft regulations are not yet available, but under the Joint Unit section of the website the frequently asked questions about the Bill do not make happy reading and increase concern about leaving much of the detail to regulations. For example, the statement that anyone who refuses a care package will be deemed a self funder is extremely worrying.
Ministers in another place repeated the mantra that the Bill is about patients. It is not. It is about beds. It is about removing from practitioners the flexibility to do what is right for individual patients. It is about whether medical staff can stand up to pressure from bed managers and accountants. It is about removing from intermediate care managers the ability to decide that an older person needs seven weeks of care after a stay in hospital, rather than six. It is about grudgingly giving older people and their carers information when they ask for it, not as of right.
During the debate on the gracious Speech, I referred to this measure as the community care congestion charge Bill. Nothing during its passage in the other place makes me think that I was wrong. This Bill is bad. It is flawed in its assumptions and incomplete. It is being rushed through Parliament at a speed reserved by the Government for measures about which they are particularly worried. In this case, the Government's concern is not misplaced. Members of these Benches make no apology for giving the Bill a deservedly rough ride and the most thorough scrutiny.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I begin by wishing the noble Lord, Lord Rix, a very happy birthday. If all older people were as hale and hearty as the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, there would be no need for the Bill.
We have heard some powerful speeches—not least from my noble friend Lord Howe. There is no disagreement as to the policy aim of not keeping people in hospital unnecessarily, but the Minister cannot take much comfort from most speeches today. I hope that he has got the message that the Bill in its current form is unacceptable.
When my noble friend Lord Howe was drafting his amendment, he was persuaded by the Clerks to use the word "regret", so that it would read
"but this House regrets that the Bill risks damaging health and social service provision for older people".
My noble friend wished to use the word "deplore"—not in the sense of regret but of the dictionary definition of "scandalised by". Members of these Benches indeed deplore the Bill. It is not wanted by the NHS, local authorities and social services departments in particular. It will do irreparable harm to partnership
962
working between health and social services bodies and could be positively harmful to patients who, under the Bill, will be no more than piggy-in-the-middle. It is a thoroughly deplorable Bill.
My noble friend and others have already explained the scale of concern that exists about partnership working and the impact on patients. I want to dwell on some areas that are mundane but not without importance.
I start with money. We know that the Government tried to buy off opposition to the Bill in another place by announcing that £100 million per year would be paid to local authorities to allow them to pay the fines. The Bill is about fines, whatever euphemisms the Government use. That £100 million is part of the lunacy surrounding the Bill. It is not new money. It is part of the money obtained from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the NHS. The Secretary of State pinches £100 million of NHS money to pay to local authorities which will then pay it back to NHS bodies by way of fines.
That would be silly enough on its own, but noble Lords will see that the money will pass through two public sector bureaucracies: local authorities and the NHS. The Explanatory Notes say that the administration costs will total £5.5 million. I tried to investigate that figure—which seems low—in the regulatory impact assessment. But despite paragraph 58 of the Explanatory Notes, the Minister may like to know that the regulatory impact assessment is not on the department's website, at least not in any obvious place. We will have to take at face value the claim that the bureaucrats will spend £5.5 million. Hey presto—£100 million that could have been spent on a multitude of provisions if allocated to primary care trusts has turned into £94 million.
There are other problems. The latest estimate by local authorities is that the new fines will cost local authorities £165 million. So, with the costs of bureaucracy, there is a gap of over £70 million. We can forget about the 6 per cent increase in social services funding about which the Government have been bragging; there will not be anything left. In many cases, council taxes will have to rise.
Local authorities remain in the dark about how the £100 million is to be allocated between them. The £100 million was announced last December but no one knows how it will be shared out. Will it be given to the local authorities that have the most problems in avoiding the new fines? Many local authorities face particular difficulties, particularly those whose care home capacity has been decimated by the Government's disastrous policies towards the care home sector. Will the money be given to such authorities? I ask the Minister to give a clear view and I should say to him that many believe that the Government will use this £100 million as yet another excuse to allocate public money on a wholly partisan basis to the areas from which they derive the most political support. Will the Minister say categorically that this will not be the case?

963
My noble friend Lord Howe talked about the incentives that will exist for NHS trusts to discharge patients early. That takes me to the lack of reciprocal obligations and penalties on the NHS. The Bill lacks symmetry and is unfair in that respect. Last April the Government outlined a system of fines that would apply both to social services and to the NHS. But somehow, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, the NHS part has disappeared.
The Minster in another place, Jacqui Smith, claimed that,
"under the new financial flows, acute trusts will not receive funding for patients who are readmitted to hospital within a certain period, so there will be a financial incentive for them".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 10/12/02; col. 47.]
The Minister made a similar claim in the briefing session for Peers last week, for which we thank him. I was glad to hear nothing claimed today for financial flows. The truth is that there are no incentives for the NHS to balance the fines on local authorities. Documents such as Reforming NHS Financial Flows do not deal with the issue. The Bill is one-sided.
This system does nothing to provide compensation for local authorities. What happens if, under the Bill, an NHS trust notifies an intention to discharge? The local authority has two or possibly three days, including weekends, to rush around to make arrangements for the patient. Then on the day the NHS trust changes its mind and says, "Sorry, we got it wrong". It may not even say "sorry" because it does not matter to the trust. The local authority might have made commitments to care homes or to providers of domiciliary care. Why does the Bill not require the NHS to reimburse the local authority for such incidents? It is quite likely that the incentive structure of the Bill will make this happen much more than in the past; and there is nothing to stop inappropriate behaviour by trusts.
We are becoming used to the Government drafting Bills with major regulation-making powers without having given any thought to the details. This Bill is no exception in terms of regulation-making powers. But we understand that the Government want to implement the Bill on 1st April and therefore we expect that the details must be fully worked out. The Minister agreed informally in the briefing meeting to share the draft regulations with noble Lords when they were available. Will he say when he expects to do this? I hope that he will not expect this House to start Committee stage without having had an opportunity to consider the draft regulations carefully.
The last area that I shall address is the need to review the impact of the Bill on patients. Patients are almost forgotten in the Bill. Nobody believes that delayed discharges are good for patients. Most people loathe being in hospital for extended periods. But equally bad for patients are inappropriate discharge arrangements, perhaps forcing an old person into a care home because of a timing or other delay with home-based arrangements. So too is the prospect of being moved from pillar to post because the NHS has washed its
964
hands of the patient but there are genuine difficulties with establishing long-term arrangements. We have heard many examples today. Will the Minister say how the consequences of the Bill for patients will be monitored and how they will be reported to Parliament?
I do not want the Minister to be in any doubt about the view of these Benches: this is a bad Bill. The best possible outcome would be for the Government to accept that the Bill is misconceived. My noble friend's amendment urges the Government to reconsider. They do not have to take the Bill further than today. There are precedents even under this Government for that. If we find ourselves in Committee, I give notice that we shall propose a number of significant amendments to take out the worst features of the Bill and that we shall pursue them vigorously.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a good debate. I look forward to Committee stage with keen anticipation. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on his 80th birthday. He looks no different from when he trod the boards at the Whitehall Theatre a few years ago. It was good of him to speak in the debate today.
The one issue on which we are united is the need to sort out the problem of delayed discharges. I do not underestimate the challenges facing local authorities and the NHS. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that I am a strong supporter of local government. When I criticise local government, I try to do so as constructively as possible. I do not underestimate the potential of partnerships nor doubt the need for a holistic, whole-system approach to health and social care collaboration for older people.
What troubles me is the recognition that if 5,000 mainly older people are delayed in hospital beds when they no longer need to be there, we are failing them and their families. All of us have known or seen the consequences for older people of losing their independence and becoming institutionalised. That is my direct response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
I accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, that there is any number of reasons for delayed discharges, including delays in assessment, in providing a care package, in waiting for a placement, in putting a domiciliary package in place and in the performance of the National Health Service. The developing partnership between the NHS and local government and a top-down performance management approach could all be expected to play their part in improving the current situation. I congratulate many local authorities on their success in improving their performance on delayed discharge. But that cannot be left to chance.
The outcome for older patients delayed in acute hospital beds is so serious that it warrants a more robust approach. As I see it, the problem is that, despite the many examples of good practice, there are still too many flaws in the system and too many

965
examples of bad practice. We know that long-standing practice can get in the way of smooth discharge from hospital and that simple communication breakdowns can make it much harder for patients to get back out into the community. My noble friend Lady Howarth gave us one example; I could cite many others. Examples such as those convince me of the need for a more robust procedure under which statutory agencies must sharpen up their act.
I do not accept the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the Bill will undermine partnerships. Where the current partnership arrangement works well, it has a positive impact on the outcome for the individual who is ready to leave hospital. The Bill will foster good relationships and partnerships because it will clarify much more effectively the role and responsibilities of the various agencies involved in discharge procedures. Under the Bill, there will be less scope for disagreement about who is responsible for a delay. That will help to smooth the discharge process. In other words, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it will become a name game.
The Bill's approach enhances the need for partnership and creates an incentive. That is the whole purpose of transferring the budget in the way that we propose. It will create the right incentive to bring partners to the table to discuss how best to increase capacity and make any other necessary changes in working practices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is right: we must demonstrate that that approach will be as rigorous and tough for the NHS as it is for local government. It will be. I can confirm to my noble friend Lady Howells that there will be no buck-passing in the NHS and that regulations will include the requirement to have a named NHS individual.
Sweden has been mentioned several times. Although various countries can offer us a clue towards the solutions that we need, I point out that the health and social care system in England is not the same as that in Sweden. In fact, the Swedish reforms that introduced reimbursement also involved a major transfer of responsibility for primary care for older people to the municipalities. That threw up many tensions that will not exist in this country.
I said that the Bill will not undermine partnerships. In fact, it will build on them while providing the robustness that is often missing in some local health authorities and the NHS. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, mentioned the Climbié inquiry. It would be entirely wrong for me to anticipate Lord Laming's report, but we have only to read other inquiry reports to understand that time and again, alongside any structural or funding problems, what comes through is sloppiness in practice and the failure to record decisions and to communicate between agencies. Under the Bill, we will start to grip that issue as it affects delayed discharges.
I know that some noble Lords consider that we should delay the introduction of this system. All that I would say is that local authorities and the health service have been under notice for a considerable time.
966
They have been making preparations. I have been encouraged by some comments that we have received from local authorities about their state of readiness. Of course, statutory agencies always want to delay the date of implementation; that is the normal reaction that we expect. The problem with postponing the date of implementation is that that postpones the date by which older people can take advantage of the new arrangements in the Bill.
I have listened with care to the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Richardson and Lady Howarth, about the time taken for assessment. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, always anticipates my response; it is uncanny how she can forecast what I am going to say. But the fact remains that the average length of stay in an NHS hospital for a person aged over 65 is 11 days. So in most cases there will be more time. However, equally, we should surely want to encourage health and local authorities to gel their act together and get the assessment done as quickly as possible. Why should we delight in delay?
Of course, some individuals will have complex care needs. I readily accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that there will be individuals for whom it will not be possible to draw up a full discharge plan within three days. But I contend that an acute ward is not the place for such a person to be cared for while that care planning is completed. Surely in such cases it is much better for patients, while their long-term care is being planned, to be transferred—with all due care and attention to the issue of transport and the new place where they are to be cared for; I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about that—to a non-acute and more comfortable environment.
I was asked about bureaucracy and associated costs by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I confirm that we want to keep the transactional implementation costs to the minimum. Clearly, there will be costs—there is no point in running away from that fact—but they are significantly outweighed by the benefits. I return to the point raised in so many previous inquiry reports into failures of statutory services. I refer to the ability to track what is happening to individuals and to ensure that individual officials are responsible for making and implementing decisions, and the bearing that that will have on the necessary accompanying paperwork. Getting to grips with that—seeing who is responsible and making sure that those statutory agencies deliver—is worth some additional paperwork.
The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Chan, were worried about the whole question of dispute resolution and understandably feared that the procedure would lead to a great many disputes, which is not how we would want health and local government authorities to work. I agree: we do not want a huge number of disputes. The guidance that we will give to health and local authorities will point out that for reasons of time and resources, it is clearly desirable for two public bodies to reach amicable agreement rather than having constant recourse to the panel.

967
Noble Lords put great store on partnership. The test of partnership is to enable these arrangements to be bedded down in the most agreeable way possible, where everyone recognises that they are dealing with a series of cases with clear protocols and where there will not be a need for the disputes procedure. Of course, if there has to be dispute resolution, so be it. We shall give strategic health authorities the role of oversight. But I can assure the House that the panel itself will be composed of a local authority and an NHS representative with an independent chair. I hope that that gives comfort because it will ensure a dispassionate overview of a specific dispute if such a panel needs to meet.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, were worried that the Bill would produce a system where the patients revolve around the system, and that perverse incentives would come into play causing real problems for the individual. That is not the intention of the Bill. Perverse incentives will not come into play. The whole point of transferring the resources to local authorities and of the new funding flow system we shall be introducing to the NHS starting in the new financial year, fully implemented in 2005–06, is that there will not be financial incentives for health and local authorities to cause real difficulties for the patients involved. I do not accept the suggestion that general practitioners will seek to admit patients purely so that they have access to social services. I have greater confidence in the responsibility of GPs in that arena.
My noble friend Lady Wilkins quoted some excellent examples of good practice, about how rapid repair teams can sort out aids and adaptations very quickly. I agree. We issued good practice guidelines to the NHS today about the whole discharge area. I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that it includes housing issues. The noble Baroness made some excellent points in that regard. I hope that the whole process of introducing this Bill, of ensuring that health and local government have the incentives to sort the matter out, will grip some of the issues that the noble Baroness raised. The examples given by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about how some of the rapid handyman schemes can quickly sort out aids and adaptations are an example to those parts of the country where it takes months for similar situations to be sorted out. That gives me confidence that in the end we can ensure that the Bill will be implemented as effectively as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, expressed concern about the distortion of social service priorities. We are not seeking to add additional responsibilities to local government. These matters are already the responsibility of local government. We are trying to put in place incentives which will make it deliver those responsibilities more effectively.
In response to the right reverend Prelate I can say that it is not our intention to undermine a holistic approach in dealing with these difficult issues. That is far from the point of this Bill. The Bill seeks to get right
968
the incentives for health and local government to come together and agree a holistic approach to the difficulties.
I recognise the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, in relation to patient choice. These proposals are aimed at putting the patient firmly at the centre of care. The whole point is to encourage local authorities to put into place more community services to give the patient more choice. The Bill does not in any way affect a patient's legal right either to choice or anything else. The Bill does not cover that issue.
I thank my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for her welcome of the amendments made in another place concerning carers. However, I was disappointed that so many noble Lords raised the issue of care home capacity. Of course care home capacity is important. But it has not fallen to the extent suggested in the figures quoted from Laing & Buisson; and care home places are not the only option. I pay tribute to local authorities for increasing the provision of the alternative forms of care home that are becoming available. Part of the process of the Bill is to encourage more and different care support packages to be made available. Also, it will encourage local authorities to get together with care home owners to talk about longer-term arrangements to encourage stability in the market, the absence of which has been a long-standing complaint from the care home industry. We are already seeing, as a result of the increased funding we are able to put into local government, increases of more than 3 per cent in the fees paid to those care homes.
I was asked a number of questions about research and monitoring. I confirm that we shall be monitoring the situation extremely carefully. I confirm also, for my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we will be commissioning research into the impact of reimbursement, not only on the delayed discharge as it happens in hospitals, but on the system as a whole.
On equipment issues, which were largely welcomed by noble Lords—I look forward to Part 2 of this Bill in Committee—I accept the importance of OTs in the assessment process and the importance of the single assessment process. Again, the incentive here is to encourage that assessment process. OTs have an extremely important role to play. We must ensure that we use their scarce resource as effectively as possible. The signs from the NHS and local government are that that is indeed happening.
Many interesting points were raised in this debate. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford that I do not underestimate the challenges. I note the concerns of the organisations and the hard-pressed professionals. In the end those organisations and professionals are well able to stick up for themselves. My concern is for the individual older people who need sticking up for.
I reject absolutely the suggestion that patients will be shunted around. I refer again to the many past inquiry reports into failures in public services which

969
showed that a lack of robustness, a lack of codification and a lack of getting their act together cause real problems for individuals. My noble friends Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Howell, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, talked about the present problems in delayed discharges. They concern lack of notice, lack of planning and lack of communication. But we were also told of local authorities which have got their act together and cracked the issue of delayed discharges.
We know that when older people are stuck in care in an acute bed, it can lead to rapid institutionalisation. The longer they stay there, the harder it is to be discharged back into the community. This Bill will go a long way to improving the situation for those individuals. We have transferred sufficient resources to local government to enable it to do its job properly. This Bill will be a measured improvement on current conditions and circumstances and I invite the House to give it a Second Reading.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. It has not been much of a "birthday-fest" for the noble Lord, Lord Rix, but, nevertheless, I congratulate him on his 80th birthday today.
The Minister gamely replied to the debate, but it is clear that this Bill arrives virtually friendless in this House. Even those who had a good word to say about its intentions were beset with doubts and anxieties about its effect. I was particularly struck by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. The adage, "With friends like this…", springs to mind in those circumstances.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford supported the amendment, but complained of the weak language used in it. I am afraid that we are bound by convention and I regret the fact that we cannot use the word "deplore". If we could have used stronger language, I would have done so and for that reason—and that reason alone—we on these Benches will not press the matter to a Division. We believe that the words of the amendment go only half way to demonstrating exactly how strongly we feel about the contents of the Bill.
If by convention we could throw out the Bill in this House we would—and I believe that the same applies to the other Opposition Benches. We have the absolute determination to improve and make radical changes to the Bill on its way through this House. One of our first demands in Committee will be for a sunrise clause to delay the introduction of these measures at least until 2004. On these Benches, we will also want to see a range of other improvements: for example, proper safeguards on patient and carer consent and mental incapacity; and a time limit by which a full assessment of care and carer's needs will be completed so that people are not ultimately stuck in care homes. We shall want to see many additional amendments.
The Bill's passage through this House will not be an easy one. I advise the Minister to fasten his seat belt and prepare for a rough ride. We will be doing all we
970
can to eliminate the worst aspects of the Bill. The real question is: are the Government prepared to listen a little, a lot or not at all?
While I have the attention of Back Bench Labour Peers, perhaps I may advise them that when they go to No. 10 tonight they should tell the Prime Minister what a bad Bill this is and how little support it has in this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education Act 2002 (Modification of Provisions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2002
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2953).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name, I shall speak to all the following regulations. I and my noble friends on these Benches and those to whom we spoke during the passage of the 2002 Bill feel entirely vindicated. We predicted that numerous regulations and guidance notes would be spawned by the Bill and they have. Ministers responding to concerns about the introduction of admission forums argued that it would be straightforward—merely reflect best practice—and be simple to apply. We now have nine sets of regulations, and perhaps more to come, two voluminous jargon-written codes of practice with endless cross-references to further guidance and other statutes, and the constant threat of the heavy hand of the adjudicator and/or the Secretary of State.
Many schools of all categories and other relevant interested parties are baffled about the laying of the codes of practice before Parliament which, for reasons I shall explain, we are unable to deliberate upon today. I shall deal first with consultation. A mere 25 days was given for consultation, which was wholly inadequate. The Government breached their own guidelines and code of practice on consultation when they said it should last for at least three months. Previous consultation is no substitute for what are now to be regulations couched in law. The date of 18th September is early in the term for primary and secondary schools. To invite them to respond to such a complicated set of regulations and two large documents in only 25 days is more than any school can cope with.
However, only 637 out of 20,000 were told about the process. The Campaign for State Education, which is anti-choice and anti-selection in education, was consulted. The Campaign for Real Education, which is pro-choice and for selection in education, was not consulted. The Secondary Heads Association was consulted. The National Association of Head Teachers was not consulted. The hierarchy of the

971
Anglican and Catholic Churches were consulted but they did not consult their Church schools, nor did the Government. Of the only 187 written replies, 94 were from local education authorities which in turn did not consult their schools; 50 were from schools which happened to know about the process or were some of the lucky 637; 16 were from Churches and other faith organisations; 17 were from education and children organisations; and only 10 came from parents and other individuals. Consultation has been limited and has been arbitrary.
One argument used by the Minister—perhaps it will be repeated today—was an intention to cut down on bureaucracy to schools. There are two responses to that. First, when the law effects real changes to parents, children, LEAs and schools they should know about it. Secondly, a simple letter explaining the nature and import of these changes to local authorities, schools and other relevant interested parties informing them that regulations and codes had been laid—better still, that they were to be laid, thereby giving notice—and access via the website, or hard copies from the department, should have been made available.
I turn to the incompetence of the department. I called the department before Christmas, as did Dr Marks, the education researcher, and Mr Nick Seaton from the Campaign for Real Education. All of us were told by an official at the department that he could not tell us when the documents would be published and when the code would be laid. The code had been laid on 15th November.
Subsequently, we were told that these documents could have been seen on the website, but they disappeared from the website. I was telephoned by a number of schools—three on a particular day—and by the Campaign for Real Education asking me for news of the codes of practice. Eventually, I telephoned the department and spoke to three different officials that morning. They did not know when the code would be produced. Later that day, I was telephoned by an official who told me that it had been published and laid before Parliament on 15th November and that it was then too late to lay a Prayer to Annul.
The official was puzzled as to how I and others had been misled. I was offered an apology, which I accept. Nevertheless, we were misled—and not only us, but schools, too. Those points alone—the poor and patchy consultation and confusion over the introduction of the code—provide good grounds on which to take the regulations away and reconsider the matter further.
Head teachers, teachers and governors will continue to take a jaundiced view of ministerial promises to cut the level of regulation and bureaucracy. Even now, it is not possible to understand what problem the Government were seeking to resolve by introducing admission forums underpinned by copious secondary legislation, plus two volumes of codes of practice. Ministers from time to time boast about the numbers of children or percentages of pupils who receive their first preferences for choice of a school. If there is a problem—and it does not appear that there is—it is
972
that there are not enough good schools and places. Clearly, when one looks at the competition for entry to the city technology colleges and grammar schools, the problem should not be resolved by this over-mighty, over-bearing and complex set of regulations and codes of practice, but by the expansion of those places, which would gain greater pupil and parental support.
Where a school is over-subscribed, playing around with the admissions system will not allow access for more pupils. The system proposed simply removes control from heads and governors and puts it into the hands of admissions forums, but more seriously, into the hands of an unelected, unaccountable, government-appointed adjudicator. Worse, there is no appeal, other than resorting to expensive judicial review to challenge any decision made by an autocratic adjudicator.
Who in the education system, especially heads and governors, has the time to interpret the convoluted legalese of these documents? Why should a third person intervene when, if an admission goes wrong, it is the school governors and the head responsible for the response. Should fault be found to lie with a third party outside the control of the school, will the costs of any litigation, appeals process and where necessary, the remedy, be met by the Government?
Local education authorities will not be obliged legally to operate the model scheme. However, it is clear from reading these documents that there is pressure to do so. I should like it made absolutely clear that they have no obligation whatever to use the model scheme.
Referring to Paragraph 52 of the annex to the code, why should any school be forced to adopt a home school agreement, if the parent is not required to sign it as a condition of access? Why should a school be forced to take a pupil whose parents are not even prepared to sign up to the way in which the school is run?
Paragraph 7(32) actually says:
"Head teachers have no individual role in school admissions".
Head teachers have no individual role in admitting children to their school? No wonder such emasculation is affecting the recruitment and retention of head teachers.
I refer to the Explanatory Note regarding the eighth set of regulations on the list. I use the Explanatory Note because it is impossible to use the legalese of the regulations themselves. It says,
"They [the local education authorities] are to refer their proposed schemes to the Admission Forum established for their area and to have regard to the Forum's advice or recommendations before consulting each governing body to whom a scheme is to apply".
Having regard to the advice is one thing, but the code should make it clear that that advice is not binding. The Explanatory Note goes on,
"Authorities are also required to consult other local education authorities with a view to securing, so far as is reasonably practicable, that their respective proposed schemes are compatible with each other".
My own local authority is bound by Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Essex. Are we talking about masses of consultation countrywide? In a London authority, there are schools which will have to talk with 40 local education authorities.
As regards those same regulations is Paragraph 2 of the Schedule places a duty on local education authorities,
"in relation to dealing with and determining parents' applications for schools, and paragraphs 3 and 4 place reciprocal duties on participating governing bodies. In particular, where it appears to the authority that a child in their area may be eligible under individual admission arrangements to be offered admissions to more than one school, or is not eligible to be offered admission to any school, they are required to determine … what single offer the parent of that child should receive".
What happens to the legal obligation to take note of the parent's preference?
As regards the second set of regulations, and Regulation 2(5), if a school has met the conditions to earn exemption from the duty to consult, why is it necessary for the local education authority to inform the Secretary of State? The heads, the governors, the parents, the local education authority are the local people. So why do they need to tell the Secretary of State? Why must all those who would have been consulted, had there not been the exemption, have to be notified? If there is no change, what is the point of having to consult?
What on earth is a composite document? It reminds me of a trade union document, as I read this. The composite document has to be produced. They can be separate for primary and secondary. They can be produced, two or more separate ones, for different parts of an area. They have to be produced by the 1st October and made available to anyone who wants them. Who will pay for that and if there is to be no charge, then clearly the cost will fall on the local authority, so what is that cost?
Every governing body must provide specified information no later than such time before the time required for publication of the prospectus, which is 1st October. Where are the schools going to find the time in that very short period from the beginning of the Autumn term to be able to provide all the necessary information?
In the fourth statutory instrument on the list, there is a reference in Regulation 4 to,
"the relevant school organisation".
It would be helpful to know what that relevant organisation is.
There is also further on in the Explanatory Note, a reference to,
"the relevant committee".
It would be helpful to know what that is. Is this covered in the terms of an adjudicator? My understanding was that the adjudicator dealt with those issues that could not be dealt with by the organisational committee. It would be helpful to know what that means.
The fifth set of regulations on the list prescribe: the manner in which an appeal is to be constituted, the duty of the admissions authority to advertise for lay members, the procedure an appeal panel is to adopt when hearing appeals, the relevant considerations which an appeal panel is to take into account, the payment of allowances to appeal panel members and arrangements to indemnify appeal panel members against expenses.
Who pays for all of that and what are the costs?
I turn to the sixth set of regulations. Regulation 6 deals with tenure of members. Regulation 7(5) says:
"the office of chairman and vice-chairman may be held by a person who may or may not be a member of the forum".
Is that really the case?
My final detailed point is about the adjudicator. Any parent may object to the adjudicator about a school where the admissions capacity is lower than the net capacity of schools. I assume that the adjudicator makes this decision alone, that there is no appeal against that and that is an autocratic decision on the part of the adjudicator. Can a parent object to city technology colleges, city academies, specialist schools, schools of partial selection and also grammar schools?
It is worth recording the lengths to which the Government will go in their philosophical objection to selection by ability or even their perception that a school could be selecting by ability. The codes and regulations are littered with prohibitions, checks and unsubtle comments which will exert pressure on parents and schools. Those who will be affected are bright, talented and academically able young people. Those most affected will be those from poorer homes, unable to make alternative arrangements. either by paying for private education or moving house to a better catchment area.
What powers will the adjudicator have over grammar schools? What can a parent complain of and what is the limit of the adjudicator's powers over grammar schools? Delaying preferences on the preference before test requirement will disadvantage many children, again, some of them bright children from poorer homes. Does this requirement apply to CTCs, academies, partial selective schools as well as grammar schools? Why not allow all applications to selective schools, either in part or whole, to take place first, giving all parents of children a level playing field to apply? Then, following allocation to selective places, parents could state their preferences for all the other schools which would also create a level playing field. Again, the children most likely to benefit would be bright ones from poorer homes.
If Ministers are not aware of the deep disquiet among Church schools, they should be. Under present regulations, interviews form part of the admissions process; they have done so for decades. If the Anglican and Catholic hierarchies were concerned about a perception that there was a lack of objectivity—or, worse, a perception that interviews are used to breach the rules on selection—and they knew it not to be the case, they should have stood by their schools and defended them; they should not have deserted them. If

975
the Church hierarchies believed that interviews should be banned, they should have convinced the governors, heads and parents of their own schools and not done a deal with the Government.
There is an excellent article by John Clare in today's Telegraph. I know that everyone wants to go to a party, and so I shall not read it out in full. It states:
"The head teachers complain that they were neither informed nor consulted—and nor were Catholic parents or governing bodies.
'We believe good, conscientious, Catholic parents who are trying to bring their children up in the faith in the face of enormous odds will be aghast when they realise what their bishops have done', said one Catholic head teacher … 'We believe that parents have a right to an interview and an opportunity to represent at interview their commitment to Catholic education and how they meet the criteria of the school"'.
The article continues:
"'Although we write to parish priests for references, our experience has shown that these references alone are frequently not reliable', he said. 'Without an interview if would be more difficult for us to determine the degree of practice and commitment.
There is a serious danger"'—
this is an important point—
'"that the references from priests would determine which applicants would be offered places, and the admissions process would be less reliable. In many cases, parents would be relying on the reference-writing skills of their priests, and there would certainly be a significant rise in the number of appeals"'.
And of course the schools would be held responsible.
Popular schools draw their pupils from a wide catchment area, particularly popular Church schools. It is true that at least one London school has to liaise with 40 local education authorities and independent schools. The way in which this system overlays those procedures is absolutely monstrous and unacceptable—but the voice of such schools was not heard in the consultation process.
It would take a genius to interpret the rules and regulations governing "class-size prejudice". The code of practice, which is meant to be an explanatory document, does not help.
I have merely scratched the surface of the points I wish to make about these regulations. I know that there is to be a party and that there are some fairly anxious noble Lords behind me, so I shall not labour the issue. But let the Minister be in no doubt that what I have said is but a fraction of what I would have said had there been more time.
Finally, I cannot do better than to quote from a letter sent to the headmaster of a former grant-maintained school. After listening to a speech made by David Bell, the head of Ofsted, the headmaster of another school said:
"His [David Bell's] statement that schools are now more autonomous than ever before beggars belief. My experience, and I am now in my 26th year of headship in the maintained sector, is exactly the opposite: we now have less autonomy than ever. LEAs may no longer have the whip-hand but central government certainly does. The system is now tightly controlled by a system of regulation so complex, overbearing and labyrinthine that to call it Byzantine would be a serious understatement".
Those are not my words. As a Member of the Opposition, the House would expect me to say something like that, but those are the words of the headmaster of an exceptionally good school who feels absolutely outraged by what the Government are doing in these regulations and codes of practice. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations laid before the House on 2nd December 2002 be annulled [SI 2002/2953]. —(Baroness Blatch.)
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches share the unease of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, at the peremptory consultation procedure in regard to the codes of practice that underlie these regulations. The time allowed for consultation was totally inadequate and the time of year at which it was undertaken was most inconvenient for all heads. We cannot expect to have proper consultation on codes of practice as important as these at that time of the year and over so short a period. It was thoughtless of the department to proceed in that way. If it intends to introduce these kinds of procedures, the department should give a little more thought to the best way of consulting people. If the Government want to get codes of practice and regulations that have a reasonable chance of being implemented onto the statute book, they should carry with them those who have to implement the regulations. Nowadays we seem to place more emphasis on the whole idea of ownership, and that is an issue that the department should think about to a greater extent.
Having said that, I have read through the regulations and I believe that they implement the Act we passed last year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, they embody all the bureaucratic details that we predicted because of the degree to which the department is trying to micro-manage them, but, broadly speaking, the regulations derive from the changes brought about by the Act. We had lengthy discussions on those changes during the debate and we on these Benches are broadly supportive of them.
We are glad to see the more inclusive arrangements for admissions. We supported the whole concept of admissions forums, but I have one question for the Minister. I understood at the time the Bill was passed that admissions forums would relate to a local area, not necessarily to an LEA area; for example, that in Surrey we would take a group of schools within Guildford and establish an admissions forum to cover the Guildford area. This has been happening within Surrey, where we have tended to work with schools on admissions in local areas which have been broken down to provide geographical cohesion. It is quite clear that the regulations are concerned with LEA-wide admissions forums rather than in terms of breaking down areas, and I wonder whether the Minister wishes to say anything about that.
Regulation No. 2897 seems unnecessary. It relates to the publication of the information that LEAs, heads and governors are required to produce. Do we really

977
need to tell LEAs that they must publish the names and addresses of schools; that heads have to publish the names and addresses of governors and so on? That seems to be teaching LEAs, heads and governing bodies to suck eggs. However, the Government have made it quite clear that they do not trust them to do these things and have decided that it is necessary to go into this kind of detail.
I am sad about that because, as I said, there are aspects of the regulations which we welcome—particularly in relation to the inclusion arrangements. We also welcome the fact that these arrangements cover simultaneously a whole range of schools—voluntary aided and voluntary controlled, foundations and CTCs. I know that the Conservatives are not happy to see this, but we are pleased with the more comprehensive regulations and, in particular, with the attention given to looked-after children and children with special needs in regard to admissions regulations.
Sadly, we accept that, ultimately, the regulations have to be detailed and bureaucratic. They fit in with the whole ethos that the Government are pushing forward. It is sad, but we on these Benches are prepared to hack the Government in bringing the regulations forward.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I can assure the House that I shall not keep anyone from their social engagements. I shall be brief. I wish to speak to these regulations because I have been approached by many people, through the various posts I hold, to express the deep distress that they feel about the way in which this issue has been carried through.
I need not dwell on what my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, have said about the consultation period. It was—I use the word advisedly—a disgrace. I am a governor of a Roman Catholic school, surprisingly. The Roman Catholic hierarchy had not a chance to consult each other because such a short time was allowed for consultation immediately before Christmas. I cannot speak for my own Church, but the same case applied. I am president of the National Grammar Schools Association which represents almost all the grammar schools. Not a word was sent to us. I am also a member of the National Association of Head Teachers. I seem to be unfortunate in the Government's spotlight as regards this matter.
I speak for four Roman Catholic schools of some excellence. The regulations will hit denominational schools hard as interviews are forbidden. As the Minister knows, denominational schools take their pupils from a very wide area. People from Downing Street go to Fulham, for example. The scope is even wider in the country. Priests in very large Catholic churches cannot know in detail the family situation. There may be six masses in the morning in an urban area with hundreds of people attending. How can a little cyclostyled letter, which is often what it is, give the headmaster the knowledge that he needs? The headmaster of a Catholic school, but not in London, I hasten to say, asked me this. The Government have
978
done something which is quite wrong to denominational schools in the interests not of religion but of bureaucracy and interference.
The Government profess that they are not hostile towards grammar schools. They say that it is up to the communities. If they want to vote against them, that is all right, but the Government want to be counted out. These regulations do enormous harm to grammar schools because there is selective entry and the regulations make it impossible for parents to have second choice of the most decent school in the area. In essence, if a pupil fails to gain entry to a grammar school it goes to the school with the least pupils. That is not parental choice. It is an awful dilemma for parents. I cannot understand how a decent, democratic government can do this sort of thing when they are not prepared to abolish the schools themselves.
I wonder how these much-vaunted specialist schools can exist without interview or approach. For example, I may wish to go to a language school, but it would not know whether I know French from Dutch or whether I am interested in languages. What if I want to be a plumber and I find myself at a language school? How are the Government going to organise that?
These proposals are a disgrace. I rarely become passionate about these things. I have been approached by so many people. There is a lack of consultation; lack of care for parental choice; bureaucracy and control from the centre. The only people who will benefit are of the independent sector because those who have money and who cannot get their child into the school of their choice will choose other schools. The Labour Party's policies kept me in a job and gave me a pension for 40 years and the same will apply to my successors.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I declare an interest as editor of the Good Schools Guide. I am enormously disappointed by these regulations. They do nothing for parents, as my noble friend Lady Blatch and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, have said. They make life more difficult for parents. They reduce choice in a practical sense and they inhibit the free exercise by parents of their choice which, in the end, is what drives schools' policy. It is difficult for parents and ultimately it will be damaging for schools in taking this route.
The regulations are a monument to bureaucracy. It is astonishing to have regulations which go into the detail of prescribing the order of examinations in which GCSE results are to be published. Does one have to go after every jot and tittle in regulations such as these and leave nothing for the schools as to how they choose to express themselves. They have to study the regulations to make sure that they have not put an English exam where it should not be, say, after biology rather than at the beginning. Why do these things need to be specified? The situation is the same throughout the regulations. There is far too much unnecessary detail.
I also find it sad that these are such backward-looking regulations. Last week value added examination results were published nationally for the

979
first time. But there is no requirement in these regulations to publish value added data at all. We have the old-style results, but there is nothing about value added. But schools generally have a great deal of value-added information, which would be of great interest to parents beyond the examination results published in the league tables. If we had value-added results on the same basis as the publication of straight examination results published by schools, parents would have a great deal more information about how schools were performing in individual subjects and a greatly improved ability to compare schools, particularly when they have different catchment areas because the raw figures are always distorted by the quality of intake. But by not providing school by school value added results one is again making things much more difficult for parents seeking to choose between schools.
My own particular hobby-horse is the Internet. The year 2005 is supposed to be the time when we have electronic government. The composite prospectuses are to be published by local education authorities. They cannot pretend that they do not have the money and that they are not on the Net. The prospectuses do not have to be published on the Net or made available in an electronic form, yet nothing is being done to make it easier for parents to gather information on schools and compare them. It is astonishing how backward-looking the Government are and how full of froth and air on electronic government when the chance occurs to put something into practice. There is not even a requirement to publish e-mail and web addresses for schools. I find that astonishing and extremely disappointing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for drawing attention to the absence of my colleagues. They have been invited to No. 10 in order to tell the Prime Minister many things. I never intended to go. The first time I went there was in the company of Pierre Trudeau, John Conteh and Robert Morley. I am sure that my colleagues who have gone to No. 10 tonight will have an equally good evening.
The intriguing thing is that although my colleagues are absent, how is it that 25 Members of the Conservative Benches are here for regulations of this kind?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to reply. I am surprised that he asked that question coming, as he does, from the same city and when he knows the disaster which will occur to parents choosing a school. He and I had the advantage of a system where he went to a grammar school as I did. Why does the noble Lord believe that we should not worry about this matter?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, one is always looking for pegs on which to hang a speech. I come from Newcastle upon Tyne and I was born on Scotswood Road. I passed the 11-plus to go to a
980
secondary school. It was not a secondary modern. I went to an elementary school and then passed the exam. But because my dad was means-tested and I was the eldest of five kids, I could not go. Two years later I got the chance to sit an examination to go to a technical school. I passed that exam, but I could not go. It was only when the Open University arrived in the late 1960s that I had the opportunity of testing what I had always felt—that I had a degree in me. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, had the same privilege as I did to sit on the governing council of that university and I know that she will speak highly of that body.
Everyone has spoken with a detailed knowledge of the regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has asked many questions. I have every confidence that my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham will be able to respond to them. I was somewhat puzzled because the first part of her statement deal with the discourtesy contained in the consultation procedure. I shall remind the noble Baroness of many issues raised when she was the Minister on this side of the Chamber. Whenever issues of this kind were raised there were constant complaints about the quality of the consultation which had taken place. I can remember my noble friend Lady Blackstone, my noble friends Lord Peston, Lord Morris and others raising these kind of issues, but not in detail. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was out of order when she talked about the incompetence of the department in this procedure. That may well have been the case, but I do not think that it is on for any Member of this House to castigate the civil servants who are here to look after our interests.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for giving way. I cannot remember a single occasion since I have been a Member of this House when only 25 days were given for a consultation process. Nor can I remember such arbitrary handing out of the documents to be considered, which will impact on every parent and child in the land.
Secondly, I was not looking for a debate on which to hang my speech. I have spent a lot of time this weekend that I would rather have spent with my daughter working on these documents. It has taken a lot of hard work, and I positively resent what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has said. We care about this issue passionately. If the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, goes back to the statute book, he will find that I had this kind of debate when the Bill was going through Parliament.
Finally, when I have to make three calls to the admissions section of a department which professes not even to know what I am asking, I have the right to call that incompetent.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I was referring to my speech, hanging upon the peg given by the allusion that I was an ex-grammar school boy. I was not. On the competence of the department, I have no doubt that the Minister who is here to defend the department will have answers to all those questions.
Forty years ago tonight, I was leader of Enfield council. During that period, I had the pleasure of serving on the governing body of a local school with lain McLeod. He and I had a good rapport on all matters relating to the London borough of Enfield. In the middle and late 1960s, we were plunged into the process of comprehensive education. There is a great deal of understanding across the Chamber—but not with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—about the difficulties of managing a situation to which Enfield is no stranger. Because we have some excellent schools and because of the Greenwich decision, it is possible for pupils to have places in Enfield schools to the detriment of Enfield parents who wish their children to go there. That is a fact of life. It is not made any easier by the language used by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, this evening.
Some Enfield children are unable to go to Enfield schools because children from Barnet, Haringey and Waltham Cross have made a case to go to them. The Latymer School Edmonton in Enfield is a first-class school, which was top of the recent published lists because of the quality of its education and results. I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, of course she is the master of her own language, but it does no good in trying to get an understanding, not only from the Ministers but from the people out in the country, when she castigates the decisions that have been made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, talked of the simplicity with which these matters could have been put right. In my experience, which is not as great as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, or of many others, it is a constant problem. Some thirty years ago, as a Member of Parliament, parents would plead with me that their child deserved a place in a certain school. It was impossible.
The authority in Enfield has changed hands—it now has a Conservative majority. The same kind of problems and anguish that were visited on Enfield parents in the past few years will continue because there are far too many children for the places available. We will hear from the Minister on the detailed points, but I do not think that the debate or the issue is enhanced one bit by the language used by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I have always regarded the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, as a friend of mine, and I have great admiration for him, but I think he is being a little unfair w hen he says that we are looking for something on which to hang a speech.
982
I do not like making speeches; I bored your Lordships in years gone by when I was younger, time and time again, and I do not want to bore you again, but I feel very strongly about the Christian ethos in our schools. For quite a long time, when Roman Catholics were a small minority, I and my family fought for the right for Catholics to be educated in Catholic schools. We fought hard and have been very successful. I am occasionally asked to make the odd speech and give the odd prize at the odd Catholic school, so I know a little about this. The bishops of the Anglican and Roman Churches seem to have been hustled—that is the only word that I can think of—into agreeing something which, if they think about it, cannot be right. I find it very hard to understand that a school should have to take children without going into the ethos of their backgrounds.
One of the troubles in this country today is that so many people and so many children quite often do not realise what is wrong and what is right. It could be said that I am out of touch but, as your Lordships know, there are people who think some things are quite all right which we were brought up to think were sinful and wrong, and we know it in our hearts.
We will never get back a question of ethos if we once lose it. To think of denying it to these schools by trying to hustle them to stop interviews is quite impossible, as people in this House, with all their background knowledge, common sense and Christianity, should realise. Indeed, I do not mind what religion people follow—believing and following one's beliefs are the only things that are important. But to tell me that we are looking for something to hang a peg on is not good enough.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am happy to say that I was not educated in this country, so I do not really have to display the variety of backgrounds that we have seen. I could have come from or not gone to one school or another. But in the 38 years that I have lived here. I have found education, especially school education, to be the most class-ridden and prejudice-ridden subject that I have ever come across. I am astonished by that. It is not as if the old education system—whatever that was—of the glorious 1950s, 1960s and 1970s actually did the country much good. That was when we were known as the sick man of Europe. Therefore, whatever ethos or manners that the school system taught, it was a derided, class-ridden system that harmed the country no end.
In trying to repair the system, we sometimes need elaborate regulations. I am surprised that people say that these are very elaborate—that is the legalese that we have to use. We pass Acts that contain Henry VIII clauses which require us to lay orders before Parliament, and it is not surprising that those orders are very detailed. That is the way that the law functions.
I refer to some recent reforms which sought to remove burdens by annulling certain regulations. I refer to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and documents of up to 300 pages in length that were drawn up just to keep pubs open on New

983
Year's Eve. Why do we draw up such documents? I do not know, but if you are going to do it, you must do it properly.
I have read the regulations and I wish to comment on them in some detail. They have one common theme; that is, to try to simplify the admissions procedures for primary and secondary schools. Many people talk about parental choice. It is a fallacy to believe that somehow choice can be permitted in a system in which the market does not apply. We are not talking about buying cheese or bananas but rather school admissions. If, as my noble friend Lord Graham said, a school is popular, it cannot raise the price of admission as that system does not apply in the schools we are discussing. There must be some kind of rationing mechanism in order to allocate places in schools where too many children apply for the available places. How can one do that? Obviously, one cannot do it without consulting other schools. As has been said, a popular Church school in west London is in consultation with 40 different local authorities surrounding it. That is the way such matters should be handled. We want to be just to the people who want to send their children to the best schools, but without being unjust to other people who also want to send their children to those schools. That is a difficult outcome to achieve.
I believe that the admission forums mentioned in Regulation No. 2900 are an excellent idea. The regulation seeks to co-ordinate admission policies of different schools in a wide catchment area to take into consideration the needs of an entire community. If a child cannot go to his school of first choice, the knowledge of all those running the various schools in the community, that of the local education authority and so on, can be co-ordinated to offer the second best choice to the particular pupil concerned. I do not see what is wrong with that as it is obvious that not every pupil can attend their school of first choice in a system which is based on rationing and not on the market. If people are suggesting that we abolish rationing and completely privatise primary and secondary education, that is a different matter. One hears stories of young mothers with small children staggering to a church to attend services when they are not interested in the relevant religion. They attend the services as that makes their child eligible for admission to the relevant Church school. Some people attend such services not through religious conviction but because they want their children to jump the admission queue for a certain school. Distortions occur when people claim to belong to certain religious sects when they are interested only in sending their children to certain schools. We have clearly reached a point when the present system will no longer function unless we take great care to improve it. As I say, I genuinely believe that the admission forums mentioned in Regulation No. 2900 are an excellent idea.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, an interesting aspect of the matter is revealed in the relevant Explanatory Note. Like the noble Baroness, I prefer to use the Explanatory Note to Regulation
984
No. 2900 as a background to my remarks rather than the body of the regulation itself. It states that one of the roles of an admission forum is,
"to monitor the admission of excluded children, looked after children, children with special educational needs and children who arrive outside the normal admission round; and to consider any other admissions issues arising".
When we talk about admissions we talk about parental choice, Church schools and grammar schools as if the only thing that the education system is supposed to do is to cater for those who are considered to be the brightest and the best and the rest can go hang. As my noble friend Lord Graham succinctly said, he was not given the best chance in his early days as, due to the way in which the education system was structured, it did not give the bulk of the people the best chance. What we are trying to do is improve everyone's chances.
Noble Lords may wonder why I am discussing secondary school education as I do not usually speak on that matter. I lived in Islington for 25 years and was chairman of the campaign for the advancement of state education. I used to publish a magazine from my house to advance the case of state education. Islington co-ordinated the running of secondary schools to improve quality. I was also chair of Islington Labour education group for a number of years. All my children attended local state comprehensive schools. I took a great interest in secondary schools as a manager and as a governor. Therefore, I am not a johnny-come-lately to the secondary school debate.
As I say, the admission forums are a good mechanism to look after the interests of excluded children. I am also impressed by Regulation No. 2899, which is inclusive, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said. I refer to appeals against expulsion. I refer to the welcome procedure outlined in the Explanatory Note which enables parents,
"to appeal against school admission decisions, including decisions refusing permission to children already admitted to a school to enter the school's sixth form…to appeal against the authority's decision to admit a child who, at the time decision was made, has twice been permanently excluded from a school".
Exclusion from schools has made the headlines in recent times. It is to be welcomed that the Government are laying down detailed instructions on the matter.
I refer to the co-ordination of admissions to primary schools. I do not see what is wrong with that. I refer to the Explanatory Note to Regulation No. 2903 which states that local education authorities,
"are to refer their proposed schemes to the Admission Forum established for their area and to have regard to the Forum's advice or recommendations before consulting each governing body to whom a scheme is to apply".
That is a welcome proposition which will improve the way in which our schools are run. I refer also to the welcome proposition that local education authorities are to,
"designate the single day in each year on which their determination as to the single offer of a primary school place which the parents of children in their area are to receive is to be communicated".
Those are good policies.

985
Regulation No. 2901 concerns how objections to admission arrangements should be dealt with. The Explanatory Note to Regulation No. 2901 states,
"in circumstances where the admission authority for a school have determined an admission number for any relevant age group which is lower than the number indicated by the net capacity assessment method set out in guidance".
It is interesting that that relates to the parents' right to object, where parents may think that they have been unjustly handled. If the school has capacity but someone is not admitted, the parents are right to object because, after all, total capacity is the only rationing criterion one can use when prices cannot be used.
There are a number of good detailed recommendations that we should definitely welcome because they will immensely improve the state of our schools.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I shall speak briefly on a particular point arising from an observation in the letter of the angry head teacher quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Before I do so, I thank her for the opportunity to consider this important matter again.
I spoke to the head teacher of the Star Primary School in Newham near Canning Town this morning. She had taught for 30 years and been a head teacher for 18 years. From what she said, my clear impression was that she felt that head teachers were more in control now than they had been in the past. If I understood her correctly, she put that down to their having more control over the spending of the money that they received.
That may have been peculiar to that head teacher's position, because she was in an education action zone and various other zones. It is a deprived area—it has a high level of free school meals—so it is a beneficiary of many additional funding streams. Perhaps there is another issue about increased regulation if head teachers are more in control of funding. I look forward to hearing in the debate some more clarification on that subject.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, the small group of my Labour colleagues who will speak tonight will enjoy two distinctions in the parliamentary history of this House. The first will be our unique numerical presence—small but powerful—and the second will be the fact that each of us, at different lengths, has something important to say.
I speak as a volunteer, not a conscript, to make three points. Access to education is the objective of all decent families for the benefit of their children, but that access needs to be achieved in a way that balances the autonomy of schools and the ability of people to exercise a choice to try to get into good schools.
First, I am dismayed by some of the comments made about the faith background to the regulations and how they may affect faith schools. I attended the debate on the Bill on admission forums, and I do not recall anyone suggesting that the relevant part of the Bill or
986
the regulations would act as a vehicle to undermine, in broad terms, the ability of faith schools to regulate the number of pupils from their own faiths.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is why the schools are also very cross. I too was present at those debates, and I think that I supported the noble Lord in what he said then. However, I can tell him that nothing in those debates indicated that interviews as part of the process of faith schools were to be abolished. One of my questions is to ask where in the legislation is the basis for banning interviewing as part of the process, rather than it simply being in the code of practice.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, to return to the point that I was making, I do not regard the regulations as some back-door opportunity to subvert the right of faith schools to regulate in decent proportion those numbers of children in their schools from their own faiths. If I am wrong, I invite the Minister so to state. If I am right in thinking that the regulations are not such a back door, I am sure that he will make that abundantly clear.
My second point goes to the issue of interviews. I understand from my own experience that, in times past, admission to faith schools has not been solely determined by interview. Therefore, we do not have a state of affairs in which an existing system of admission by interview is being abolished, to repeat the phrase used by the noble Baroness.
I wish to make a practical point as a lawyer. It seems to me an illusion to think that faith schools throughout this country can manage entry by interview alone. The numbers will be enormous, and the practicality of it fraught with difficulty for the schools and the teachers. As a lawyer, I am afraid to say that the interviews, especially for those who were disappointed, would become the vehicle for appeals and, perhaps even worse, judicial review.
It is an ideal that children and their families should be interviewed, of course, but it is hopelessly impractical. I simply do not recognise the validity of any suggestion that the bishops in my Church, the Catholic Church, have deserted their faith schools or been hustled into something that they do not approve. That is simply not the case as I understand it.
On my third proposition, I invite the Minister to give his express views. Autonomy for schools and choice for parents need to balance, in terms of regulation. The one must be fairly set against the other. I must confess that having nine sets of regulations seems a volumetrically excessive attempt to achieve that balance. They are so complex in their detail as to suggest that there may be trouble with them. I invite him to confirm that, in view of the comments made by the Opposition, in the course of the coming year the implementation of the regulations will be reviewed, and that changes will be made if necessary In introducing such a new system of debate about admissions, it would be wrong to give the impression to people that the system was fixed and irrevocable.

987
Those are my three points. First, will the Minister confirm that the standards of faith schools will not be subverted by the regulations? Secondly, interviews are not the only route. Thirdly, in due course the effect of the regulations should be reviewed. The objective that I first described should be the objective at the end of such a review. Is the system working fairly, so that people are being given a choice—so that parents who want their children to go to faith schools know that they will go to such schools? I would not dream of voting for any regulations that subverted that democratic principle.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's view. I do not think that anyone said what he suggested they had done of Roman Catholic bishops; it was that they did not have much time. I am sure that he will support me when I say that Roman Catholic parents who cannot afford independent schools should have the same rights as parents who can afford independent schools to send their children to the faith school of their choice.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I heard the intervention, but I must confess that I did not entirely follow it. I understand that the present set of regulations seeks to allow a reasonable opportunity for parents to make application to the school of their choice. Irrelevant to that is the ability to pay or not, which I am afraid reflects the economic facts of life.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I do not want to help the people in Downing Street any more; many others have done that for them. My point was that a person who could afford independent Catholic education could send their child to Downside, Ampleforth or wherever. However, if the child's education were dependent on a chit from the parish priest, very devout Catholics could fail to get into the state school of their choice. That is where I support the noble Lord on review.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I confess that I still do not understand the comparison between a rich person who can pay for their child to get into a school and those who are not rich and need to approach a priest for a chit, as the noble Lord called it. The fact is that in times past entry to Catholic schools and other faith schools has worked with reasonable efficiency. I do not accept that the regulations are cloaked with the dire effects that Opposition Members have suggested.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have listened to this debate with great interest. Everyone seems to agree for different reasons that this is an important issue. It is therefore difficult to understand—this is the point that still worries me—why there was not time for consultation, particularly of the people who would have to operate the
988
arrangement and those who will have to suffer from it or—this may be so—benefit from it. If this is worth doing, it is surely worth proper consultation.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this debate. It is far better to be here than at some rumoured party at No. 10. I have enjoyed every moment of the debate.
I hope to respond adequately to the wide range of points. I shall begin with consultation, which was raised last—it was also raised first, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I shall endeavour to answer the wide range of questions raised by the noble Baroness. Should I fail in any respect, I assure her that I shall write to her with the answers to any questions that I may have omitted to answer. At the start of this debate, I was in the blissful state of hoping that we were engaging in a limited debate to which I could give extensive time and consideration to the noble Baroness's every question. However, she will recognise that I should need to speak for three-quarters of an hour to respond adequately—I must respond to a number of other contributions—which would bring considerable criticism on me.
I shall deal first with consultation. We sought to ensure that admissions for 2004 should work on the basis of the new arrangements. Working back from 2004, we are fiercely constrained by parliamentary procedures and time limits in terms of the stage at which we must table the code. Our difficulty involved the 40 days of parliamentary time available for praying against the code. I give a straightforward apology to the noble Baroness, who should have been informed that the code was to be laid. I gather that such an undertaking had been given but it was not fulfilled. That is a straightforward apology.
It was necessary to lay the code on 15th November in order to meet the parliamentary timetable, and it was up to the Opposition in this place and another place to pray against the code if they wanted to do so. Laying the code at that date in order to get the principles in place for January and therefore the implementation of the new arrangements meant that the timetable for consultation was more limited than we should have wished. We recognise that that placed considerable pressure on people who wanted to respond.
We set out so far as we could to meet the needs of those who deserved to have been, and should have been, consulted. We were aware of those who have a direct interest in the matter. We targeted admission authorities because they would have the most direct interest in the changes to the regulations, and we consulted LEAs as the admission authorities of community and voluntary controlled schools. We consulted a representative sample of foundation and voluntary-aided schools that were responsible for admission to their schools, and a smaller sample of other non-admission-authority schools. We are open to the criticism that we did not have a consultation process that meant that every school in the country was consulted directly. That would have been a gargantuan task. Our process of consultation involved

989
all those most directly affected as admission authorities. We did the best for them in our time frame to ensure that the consultation was carried out.
We acknowledge all of that. The Act was passed, as noble Lords will recall, in July last year. The time frame in which to implement the regulations has been more limited, which imposes constraints. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggested, the regulations and the code fulfil the concepts, ideas and themes of the Bill that was before the House last summer and which passed into law at the end of the summer. She said that within the framework there now appeared to be only a reference to local education authorities, rather than to sub-divisions of such authorities, which would be more appropriate in terms of admission arrangements. I give her that assurance. We recognise her example from the Guildford area and that, more widely across the country, it might be appropriate if the admission authorities were a sub-division of the local forum and not the local authority in total.
We are dealing with a code, the regulations prior to the code and a framework that was embodied in the Act, which was duly passed by both Houses. We are committed to ensuring that the admission arrangements work to the best possible extent for all parents and children in an area. That is our objective.
Inevitably, the moment at which one uses the word "admission"—to say nothing of "selection", which was raised earlier in our debate—the House responds with considerable passion; those are fundamental issues in education. That is perhaps why we had a larger number of participants in this debate than would normally be expected for such orders. Views have been expressed with considerable passion. I respect those views entirely; I entirely respect the views of my noble friends Lord Graham and Lord Desai, who emphasised why we regard certain processes of selection as unacceptable. However, that does not apply simply to us; I need not reiterate the old and obvious fact that it was Conservative administrations who ended selection in more authorities than Labour governments have done. There is consistent emphasis from the Conservative side on choice, but they also know that parental choice does not hold sway in relation to selection but the decision of the school about whether the student should be accepted by the school authority.
There was a word from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about headmasters and headmistresses not being involved in the selection process. That is merely because the regulation refers to the legal concept of the governing body being responsible as a legal entity for admission. The headmaster and headmistress play their part within the framework of the governing body and under the arrangements that the governing body makes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the code states that head teachers have no role in the admissions process. Those are the words in chapter 7 of the code, and there is a full stop at the end of the sentence.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the code seeks to emphasise there that we do not expect individual
990
students to be interviewed by head teachers and then be selected by them. Heads play their part in governing bodies. It is absolutely clear that heads are involved in a school's admission policy. How could they possibly exercise their dual authority and responsibilities to a school if they did not influence the governing body significantly in relation to the school's admissions process?
Another dimension of this debate which aroused considerable passion was whether the regulations suggested to Catholic authorities that interviews were no longer permissible. That is not the case with regard to the ethos of Catholic schools. The Government were approached by the Catholic authorities, which, like the Anglican Church, took the view that interviews were no longer regarded as the best basis for admission to faith schools. The code merely responds to that initiative. As the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, indicated, better ways exist than interviews to ensure that the ethos of schools is protected and there are better ways of ensuring that the requisite information is received in evaluating the student. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Of course, everyone involved in the process must have regard to the code. The code refers to all the Acts of statute that must be obeyed and by which everyone is obliged to act. Where in statute does it say that interviews cannot, should not and may not take place? The code cannot ban them; they must be banned in legislation. I cannot find that in the regulations and I do not believe it was set out in the Bill that became an Act. Therefore, will the noble Lord tell me which law a school will be breaking if it includes interviews as part of its admissions process?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the school will be offending the code, which derives from last year's Education Act. It was not the first education Act to have implied a code of this kind, and this is not the first code that we have had. The code is a derivative of its predecessor, which embraced a large number of the same concepts. For a considerable period of time—ever since the introduction of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998—we have had to have admissions procedures.
We are cogniscant of the fact that admissions procedures arouse controversy. Nevertheless, 96 per cent of parents are offered a place for their child at a school for which they have expressed a preference. That is good news but we know that we can do better than that. Our research shows that parents find the process of choosing and applying for school places less stressful and easier when admission arrangements are co-ordinated. That is the basis of the new code and that is why it was presaged in the Act passed last year.
It was felt that, through the construction of admissions forums, more effective communication could take place with people in a locality so that they would better understand the co-ordination of admission arrangements. That would result in one obvious benefit. Parents fill in one form for all the

991
available schools and they include their order of preference. Instead of parents having to weigh up whether or not a school is likely to offer their child a place, holding that position against an alternative choice and often being in considerable distress in balancing one possibility against another, we are now ensuring that there is co-ordination in the admission arrangements of a local authority area. That benefit from the code was presaged in the Bill which became an Act and it was generally approved of in the House.
We recognise that a number of questions have been raised about many other parts of the regulations. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I have a considerable argument to deploy in respect of the admissions forums regulations. I shall also seek to answer the questions properly addressed to me, many of which came from the noble Lord's Front Bench. I emphasise that the admissions forums regulations make provision for the establishment of forums, which will ensure that co-ordination exists across the local areas. I emphasise once again to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that local devolution will ensure that such areas can be smaller than the local authority.
With regard to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about co-ordinating arrangements and the legal obligations in respect of parents' preferences, of course the obligations will be honoured. Parents express a preference. The LEA simply sets up a co-ordinating scheme in deciding which single offer should be made where a child is eligible to be admitted to more than one school. Of course, a place will usually be offered at the school which the parent has ranked the highest. That is why the majority of places across the country are allocated according to the first choice of the parents involved. Controversy inevitably occurs where that does not obtain.
There will also be a single offer date. All parents will find out the results of their application and will receive an offer of a place at the same time. That is significantly better than our current arrangements and is the basis upon which the code is established.
The regulations also clarify the conditions under which a proposal to vary an admission number, following approval of statutory appraisals, need not be referred to the schools adjudicator. Therefore, we are ensuring that the admission arrangements for each school and the numbers involved are public and are recognised as part of the overall provision for the local authority.
The objection to the adjudicator's admission numbers—a matter addressed to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—replicates the existing provision whereby parents can object to standard numbers variations through the statutory proposal system. The adjudicator will consider such an objection, as he does all others. Therefore, we are not changing the role of the adjudicator with regard to the crucial matter of the numbers which each school makes available.
992
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, also raised questions on a number of other issues. I shall deal with one aspect, which my noble friend Lord Brennan emphasised strongly. The noble Baroness also referred to the article in today's Daily Telegraph. That is not based upon fact. Nothing is imposed by this Government that makes issues connected with the interview process compulsory for Catholic schools. We have been involved in consultation on the best procedures for selection and for ensuring that the ethos of schools is maintained.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, also asked about the adjudicator's powers so far as concerns grammar schools, colleges of technology and academies. The powers of the adjudicator are not extended by these regulations; it is not possible to remove selection. As she recognises, the only way that selection can be removed is through a ballot sought by parents—a process which, as she knows only too well, thus far has been pursued on only one occasion.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of additional burdens on schools and reference was made to the LEA composite prospectus. That is not an additional burden and there is no new requirement here. LEAs already publish prospectuses with all their schools' admissions arrangements and this regulation merely updates that.
I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we should have additional information on the basis of "value added" with regard to schools. We could not make that provision now because at present we do not have a full range of value-added statistics. The noble Lord will know that in certain areas the statistics relating to schools were first published only recently. However, in due course, value-added information will become available and the noble Lord is right to say that it should be made available. He is also right that we should encourage the development of modern technology, such as websites, so that parents can consult and obtain the information that they need on-line. All that lies a little way in the future. However, we recognise the validity of the case that the noble Lord makes and shall seek to respond to it as and when we can.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the first question that I asked of the Government when they were first elected in 1997 was whether they would reply to my Written Questions by e-mail. I received a similar reply to the one that the Minister has just given. They still cannot do it. I hope that the Department for Education and Skills can do better.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I take on board what the noble Lord has said. I have heard him mention that he received such a reply before. I was not seeking to repeat it verbatim. I was expressing the intention that as much as possible we seek to make education information available on-line. He will be aware of the enormous drive to put computers in schools. We shall make the information available to parents as rapidly as we can, although he will recognise

993
that the quality of the information with regard to value added requires a substantial amount of work. For that reason it is bound to come out in discrete areas.
A noble Lord: Is the noble Lord going to sit down?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as ever I am seeking to be fair to participants in the debate as well as to colleagues who have joined us a little late. I am mindful of the fact that if I were unfair to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in my attempt to answer her questions, she would upbraid me the moment she gets to the Dispatch Box, so perhaps I am saving time by answering the questions as fully as I can.
We have had an interesting debate on the code. As I have indicated, we would have wanted wider consultation before the introduction of the code. We did our best to consult all the major parties. The noble Baroness always makes the point that all schools should be consulted on everything at all times, while at the same time saying that all schools should have the minimum amount of bureaucracy, mail and paper coming through their doors. I shall leave that small contradiction for another day.
I appeal to the House to recognise that in the code the Government are implementing legislation that was duly considered at great length last year—I participated in one or two of the debates—and passed by this House and the lower House. The code merely implements the principles that that legislation brought into force.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are many happy bunnies on the Government Back Benches. They have all been to their party—
A noble Lord: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I can tell the noble Lord a story. I was approached by the Minister's Chief Whip and asked to keep all the speeches on this side of the House to a minimum. We tried to arrange it so that I would speak, then my noble friend Lord Pilkington, followed by perhaps one or two others. I was told that the speech from the Front Bench opposite would be brief so that everyone could go to their party uninterrupted. However, there has been the most successful filibuster that I have ever witnessed.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would recognise that a 21-minute opening speech may also be considered part of the filibuster.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister and the Chief Whip knew that there were nine regulations and a code of practice and that they could not be dealt with quickly. I could have talked for another 20 minutes because I am unhappy about so much in the regulations.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Pilkington that the consultation was a disgrace. It was not right, at the beginning of term, to give primary and secondary
994
schools nine regulations and two voluminous codes of practice to respond to in 25 days. The Minister has just told my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth that the reason for that was to put the regulations in place by 2004. The Minister's code of practice says that the LEAs will be obliged to have co-ordinated schemes for the 2005 intake, so there was no hurry for the consultation to take place. As a result of consultation the time was extended, so they could have had more time and it would have been possible for there to be a better response.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, speaks for the Catholic Church, and for Catholic church schools. I implore the noble Lord to talk to some of the heads, particularly of the London schools, which would not entail a long journey. They are outraged because they did not know about this matter. I was one who was told that the code had not been published when it had been. The heads did not know about it and when they looked at the website it was not there. They regard the matter as important for some of the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Pilkington. They are very cross that a response was given by the head of the Catholic Church and the head of the Anglican Church without any consultation with them whatever. I speak for them and I believe that they should be supported. There is no one else to speak up for them. The Government will not, nor will the Liberal Democrats, so I shall; I am not ashamed to do so.
The Minister made one point that I welcome. He said that the article in the Daily Telegraph was not about making anything compulsory for faith schools. That is not the case. I welcome that. The article was written because John Clare of the Daily Telegraph, myself and the heads of the faith schools believe that from now on they will not be allowed to interview for admissions. That is not in law; it is not in the regulations; it is in the code of practice only and codes of practice are not law. They explain the practice and they refer to statutes but they are not law. Therefore, it will be possible for faith schools, if they wish, to have regard to the code of practice and to take the view that admissions should form part of their process. I welcome what the Minister said, that nothing in that is compulsory and therefore we need not be concerned.
The Minister did not say what are the limited powers of adjudicators or what powers they had over grammar schools. It would be helpful if he could write to me on that point.
I suggested a way of keeping down bumf for schools: a letter to all schools and all relevant bodies telling them that there were to be laid before Parliament nine regulations and two codes of practice and that if they were interested they could gain the information from the website—it would be helpful if that were continuously on the website—and if they wished they could have hard copies. The Minister said that the relevant people who had a direct interest were informed, but that is not right. The National Grammar Schools Association was not informed and a large tract of the regulations deals with admissions to grammar schools.
The answer was extremely disappointing so I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
7.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Luke, L.

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Blackwell, L.

L.

Blaker, L.

Mar, C

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Montrose, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montrose, D

Burnham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Newton of Braintree, L

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Noakes, B

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Northbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.[Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigavon, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elton, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Feldman, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Fookes, B.

Selborne, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Home, E.

Trefgame, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Waddington, L.

Lucas, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Addington, L.

Carter, L.

Alli, L.

Chan, L.

Andrews, B.

Chandos, V.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Christopher, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bach, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Barker, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Crawley, B.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Borrie, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Bragg, L.

Desai, L.

Brennan, L.

Dixon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brookman, L.

Dubs, L.

Burlison, L.

Eatwell, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Elder, L.

996

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Filkin, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mitchell, L.

Gale, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gavron, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Nicol, B.

Gilbert, L.

Orme, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Golding, B.

Pendry, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Goudie, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Radice, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Rea, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Harrison, L.

Roper, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B,

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon, V.

Hoyle, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Chancellor)

Temple-Morris, L.

Jones, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Jordan, L.

Thornton, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Tordoff, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Turnberg, L.

Layard, L.

Varley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Lipsey, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Listowel, E.

Whitaker, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Wilkins, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Privy Seal)

[Teller]

Winston, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Education (Determination of Admission Arrangements) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2996).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there is a sore temptation to help all noble Lords to work off their wonderful party this evening, but I shall resist it.
Motion not moved.

Education (School Information) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2897).
Motion not moved.

Education (Variation of Admission Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2898).
Motion not moved.

Education (Admissions Appeals Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2899).
Motion not moved.

Education (Admission Forums) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2900).
Motion not moved.

Education (Objection to Admission Arrangements) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to
998
Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2901).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have one opportunity to say my last word. I hope that the Minister will write to me on the points that were not met when he responded to the debate. I hope also that he will correct some of his remarks. As a former Minister, if I gave information that was not correct I was always instructed by the then Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Denham, to explain why I misled the House. We received information tonight that was incorrect. I would be grateful for a correction.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we will of course obey the conventions of the House.
Motion not moved.

Education (Co-ordination of Admission Arrangements) (Primary Schools) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2903).
Motion not moved.

Education (Co-ordination of Admission Arrangements) (Secondary Schools) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2904).
Motion not moved.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
(Third Day)
Monday, 27th January 2003.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before calling the Committee to order, I should remind your Lordships that, in the likely event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes precisely, according to the watch worn by whomever is Chairman at the time, which may or may not reflect what is on your Lordships' watches.
Clause 32 [Customer information]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 18, line 30, after "country" insert "as defined in subsection (9)"
The noble Viscount said: The amendments would clarify the exact definition of a "participating country". On page 30, we are told that it means,
"a member State on a day appointed for the commencement of that provision",
and that the Secretary of State may, by order, add other countries. The Bill does not tell us the qualifications for becoming a participating country. Could any country become a participating country? When will the Secretary of State make an order designating a country?
The British Bankers' Association has raised concerns about the matter, as it feels that Britain should ensure that the information that we will be able to obtain will be not less, nor less timely, than that which the UK will normally provide. We should ensure that there will not be differences due to different laws, bank secrecy rules or banking procedures, which affect access to information, particularly if the retail banking structure is less concentrated than that in the UK. Such differences could reduce the benefits from more ready access to information derived from other states relative to the cost to the UK of providing such information in response to requests for mutual legal assistance.
We would welcome assurances that other countries would provide the same service as we would, and we are anxious that no other countries should be added to the list without having implemented similar provisions. We should not forget the cost of complying with customer information orders. Surely we do not
GC 118
want to overburden small banks without, at least, ensuring that we can expect a similar service in return. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support the amendment very much. The Minister explained that different countries dealt with such matters at different speeds. It would be wrong to have an arrangement with a country that was not reciprocal. I hope that the Minister can give a satisfactory reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): The amendments address the meaning of the term "participating country" in respect of the provisions on banking information. The definition in Clause 52 allows the designation of different countries as "participating" for the purpose of different provisions. It provides that,
"A participating country, in relation to arty provision of this Part, means a country … which is a member State on a day appointed for the commencement of that provision".
That enables us to designate certain states in relation to certain provisions. The provisions in Chapter 4 will apply between countries participating in the protocol, which might include countries other than EU member states.
It is possible that, in contrast to the provisions implementing the framework decision on orders freezing evidence, the provisions could be extended beyond the EU. For example, we understand that Norway and Iceland, which are members of Schengen, are interested in participating in MLAC and the protocol. Another example is Switzerland, which is negotiating to participate in Schengen. Should that be agreed, Switzerland would have the same opportunity to participate in the protocol as other states that are part of Schengen and not part of the EU. It might therefore be appropriate in the future to designate Norway and Iceland and other countries yet to join Schengen as participating countries for the purpose of Chapter 4.
As well as seeking to restrict the application of the provisions to European Union member states, the amendments—I recognise that they are probing amendments—would ensure that they applied only between member states that had implemented the protocol, once all 15 had implemented it. Presumably, the concern is that other member states would be able to make such requests from the UK without being able to reciprocate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, suggested. That fear is unfounded. Member states will have had to ratify the protocol before being able to make such a request and therefore would be in a position to respond to similar UK requests.
The protocol can enter into force before all 15 member states have implemented it. Article 13 states that it shall,
"enter into force in the eight member states concerned 90 days after the notification [of completion of implementation formalities by] the state … which is the eighth to complete that formality".
So, it is possible that the UK will seek and provide the new types of assistance on a reciprocal basis with the other member states that have implemented the

GC 119
protocol, even if not all are participating, assuming that the UK is not the last member state to complete its implementation procedures. There is no reason why we should not participate at the earliest opportunity. These are valuable provisions that will assist law enforcement here and elsewhere in the EU.
I hope that that explanation has addressed the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. There is nothing of risk or harm in the measures.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for raising the point. There should be equal treatment as between the different participating members. We will return to that subject. In the mean time, I am grateful to the Minister for that full explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 18, line 34, leave out ", or arrange for a constable to apply,"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 94, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96C, 98A and 101A.
This is a probing amendment to see who it is that the Government envisage will apply for a customer information order. I note that the Minister is trying to extend the list of appropriate applicants by adding Customs officers. May we have a clarification of the word "constable"? Could it mean any police officer? Given the nature of the orders, would not it be wiser to allow only senior police officers to apply for such an order? Do the definitions mirror those in other countries with similar legislation?
Once again, we are conscious of how much the orders would cost to process and of the time involved, on the part not only of the police force involved but of the financial institutions. We fully support having the ability to obtain such information to deal with international crime, but we must also safeguard ourselves—and other countries—from the vexatious use of such orders. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I warmly support my noble friend's amendment. Constables vary so much in their abilities and their sense of responsibility that it would be wrong to put the statutory power into their hands. I hope that the Government will leave that provision out.
I also warmly support Amendment No. 95, which is in the same group.
Lord Filkin: With the present drafting, the constable can apply for a customer information order or an account monitoring order only on the instruction of a senior officer. He cannot make an application off his own bat. The senior officer will always be accountable for the decision to seek the order but will not have to spend time going off to a court to put in the application in person.
GC 120
Requiring applications for customer information orders or account monitoring orders always to be made in person by a senior officer would impose a disproportionate burden on the police and would not be a sensible use of senior officers' time. Clause 46 states that a senior police officer must be at least of superintendent rank—in other words, two ranks above constable. I hope that what I have said and what the Bill says will put noble Lords' minds at rest. Constables will not act on their own authority but can do so only under direct instructions.
The Bill follows existing practice, as constables already have similar powers in relation to money laundering investigations under Section 378 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which defines constables as "appropriate officers". As is made clear elsewhere in Chapter 4, CIOs and AMOs sought because of requests under the protocol have been equated with those for money laundering investigations under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
In response to the question on what is happening with other member states and participating countries, as the legislation is new, we are not aware of their precise arrangements for implementing the provision.
Furthermore, it is likely that the request for an order will arise from an ongoing investigation, on which it is likely that the constable, not the senior officer, will have in-depth knowledge. If a case arises where it is appropriate for a senior officer to make the application in person, the present drafting allows for that flexibility. Given that we think it right that a constable be able to apply for an order on the authorisation of a senior officer, it follows that constables should also be able to make applications to discharge or to vary an order. An order may be discharged or varied if, for example, the requesting authority no longer requires the information, or can narrow down the banks from which the information was sought, possibly on the basis of additional information obtained from other aspects of its domestic investigation.
The government amendments are included in this group, as they raise a similar issue regarding the seniority of officers who can apply for such orders. They allow Customs officers to exercise the power to apply for account monitoring and customer information orders. That is consistent with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2000, which also permits Customs officers to apply for the equivalent domestic orders to assist their investigation. It would be illogical not to allow them to apply for orders of this type in response to overseas requests falling within the Customs investigative remit. In line with the approach taken to police officers, the amendments would also allow senior Customs officers to instruct other Customs officers to apply for such orders under their supervision. The reasons are identical to those already outlined with regard to police officers.
I hope that Committee Members will agree that, to be fully effective, the Bill should be consistent with existing legislation, and should ensure that law enforcement officers are fully equipped to tackle money laundering and financial crime.

GC 121
Amendment No. 113 provides a definition of "senior customs officer" alongside that of "senior police officer".
Viscount Bridgeman: As Committee Members are aware, Amendment No. 94 is a probing amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 14, line 35, at end insert—
"(b) direct a senior customs officer to apply, or arrange for a customs officer to apply, for such an order."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 95A:
Page 15, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) No customer information order shall be issued unless—

(a) the authority referred to in subsection (2) has included in its application a full explanation of its reasons behind the application, and

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that those reasons are sufficient to justify the issuing of the customer information order."

The noble Viscount said: This point has already been covered in part in other amendments. Again, the British Bankers' Association is particularly concerned with it. Although we agree that there are clear grounds for doing so, the appropriate person applying for a customer information order in connection with a serious offence can be only a positive move in the fight against crime. However, we truly hope that these orders will not become fishing expeditions by police authorities who may suspect some wrongdoing but have no real proof.
This is not just a use of an intrusive order. It may also lead to the over-use of such orders, the danger of which in terms of cost and time I have already outlined to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Bridgeman is right to suggest that the authority concerned should give a full explanation of its reasons; otherwise, frivolous applications could be made.
I am sure that my noble friend will not mind my suggesting an alternative way of achieving his purpose. A more compact way of making the point might be to include in subsection (2) a provision that the authority should give a full explanation of its reasons. On principle, my noble friend has raised a point that must be met.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I support in principle the amendment. Article 1(4) of the protocol to the MLAC 2001 states:
"The authority making the request shall, in the request:

—state why it considers that the requested information is likely to be of substantial value for the purpose of the investigation into the offence;

GC 122

—state on what grounds it presumes that banks in the requested Member State hold the account and, to the extent available, which banks may be involved;

—include any information available which may facilitate the execution of the request".

At any rate, paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 95A would simply introduce a summary of Article 1(4) of the protocol; therefore there is considerable justification for it. I can see why it would be undesirable for the receiving body to have to investigate whether the facts, as set out in the information, are correct. It would be inappropriate to ask for the facts to be proved, but there is at least a possibility that, in some cases, it will be apparent from the information provided that it is not an appropriate order to seek. In such cases, it would be appropriate to have some way of questioning the matter. On that basis, I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Filkin: We understand the reasoning behind the questioning on these clauses. But, in practice, for the reasons I shall set out, we do not believe that legislative change is necessary. Clause 32 allows the Secretary of State to respond to requests for customer information orders received from authorities in participating countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, the Bill already obliges overseas authorities to show that their request for a customer information order relates to the subject of an investigation into serious criminal conduct. So the authority making the request must state what it is about.
Any such requests would be made under Article 1 of the 2001 protocol to the MLAC. Article 1 states that the authority making the request shall explain why the information is likely to be of substantial value to its investigation; give its reasons for believing that the banks in the requested member states hold relevant accounts; and supply any further relevant information.
Clause 32(3) makes clear that the issue of whether to respond to an overseas request is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It states:
"The Secretary of State may direct a senior police officer to apply".
If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the request meets the requirements of the protocol, including the provision of the information required by the protocol, he will not take it further.
A further level of discretion is involved in applications for CIOs from overseas. Clause 32 allows the Secretary of State only to direct a police officer to apply for a CIO. The issue of the order depends on Clause 33, which sets out that the making of an order is at the discretion of the judge, who must be satisfied that the conditions of Clause 33(1) are met.
The protocol that these clauses implement imposes, therefore, a heavier burden of proof on those seeking this type of assistance in recognition that such assistance, while essential and valuable, is potentially more burdensome than a mere traditional mutual legal assistance request. We think that the degree of justification provided by the protocol, combined with

GC 123
the discretion allowed by Clauses 32 and 33, achieves the right balance. Therefore, there is no need for further legislative entrenchment, since the protocol requires detailed justification of requests, and we have maintained the discretion not to comply with them if they do not meet the criteria in the opinion of either the Secretary of State or the court, on making the order. I hope that I have addressed the concerns raised on the amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That was an interesting reply. As the Minister said, Clause 33 provides that the judge must be satisfied that the order is sought for the purposes of the investigation. If he does not know the precise reason for the request for the order, how can he know that it is sought for the purposes of the investigation? I appreciate that we are balancing protecting those who bank with banks and so on with our determination to catch the criminals, and that it is a difficult balance to strike. However, can the judge know that the order is sought for the purposes of the investigation if he does not know the precise reason for the request?
Lord Filkin: I would not want to second-guess judicial discretion, but, essentially, the judge will look at the information and evidence that he has before him when he has to discharge his duty under the Act. If he is not satisfied with that information, he will say no to the request. It will then be up to the requesting authority to provide further and better particulars. One hopes that it does not reach that stage because it would be a waste of the court's time. One therefore hopes that the prior discretion which the Secretary of State can exercise will have been exercised vigorously to ensure that such requests do not reach court unless the Secretary of State feels that the duty under the Act had been adequately answered by the information provided by the requesting state.
In practice, that will not blind the relevant officials administering the arrangements. If they are in doubt, they will ask for further information, until they feel that it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion to allow a request to go before the court. So it should not be a passive process. If there is any doubt at an earlier stage, the Secretary of State or, more likely, his officials will have challenged the adequacy of the order by the means I have outlined.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman is saying in Amendment No. 95A. The Minister seems to be saying that what my noble friend wants will happen anyway if the Secretary of State and his officials do their job. Is that right?
Lord Filkin: Yes; I was really giving a further gloss on how, in the situation which the noble Baroness instanced—of a judge being in some hesitation—one would hope that, if the Home Office officials had done their work vigorously, they would already have challenged a draft order which seemed to them to
GC 124
contain insufficient evidence or justification such that a judge acting reasonably could exercise his judgment under the Act. That is correct.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful for that explanation. Returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, we are always modest in our requests. I feel that the provisions of the protocol should be incorporated in the legislation. If the Minister does not feel prepared to give way at this stage, I think that we should like to revisit the matter at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 19, line 8, at end insert "unless disclosure would be incompatible with a Convention right within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)"
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 96, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, also speak to Amendments Nos. 100, 103 and 108, all of which are in the names of my noble friend Lord Dholakia and myself.
Lord Monson: It is Amendment No. 106, not 108.
Lord Goodhart: Yes; I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Customer information orders under Clause 32, account monitoring orders under Clause 35 and the equivalent Scottish orders under Clauses 37 and 40 intrude into the right of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They will contravene Article 8 unless they are justifiable as being prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society and so on.
The Bill would normally be interpreted so as not to conflict with convention rights. However, I have some concern with the wording of Clause 32(7), which states:
"A customer information order has effect in spite of any restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed)".
Similar provisions appear in Clauses 35(6), 37(7) and 40(6). Article 8 could be read as a restriction on the disclosure of information which is excluded by Clause 32(7) and the other subsections to which I referred. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that it is not in fact the intention of the Bill to exclude the convention rights imposed by the Human Rights Act in considering whether a customer information order or an accounts monitoring order can be made. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: The amendments would insert explicit references to the safeguards provided by the Human Rights Act in the four clauses covering provision of customer information and account information. For reasons which I shall seek to explain, we consider this to be unnecessary and even potentially confusing. The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised this issue. Having considered it again, I am satisfied that the response that I gave to the Committee was appropriate. I shall try to explain why.

GC 125
Customer information orders and account monitoring orders potentially engage Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, but the respect for private and family life enshrined in Article 8(1) is qualified by Article 8(2). Any proportionate infringement of Article 8(1) must be justified if it is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. For that reason, the Government consider that the making of customer information and account monitoring orders in the circumstances set out in the identified clauses is justified within Article 8(2).
As the Committee well knows, these provisions support the fight against international crime. They will enable the UK to respond to requests from EU partners for banking information that would help progress an international investigation. They will implement the reciprocal obligation created by the protocol, which will, once in force, enable our investigators to seek valuable information relating to overseas bank accounts of suspects whose criminal activities are being investigated here.
The Human Rights Act applies to all legislation. It would therefore be confusing and superfluous to include additional references to ECHR rights, which would then imply that the provisions do not apply to a particular Bill, or that the ECHR rights always need repetition in Bills in order to take effect.
It may assist if I go a little further. I hope that it is not too technical, but I should like to address the issue of why there is no reference to the ECHR in relation to incoming requests under the protocol whereas there is such reference for overseas freezing orders, to which I have referred.
Clause 21(7) refers to the ECHR for overseas freezing orders. That is to cover situations in which it would be manifestly clear to the UK court that has to give effect to an overseas order that there has been a flagrant breach by the overseas court of the ECHR. In this situation, the UK must not automatically give effect to the overseas freezing order without considering ECHR issues as that could place the UK court itself in breach of its own ECHR obligations.
The framework decision on freezing orders is a mutual recognition measure and provides for only very limited grounds for non-recognition of orders. The protocol, by contrast, is a mutual legal assistance measure. The key difference is that, under the framework decision, refusal by the court is possible in explicit circumstances as set out in Clause 21(6) and (7) of the Bill—namely, incompatibility with the ECHR where the principle of Ne bis in idem (that is, not being prosecuted where there is a previous acquittal or conviction on the same facts) is infringed. Those two grounds are therefore specified in the legislation.
The whole point of mutual recognition is that, apart from these limited circumstances, the overseas freezing order should be recognised. Mutual legal assistance involves a greater level of judicial discretion. The judicial decision is reached here, and so will be subject to the Human Rights Act, rather than in the requesting executing state.
GC 126
I hope that that, although complex, is helpful and addressed the points raised by the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart.
4 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I think it is, but I should like clarification. Obviously, it is possible that someone who is affected by the making of a customer information order or an account monitoring order might challenge the order because, on the facts of that particular case, it is not proportional and is therefore caught by Article 8. Whether or not such a claim succeeds, in that case, would the Government accept that they could not simply say to the court, "You cannot hear this argument; all you can do is decide whether there is an incompatibility"?
Lord Renton: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say that we must be very careful. If we are not we shall find that provisions of the Bill will be incompatible with other provisions and with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights as implemented by the Human Rights Act. At some point we have to make sure that the customer information given in Clause 32(8) does not lead people into a breach of Clause 21(7) or indeed with the Human Rights Act.
Lord Filkin: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton: it is crucial that we ensure that the legislation is compatible. The Government believe that to be the case. The courts will always have to consider ECHR, whether or not it is on the face of the Bill. Clause 32(7) mirrors exactly the wording in the Proceeds of Crime Act.
As to the specific question of whether a person against whom a customer information order was potentially being levied could mount a challenge that it was disproportionate, the answer must in practice be no, because he or she would not be aware that one was being pursued, for the fairly apparent reason that these are essentially covert, rather than publicised, tracking of information measures.
Nevertheless, that does not raise an iota of concern that ECHR will not apply. It will apply and the courts have to ensure that they are acting within it. I was trying to make a comparison as to why we felt in one case that it was right and proper to put the matter on the face of the Bill, but did not feel that it was necessary here.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I shall read with some care what he has said, but I think that he will satisfy me on the point. If so, I do not intend to bring the matter back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96A not moved.]
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Making, varying or discharging customer information orders]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 96B:
Page 19, line 23, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 96B, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 103A, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay.
The amendment reflects the concern of the British Bankers' Association, which although strongly supportive of many parts of the Bill, is very concerned that an undue and excessive burden should not be placed on the financial community.
I seek clarification as to what Clause 33(2)(a) means. Do the Government envisage every financial institution in a certain country, or indeed in this country, responding to a customer information order? Would that not be too burdensome in practice? I shall put the matter in context: the BBA has more than 300 member banks in various countries and this is but one institution. In what situations will such an undertaking be necessary? How often would the paragraph be used? Would it allow fishing expeditions by police authorities with no real direction, at huge financial cost to the banks, bearing in mind that the smaller the bank, the greater the proportionate burden on it? I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: Again one understands these probing amendments. We are not blind to the fact that customer information orders, whilst we think they are a crucial measure in the fight against crime and international crime, impose more burdens than, for example, account monitoring orders would. The amendments would remove the possibility of a customer information order in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland specifying all financial institutions. We think that that is unacceptable for two reasons: first, we have opted for consistency with the Proceeds of Crime Act, so that customer information orders made under the protocol follow the procedures of Sections 363 and 397 of that Act as far as possible.
Secondly, and more importantly, we need the ability to specify all accounts. We envisage that it is a power that will be used rarely, because in the vast majority of cases the foreign investigator is likely to have other intelligence pointing to the existence of an account, which will narrow down the scope. Once we have received the request, domestic intelligence checks through NCIS will be likely to point to the existence of accounts at certain banks, enabling the order to be focussed at particular institutions.
However, we believe that there may be exceptional circumstances when that may not apply. For example, in a terrorism case where there is no evidence pointing to an account at a particular bank, but nevertheless the scale of concern about the potential terrorist offence is such that it would justify a wider search to all financial institutions.
GC 128
"Financial institutions" is defined in the Bill—if I recollect correctly—as those financial institutions that are subject to regulation, which I interpret as meaning those which are subject to the Financial Services Authority. Where that occurs, they would be defined as financial institutions for those purposes. I should emphasise that that is very rare.
I address the understandable concern of fishing expeditions. The Bill gives the Secretary of State discretion as to whether he executes a request for assistance, as we signalled during the discussion on an earlier amendment, and it gives the court a discretion whether to make the order.
One of the matters that the Secretary of State will take into account will be whether the request contains the information specified in Article 1 of the protocol, in particular the conditions in Article 1(4). That includes, for example, the requirement that the requesting authority state why it is considered that the requested information is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation. If that information is not given, refusal may follow. The test is the same as one of the tests under domestic law in PACE. We are confident, therefore, that we will not be allowing fishing expeditions. It will not be a general trawl as to whether one might know of someone who might have done something wrong; it has to relate to a specific investigation. We expect that in most cases there will be evidence why it was thought that there was a UK-relevance to the investigation.
We have not listed these requirements on the face of the Bill but consider that the general discretion conferred on both the Secretary of State and the court as to whether to execute the request and make the order are adequate and powerful. They will prevent fishing expeditions whilst enabling necessary investigations to be undertaken. I hope that I have addressed the questions raised on this probing amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am trying to think of what happens between England, Wales and Scotland in these matters. Supposing there is a request for information from institutions north of the Border as well as south of the Border, when the judge or the sheriff makes a decision, will they consult one another? Might it be that the order was agreed south of the Border, not north of it? Have the Government thought of that matter, or am I asking an irrelevant question? The request could concern banks in both jurisdictions, could it not?
Lord Filkin: The answer to the noble Baroness's first question is no, and to the second it is yes. She is not asking irrelevant questions, and, no, I had not thought of that circumstance. I shall keep talking and wait for inspiration. We shall consider further the question of cross-Border consultation and write to the noble Baroness.
Viscount Bridgeman: In reference to the request made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the theme of the different jurisdictions of the two countries runs

GC 129
throughout the Bill. We should be grateful for a concise explanation at a later stage—if necessary on the face of the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for his full and reassuring reply to the points raised, in particular as regards the safeguards against fishing expeditions. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96C not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 19, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) a senior customs officer,
( ) a customs officer authorised by a senior customs officer to make the application."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Offences]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 19, line 36, at end insert "within the specified period"
The noble Viscount said: This amendment stands also in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay. It is a probing amendment to ascertain what time frame, if any, will be imposed on such orders and investigations.
Clause 37 states that a financial institution must provide information,
"in such manner, and at or by such time, as the applicant requires'".
How variable is that time frame? What will happen if a bank simply does not respond to a customer information order? What are the penalties for not complying on time? What does the Minister see as a reasonable period in which an institution must comply? Will the same period of time apply to all institutions, or will there be differences for multinationals, which will have more staff to cope with such requests; or will they be treated in the same way as smaller, specialist banks, which may find it harder to comply quickly? Again, I make the point that this provision would bear more forcefully on the smaller banks. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although my noble friend has described this as a probing amendment, as a matter of practical application a time limit needs to be imposed. It would be unreasonable, and it would affect a great many people in an unsatisfactory way, if this matter were allowed to spread over a long period. There are several ways of dealing with it, but that suggested by my noble friend is as good as any. I hope that the Government will regard the amendment sympathetically.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—not for the first time. The situation at present is left at large. That is not satisfactory from the point of view of the banks, or from the point of view of the person who is affected by the notice. My noble friend the Minister
GC 130
ought to consider some appropriate provision between now and Report. This is far too important a matter to leave.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: The amendment would make it an offence for a financial institution to fail to comply with a requirement imposed by a customer information order "within the specified period".
We consider the amendment to be unnecessary. The process in the Bill is exactly the same as that used under the Proceeds of Crime Act. If a time limit is one of the requirements imposed by the customer information order, the current drafting provides that a financial institution will be guilty of an offence if it fails to comply, without reasonable excuse, within that time limit.
Clause 32(5) makes it explicit that an order may include a time limit, and investigators would be expected to impose reasonable deadlines. If they do so, then the financial institution,
"must provide the information … to the applicant for the order in such manner, and at or by such time, as the applicant requires".
To go further than that would seem to present difficulties. There are two variables: one is the degree of urgency and the other is the degree of difficulty in locating the account. Therefore, it is not reasonable to think that one can impose a standard time period: circumstances will arise where the urgency of the need for the information—I shall not talk at length again about terrorism—may clearly suggest that one wants a very rapid response from the responding financial authorities. In other circumstances there may be no particular urgency other than that one wants to speed the process, and a week or two weeks may be perfectly adequate.
I not sure whether there is an enormous differentiation in the ability of banks of different sizes—international, multinational or smaller financial institutions—to respond. I should have thought that all would have a similar challenge in terms of inspecting their accounts electronically to see whether an account was held by the person who was the subject of inquiry by the authority making the original request.
Investigations currently involve financial institutions, often with orders under PACE. There is always an element of discretion in relation to the operation of such orders. The circumstances of orders are so varied—from major multinationals to small organizations—that standard time limits would be unworkable, whereas there may well be cases where time limits are specified.
Current production orders under PACE do not operate within rigid and fixed time scales, whereas under the Bill is it possible to specify time limits that ought to be reasonable and within which the responding financial institution could be expected to respond unless it could demonstrate a good reason for

GC 131
not being able to do so. For the reasons that I have given, I believe that the flexibility in the legislation as drafted is exactly right.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Why does not this provision refer to the earlier one in order to make the situation clear? At present, it is not.
Lord Renton: The Minister has referred to the fact that financial institutions may vary greatly in size, importance and character. Therefore, instead of "the specified period"—the words in the amendment—the reference could be to "a specified period". That would need to be in accordance with the circumstances, but at least "a specified period" would be written on the face of the Bill.
To allow this heavy obligation to drag on indefinitely would be quite wrong. An attempt must be made to bring the matter to a head. That can be done only if the Bill contains a provision along the lines of "a specified period".
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for their support for the amendment. I venture to suggest that, whereas the noble Lord—
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not entirely sure that I support this specific amendment. I was thinking of another situation entirely.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the spirit in which the amendment was put. Perhaps I may just make an observation. The Minister said rightly that there is probably little difference between the ability of various banks to comply, but there may be considerable difference in their willingness to comply. For that reason, we should like to revisit this issue at a later stage in the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 97B:
Page 19, line 41, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) knowingly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular, or"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 97B, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104A, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay. I believe that paragraph (a) clumsily drafted. I am informed that the form of words in the amendment would be more pertinent. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I prefer the paragraph as it stands. It is perfectly clear and unambiguous, whereas the wording suggested in the amendment could be interpreted in at least two different ways. For example, it could catch an institution which, in good faith, asserted that a statement was true, only for it to be discovered later that it was false.
Lord Filkin: Not for the first time I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for the reasons that he gave. We consider that while these amendments are essentially drafting points, the provisions as currently drafted have more clarity and less ambiguity. Furthermore, the current drafting is consistent with the Proceeds of Crime Act, which makes it an offence for a financial institution to make a statement it knows to be false or misleading. The offences attract exactly the same penalties as those under that Act.
The drafting in the amendment is such that it could mean that a financial institution in order to be guilty of the offence must knowingly make a statement, rather than make a statement that it knows to be false or misleading. Therefore, we need to maintain current drafting for those reasons. The need for such a provision is self-evident: I do not think that I need to go into detail on that.
There are two offences under this part of the Bill. The penalty for the first—failure to comply—is a fine not exceeding level 5, which is currently £5,000. The penalty for the second—for knowingly or recklessly making a false or misleading statement in relation to a customer information order—is a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. That is currently unlimited. For those reasons, I hope that I have addressed the probing amendment raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: This is one of the most important clauses in the Bill because unless there is a clear provision in the Bill to enable its provisions to be enforced, we shall be enacting a nullity. It is very important to have the offences set out. We have already discussed several of the points that concern Clause 34. But, between now and Report stage, I implore the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to consider generally whether, in the light of everything that he wants to have enforced in previous provisions of the Bill, Clause 34 describes adequately the offences and ensures that they will be adequate in enforcing the legislation.
Lord Filkin: I am very happy to give that undertaking to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He is right. It is crucial that this Bill works. Adequate offences, which provide an adequate stimulus for compliance, are an essential part of so doing. I, with my officials, shall give further reflection to that. If the noble Lord, with his usual acuity, spots any further areas where there is any doubt, I should be most grateful if he would let me know of them and we shall test those further.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Account information]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 20, line 10, after "into" insert -serious"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 98, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 101, 105, 107 and 111. I believe that I have the numbers correct this time. The amendments arise from the distinction between a customer information order under Clause 32 and an account monitoring order under Clause 35. A customer information order is triggered only where the customer concerning whom the information is sought is subject to an investigation into serious criminal conduct. An account monitoring order is triggered by an investigation into criminal conduct, whether the crime is serious or not.
Amendments Nos. 98, 101, 105 and 107 seek to limit account monitoring orders to investigation into serious crime. The purpose of Amendment No. 111 is to impose the same limit on the outward request. Amendment No. 112A, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, picks up a reference that I had not spotted, although it is to the same effect.
Why is there such a difference? A customer information order is wider than an account monitoring order. A customer information order requires more information to be disclosed. Both orders are highly intrusive and, on the face of it, should be subject to a requirement that the investigation be into serious criminal conduct. I assume that these amendments are intended to mirror the apparent differences between Articles 1 and 2 of the 2001 protocol; namely, that the customer information order mirrors Article 1 and the account monitoring order mirrors Article 3.
Article 1 specifically states that:
"The obligation set out in this Article shall apply only if the investigation concerns:
an offence punishable by a penalty involving deprivation of liberty or a detention order of a maximum period of at least four years in the requesting State and at least two years in the requested State".
There is a further reference to an offence in Article 2 of the Europol convention. Those definitions are incorporated into the definition in this Bill of a "serious criminal offence".
There are two questions that arise. First, what is the justification for the variance if they are differently treated under the protocol, because while there is a difference it does not appear to be substantial enough to justify the variance between serious and non-serious criminal conduct? Indeed, I think that it opens up the wider question as to whether there is a difference in the protocol.
Article 3 concerns:
"Requests for the monitoring of banking transactions".
Article 3(1) states that:
"Each Member State shall undertake to ensure that, at the request of another Member State, it is able to monitor, during a specified period, the banking operations that are being carried out through one or more accounts specified in the request and communicate the results thereof to the requesting Member State".
GC 134
At that stage there is no reference to a serious criminal offence or criminal conduct of any type.
Paragraph (2) states that:
"The requesting Member State shall in its request indicate why it considers a request in information relevant for the purpose of the investigation into the offence".
There is no indication as to what the words "the offence" refer. It seems to be at least a credible interpretation that they are a reference to the same kind of an offence as would trigger a request for information under Article 1. I would like some explanation of why that is not the case.
Finally, if Article 3 does not require the test of serious criminal conduct, that might bind the United Kingdom and render us unable to insist on there being serious criminal conduct for an incoming request. However, there is no reason why the United Kingdom courts should not apply a higher standard—the test of serious criminal conduct—for outgoing requests made under Clauses 43 and 44.
I am sorry for raising these complex questions of interpretation, but I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say about them. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 101, 107, 111 and 112A. We are coming by a slightly different route to the question raised in considerable detail by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. My simple question is: does this mean that the Government want to extend the use of monitoring of banking transactions and other provisions to all criminal conduct, or is this merely art oversight and should "serious criminal conduct" he universal throughout this chapter? If the Government envisage all criminal conduct for some of these provisions, what is the justification?
Lord Renton: The Government already use the words "serious criminal conduct" in Clause 37(1) and Clause 38(1) in this part of the Bill. I do not think there is any definition in the Bill of the difference between criminal conduct and serious criminal conduct.
I confess that in my ancient experience of criminal work, now going back many years, I was never a specialist, but I did a lot. I did my first criminal case back in 1934 and my last in 1976. I do not remember any distinction being made then between criminal conduct and serious criminal conduct. It may be that owing to my ignorance, as I have not appeared in a criminal court for many years, I am misguided in thinking that there is no statutory definition of the difference between the two. Within the same part of the same Bill, we must not have some provisions referring to criminal conduct and other provisions referring to serious criminal conduct without there being a definition.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord did not mention Clause 32, which also refers to serious criminal conduct. I confess that I am baffled by the word "serious". The consequences of any criminal

GC 135
conduct can be serious for the person concerned. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to think again about the terms that have been used.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the important point that requests that come in two directions should not be in relation to very different levels of offence. I think he suggested that it might be a serious offence coming one way and not so serious the other. Will the Minister reassure us on that point?
Lord Renton: I confess to an oversight. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for pointing it out to me. Clause 46 is headed "Interpretation of Chapter 4". Serious criminal conduct is defined in subsection (3) as conduct that constitutes,
"an offence to which paragraph 3 of Article 1 … of the 2001 Protocol applies",
or,
"an offence specified in an order made by the Secretary of State or, in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers for the purpose of giving effect to any decision of the Council of the European Union under paragraph 6 of that Article".
I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out and I apologise for not having noticed it sooner. All the same, we must be very careful, bearing in mind that the Bill has used the expression "criminal conduct" frequently so far throughout Parts 1 and 2. The definition of serious criminal conduct is much narrower. If "serious" is to be inserted in a number of new places, we must bear in mind the limitation that it imposes.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right. It is always a sign of a Committee working well when its members answer each other's questions and reduce my burdens. I shall speak to the essence of this important issue of why we use the word "serious" in some cases and not in others.
The amendments would limit the assistance that the UK could provide in response to requests for account monitoring to cases of serious criminal conduct rather than criminal conduct generally. Requests for customer information orders under the protocol are limited to investigations into serious criminal conduct, as set out in Clauses 32, 33, 37 and 38. This is in accordance with the terms of the protocol, which only requires member states to assist in limited circumstances on customer information orders, in recognition of the potentially higher volume of work flowing from such requests.
Account monitoring orders are focused on one specific named account and are therefore much less resource-intensive for a financial institution to respond to. Furthermore, they are based on concrete evidence of the existence of an account. They are also arguably less intrusive, as they seek information about an account that has already been identified, whereas customer information orders are designed to identify any account that an individual might hold.
GC 136
That is why the differentiation was made in the negotiations on the protocol. We recognised that customer information orders are necessary and will play an important part, but, as they are likely to impose a greater burden on financial institutions than will an account monitoring order, it seemed reasonable to the negotiators—of which we were one—to limit them to the serious cases, as defined in the Bill and the protocol.
The Committee may also be aware that it is already possible under existing mutual legal assistance arrangements for constables to apply for historic account information to be produced to a court in relation to any criminal investigation without any dual criminality. That is done under Section 4 of the 1990 Act—Clause 15 of the Bill—whereby a bank employee may be summoned to produce this information before a court. This new provision is different only in that it relates to future transactions rather than to historic ones. It is likely that a single request would ask for historic information and for the account to be monitored. It would be cumbersome and impractical to be able to accede to the first half of the request and not to the second solely on the ground that the crime was not serious. The purpose is to help to identify and trace criminality. That is why member states thought this was desirable. We therefore need to do all we can to help our partners tackle international crime. Perhaps more selfishly, it is crucial that they cooperate with us in our pursuit of it.
The wider availability of account monitoring orders reflects the conditions for providing this type of assistance, set out in Article 3 of the protocol to the mutual legal assistance convention. This does not limit account monitoring information to cases relating only to serious criminal conduct.
Finally, I remind the Committee that this is a mutual legal assistance measure, not mutual recognition. The decision to grant a request for an account monitoring order is subject to judicial discretion. Clause 36(1) provides that a judge may make an order. The judge must be satisfied that there is a criminal investigation and that the order is sought for the purposes of that.
If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, correctly, I cannot easily think why we might want a higher test for outgoing requests than that in the protocol. Such a self-denying ordinance would mean denying ourselves the potential to use the protocol to identify potential criminality. That would be against our interests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right that this applies either way. It is a reciprocal arrangement. I hope the Committee agrees that I have addressed most of the points. I hope I have done so to the Committee's satisfaction.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I shall consider what he has said and decide whether the matter needs further consideration. It is at least possible that we shall wish to pursue it at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98A not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 20, line 15, at end insert—
"(b) direct a senior customs officer to apply, or arrange for a customs officer to apply, for such an order."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 99A, I inform that Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 100.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 99A:
Page 20, line 24, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Viscount said: The amendment would leave out the subsection that allows an account monitoring order to have effect in spite of any restrictions placed on the disclosure of such information, however imposed. That seems to be a very wide power. Our legal system has safeguards that do not allow disclosure in certain circumstances, such as if the information would tend to incriminate the person concerned or the documents are protected on the ground of public policy. While I am not advocating that these should be implemented here, would not the clause have implications with regard to the Human Rights Act? Should there not be some safeguards against disclosure? I look forward to clarification from the noble Lord on that. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: Clause 35(6) states:
"An account monitoring order has effect in spite of any restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed)".
That provision is replicated in Clause 40 for account monitoring orders in Scotland, and in Clauses 32 and 37 for customer information orders. The provision directly replicates Sections 368, 374, 402 and 407 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which makes identical provision in relation to customer information orders and account monitoring orders made under it.
The purpose of the provision is to require a financial institution to provide the information specified in the order. The requirements for information made under the powers of investigation take precedence in spite of any restriction on the disclosure of information. Banks are therefore able—indeed, required—to breach customer confidentiality and provide the requested information to the court in response to a lawfully made order.
The provision is necessary because otherwise financial institutions could use customer confidentiality as a reason not to accede to a customer information or account monitoring order, which would make them very weak investigatory tools and therefore largely frustrate the purpose of the protocol and the agreement.
As I have said in previous discussions, the ECHR is fully in operation. Banks or financial institutions have to respond to any lawfully made order. That comes back to the point that we touched on previously. In
GC 138
exercising its discretion on whether to make an order, the court has to think whether it is lawful and reasonable, taking account of the obligations under the Act.
For those reasons, the limits on disclosure cannot be made a judgment by the financial institution, but they are part of the consideration that the court has to exercise when deciding whether it would be lawful to make an order under the Act.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full reply, by which I am persuaded. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Making, varying or discharging account monitoring orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 101 and 101A not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 21, line 4, at end insert"—
( ) a senior customs officer,
( ) a customs officer authorised by a senior customs officer to make the application."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Customer information]:
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Making, varying or discharging customer information orders]:
[Amendment No. 103A not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 22, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108 and 110. These are technical amendments necessary to ensure that the provisions on banking information for Scotland accurately reflect Scottish procedure. I shall go slightly further, with some temerity. My summary notes describe these three measures as "technical Scottification"—a term that I have never heard before. I am not sure it will catch on.
The first two amendments remove references to a senior police officer from Clauses 38 and 41, which deal with the making, variation and discharge of customer information orders and account monitoring orders in Scotland. This will ensure that Scottish procedure is accurately reflected. In contrast to the rest of the United Kingdom, as provided for in Clauses 32 and 35, under the Scottish provisions in Clauses 37 and 40 police officers do not apply for customer information and account monitoring orders. In Scotland, the procurator fiscal has responsibility for the application to the sheriff for the customer information order and the account monitoring order, so it is appropriate that only the procurator fiscal may

GC 139
apply for a discharge or a variation under Clauses 38 and 41. For this reason, it is inappropriate to refer to a senior police officer in these clauses.
The purpose of the third amendment is to clarify in relation to Scotland that the reference in subsection (7) to a power of attorney includes a "factory and commission". Factory and commission is a deed empowering another act for the grantor, such as buying and selling shares, similar to the English power of attorney. This is a technical amendment to reflect the position of the Scots law, where an agency arrangement may be established in writing as either a power of attorney or factory and commission. This agency could be used to operate an account on behalf of another. The amendment clarifies the intention that in whatever form the arrangement is established the agent is a person who holds an account for the purposes of Clause 43. I hope that is an adequate explanation for these three government amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think lawyers in Scotland are extremely anxious that only they should understand some aspects of the law, so that they can have lots of customers. I have never heard of factory in this sense. I looked it up in the dictionary, which gave an ancient meaning of "that which is done by a factor". I suppose that is the derivation. That is interesting. I hope the amendments clarify the law. I do not think that they do so for most Members of the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Offences]:
[Amendment No. 104A not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Account information]:
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Making, varying or discharging account monitoring orders]:
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 23, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Information about a person's bank account]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 24, line 31, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 112 is also in this group. Amendment No. 109 would remove subsections (3) and (4). Clause 43(1) authorises a judicial authority in the United Kingdom, on an application made by a prosecuting authority, to request assistance to obtain from another country the equivalent of a customer information account. Clause
GC 140
44 again provides for a judicial authority, on an application made by a prosecuting authority, to make a request to an overseas authority in a participating state for assistance that is equivalent to an account monitoring order.
Subsection (3) and (4) of both clauses authorise a prosecuting authority that is designated by an order made by the Secretary of State in England or by the Lord Advocate or a procurator fiscal in Scotland to bypass the need for judicial authority and to make a request directly to the overseas authority. Given that it is broadly accepted that the orders are seriously intrusive, there should be a judicial filter between a prosecuting authority that wishes to have the information and the foreign authority or bank in a foreign country that will be bound to provide it. For those reasons, we believe that subsections (3) and (4) of both clauses should be removed. Only a judicial authority should be able to authorise the application for the order directed to a bank in a foreign country. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly says, these clauses deal with outgoing requests under Article 1 of the protocol to obtain customer information orders. The amendments would prevent designated prosecuting authorities from applying to countries abroad for information relating to banking transactions that would be relevant to an investigation into criminal conduct in the UK. The first amendment relates to the ability of prosecuting authorities to request information concerning any overseas bank accounts that the subject of an investigation may hold. The second relates to the ability to request information about ongoing transactions in respect of a specified overseas bank account—what we have referred to as account monitoring orders in domestic terms.
The Government believe it is right to give designated prosecuting authorities these powers. In practice, it is not the courts, but the designated prosecuting authorities—the Serious Fraud Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise—that are responsible for the vast majority of outgoing requests for all forms of mutual legal assistance. Their role in making such requests is well established on a domestic and international basis, as is the equivalent role of the Lord Advocate and the procurator fiscal in Scotland.
If the designated prosecuting authorities were unable to apply for this type of request—as they currently do—which will be the equivalent of seeking a customer information order or account monitoring order in the domestic context, they would be required to go to a court to make applications on their behalf. This would impose an unwarranted extra burden on the courts and require them to do work that could be adequately handled by a designated prosecuting authority. I find it hard to see why we would not give such prosecuting authorities power to request such information internationally when they are able to do so in a domestic context.

GC 141
It may be useful if I specify the designated prosecuting authorities identified by statutory instrument under the 1990 Act so that that is on the record. They are: the Attorney-General for England and Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions and any crown prosecutor, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the commissioners of Customs and Excise, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The Bill gives power to the Lord Advocate and the procurator fiscal for Scotland.
These authorities are very experienced in mutual legal assistance. We do not consider that the courts could add anything to a process that is just another form of mutual legal assistance. It is far more effective if those who have knowledge of the cases are able to make requests concerning them. I therefore urge the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendments for the reasons I have given.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Am I right in being surprised that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not included in the list for Scotland? Might he want to do it? I think his writ runs in Scotland. Or am I wrong?
Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness is right to note that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is included, but I do not think that she is right to be surprised. The Secretary of State already has prosecuting powers under domestic legislation, but it is not included for Scotland. The procurator fiscal does it all in Scotland.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I shall consider further what he has said and decide in the light of that consideration whether to take these amendments further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 25, line 13, at end insert—
"In relation to Scotland, a power of attorney includes a factory and commission."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [Monitoring banking transactions]:
[Amendments Nos. 111 to 112A not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 112B:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
"ANNUAL REPORT ON EFFECTS OF REQUESTS FOR BANKING INFORMATION
(1) The Secretary of State shall publish each year a report on the effects of requests for banking information introduced under this Act.
GC 142
(2) In each report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall include—

(a) a cost assessment of complying with a request for information,

(b) the frequency of requests from participating countries, and

(c) the time taken to comply with requests."

The noble Viscount said: The amendment could be described as a good housekeeping amendment, inspired by the British Bankers' Association. It would require an annual report, which would evaluate how much the banking provisions of the Bill are used. In particular, it would be useful to review the unit costs of handling individual cases or the number of inquiries received by the UK under the protocol, if it proves to be significantly greater than estimated.
Consideration should be given to simplifying the procedures for responding to such inquiries so as to reduce the average time that must be spent on handling an inquiry. That might be particularly important for small banks with more limited resources—a point that I have sought to make before. I must also add that the BBA and its member banks hope that they will be invited to participate in any future discussion of the procedures for handling requests, once an order has been made. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Whether or not one agrees with the detail—and I do—this is an important amendment. The Bill breaks new ground internationally and will affect people's rights all over the world— potentially, at any rate. We should know, from time to time, what progress has been made in implementing it.
The new clause merely asks for details of the effects of requests for banking information. That is not a big demand, but it is important, and I would have hoped that the Government would be sympathetic.
Lord Monson: On this occasion, I am happy to agree with the noble Viscount. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, we are in uncharted waters. Parliamentarians and the public have a right to know the cost to the taxpayer of complying with the requests and to know how often such requests are made.
Lord Filkin: Clearly, something has gone wrong with our procedures. Normally, when we discuss annual reports, it is my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton who responds. That apart, I shall address the meat of the issue.
The Opposition proposed a similar arrangement, with the addition of having an independent person to make the report, in respect of the new arrangements for orders freezing evidence. We understand the reasons behind the proposal; the arrangements for providing and receiving banking information to and from our EU partners are new, and it is right that Parliament should have a continuing interest in their use and operational experience, as several noble Lords have said.
As with the proposal relating to freezing orders, we do not see a need for a statutory requirement for a report. It will be open to Members of the House of

GC 143
Lords and MPs to obtain information on the working of the new arrangements by tabling Parliamentary Questions. That will be a proper and existing method of scrutiny for the working of the provisions. In other words, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is right that we should know, from time to time, how the measures are progressing. Parliamentary Questions provide a good means of doing that. However, imposing for time ever onwards a requirement for an annual report would be disproportionate and a potential waste of resources.
Noble Lords have referred to the cost of complying with the requests. It might help if I gave some further information about our estimate of that. As part of the process of planning implementation of the protocol, the Home Office published a regulatory impact assessment that considered the likely cost of complying with the requests. It estimated that the cost of complying could be between £1.26 million and £3.77 million a year for the banking industry, depending on the number of requests received.
Our estimate of the number of requests that we might receive was based on the estimates made for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and on the volume of mutual legal assistance requests that we already receive. We considered that, under the protocol, we could expect to receive between 250 and 350 requests a year from our EU partners in respect of customer information orders and account monitoring orders. A high proportion of those requests will relate to money laundering, the costs of which are already included in the regulatory impact assessment for the Proceeds of Crime Act. The extra cost referred to above related to the estimated number of requests that would relate to other forms of crime.
For customer information orders, it was estimated that we might receive between 50 and 100 additional serious crime requests. For account monitoring orders, we estimated between 50 and 75 additional requests. In both cases, they are annual figures. All that is set out in detail in the regulatory impact assessment, available on the Home Office's website.
I shall say a little about how the process will be administered in practice. I shall respond to the noble Viscount, who asked whether the British Bankers' Association would be invited to participate in handling arrangements. We will, of course, consult the association and other relevant bodies about the handling of such matters.
All requests will be received centrally by the UK Central Authority, which will establish whether the request meets the necessary criteria set out in the Bill and the protocol. If it does, the authority will forward the request to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. NCIS will undertake certain intelligence checks to see whether accounts exist and will then apply to a court for an order. A customer information order will be directed at a number of institutions. It might involve one or two institutions, to obtain details of accounts identified by the initial checks, or a larger number, if that is appropriate to the case. In the case
GC 144
of account monitoring orders, the account will already have been identified, so the order will be directed at only one institution.
As noble Lords will, no doubt, point out, regulatory impact assessments are an honest endeavour to make the best assessment that one can of volume, scope and burden. I have no doubt that practice will show some variation from those figures, upwards or downwards. So, it is right and proper for Members of the House to be able to make inquiries after a year or two about how the process is working. Parliamentary Questions are an adequate means of doing so and, if necessary, ensuring that the Government are brought to account for the operation of the measures.
Viscount Bridgeman: We are, of course, mindful that unnecessary expense must not be incurred in an exercise such as that outlined in the amendment. Nevertheless, I shall study carefully the Minister's reply. Transparency and reporting to the public are desirable, and we may revisit the issue on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Interpretation of Chapter 4]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 26, line 11, at end insert "and
"senior customs officer" means a customs officer who is not below the grade designated by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise as equivalent to that rank."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 26, line 14, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) an offence which carries a prison term of 10 years or more, or"
The noble Viscount said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 113B and 113C.
This is a probing amendment. "Serious criminal conduct" is defined as an offence under the 2001 protocol or as an offence specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. The matter was the subject of a previous amendment. Which other countries follow the guidelines? Have the guidelines ever been or could they be amended? Would it not be better to list them in the Bill, for the sake of clarity?
With regard to the other two amendments, it should be well known that we oppose the idea that the Secretary of State should have more power. These standard amendments would ensure that new offences added to the list were properly debated by Parliament and would make similar provision for Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Although I am reluctant to support Amendment No. 113A, I think that there is much to be said for making either Amendment No. 113B or 113C. Given the intrusive nature of the customer information orders, it is important that we make sure that their use is limited to genuinely serious offences.

GC 145
Any extension of the order using subsection (3)(b) should be subject not to the negative resolution procedure but to affirmative resolution.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I also support the idea that my noble friend should look carefully before he limits the ability of Parliament to scrutinise legislation. For all I know, my noble friend may have a serious point to make by way of rejoinder, but the burden of proof falls fairly and squarely on him. If I had been in the noble Viscount's position, I would have moved the amendment without any hesitation. That does not mean that there is no answer to the amendment, but the burden of showing that there is falls on my noble friend. I hope that he will be able to discharge that duty.
Lord Renton: I will make a wide, fundamental case for Amendment No. 113A. First, I must confess that, in an earlier discussion, I overlooked the definition of "serious criminal conduct" in the clause. The more I think about it, the more I think that confusion will be caused by having two types of criminal offence —a "criminal offence" and a "serious criminal offence", however defined. There is plenty of time between now and Report for the Government to consider whether the definition will enable justice to be done or even allow the law to be properly complied with.
As we are breaking new ground in international law, as well as domestic law, we must be careful about making that somewhat artificial distinction. If we are to make it, I prefer the definition put forward by my noble friend in Amendment No. 113A to that in the Bill. The definition in the Bill is artificial and vague. It would be better and would improve the effect of the Bill if we were to abolish the distinction between "serious criminal conduct" and "criminal conduct".
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, Amendments Nos. 113B and 113C are of a familiar kind. They would only improve the Bill, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to them.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Regardless of the major point made by my noble friend Lord Renton, I point out to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman that Amendments Nos. 113B and 113C will not do. If they were agreed to, orders defining offences would have to be made by the Scottish Parliament, because it makes secondary legislation. It is important that the same level of offence apply in both parts of the United Kingdom. So there are complications in catering for two jurisdictions. I see what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has said, but the amendment would need more attention, should the Government be interested in it.
Lord Filkin: I shall try to rise to the challenge set by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis to discharge my responsibility to convince the Committee that affirmative resolution is not necessary.
Clause 46 defines "serious criminal conduct" as constituting the offences listed in Article 1(3) of the protocol. It provides that requests for customer
GC 146
information may be sought only for crimes with a penalty of at least four years. Amendment No. 113A would enable us to introduce our own threshold for crimes, for which CIOs could be sought, of a maximum sentence of 10 years.
A crime with a maximum sentence of 10 years is undoubtedly serious. But other serious offences would not meet the test, where we might wish to offer, or seek, this type of assistance. Customer information orders will be helpful in tracing and locating criminals and terrorist groups. For example, under the Child Abduction Act 1984, child abduction —taking a child out of the United Kingdom without consent—attracts a maximum sentence of seven years. The Committee will know the distress that that can cause to families. We would not wish to deny ourselves, even if the protocol did not so oblige us, the ability to use customer information orders in such circumstances. Banking information might be a considerable assistance in locating a suspected child abductor.
Some terrorist offences have a sentence of less than 10 years. For instance, possession of a dangerous article on an aircraft, including bombs, grenades or firearms, is classified as a terrorist offence and has a maximum sentence of five years, which may surprise the Committee. Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, unauthorised modification and unauthorised access with intent both attract maximum sentences of five years. These offences are examples of clime without borders, and they could be the subject of an international investigation, given the considerable damage they can cause.
The amendment would also rule out seeking or providing assistance in investigations into benefit from crime in cases where the maximum sentence is less than 10 years. There are many offences in those categories that might give rise to such an investigation.
Furthermore, imposing a 10-year threshold would place us in breach of the terms of the protocol, meaning that the UK would be considered not to have fully implemented the protocol. We could not, therefore, expect other countries to comply with our requests for assistance of that type.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked whether we should abandon the distinction between crime and "serious" crime. As I have said on several occasions, it is a fundamental element of the protocol. It is there for good reason: to recognise that customer information orders, which are a considerable new measure, as has been rightly said, are potentially enormously valuable in assisting to trace criminal offences, but nevertheless impose burdens on the financial institutions. For that exact reason, the term "serious" has been inserted and defined as set out in the protocol. It strikes the balance between necessity and burden on the financial institutions. We think that that balance is right. It would be wrong not to limit customer information orders to the most serious offences as the protocol and the Bill do. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who was teasing me, knows, these are not guidelines; they are articles in the protocol to a convention that we are under obligation to comply with.

GC 147
Amendments Nos. 113B and 113C would mean that any order made by the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to designate further offences for which customer information orders may be sought would be subject to affirmative, rather than negative, resolution. Customer information orders provided for in Clauses 32 and 33—Clauses 37 and 38 for Scotland—allow the United Kingdom to make, and assist with, requests to trace banking information in order to assist with investigations into serious criminal conduct. Clause 46 defines "serious criminal conduct" and provides an order-making power for the Secretary of State to specify further offences for which this information can be provided in the future.
I have noted with interest the point by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, about the Scottish Parliament. I suspect that she is right, as she has been on many occasions, about the requirement on the Scottish Parliament were such an amendment passed. If she is wrong, with temerity, I shall write to point that out.
Clause 46(3)(b) provides that the order-making power be used,
"for the purpose of giving effect to any decision of the Council of the European Union under paragraph 6 of that Article".
That means that, should the EU member states decide that the scope of Article 1 should be broadened to cover more crimes, as provided for in Article 1(6), the UK would be in a position to broaden the assistance it can provide without passing new primary legislation.
This provision was included in the protocol to avoid the need for an amending convention. But any decision to broaden the scope of Article 1 would be taken only in the light of experience of operating the provision, and with the agreement of all member states. The decision would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the usual processes. CIOs will be useful not only in tackling financial crime but in tracing and locating criminals and terrorist groups, who might be involved in committing a range of crimes. Therefore, it is necessary that the Secretary of State retain the power to widen the circumstance in which they will be sought in future.
The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded that the level of scrutiny of the majority of the order-making powers in the Bill was appropriate, including the power in Clause 46. I am satisfied, therefore, that the power is subject to appropriate levels of scrutiny. I urge Committee Members to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: Having listened to the Minister with interest and care, I feel bound to point out that we are getting into a very confused state. Failure to comply with a request for information on bank accounts is not the most serious criminal offence. Although we should deal with it, there are many more serious offences.
Although, as MP for Huntingdon and a member of the English Bar, I never boasted about it, I am more than half-Scottish and have always been proud to be so. I rejoice that in this Bill we are making special
GC 148
provisions for the application of the Scottish legal system. A conflict in practice could arise between Clause 46(3)(a) and the provision in paragraph (b). It is interesting that, although in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, quite serious offences may apply in the context of the Bill, anything specified by an order in Scotland is to be a serious offence. The others will not be so described.
I am sorry to have to say so, but we are getting into a nonsensical situation. The Government must reconsider the concept of defining criminal offences as "serious". It will only lead to confusion, and I am trying to help.
Viscount Bridgeman: I apologise for giving an incomplete explanation of Amendment No. 113A. We had intended to say that it was not intended only to cover crimes with a maximum penalty of 10 years. We would want the Secretary of State to have power to list other crimes, either by schedule or as an order. The Minister has met our requirements in that regard. We shall read carefully what he says.
On Amendment No. 133B, I note what the Minister said about the Delegated Powers Committee. Can he inform us what "parliamentary scrutiny" would mean in this context'?
Lord Filkin: My understanding is that it would be an order made under the negative procedure, allowing any Member to pray against it, therefore enabling debate on the order to take place as is the House's custom.
Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister. I gather that it is open to the House to question the political aspects of what the Delegated Powers Committee has pronounced. We feel strongly about the affirmative procedure in this context. I shall read carefully the Minister's reply, but we may have to reiterate the point on Report.
Lord Filkin: I have made an incorrect statement to the Committee. If the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was enquiring about scrutiny of an amendment to the protocol, as opposed to the discretionary order-making powers provided by the current Bill and protocol, I was referring to the latter. If he was referring to the European Union changing the protocol within the terms I described, the exact same form of scrutiny would apply as when a new European Union agreement is made—currently under the third pillar. In other words, the document is deposited and is open for inspection by either scrutiny committee of this House and another place, or both. That would enable scrutiny to be discharged through a debate in this House. Members of another place could request a debate on the matter should they so wish. I hope that my answer is sufficient. If I can add anything, I shall be pleased to write to the noble Viscount on reflection.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113B and 113C not moved.]
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: I remind the Committee that Hansard is not writing down every syllable that Members utter. It depends entirely on the sound recording system picking up what is said in a distant part of the Palace of Westminster. I urge one or two people, who speak very lightly, to bear that thought in mind.
[Amendment No. 113D not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Clause 47 [Transfer of UK prisoner to assist investigation abroad]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 113E:
Page 26, line 35, leave out "competent" and insert "relevant judicial"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I should like to thank the Law Society for its briefing on this matter.
We now turn away from banking provisions and towards the transfer of United Kingdom prisoners in order that they can help in investigations overseas in participating countries. The Explanatory Notes tell us that this new power is unlikely to be used frequently, but that it could be used, and useful, where a prisoner who is helping a UK investigation might be able to identify a site or take part in an identification parade.
Clause 47 tells us that if the Secretary of State has an agreement with the competent authority in a participating country, then he can issue a warrant which will make it possible to transfer a prisoner to that participating country. I have tabled the amendment to ask two main questions. First, what is a "competent authority"? That is not specifically stated in the definitions clause, Clause 52.
Secondly, why does this provision bypass the judicial authorities? Earlier, in a different context, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised the point about the desirability of bypassing judicial authorities. Why do the Government think it appropriate that there should be no judicial oversight of the issuing of such warrants? Surely one could argue that the advantage of judicial oversight would be that it would help ensure a level of independent scrutiny to prevent any unnecessary or inappropriate requests being made. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her interpretation of her amendment. I think that I can satisfy her on those points.
The amendment is not acceptable to us because in transfer cases the "competent" authority might not in fact be a judicial authority in either one or both of the countries involved. If a prisoner is transferred from the United Kingdom, the request will be made by a prosecuting authority such as Customs and Excise or the CPS. and perhaps usually at the request of the
GC 150
police. Those are not judicial authorities but are what are commonly described in these circumstances as "competent" authorities. If a prisoner is transferred to the UK, the request and practical arrangements will be handled by the UK Central Authority and, typically, by the Prison Service, which liaises with the prison, so that there is no involvement of a judicial authority.
So while the authority at the requesting end of the process may be a "judicial authority", it may well be a different, non-judicial authority at the executing end. For that reason, it would not be appropriate to refer only to judicial authorities. We would not expect a judicial authority to make the arrangements for the transfer of prisoners in the UK. In our view, that is quite properly the responsibility of the police and Prison Service, who have the relevant experience and necessary expertise to ensure that all arrangements for the secure transfer of the prisoner run smoothly. So in our view there is no need for the independent judicial authority to be involved.
For those reasons, and because of the way in which we see the provision working—probably much as it does now—we believe that the amendment is inappropriate.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In obtaining clarity on this Bill, I sometimes seem to take one step forward but two steps back. There was certainly considerable progress in what the Minister told the Committee, but I am still not completely happy with the picture of what a "competent" authority might be in these new circumstances. I certainly may wish to return to these matters at a later stage. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 27, line 14, at end insert "and if before making the statement the person making it was offered access to advice on the legal consequences of a transfer for the prisoner and has ether received such advice or has refused to request it"
The noble Lord said: The amendment is based on a proposal by Justice. As usual, I declare an interest in that organisation as one of the vice-chairs of its council.
This power could have significant consequences for a prisoner who agrees to the transfer. Under Clause 47(4), a warrant may be issued to transfer a prisoner abroad only if the prisoner or some appropriate person on behalf of the prisoner has in writing consented to the transfer being made. That is all very well as far as it goes, and of course we welcome the fact that it is a voluntary transfer. Once given, however, that consent is irrevocable. It is an important safeguard to ensure that that consent has been given freely on the basis of adequate information. A transfer of prisoners can have a significant impact on the rights of the persons concerned. Consent to the transfer should be based on full knowledge of the legal implications.
While, obviously, a person cannot be compelled to accept the offer of advice, we believe that it should be a requirement on the face of the Bill that there should at least be an offer of legal advice to the prisoner regarding the possible consequences for him or her of the transfer, so that the consent can be given on the basis of full knowledge of the legal consequences by the person giving the consent. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government certainly appreciate the motives behind the amendment. Its primary intention is clearly to protect prisoners, and to add an additional layer of protection for prisoners, by ensuring that they are offered legal advice before they consent to transfer. However, we consider that the clause already contains more than adequate safeguards for the prisoner. We therefore contend that the amendment is unnecessary. It might help if I explained roughly how we expect the arrangements to work.
Clause 47 builds on existing provisions in Section 5 of the 1990 Act, which enables the UK to transfer a prisoner to another country to assist that country's investigations. Clause 47 introduces slightly different arrangements, enabling the UK to request that a prisoner held here be transferred overseas to assist with our own investigations, should such a situation arise. In a way, these new transfers should be much more straightforward for the prisoner. He or she will be transferred at the request of the UK authorities, rather than at the request of a foreign authority whose procedures would not necessarily be familiar to our Prison Service.
The clause does not introduce anything fundamentally new or innovative; it merely extends existing practices. In relation to the existing procedures under the 1990 Act, prisoners are free to seek legal advice in relation to transfers before they consent to them. It is, however, not automatically provided, and to do so would place an unnecessary burden on prisons.
The Government do not see merit in having a special arrangement for these new types of procedure, which differ from those in the 1990 Act. Transfers take place only after extensive contact between all the relevant parties—the competent authorities in both countries, the central authorities and the prisoner—to ensure that all concerned parties are content with the arrangements. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, himself observed that the arrangements are voluntary and have to be conducted with the consent of the prisoner. Those are both important aspects of the issue.
Prisoner transfers are organised with close co-operation between the United Kingdom Central Authority, the Prison Service, the prison where the prisoner is held, the police and the overseas authorities. That close co-operation should help
GC 152
ensure that the prisoners' rights are properly protected and that they have a full understanding of their position.
Lord Dholakia: I have one or two questions for the Minister, as these are matters of some concern. Clause 42(7) states:
"This section applies to a person … serving a sentence in a prison",
or,
"in custody awaiting trial or sentence".
One would not know whether those awaiting trial are guilty. That is a matter yet to be decided.
Subsection (5) states:
"The circumstances are those in which it appears to the Secretary of State to be inappropriate for the prisoner to act for himself, by reason of his physical or mental condition or his youth".
How is the Secretary of State going to determine the mental condition of an individual who has not been tried, evidence of which has not been produced in court? Would it not be wise in such cases to ensure that appropriate legal advice is available to the individual, or to a person acting on his behalf, about the consequences of such visits abroad? They may well say things abroad that could be used in evidence against them in the trial which has not yet taken place.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is worth reminding ourselves that the Secretary of State needs to be very mindful of the health, particularly the mental health, of prisoners before allowing them to stand trial in this country. One would therefore expect that the proper authorities here would ensure that the prisoner is fit. Given that safeguard, I think it extremely unlikely that the authorities would seek or want to see the transfer of a prisoner who was not fit to travel because of mental or physical incapacity. The key issue in relation to physical health is that the prisoner must give his or her consent. I think that that is a very important and powerful connection.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) of Clause 47 is equivalent to subsection (3)(a) which deals with Scotland and is so much briefer. Do those three paragraphs mean,
"any person detained in custody",
as the Scottish provision states? In other words, are the provisions for England and Wales the same as those for Scotland? If so, why does it take so many more words to state the position in England than in Scotland?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My advice is that it is a drafting point. I do not know whether that helps the noble Baroness. If she has a real concern about the point, we may be able to give further thought to it. However, we are content with the drafting, which we think is fit for the purpose.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is quite interesting, is it not? Presumably the Scottish provision has come from the Scotland Office, whereas that for England and Wales has come from the Home Office, which has

GC 153
found a different solution. As one is much shorter than the other, I should think that we could use the shorter one for both. I am not making a nationalistic point, of course, but it is quite interesting to see the same thing repeated in quite a different form.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sure that the noble Baroness is right. As we all believe in brevity, we shall check that.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for responding to the amendment. We shall look at what he has said and then consider whether this is a matter that we need to bring back for further consideration at the next stage. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 27, line 18, leave out "cannot" and insert "may"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 115, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 116 to 120, which stand in my name. The amendments again raise the issue of consent, but from rather a different angle to that covered in the previous amendment.
I appreciate that the Minister may in response say that all this is covered in an existing law and will quote Sections 5(2) and 6(3) of the 1990 Act. However, I have some questions to ask of him, regardless of what I anticipate may be his response. I appreciate that Clauses 47 and 48 mirror those sections in the Act.
So far we have talked about what happens with the giving of consent from the point of view of what legal advice should be available in order to get the person to the stage where they give that consent. My amendments address the issue of consent after that stage has been reached and consent has been given. The Bill states that once the warrant has been issued, that is it and the prisoner cannot withdraw his consent. That is the position under the 1990 Act.
I am aware that the Law Society, for example, is opposed in principle to a provision that makes the giving of consent an irrevocable act. I can understand that as a matter of principle. I look at the issue more from the point of view perhaps of practice, rather than purely as a matter of principle. Therefore, I have tabled the amendment in order to ask the Government to explain why they believe that it is both essential and right in principle and in practice that someone should continue to be prevented from withdrawing their consent.
We have already mentioned that there is some protection before giving consent for those who may have some mental incapacity by reason of age or who because of their youth may need some assistance in making the decision. What happens if after a person gives consent he develops an incapacity—for example—which would make it difficult for him to travel?
On Amendment No. 114, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in replying to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that the Secretary of State would not expect someone to travel if he was ill. The Bill does not give the person any protection. In theory he could be required to travel if he was physically or mentally ill or perhaps mentally incapacitated to such an extent that his assistance might be impaired—for example, in an identification parade. I am trying to get to the heart of what protections there might be, which might not just protect the witness but also the judicial system and its credibility.
I shall briefly state the impact of each amendment, although they are at this stage probing amendments. Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 would provide that a prisoner could withdraw consent after a warrant has been issued.
Amendments Nos. 116 and 119 would confine the ability to withdraw consent to exceptional circumstances, the definition of which would be open for debate.
Amendments Nos. 117 and 120 complete the picture by specifically confining the exceptional circumstances to medical grounds. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness is right to accurately describe the effects of Sections 5 and 6 of the 1990 Act and to say that these clauses essentially are like "carry on" provisions. They describe the circumstances where a transfer is made from one country at its own request when its investigations require a prisoner's presence in another country.
As I said when speaking to a previous amendment, the clauses as drafted require the prisoner to provide written consent to any transfer before it takes place. The noble Baroness raised a question of what happens if some illness or incapacity occurs when a prisoner is in transit. We appreciate that the amendment is intended to protect the rights of the prisoner, but we think that the amendments would create potentially serious problems.
For example, the amendments could have the effect that the prisoner could withdraw his consent in the middle of the transfer whilst he was overseas. That would be unacceptable. It would invalidate the warrant, which would mean that the, prisoner would not be held in legal custody. If a prisoner was unfit to travel, clearly he would not be obliged or forced to travel, having first given consent. In those circumstances, the prisoner would be seen by a Prison Service medical officer, who would make the final decision. A prisoner who was not fit to travel would not be transferred even if he was still willing to go. I think we can place trust in a proper and full medical assessment. Of course if a person was mentally unfit it is plain that he would not be much use to those conducting the investigation. So, in those circumstances, it is extremely unlikely that any pressure would be put on that person to continue his journey because it would invalidate the conduct of the investigation.

GC 155
These arrangements are designed to assist countries with their investigations, where those investigations require the attendance of a prisoner in another country to assist in some capacity, perhaps in the identification of sites or for participation in an ID parade. So it is extremely important that a prisoner is transferred only when he is mentally and physically fit to travel and likely to be of assistance in the investigation.
So steps and measures will be taken to ensure that prisoners are able to travel. If he becomes unfit or unwell during the course of the journey, obviously great care would need to be exercised and some reconsideration of the purpose of that journey being undertaken might be necessary.
Lord Dholakia: I appreciate what the Minister has said. I am still concerned. In many cases, in particular those attending at magistrates' courts or occasionally attending the court trial and so on, I often find that evidence as to the nature of a person's mental illness will come out during a trial and not beforehand. I do not think that the Home Secretary, a prison officer or a prison doctor is in a position to know about the condition. We seek to establish certain safeguards in relation to vulnerable people who may say things that may be held against these individuals, which is quite contrary to natural justice.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I may have misunderstood some of the procedure. Can the Minister say at what stage the consent is given? I had assumed that after consent had been given it was possible for there to be some delay before transit took place. In opening his response, the Minister immediately assumed that the incapacity would only develop in transit. So he seems to be saying that consent is given literally as the journey begins. If that is the case, I accept that my amendment would have serious defects. Can the Minister say whether it is always the case that consent is to be given and then transit takes place?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: One envisages a situation where consent is given before we make the necessary administrative and transfer arrangements. So there will inevitably be some period of delay, perhaps a matter of weeks or a month at the most. But there will obviously be a period that would provide more than adequate time to ensure that the prisoner was able, fit and willing to travel. That is the important point.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister. He has confirmed that I perhaps understood more than I thought I had. My concern is that consent may be given and then there could be some considerable delay. It is absolutely proper that one would not put the administrative arrangements in place until one knew one had the consent, because that could waste time and money.
That brings me back to my concern that there could be a delay during which incapacity could develop, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, it is not always the case that incapacity becomes apparent. I think that
GC 156
I need to look more closely at experience relating to the 1990 Act and consider what I need to do on Report. The Minister says that we should put trust in the medical assessment and not put protection on the face of the Bill. We need to consider—in the light of perhaps the greater use of these provisions—whether there is sufficient protection. I think that we may agree with the Government that there is sufficient protection, but I need to look at the matter more closely. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Transfer of EU etc. prisoner to assist UK investigation]:
[Amendments Nos. 118 to 120 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Baroness Anelay Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 121:
Before Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
"PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE
The Secretary of State may by order provide that the provisions of this Part shall apply with modifications in respect of persons under 18 years of age to take into account the needs of such persons."
The noble Baroness said: I note that throughout Part 1 of the Bill there is no reference to how these provisions may affect young persons under the age of 18. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to amend Part 1 in order to take into account the needs of young persons where necessary. A while ago the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the needs of young people.
Does the Minister accept that young persons could be directly affected by the provisions of Part 1, although I accept that it is unlikely that they might be so affected? How do the Government expect the authorities to act in dealing with them? Naturally, we would not want young people to be excluded from the operation of the Bill. It is quite possible that one could be a criminal under the age of 18. Sadly, crime statistics show how possible that is. The crime could be committed across international borders.
We need to know whether the Secretary of State proposes that those under 18 should be treated in the same way as adults with regard to the provisions of the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government appreciate that the amendment seeks to protect the interests of those under the age of 18, but in our view it is unnecessary. The reason is that the provisions on transfer of prisoners in the 1990 Act already apply to those under 18, and there are no special arrangements under that Act to regulate their transfer.
Furthermore, it is not clear precisely what the clause would achieve, nor what the "modifications" referred to would include. Nor is it clear to the Government why modifications would be appropriate.

GC 157
As established in Clauses 47 and 48, prisoners may be transferred only if they consent to the transfer, and the issuing of a warrant under either clause depends on the Secretary of State reaching agreement with the other participating country.
There is an absolute discretion on the part of the prisoner and the Secretary of State as to whether he complies with any requests for a transfer. We consider that this discretion, which enables conditions to be attached to transfer and ultimately for a transfer to be refused, makes the additional power unnecessary.
My understanding is that in the region of 30 of these transfers per annum have taken place under the current legislation. We do not anticipate that these provisions will be frequently used. Therefore, the number of people under the age of 18 will be small. I hope that helps the noble Baroness with her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He properly directed the Committee to the matter of discretion. We shall look at that matter. There may be issues that we would wish to raise with regard to young persons later in the Bill, but he has satisfied me with regard to this particular measure. We shall not be returning to the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Filkin: Before Clause 50 is called, perhaps I may offer a word of explanation to the Committee. We had originally expected to reach this point on the Marshalled List close to half past seven. Therefore, we had explained to the Opposition Front Benches that the Government intended to take the unusual step of opposing the Question that Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill—the reason being that we have been persuaded that the clause is no longer necessary; it is superfluous. Therefore, we had thought to break the proceedings at that point, allowing us to recommence on Wednesday.
However, this has been a productive afternoon, and a further hour and a half is available to the Committee. So I am in the hands of the Committee. I apologise for now signalling that it is possible, if the Committee is content to do so, to go further today than we had originally expected. I therefore seek to propose that we should use the extra hour and a half for debate.
I apologise because the Government's intention to oppose the Question that their own Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill has been tabled but does not appear on the Marshalled List. Therefore, there has not been as much notice as we should normally expect and wish to give. On the other hand, I am aware that we have a good hour and a half available. It would perhaps seem inefficient not to give the Committee the opportunity of using that time if it so wishes. I am not certain whether this requires a formal resolution.
GC 158
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Members of the Committee are now aware of the Minister's views and are free to say that they would like Clause 50 to stand part, or to make the Minister feel happier and say that they entirely accept his proposal—in which case I shall collect the voices of those present.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Deputy Chairman of Committees has created a procedure by which other noble Lords may be able to respond to the Minister. Speaking only on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench at this stage, we are keen to crack on with as much of the Bill as possible and, within reason, I am prepared to do so. I am aware, however, that that may be inconvenient for other Members of the Committee and do not wish to speak on their behalf.
I simply ask the Minister whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, might have been apprised of this. It looks as though, if we proceed, we shall reach his significant amendments on the list. I should be concerned if the noble and learned Lord were not aware of that.
One of the huge disadvantages of taking Bills in Grand Committee—as Members of the Committee will be aware if they look at the monitor—is that noble Lords outwith this room have no incitation as to the stage that has been reached. Therefore, if the Government gave advance indication of their intention to stop at a particular point, I anticipate that the noble and learned would not have received an indication to the contrary. I shall be content to continue, but I appreciate that that may well not be the view of other Members of the Committee or of noble Lords who are not present.
Lord Renton: I am open-minded on that point, but I have another point to raise. I hope that I am not being too narrow-minded in making this suggestion. We should bear in mind that this is a detailed Bill which is breaking new ground. It is a very important Bill, nationally and internationally. I should have thought that two and a half hours at a time is quite long enough for its consideration and that, in any event, we should not attempt today to go beyond Part l, which we should reach before very long. I say that hopefully.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As always, my noble friend Lady Carnegy has just put me on the right rails. The monitor indicates the number of the amendment being debated. I apologise for getting that wrong.
Lord Dholakia: I am delighted that my earlier absence led to such fast progress. On future occasions I shall see that as a means of making progress on Bills such as this. I am in the hands of the Committee. We have no difficulty whatever if the Minister wants to proceed. The noble Baroness makes an important point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has tabled Amendment No. 134A. Perhaps there is a procedure whereby we could adjourn the

GC 159
debate on that particular matter, or alternatively stop at that point, which does not give us much time for debate anyway.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: That would mean that we could go as far as the end of the amendments to Clause 52.
Lord Filkin: We should certainly be pleased to deal with group 18 and speak to Amendments Nos. 122 to 126, 129 and 131.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised an important point on whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has been notified of the point at which we intend to end the proceedings. I believe that the relevant powers are seeking to check on that now.
This may not be for me to suggest, but perhaps the question about the noble and learned Lord is a more fundamental issue than whether Clause 50 shall stand part. Therefore, if the Committee is content to do so, while we are waiting for that information, we could deal with the Government's peculiar request to oppose part of their own Bill and deal with group 18—by which time we may have a clear answer as to whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has been notified that we intend to continue. If he has not, I share the view that it would be quite wrong to do so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not against what the Minister suggests, but it strikes me that other noble Lords may want to speak to some of these amendments. We must be careful in dealing with this procedure not to be too cavalier. It may suit Members of the Committee who are present, but any Member of the House might wish to speak to an amendment. That said, do other noble Lords think that we might go as far as Amendment No. 170?
Noble Lords: No—to Amendment No. 134.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was concerned—thinking back to the first day in Committee—when we agreed to an amendment on the Marshalled List that was gobbledegook. I read it out as gobbledegook and it was recorded as such. It was corrected in Hansard. We agreed that that amendment should be included in the Bill. The Minister could not really tell us what it was about. I felt that we went a little beyond where we should have done in this procedure. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for mentioning it, but it is relevant. We have to be careful when using this procedure not to overstep the arrangements. We must not include amendments when we do not know what they signify. I wonder whether we should be discussing amendments that others thought we would not reach today.
I may be wrong in saying that in this respect except in so far as it relates to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I suppose that other noble Lords do not know where we shall get to. It is difficult to keep the
GC 160
whole House involved in this form of Committee procedure. It confirms my belief that we should not go too far with the freedom that we have to proceed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I apologise to the Committee for asking one further question. I, too, had misunderstood the Minister's first point. I thought that it was his intention that we should stop before reaching the part of the Bill dealing with road traffic. Is he now saying that the intention is to continue after Part 2? I thought that all we were being asked to do was to finish at the end of Part 2.
Lord Filkin: No. I was saying that if we continued—and that would be only if, in all the circumstances, the Committee was comfortable in doing so—we should deal with Part 2 but not begin debating Part 3, dealing with driving disqualifications.
I am sensitive to the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. This is a good process, but only in so far as people feel comfortable with it and do not feel that we are going further than is right and proper. It may be that I shall receive categorical information about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. That may or may not make those issues feel comfortable as regards groups 21, 22 and 23. If the Committee is content, however, I do not think that anyone would be unduly upset about the Government opposing the Question that Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill. My remark seems to elicit a smile but not too much outrage. We might be able to do that and deal also with group 18 while waiting for an answer as regards the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Those are merely suggestions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: After that interesting interruption, the Question is whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill? As many as are of that opinion shall say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think that the Not-Contents have it. I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said "Content", although I did not hear him. Is it a unanimous decision that Clause 50 shall not stand part of the Bill? The remaining Members of the Committee do not want it to stand part. I see that the noble Lord is in agreement.
Clause 50 negatived.
Clause 51 [Subordinate legislation]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 29, line 19, after "instrument" insert "(other than an instrument to which subsection (4A) applies)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 29, line 22, after "instrument" insert "(other than an instrument to which subsection (4A) applies)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 29, line 24, at end insert—
(4A) A statutory instrument containing an order under section 52(2)(b) designating a country other than a member State is not to be made unless—

(a) in the case of an order to be made by the Secretary of State, a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament,

(b) in the case of an order to be made by the Scottish Ministers, a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am becoming very confused. I apologise again, but I have not heard the Government move Amendment No. 122—unless I slept through it, and I do not think that I did.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Minister moved it formally.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Minister did not speak to it with regard to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Minister used the word "formally". I fear that I cannot say what was passing through his mind in using the word. The amendment was spoken to previously.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: If necessary, we can return to the matter on Report.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 126.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am trying to de-confuse myself. Am I right in saying that in this amendment, as in Amendment No. 122, the Government are implementing what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee wanted? As a member of that committee, I am particularly interested in this matter. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
Lord Filkin: With the leave of the Committee, I shall respond fully to that question. It may provide an opportunity to place on record one or two other issues that have not been addressed given the slight complications in this process.
All the amendments in this group deal with the appropriate scrutiny of order-making powers in Part 1 of the Bill. The amendments to Clause 52 deal with the power to designate further participating countries to which the provisions of Part 1 will apply.
To go into more detail, Amendments Nos. 123 and 125 to Clause 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will require all orders made by means of the powers contained in Part I to be made by affirmative resolution.
We do not feel inclined to accept these amendments. Making all orders under Part 1 subject to affirmative resolution would be excessively burdensome and would result in the inappropriate use of parliamentary time. We do not believe that such a change would be justified.
GC 162
The negative resolution procedure is generally held to offer an appropriate level of scrutiny for this type of legislation. It does not rule out the possibility of a debate should Members feel strongly that this is called for. However, it saves unnecessary debate on matters that simply do not merit it.
The order-making powers in this Bill have been subject to the scrutiny of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I thank the committee for their helpful report. With two exceptions—one in Clause 52 which I shall deal with next—the committee found that the powers in the Bill were appropriately delegated and subject to an appropriate degree of parliamentary control. Therefore, I am satisfied that Clause 51 should stand as drafted, and am unable to accept the amendments.
I turn to the amendments tabled to Clause 52—namely, Amendments Nos. 123, 130 and 131—and to the government amendments to Clause 51—Amendments Nos. 122, 124 and 126. Both groups have the same purpose and both relate to one of the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The general thrust of these amendments is to ensure that any order that designated new countries as participating countries for the purposes of Part 1 would be subject to affirmative resolution.
The Opposition amendments to Clause 52—namely, Amendments Nos. 127, 130 and 131—would require any order that designated new countries as participating countries to be made by affirmative resolution. I understand the concerns of the Opposition in relation to this power, which it fears might open up the United Kingdom to unsuitable judicial systems of other countries. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had similar concerns. Therefore, their report suggested that as the power in Clause 52 to designate countries as "participating countries" could, in theory, be used to designate any country, it should be either restricted in its scope or made subject to affirmative procedure.
In response to the Committee's concerns, the government amendments to Clause 51 would also introduce the affirmative procedure for designated new countries, but with an exception for countries that are already members of the European Union. They provide parallel arrangements for regulations made at Westminster and by the Scottish Parliament. The Government have informed the committee of their intention to table such an amendment, and the committee has indicated that it welcomes that response.
The reason for this exception is that we shall, following their accession to the EU, be designating the 10 new member states due to join in May 2004 to participate in the measures in Part 1. All new member states have gone through an extensive process of assessment before being accepted for membership and must have implemented the EU instruments which this Bill implements.

GC 163
As new member states, they have effective judicial systems and are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. It would not be appropriate or necessary to put up further barriers to the application of these provisions to these countries. I am confident that this exception should be made.
Amendment No. 129 to Clause 52, the final amendment in the group, is a technical amendment to ensure that the order-making power in Clause 52 is fully consistent with the post-devolution situation. It provides that where a participating country is designated by an order, that order-making power is to be exercised as regards Scotland by the Scottish Ministers responsible for matters within devolved competence, and designating participating countries with regard to judicial co-operation is within their devolved competence.
I hope that in the light of the Government's amendment to Clause 51 and the explanation that I have given in response to the explicit question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, as well as addressing a number of other amendments, this may be of assistance to the Committee in their reflections.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister, and particularly to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, for providing the opportunity to ask questions at this point. I would have had to hang my questions on Amendment No. 129, on which I have a separate question. I should like to make it clear that our Amendments Nos. 123, 125 and 131 were tabled to elicit from the Government the response that they have given. We welcome the fact that they have, as we believe, fully met the requirements of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As the Minister said, our amendments were wider, but our aim was to achieve the result that he has given.
There are other issues which may more properly be debated in court; however, I consider that I should raise them now in order to give notice to the Government. I have some remaining concerns, and for this reason, if the Government decide to list new countries in an order, the House will then face great difficulty because the order cannot be amended.
Perhaps we can imagine a situation in which the Government have listed new countries which are to become "participating countries". There might be just five countries on the list—to pick a number out of the air. Four of those might be wholly unobjectionable. However, some noble Lords might find one of those countries objectionable. As the noble Lord is aware, the rules relating to Standing Orders do not permit us to amend the statutory instrument. The House would then be in the position of having to reject the whole order if it found enough people to do so, instead of being able to amend it. The Government would then be in the position of having to waste more time and money in an attempt to bring back the order.
GC 164
My question is: is there any way in which the Government would either be able to bring forward an order for participating countries in respect of just one at a time? What procedure would the Government take to canvass opinion before an order was brought forward which contained more than one country? The reason I raise this issue—it is not something that I have plucked out of the blue—is with regard to a different department. Approximately two or three years ago, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport brought forward a statutory instrument by negative resolution which year by year raises the TV licence fee. Appended to that, the Government saw fit to add in an objectionable matter, but also a wholly admirable one, whereby people over a certain age were able to obtain a free TV licence. Therefore, the House found one part of the order objectionable—an increase in taxation, however indirectly—and the other part absolutely acceptable. I can envisage the same situation occurring here; it might happen.
My final question is very brief. I have already heard from the noble Lord's advisers that there is an absolute and complete answer, but it is one that should be put on the record. It is with regard to Scotland and Amendment No. 129, which would allow the Scottish Ministers to make an order. My question is: could this mean that different countries were participating countries in Scotland as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom, or would the orders made by the Scottish Ministers simply mirror those made by the Secretary of State?
Lord Renton: I support my noble friend Lady Anelay, who has raised important matters. This Bill depends upon international co-operation. I realise that as far as our own statute and our statutory instruments are concerned, we have to act independently. Other countries will also have to act independently, although complying with international agreements. However, on subordinate legislation, Clause 51 enables only negative resolutions to be made, even on matters of great importance, which could have far-reaching effects. I hope that between now and Report, the Government would consider giving a power to Parliament to consider by affirmative resolution, instead of merely negative resolution, any matter of real importance which might affect the international co-operation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On Amendment No. 129, the noble Lord says that Scottish Ministers would be involved, and my noble friend Lady Anelay asked a rather awkward question. Might Scottish Ministers want different participating states to the Home Secretary? At the moment it is impossible to envisage that, but I am picturing the years ahead when there might be a different party in power in the Scottish Parliament to that south of the Border. If that party in power in Scotland wanted to be really difficult, it could select a tricky country, which the Home Secretary wanted to make a participating state, and refuse to accept it. Perhaps the Minister might think that the

GC 165
drafting should be different so that that is impossible. At present, no one would want such a situation to occur, but am I right in thinking that it could? If possible, it is something that we should want to avoid in advance.
Lord Filkin: These are all good questions and I shall hazard an answer to some of them. On the other hand, the questions merit reflection. That is not to imply that the Government necessarily think that we are minded to change. We do not, but it is right and proper that we give the fullest and clearest response. Therefore—it is hoped not too frequently—it is right that on these occasions, when I have received those questions, I shall reply to Members of the Committee.
There are one or two general points that I should make that are reasonably clear. As the Committee knows, essentially, if we make an international agreement through the Justice and Home Affairs Council within certain limits of flexibility, effectively that has to be put into legislation or the Government are in breach of their international obligations. The strict constitutional answer, of course, is that the House can do what it wants, but the Government have an obligation to seek to ensure that their legislation is compliant with the agreements that they have reached in Europe.
Therefore, if a change was made relevant to a member state, there would be no discretion. Alternatively, if it was a non-member state, the affirmative resolution would apply. With regard to Scotland, the general principle is that on Scottish orders they would have to mirror the orders made in Scotland.
However, I should like to set out all of our response to those several points in a letter to all Members present, so that they have the benefit of our reflection. They are important constitutional points and therefore, with the leave of the Committee, that is what I shall do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [General interpretation]
Baroness Anelay Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 29, line 44, after "removal" insert "or reduction"
The noble Baroness said: Since this is one of those very rare occasions—like hens' teeth—when the Government agree to an Opposition amendment, I am very keen to get this in. I apologise to the Chairman for making heavy weather. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 30, line 4, at end insert—
""customs officer" means an officer commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under section 6(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2),"
Page 30, line 17, at end insert "or, in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 130:
Page 30, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) No order shall be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: The Minister dealt at some length with Amendment No. 126 and met some of the points that we wanted to raise with regard to this amendment. In the light of that, I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 132 to 134:
Page 30, line 18, after ""process"" insert "in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland"
Page 30, line 22, leave out "other'
Page 30, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) In this Part, "process" in relation to service in Scotland means a citation by a court or by a prosecuting authority, or an order made by a court, and includes any other document issued or made as mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Filkin: The only person whom we told of our intention to pause at this point was the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has not been seen in the House and is not answering either of his telephone numbers. It would be unwise to proceed, as we do not wish to offend a Member of the House by making any further progress. I propose that we adjourn the Committee until Wednesday at 3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I hesitate to intervene, but I think that there is an even stronger reason, which is that we have come to the end of Part 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday 29th January at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before seven o'clock.

  Ivory Coast
  Ivory Coast
  Queen's Counsel
  Queen's Counsel
  Election Candidates: Copies of Electoral Register
  Election Candidates: Copies of Electoral Register
  Election to Public Office: Qualifying Age
  Election to Public Office: Qualifying Age
  Electoral Register: Right to Opt Out
  Electoral Register: Right to Opt Out
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts
  Capita Contracts
  Capita Contracts
  Treasury Employees: London Weighting Allowance
  Treasury Employees: London Weighting Allowance
  CIA: Sunday Express Report
  CIA: Sunday Express Report
  Heavy Equipment Transporter
  Heavy Equipment Transporter
  Thimerosal
  Thimerosal
  Multiple Sclerosis Treatment: North West London
  Multiple Sclerosis Treatment: North West London
  GPs: Elderly and Disabled Patients
  GPs: Elderly and Disabled Patients
  NHS Trusts: Retained Deficits
  NHS Trusts: Retained Deficits
  Specialist Schools
  Specialist Schools
  Teachers: Guaranteed PPA Time
  Teachers: Guaranteed PPA Time
  Sheep Movement Regulations
  Sheep Movement Regulations
  Upland and Lowland Britain
  Upland and Lowland Britain
  Americans visiting the UK
  Americans visiting the UK
  Regional Tourist Boards and Regional Development Agencies
  Regional Tourist Boards and Regional Development Agencies
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Security Clearance
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Security Clearance
  Fermanagh Area: Policing
  Fermanagh Area: Policing
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  House of Lords and House of Commons: Sitting Days
  House of Lords and House of Commons: Sitting Days