Sitting of 28 January 2003

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

    Traffic Congestion
    Sue Doughty: If he will make a statement on his plans for (a) traffic and (b) congestion reduction. [93529]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): For strategic roads, we have introduced incident response units on the busiest motorways, and are working with the police on a range of measures to improve incident and traffic management to keep traffic flowing. In addition, we are in the process of building a new traffic control centre, and are planning a major trial of active traffic management systems on the M42 next year. That ties in with the Highways Agency's extensive programme of local improvements by seeking to make the best use of the existing trunk road network. In London, we have brought together all the key players, including Transport for London, the police and the boroughs, to keep traffic moving in London.
    Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that his Department's advisory committee on trunk road assessment said that traffic reduction can improve economic welfare and that the Chancellor's own forecast for economic growth has been downgraded, will he come clean and admit that there are serious flaws in a reply given to me by the Secretary of State in which he said that "strong economic growth" will mean a greater increase in traffic and congestion? Has he abandoned his plan?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Lady could have given some credit to the fact that an extra 1.5 million people are in work since 1997, which is a significant factor in increased demand on all transport networks, as we have seen with the growing numbers travelling on the tube and railway system. That is precisely why we are looking at how we can make best use of the existing network, both the highways and in London. We are doing so to increasing effect, but I do not underestimate the
    700
    difficulties, especially those that arise from the strong economic growth in this country compared with other major economies.
    Caroline Flint: It is self-evident that during the school term there is more traffic on the roads than during school holidays, but it is also true that parents are concerned about the safety of their children. More women work these days and are making combination journeys, dropping their kids off before they go to work. What plans does my right hon. Friend have for looking at extending opportunities for safe and affordable school transport to reduce congestion on our roads during school terms?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As she is aware, in her county of Yorkshire there has been an extremely successful experiment with school buses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, along with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, will shortly review the lessons of that experiment and look at how such a scheme could be rolled out. Of course, it is not just about bus transport, either scheduled routes or specialised buses, but about creating the facilities for safer school routes, whether for cycling or walking, and providing realistic alternatives to reduce the need or desire for the school run.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Yesterday, the Government announced a welcome U-turn in their approach to the London congestion tax. It is amazing that the Minister has not referred to that tax. The Government have said that they are committed to
    "providing a uniform minimum standard of exemptions or concessions from local road user charges".—[Official Report, 27 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 521 W.]
    Can the Minister tell us when those concessions will be introduced? Will they be backdated to 17 February, and will they include help for parents, key workers, shift workers, small businesses and people living just outside the zone? Would it not be better to scrap the whole ludicrous scheme now?
    Mr. Spellar: I do not have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, in the main, those matters are best addressed locally. Mayoral or local authority candidates can put their programme to the electorate, who will either endorse it or not. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want issues to be properly decided by the local authority in the light of local circumstances. Any scheme that is to be introduced must command the majority support of its electorate.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What implications do the Strategic Rail Authority's unilateral announcements of cuts in rail services have for integrated transport and the reduction of congestion?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend should reflect on the fact that the Strategic Rail Authority has introduced a number of measures precisely to increase reliability, which we know, anecdotally and from statistics and public opinion, is the main factor that people consider when deciding whether to take public transport or travel by car. There is no doubt that in certain areas train paths have been oversold, so if anything went wrong on the

    701
    network the chances of recovery were greatly diminished, which has had a significant impact on the reliability of the system. The SRA believes—we think that it is right—that by taking out some of the less used services, it will be able, particularly with extended trains on other services, to provide a more reliable service and carry more passengers, which will sustain the growth of passenger traffic that has ocurred in recent years.
    Mr. Don Foster: Further to that answer, are not the Department's claims to be interested in integrated transport increasingly bogus? What thought did it give to the impact on road congestion of sanctioning rail cuts such as those on the line from Bristol Temple Meads to Oxford, which have put thousands of additional cars on the road? Can the Minister at least give us an absolute assurance that there will be no sanctioning of the proposed cuts in rail freight grants, which, if they go ahead, will put millions of additional freight lorry journeys on to our roads each year?
    Mr. Spellar: Some £40 million is going into rail freight grants this year alone. On reductions in individual services, those represent some 100 services out of 17,000. As I said in reply to the previous question, our objective is to ensure that we have more reliable services, because that is far more likely to attract people and retain them on the rail system than the current position. That is in line with the expectations of the travelling public and it is the right way to ensure a sustainable rail system.

    Rail Services (Birmingham)
    Mr. Peter Luff: What recent assessment he has made of the (a) reliability and (b) punctuality of commuter train services to Birmingham; and if he will make a statement. [93530]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Secretary of State's directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority require it to work to a range of objectives, including reliability, punctuality, and overcrowding. Rail performance has improved slowly over the past 18 months, but remains well below what passengers have the right to expect. Our priority is therefore to secure significant improvement in rail performance. The SRA has announced measures that are expected to improve reliability and punctuality throughout the country, including Birmingham.
    Mr. Luff: Nothing in the Secretary of State's reply suggested that he really understands just how serious the situation is for Birmingham's commuter services. For schoolchildren, business users, leisure users and the disabled, every journey is like a bad dream, and too many are like a nightmare, and they are getting worse, not better. Even the information that is provided on station platforms is inadequate—never mind overcrowding, punctuality and reliability. Will he throw his weight behind the campaign for a Worcester Parkway station, which would increase capacity on services to Birmingham, and will he do all that he can to
    702
    ensure that Central train services from places such as Droitwich Spa become decent train services, not the journeys from hell that they are at present?
    Mr. Darling: I will certainly look at that proposal, but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said a moment ago, the SRA announced changes to services, including the reduction of some 100 services out of 17,000 a clay, in order to improve the reliability and punctuality of services.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about Birmingham. Just before Christmas, I visited the station at Birmingham, and I can appreciate the problems that are occurring. In the past, Railtrack oversold the amount of track that it had. There are too many trains trying to get through Birmingham New Street, in particular, which has seriously affected congestion and punctuality. That is why the SRA took the very sensible steps to take out some services—as I say, it is only 100 out of 17,000 a day—which will help.
    As regards information, the hon. Gentleman has a good point. As I told the industry last week, it could tell people a lot more a lot sooner than it does. There seems to be a kind of cultural malaise that has prevailed for many years. There is no reason why train operators cannot be more straightforward with people wishing to travel, and if there is a problem, they should tell them about it.
    Richard Burden: In addition to improving punctuality and reliability, will my right hon. Friend accept that an important contribution to improving commuter trains to Birmingham generally would be an expansion of park-and-ride facilities? Discussions are going on at the moment about the creation of a station at Birmingham Great Park in my constituency and about the great need for park-and-ride at Longbridge station. Will he look into that to ensure that those plans are expedited?
    Mr. Darling: Park-and-ride schemes are an extremely useful way of encouraging more people to use public transport—trains, as well as buses—and I shall certainly consider that. It is also worth noting that when the west coast main line upgrading is finished, that will improve capacity on services going to Birmingham and improve signalling and reliability.
    All these measures—including the management measures taken by the SRA and the new investment going into the west coast main line—will improve reliability. As I said a few moments ago, there is no doubt that although there have been improvements, we still have a long way to go before train services improve to the standard that people rightly expect.

    Overcrowding (Trains)
    Mrs. Helen Clark: What action he will take about the causes and effects of overcrowding on trains. [93531]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): As I said a moment ago, the directions that I issued to the SRA require it to work to a range of objectives, which include tackling overcrowding.
    Mrs. Clark: I am grateful for that reply. However, the question arose from my personal experience after Christmas of travelling from Leicester to Peterborough about which I wrote to my right hon. Friend. There were long delays and appalling overcrowding, and pensioners and children were sitting on the floor in the train. That occurs frequently on that line, because of the inability of Birmingham New Street station to cope with the increase in Virgin trains. Thankfully, I had to experience that only once, but it affects some of my constituents in Peterborough daily. What does my right hon. Friend intend to do about it, and when?
    Mr. Darling: On the last point, as I have just said, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said, there are problems at Birmingham. The SRA decided to reduce some of the services going through that station to ensure greater reliability and punctuality of services. Part of the reason for the overcrowding is that train services are not reliable and are not running on time, so they get busier and busier. The Virgin cross-country route, to which my hon. Friend referred, is one of the routes on which there will be a reduction in some services. That will allow the size of trains to be increased from four carriages to eight, which will help with overcrowding. In addition, some 4,000 new railway carriages have been ordered; there are about 1,500 in service.
    The SRA study into the way in which the line is used, will improve reliability and punctuality, and changes will be made in relation to the London stations. There will be one operator at most stations, rather than several, which will allow trains to get in and out of stations more quickly. All these steps, together with the upgrades of the west coast main line, the channel tunnel rail link and other measures, will help, but I agree with my hon. Friend that for people to stand for long periods in trains is unnecessary and unacceptable, which is why we are determined to do something about it. It is interesting that the Conservatives never make any constructive suggestions to help that process. We are taking the measures that I described. Some of them are difficult, but they will make a difference.
    Bob Spink: Is the Secretary of State aware that more than 3,000 residents of Canvey island travel by train each day using Benfleet station, where they find that the trains are often overcrowded when they arrive at the station? Is it time that we seriously considered providing a terminus station on Canvey island, so that we can cut train overcrowding and road congestion?
    Mr. Darling: I cannot answer that specific question. It would be unwise for me to commit myself to building a new terminus without having considered all the implications. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the continued increased rate of investment going into the railways, which will mean more trains, improved rolling stock, and the management changes that the SRA is making in relation to franchising and the
    704
    use of the network, will gradually mean better reliability and punctuality and reduce overcrowding. In relation to a number of London lines, measures are already in place to make sure that overcrowding is tackled. It will take time. There is no doubt that the railways have been through a difficult time over the past few years, as I think even the hon. Gentleman's party has acknowledged, but I am confident that the SRA is taking the right steps gradually to deal with two problems: a legacy of underinvestment, and the fact that some 20 per cent. more people are using the railways, which is a good thing, although the industry has been too slow and hitherto has not been properly managed to make sure that we can deal with the increased use. That is now in hand.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the crazy situation affecting Virgin trains at Wakefield station, where passengers are allowed to alight from the train, but not to board it? That means that passengers have to travel to Leeds to catch a train to go through Wakefield, which is causing congestion and extra traffic into Leeds. Will my right hon. Friend take it upon himself to try to rectify that barmy situation, whereby people can get off a train, but cannot get on the train at the same station? It is just crazy.
    Mr. Darling: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I heard on the radio the other day a man giving what I would regard as a not wholly convincing answer as to why that was being done. If a train stops at a station, passengers have a reasonable expectation that they can get on or off. Not only can I give him the undertaking that he seeks, but I am already on that case.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State will recall the number of occasions on which his Government have made the same commitment to reduce overcrowding. They did so in October 2001, when in paragraph 44 of their response to the Select Committee's report on rail investment, they stated:
    "On commuter services, the priorities will be reductions in overcrowding and better reliability."
    How does he square that commitment, which has been made repeatedly, with the Strategic Rail Authority's announcement that it is going to cancel 100 trains a day?
    Mr. Darling: Let me explain yet again to the hon. Lady what the problem is. There are parts of the network where too many trains are running along the available track. The problem is acute in Birmingham, as has been said. Anyone who considers the railway for a moment will see that the difficulty is that, without a reduction in the number of services, that problem would be exacerbated.
    Perhaps it would help the hon. Lady if I gave her an example of the sort of problem with which we are dealing. On one service, an average of six passengers were using a train that was built to carry 140 people. Surely, if taking that train out of service allows more trains to run more reliably, that is the right thing to do. Let me give her another Birmingham example. From October last year, as a response to the Virgin cross-country service, Central trains increased the number of

    705
    services that it was running from two trains an hour to five. The result was congestion, as the trains simply could not get into the station. The SRA has reduced the number to four trains an hour, so the number of services has increased on the original number, but there is better management.
    No matter what Government are in power, the railways need to be managed properly. Indeed, it is an indictment of the Government whom the hon. Lady supported in the past that they did not manage the railways properly. What the SRA has announced is essential to ensure better reliability and punctuality. I am very sorry that she cannot see that.

    Trans-Pennine Express
    James Purnell: What improvements for passengers he expects the new franchise for the trans-Pennine express to deliver. [93532]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The new trans-Pennine express franchise is intended to provide for faster and higher quality long-distance passenger rail services between major towns and cities across the north of England. Its terms will reflect the outcome of negotiations with bidders, among other things.
    James Purnell: When my right hon. Friend is next in the north-west, may I encourage him to pop into the Stalybridge buffet bar, which many rail enthusiasts believe to be the best on the network? May I also warn him that, while he is sampling one of the many Belgian bottled beers that we have on offer, he may be taken aback at the anger of commuters on the trans-Pennine express? Will he meet me to discuss the petition that was signed by more than 400 commuters and discuss how we can improve the reliability and frequency of the trains and redevelop the station? Will he urge the SRA to act on that petition?
    Mr. Spellar: The first invitation is obviously a must for when I am next in the north-west. I think that I also detected an offer from my hon. Friend to stand a pint at the bar.
    As I know what an assiduous constituency MP my hon. Friend is, I am sure that he will engage with his local authority to put a case to the Strategic Rail Authority to consider a rail passenger partnership in his area. Of course, I would certainly be more than happy to meet him to discuss this matter further.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend come to Burnley at an early date to look at the need to improve the trans-Pennine service that runs via Burnley station, where there is tremendous potential? Everybody in Burnley is hoping that the new franchise will ensure that we get the service delivery to which we are entitled.
    Hon. Members: What about beer?
    Mr. Spellar: There was a certain lack in that particular request.
    706
    As my hon. Friend knows, I am due to visit Burnley in a couple of Fridays' time, albeit at half-past eight in the morning. I shall certainly look forward to discussing the matter with him further and I am sure that we can incorporate that into my visit.

    Rail Services (Penzance)
    Andrew George: What recent assessment he has made of the quality of main line rail services to Penzance. [93533]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Government recognise the importance of main line rail services to Cornwall. Delivering significant improvement is our top priority. The Strategic Rail Authority has correctly made improving performance a clear priority; it is the passengers' prime requirement.
    Andrew George: The Minister knows that punctuality has got worse for passengers in my constituency in the past five years. There are plans for further main line service cuts. Does the Minister therefore understand the extreme disappointment at the news that the SRA is due to terminate the rail passenger partnership fund, which we had hoped to use for the important dualling of the Probus and Burngullow eight-mile section? That would improve the efficiency of services that run to my constituency. Will he confirm that the lack of RPP funding will not jeopardise such services?
    Mr. Jamieson: The number of trains from Penzance to Birmingham has reduced by one under the scheme that was announced earlier. The same service as last September now exists. The service passes through my constituency and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the new Virgin Voyager service, which is a considerable improvement on the line. I know about the Probus to Burngullow section of the line, which is important for improving the reliability and throughput of trains. Under the Connecting Cornwall partnership for redoubling the line, Cornwall county council is consulting Network Rail. They are preparing a bid under objective 1 funding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is glad that the Government fought hard to get that funding, which makes such a bid possible, for Cornwall. The SRA knows about the scheme, but it has not been presented formally for funding. When that happens, it will receive careful consideration.
    Ms Candy Atherton: Does my hon. Friend know that Railtrack signed an agreement that gave priority to local runners for the intercity services to and from Penzance? That leads to long delays through Cornwall. Will he urgently ask the SRA to reconsider the decision?
    Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I am aware of the effort that she and others made to get objective 1 funding in the area. I assure her that her important point will be considered in the review of the services.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Why did the Government and the SRA pour scorn on First Great

    707
    Western's proposals, which were announced last October, to upgrade the rail link to Penzance that passes through my constituency in Plymouth when they now back a £6 billion upgrade of the rail link to Scotland? Is there one rule for the west country and another for the rest of the country?
    Mr. Jamieson: Many of the improvements that have been made to other parts of the network, for example, on the west coast main line and services into London benefit the west country as well as other parts of Britain. Congestion on other sections of the line is part of the reason for the services' failure to get through. If the hon. Gentleman had travelled on the service recently, he would know about some of the improvements. He smiles, but I do not know when he last travelled on the service. If he had, he would know about some of the improvements.

    Hydrogen Fuel
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What action he has taken to commission studies into the use of hydrogen fuel in transport. [93534]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Department has commissioned a study by Ricardo Consulting Engineers into the lifecycle carbon dioxide benefits of vehicles, including hydrogen vehicles.
    We have also commissioned an expert study of the benefits of various alternative fuels, including hydrogen.
    Both studies have been published on the Department for Transport website.
    Mr. Dalyell: On 9 December, some of us in the parliamentary scientific committee heard a convincing presentation on hydrogen by Derek Charters of MIRA—the Motor Industry Research Association—and Professor Richard Clegg of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. It was realistic and well researched. What sort of time scale can we expect for the reports to result in some action?
    Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for his question on that important matter. I know of his longstanding interest in it. It is difficult to predict the long-term future because some specific technological changes have to be tackled first.
    There is the very important issue of the storage and transport of hydrogen, and there are a number of associated issues, not least the development of fuel cells, an important matter with regard to the use of hydrogen.
    My hon. Friend will also be aware that some important environmental issues need to be addressed before we go full steam ahead with hydrogen. The hydrogen would have to be produced from renewable means. All the information that we have suggests that it is likely that, in perhaps 30 or 40 years' time, the future of transport will be in hydrogen. In the meantime, the Government are taking a number of very important
    708
    measures that will reduce the amount of pollution and the amount of CO2 from vehicles in the shorter to medium term.
    Mr. Robert Key: Will the Minister allow me to help him by telling him that the answer to the question is that it will be between 15 and 30 years before hydrogen can be used as an everyday fuel, particularly in motor vehicles? It depends on when the technology is available. When he talks to his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry will he ensure that the work at Culham carries on and is fully funded, so that we can see whether nuclear fusion will be a proper option or whether it could be solar power or wind power that generates the necessary hydrogen?
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman and I at least agree on the time scale. He said 15 to 30 years, and I said about 20 to 30 years. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the Government's powering future vehicles strategy, which brings together four of the important partners in Government Departments and draws together the threads of the policy on this matter. We have also brought together many of the stakeholders in industry, the environment, the oil-producing industry and the car industry to address some of these important issues. Grants are available through the Department of Trade and Industry to assist in the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised. If he wishes to take those forward through my Department or the DTI, we shall be very pleased to see that.

    Gourock-Dunoon Catamaran
    Mr. Alan Reid: What discussions he has had with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency regarding the safety of passengers travelling on the catamaran Ali Cat from Gourock to Dunoon. [93535]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Surveyors from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency inspected the Ali Cat on 29 October, 21 November and again on 28 November 2002 with the Health and Safety Executive. The ship was found to be operating safely. Minor recommendations were made to reduce movement of the gangway and the MCA continues to monitor the situation.
    Mr. Reid: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of the incident at Dunoon pier on 16 January, about which I have sent him statements from passengers. Will he ensure that a public inquiry is held into that incident because passengers were close to being killed? At that inquiry, will passengers or their legal representatives be able to question the managing director of CalMac and the owner of the vessel, because in letters to the press those gentlemen have arrogantly dismissed passengers' concerns? Will the role of the MCA also be questioned? It is a matter of great concern

    709
    that the MCA granted the vessel a licence to operate in those waters. The main concern is the safety of the vessel not at sea, but at Dunoon pier.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too long.
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important matter. I know, from the correspondence that he has sent me and the evidence that he has received from his constituents and others, that a very serious situation could have developed on 16 January. I share his concerns. I assure him that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has launched a very full investigation of the points made by his constituents and others. The pier authority at Dunoon has now fitted a wave gauge to assist the masters of vessels. I think that the problem is not so much the vessel and its quality, but the conditions in which it is operating. Caledonian MacBrayne issued instructions to masters not to embark or disembark passengers when waves were higher than 0.6 m. I shall look very carefully at the agency's investigation. Once we have its report, we shall decide what further action to take.
    David Cairns: Given that the catamaran normally operates on the Solent as a pleasure cruiser in the summer months, the Minister will understand that there will be concerns about its suitability for use on the River Clyde in the depths of winter, when conditions are frequently as bad as those to which he alluded. What assurances can I give my constituents who use the ferry regularly that when they do so, they will be travelling in complete safety?
    Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend's comment is extremely important. The point is not that the vessel is inherently unsafe but that the conditions and height of the waves on the day to which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) referred created the danger. When the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has delivered its report and made its recommendations, I shall certainly ensure that Members are informed and that anything we can learn from those is used in the operation of the vessel.

    Power Supplies (Rail Network)
    Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the availability of power on the rail network. [93536]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Strategic Rail Authority has put in place measures to ensure the upgrading of the power supply to accommodate the new trains for services to the south and east of London.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Will he confirm the report in this week's Public Finance, which says that the SRA—in other words, the taxpayer—will have to pay hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation for new carriages being left in sidings due to a power supply shortage? What services will have to be cut to pay for that compensation?
    710
    Finally, will he confirm that the power supply shortages have led to the delay in withdrawing the less safe mark 1 carriages?
    Mr. Darling: It might help if I explain the position to the hon. Gentleman and the House. The power supply on the lines to the south and east of London should have been upgraded some years ago. This is another Railtrack legacy that we have to deal with. The power supply was put in on most lines in the 1930s, and a bit more work was done in the 1960s. It should have been foreseen years ago that the new rolling stock would not be able to run efficiently on the existing power supply. That is being remedied, and the SRA and Network Rail will spend about £1 billion over the next few years to upgrade supply.
    At the moment, we think that between 300 and 500 trains will not be able to be introduced according to the proposed timetable—towards the end of 2004—but they should be in service by mid-2005. The SRA and Network Rail are getting to grips with the problem, and the money is going in to ensure that the trains can run as they were designed to run. I am afraid that this is yet another example of a problem that Railtrack should have seen and done something about years ago.
    Jonathan Shaw: My right hon. Friend said that there are too many trains on the old track, but he knows that we have new track in Kent—the channel tunnel rail link. When he comes to decide where those trains will stop, will he ensure that they stop in Thanet, which is one of the poorest areas of Kent, and the Medway towns, which are the engine for the regeneration of the Thames gateway? Never mind the offers of imported beer made during the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell)—if the Secretary of State makes the right choice, he can have the finest ale, which comes from the garden of England.
    Mr. Darling: I see that, at least among Labour Members, there is a growing tendency to offer strong drink in return for additional rail services. As my granny would have said, that is not always the best way to take key decisions. The SRA is looking at what domestic services could be increased and improved when the channel tunnel rail link is continued. I understand perfectly, as my hon. Friend has raised the matter with me on a number of occasions, the desirability of improving the service, particularly from north Kent to London. The SRA is considering that, so he perhaps ought to offer a drink to it as well as to Ministers—we never know what might happen!
    Mr. John Horam: Is it the case that operators such as Connex South Eastern can deal with the problem of lack of power supply only by running the new trains in what they describe as a degraded fashion—slower than they should be run?
    Mr. Darling: It is true that if the power supply is not of the strength needed, it affects the operation of the trains. As I said to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) a few moments ago, the difficulty is that Connex, which ordered the trains, and Railtrack, which was responsible for the network, ought

    711
    to have seen the problem so that it could have been dealt with far earlier. As it is, I expect that the majority of the new rolling stock coming on to the service will be able to run until the end of 2004. The 300 to 400 trains that would otherwise have come on to the line will come on by mid-2005.
    The fact is, I am afraid, that because Railtrack did not do the work when it should have been done, the standard of service was inevitably not as high as it should have been. Unfortunately, that remains the case. There is no shrinking from the fact that, until the power supply is fully upgraded, trains will not run as they should.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Any 10-yearold boy playing with a train set knows that two engines on the same electric line run at half the speed possible for just one train. Why did not the rocket scientists who run Connex and who used to run Railtrack notice that? Is my right hon. Friend certain that the time scale for putting new power into the south-east will be as short as possible?
    Mr. Darling: I certainly hope that it will be. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that there were too many people in Railtrack who did not spend enough time thinking about what was happening on the track but who were over-concerned about the possibilities of property development. It is an indictment of the previous Government that the company that they set up to run this country's rail network was focused not on running the railways but on how much money could be made out of property development.
    Mr. Tim Collins: A moment ago the Secretary of State said, "Whatever Government are in power, the railways need to be managed properly." The fiasco that he has just described will take place next year—seven years after this Government took office. Is he really saying that it has nothing whatsoever to do with him? Is this the "not me, guy" Government?
    Mr. Darling: Actually, I was agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman said just before Christmas, when he published his long-awaited railway policy. I heard him on the "Today" programme at about half past six in the morning when he announced it. What he said bears repetition:
    "The fruits of increased investment"—
    and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the acknowledgement—
    "are often overshadowed by the problems that continue to beset rail infrastructure. It should be acknowledged that Railtrack failed to get to grips with these problems."
    That is a welcome admission that Railtrack did not live up to the expectations of those who floated the company in the mid-1990s. As I have told the House on a number of occasions, the SRA and Network Rail are getting to grips with the problem. The Opposition were extremely critical only a few months ago of those bodies, but I note that the same policy document to which I have referred already makes it clear that it is now Conservative policy to support Government policy on Network Rail. Thank goodness those bodies are getting
    712
    to grips with the problem, as that is the only way in which we are going to improve the quality of services for passengers in the south-east of England who have suffered far too long from inadequate services, overcrowding and lack of reliability. Those problems are now being addressed.
    Mr. Collins: Since the long-term applicability of the right amount of power to the rail network clearly depends on predicting accurately the level of passenger and freight demand, will the Secretary of State answer the important question dodged earlier by the Under-Secretary about the axing of rail freight grants? Instead of saying what that grant will be this year, will the right hon. Gentleman say what it will be next year and the year after?
    Mr. Darling: The £40 million applies to next year as well. The SRA is constantly looking at its budgets to ensure proper cost control. That is right, and it is something that the SRA will continue to do throughout its lifetime. Cost control is another thing that Railtrack let rip. One reason we face problems with investment is that Railtrack had no idea about how to control costs. The SRA continues to support rail freight, not only through grants but because the charges on rail freight are slightly less than on passenger trains. All sorts of measures are being taken, including, for example, increasing capacity for freight on the west coast main line. The Government are committed to getting more freight off the roads and on to the railways.
    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, in his new Conservative party policy, has accepted what is happening to some extent. We now have better management, and one other ingredient—sustained money going into the railways. The Government will double the amount going into the railways between 2001 and the end of this Parliament. That is essential. When the hon. Gentleman next comes to look at his policy, he might also want to reconsider the Conservative policy of cutting spending by 20 per cent. That would be devastating.

    Waterloo-Exeter Rail Line
    Mr. David Laws: What plans he has to increase rail investment on the Waterloo to Exeter line. [93537]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): On 6 November 2002, the Strategic Rail Authority announced a new approach to the South West Trains franchise, which excluded infrastructure enhancements on the Waterloo-Exeter route. Towards the end of this month, the SRA will publish its revised strategic plan setting out its priorities for the network.
    Mr. Laws: Does the Minister understand how disappointed many people in the south-west are that the SRA should have U-turned on its plans to dual the Salisbury-Exeter stretch of line? Is not it time at least to consider a more limited scheme that might dual particular stretches of track to improve reliability and safety? Given the spirit in which Labour Members appear to go about their lobbying, would the Minister

    713
    be willing to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) over a cider at Yeovil Junction railway station to discuss how we can get to the bottom of the matter?
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the SRA has to prioritise its funds for lines where there is the greatest pressure. He has heard today, from Members on both sides of the House and not least from his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), about the pressure for extra spending on certain parts of the network. The new approach to franchises focuses on improving reliability and replacing some of the slam-door trains.
    I should very much enjoy a pint of cider in the west country with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). As the hon. Member for Yeovil is described as the highly regarded deputy economic spokesman of his party, who has been given the job of cutting £2 billion out of the budget before the election, perhaps he could explain, over that pint, how he will afford some of those improvements in the unlikely event that the Liberal Democrats come into government.
    Sir George Young: As Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I am taking an increasing interest in the inducements that are being offered in these exchanges.
    The Minister will be aware that the Waterloo to Exeter service runs through important stations, such as Overton, Whitchurch, Andover and Grateley. Is he also aware that when a seven to 15-year franchise was on offer to South West Trains the company was prepared to make substantial capital investments, but that as only a short extension is now on offer it is understandably more reluctant? Will he give an assurance that the SRA will step in and make the improvements to which we were all looking forward?
    Mr. Jamieson: I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments, although I notice that he did not offer me any "seducement- to visit his constituency.
    The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but the capital to which he referred was not always available in particular franchises—it was not actually connected to them. I can assure him that we recognise the importance of the line and of those stations, but he must recognise that the SRA, with the available funding, has to deal with the priorities as they stand, including the competing demands from his hon. Friends and other Members on both sides of the House.

    Birmingham Northern Relief Road
    Tony Wright: If he will make a statement on progress with the construction of the Birmingham northern relief road. [93538]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The construction of the M6 toll motorway, formerly known as the Birmingham northern relief road, is the
    714
    responsibility of the concessionaire, Midland Expressway Ltd. The road is on programme for opening early in 2004.
    Tony Wright: I am grateful for that answer. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that part of the purpose of that road is still to stop my constituents using it? As I understand it, the strategic purpose of the road is to relieve through traffic on the M6. If so, that can work only if my constituents and other people in south Staffordshire have reliable and effective ways of getting in and out of the conurbation. At present, they do not. The Chase line is horrendous. May I ask that one bit of my right hon. Friend's Department talks to the other bit? If that new road gets clogged up with my constituents—if they can afford to use it—it will defeat the purpose and in 20 years we shall have demands for a relief road to relieve the relief road.
    Mr. Spellar: I can confirm that the primary purpose of the road, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is to relieve the significant bottlenecks at the rail interchange and spaghetti junction, which create problems not only for west midlands industry but also for industry and commerce much further afield. I am sure that he will have held discussions with the motorway concessionaire in order to determine how the interests of his constituents can be served, but I take his point: we also need to look into other modes of transport—as we have pointed out from the Treasury Bench today—to ensure access not only to New Street but to the other stations in central Birmingham, thus freeing up traffic in the conurbation.
    Michael Fabricant: The M6 toll road will not only improve connections between the south-east and the north-west; it could also improve connections with Wales through the M54. Is the Minister aware that only four or five miles of single carriageway—the A460—would link the M6 toll road with the M54? May I induce the Minister with a mouldy sandwich at an M6 service station to improve the links between the M6 toll, the M54 and Wales?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Highways Agency has commissioned consultants to complete a feasibility report on possible alignment. It is due to be completed at the end of March 2003, and it will be put to the Secretary of State in the spring. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make representations after that.

  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister of State was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Regulation
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the small firms sector to discuss the better regulation agenda across government. [93521]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): In the normal course of my duties I attend many functions and events at which I meet business people and we speak on a wide range of topics.
    My right hon. Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston leads on better regulation. Today, the Better Regulation Task Force is hosting a conference of small firms at which the Government are represented by the Minister with responsibility for small businesses at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths).
    Mr. Bellingham: I am very pleased to hear about that, because the Minister will be aware of the grave concern in the business community, especially the small business community, about the intolerable burden of regulation. Is he aware that Lord Macdonald launched his regulatory reform action plan a year and a half ago? He promised that in the first year and a half there would be 64 regulatory reform orders, which are much needed by the small business community. How many of those orders have been made?
    Mr. Alexander: This provides a helpful opportunity to clarify the position. The Opposition have fundamentally misunderstood the commitment that was given. The regulatory reform action plan contained 268 proposals, of which only 63 were regulatory reform orders. I think that there is therefore a case for the hon. Gentleman to look at the commitment that was given and the progress that is being made towards those goals.
    Ian Lucas: Will the Minister assure me that the views of small businesses are taken into account when devising the Government's approach to regulation? As someone who previously ran a small business, I know that regulation is of great concern to businesses that employ, for example, fewer than half a dozen people. Are there specific representatives of small business on any of the bodies that the Government consult when framing policy?
    Mr. Alexander: Yes, I draw particular attention to the Better Regulation Task Force, headed by David Arculus, on which there is small business representation. The conference that it is hosting today will see the launch of the small firms impact test, which is included in revised Cabinet Office guidance and is consistent with the work that the Government have taken forward in a range of ways to tackle regulation. The Government set up the Small Business Service at the Department of Trade and Industry actively to promote a "think small first" strategy at all stages of policy development.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Given the unarguably disproportionate effect that red tape and bureaucracy have on small firms—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has made—and given that the Federation of Small Businesses has claimed recently that many small business owners are bewildered by the changes that the Government keep making and are reluctant to employ new staff for fear of unintentionally
    716
    falling foul of complex laws, will the Minister help the House by telling us whether he has one of the Government's famous targets for deregulation and getting rid of red tape? If so, what is it? If there is one and he is prepared to tell us what it is, how long will it take to reach that target at the present rate of deregulation?
    Mr. Alexander: On the point about employment creation, this Government have created more than 1 million jobs since 1997, many within the small business sector. The regulatory reform action plan contained a large number of commitments—268. The level of progress is currently 27 per cent., and given that we have three further years in which to continue to pursue this work we will take it forward on a month-by-month basis.
    There is a fundamental division across the House on this issue. We make no apology for the national minimum wage, the extension of maternity leave, and the introduction of paternity leave and paid holiday for the first time for many exployees across the country.

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What progress is being made in providing training for people making an application for public appointments. [93523]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government are keen to encourage people from all backgrounds to apply for public appointments. For example, my Department has participated in a national outreach campaign of regional seminars led by the Ministers for Women. These seminars gave practical advice on the skills and competencies relevant to public appointments and information on how to apply.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is desirable that people appointed to public offices should be representative of society as a whole and that, to achieve that, we need to make people aware of not just the opportunities that arise but the contribution that they could make? Does he agree that, if we do not do that, people on public bodies will continue to be middle class, middle aged and, often, men in suits, rather than having a fair representation of women, ethnic minorities, younger people and the various strata and components of our society?
    Mr. Alexander: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. The Government want the boards of public bodies to be representative of society as a whole. It is fair to acknowledge not only the tremendous work that is done by public bodies the length and breadth of the country but the work of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who has taken forward a range of initiatives to try to ensure that we capture the necessary diversity in public bodies so that they can work with excellence.
    Mr. John Bercow: Is training mandatory in those circumstances where it is available

    717
    Do the Government have a list of approved possible suppliers of such training? If so, how many does the list comprise?
    Mr. Alexander: Training is not mandatory in the sense that some people are ideally qualified on the basis of past experience to discharge their responsibilities in public bodies. Given the tenor of previous observations about regulation, I should be surprised if the Opposition were now suggesting that there must be mandatory training for every public body, but perhaps they are now advocating that.
    Jon Trickett: Does the Minister accept that manual workers are badly under-represented on such bodies? What steps will he take to increase representation? How might I encourage people from that background in my constituency to become public representatives?
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly endorse the desire to ensure that every section of society is well represented on our public bodies. One of the distinguishing features of the way in which public bodies are now advertised is that we are determined to ensure that people in communities throughout the country are made aware of such opportunities, rather than having to rely on our traditional Whitehall network to know that such opportunities are available. I believe that we can continue to do more, and I am encouraged by the strength of feeling in the House on this matter.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Graham Allen: What steps he plans to take to improve the speed and relevance of replies by Departments to letters and inquiries from (a) hon. Members and (b) the public. [93524]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Cabinet Office issues guidance to Departments on the handling of correspondence for Members of Parliament and the public. However, it is the responsibility of individual Ministers to ensure that their Department responds to all correspondence promptly and accurately.
    Mr. Allen: It is very unfair to ask the Minister this question since his replies are prompt, full and an example to all other Ministers. Indeed, I believe that Sir Andrew Gordon, the chief executive of "Ofmin", may well consider making my hon. Friend a beacon Minister. May I tell my hon. Friend that the standard that he delivers does not necessarily apply across Government? There is increasing discontent among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the speed and fullness of some of the responses to Members. That must be writ large in terms of the public. Will my hon. Friend seek to ensure that his colleagues reply as promptly and fully as he does?
    Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. Of course I acknowledge that there is
    718
    concern in the House about this important matter. We have a responsibility to the House as Ministers to reply promptly. I pay tribute to the work done by the Select Committee on Public Administration on this issue, about which the Government have made clear their determination to improve standards. We are continuing to work towards those goals.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Given that MPs' letters are the last resort for many desperate constituents who have suffered severe bureaucratic delay and that, according to parliamentary answers, the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have between them 1,500 MPs' letters unanswered after six months, will the Minister bring the authority of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary to bear on the Departments that are not delivering, although I am not sure whether that will work with the Lord Chancellor, to whom I wrote on 8 October about the temporary closure of Berwick court and who still has not replied long after the court has reopened?
    Mr. Alexander: I shall be happy to pass on the right hon. Gentleman's concerns to the relevant Ministers.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps know of the proposal to use Caythorpe Court in my constituency as an emergency centre for refugees. Is he aware of the strong opposition to that in my constituency? Is he aware that, on 14 December, I wrote to the Minister of State responsible, but did not receive a reply until 17 January, after a parliamentary question asking for a reply? Is he aware that, on Monday last week, I asked for a meeting? I have been told that there are personal reasons why I cannot have a meeting until 11 February. Accordingly, I have asked the Home Secretary for a meeting and, so far, that has been declined. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that pattern of conduct is in accordance with the conventions and practices of Ministers or the House, or is in any way satisfactory?
    Mr. Alexander: I can only reiterate that as the concerns raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman relate directly to the Home Office, I will pass them on to the Home Secretary.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Minister aware that one of the problems with ministerial replies to correspondence is not just the speed or fullness of the reply but whether the Minister answers the question? Is it possible to advise officials that it is not good enough to pull together a few standards paragraphs on a subject? It is helpful to read the letter and answer the question that the correspondent has put.
    Mr. Alexander: The present guidance, "Handling Correspondence for Members of Parliament: Guidance for Departments" sets out the principles that Departments should follow when replying to Members' correspondence.

Fire Dispute
12.31 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, I shall make a statement on the fire dispute and the Government's proposals in the light of the breakdown of negotiations at ACAS.
The House will be aware that all sides welcomed the resumption of talks after last Tuesday's 24-hour strike. The chair of ACAS agreed terms of reference for those talks with both the Fire Brigades Union and the employers. The terms of reference are very wide and say that both sides should
"bring their respective agenda to the table and neither side would seek to rule any issue in or out".
Despite that, the FBU executive decided yesterday to go ahead with further strikes, and at 9 o'clock this morning the FBU walked out for the fourth time. It will be on strike for 48 hours and at present it is scheduled to walk out again for a further 48 hours on Saturday morning.
While we sit here, the armed forces and other emergency services, including the police and the many retained firefighters who have continued to work during the strikes, are providing cover for the striking firefighters. I am sure that the House will want to join me yet again in expressing our thanks for their courage and hard work and for the way they have conducted themselves throughout this dispute. I have made it clear that the armed forces will have the resources that they need. As I said when I made my last statement to the House on 20 January, we have now provided 177 red engines to augment the green goddess fleet. For the first time during these strikes, we now have a number of aerial water towers to provide cover in extreme situations. The armed forces also have 30 new thermal imaging cameras.
The history of this dispute has been one of last-minute ultimatums and walkouts by the FBU. Let no one in this House be in any doubt: the switch from a series of eight-day strikes before Christmas to a programme of one-day and two-day strikes after Christmas does not represent a change of heart on behalf of the FBU; far from it. All it represents is a change of tactics. Its aim is minimum pain for FBU members and maximum disruption for everyone else.
It is the Government's duty to maintain public safety, and we will continue to do so. The House should be aware, however, that so far this dispute has cost the taxpayer more than £70 million, and costs will continue to rise at £1 million a day for as long as the dispute continues, whether or not the FBU is on strike. That money has not come from the reserve; it has come from programmes in my Office, many of which are designed to help the most needy in our communities.
The FBU is now trying to shift its ground by claiming that this dispute is about job cuts and protecting the fire service rather than pay and modernisation as set out by Sir George Bain's independent review of the fire service. The FBU is not interested in the modernisation agenda. It has put out false and misleading information about thousands of job losses and hundreds of fire station closures. That is a gross distortion of the proposals set out by Sir George Bain. Sir George made it clear that there is absolutely no need for compulsory
720
redundancies. Modernisation will not lead to hundreds of fire station closures. Instead, it will lead to a better fire service, greater safety for the public and more rewarding careers for fire service employees. The FBU is now seeking a judicial review of the proposed repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which is now before the House and is recommended by the Bain inquiry. That is a sign of how completely it is opposed to modernisation.
The repeal of section 19 will do no more than put the management of the fire service in local hands. All it removes is a bureaucratic obstacle, but it is one that the FBU has used to good effect to protect its outdated working practices. Contrary to what the FBU claims, local communities will still be consulted on fire service priorities and plans. That has not changed. Let no one be in any doubt: the FBU's claim remains, as it has for the past nine months, a 40 per cent. pay rise for firefighters and a 50 per cent. pay rise for control room staff without any commitment to modernisation whatsoever—no change, no compromise, no modernisation.
Talks at ACAS started on 4 December. There have been days and days of talks about talks, yet the FBU has walked away from any substantive negotiations. I have had numerous discussions with the general secretary of the FBU, and the Government have given him the benefit of the doubt, but this latest strike, coming so soon after the terms of reference for the negotiations were agreed, leads me to conclude that the FBU executive is not serious about a negotiated settlement.
The latest round of strikes confirms that the FBU is playing cat and mouse with the employers, the Government, public safety and public money. The Government and local authority employers want a fully modernised fire service providing the best service to the public. The FBU refuses even to negotiate about that. The employers are now rightly insisting that in light of the past two months of strike action, talks cannot take place while strikes are in progress or threatened. As yesterday's decision by the FBU shows, the union is determined to press ahead with further strikes. As a result, negotiations have broken down and we are in deadlock.
The fire service is not like any other industry. The public cannot be put at risk on a weekly or monthly basis. It is essential to resolve the dispute. We all want a resumption of talks. The employers have rightly put forward a fully costed proposal on pay and modernisation based on Sir George Bain's agenda. That is the only basis for negotiation. But the Government have to be prepared if the FBU continues to refuse to discuss modernisation. Against that background, I have concluded that the time has come to take a further step to help break the deadlock.
As a matter of priority, I will introduce legislation in the public interest to take new powers of direction over the fire service. Those powers will, I hope, bring a new and much-needed sense of reality into future negotiations. I will discuss, through the usual channels, including the devolved Administrations, the best way to introduce the legislation. I will draw on the provisions in the Fire Services Act 1947 that were repealed in 1959. Those provisions allowed a Secretary of State to specify the pay, terms and conditions of the fire service. In addition, we will propose powers to direct the fire

721
service on its objectives and the use of facilities and assets. Legislation itself will not end the dispute, but it is prudent to take those powers to use, if necessary, to help to reach an agreement.
The current strike is due to end on Thursday morning. I hope that the FBU will sit down again and negotiate with the fire service employers, but, for the avoidance of doubt, the Government's position will not change. We will continue to implement the Government's part of the Bain agenda; we will continue to resist the strikes; and we will continue to do all that we can to protect public safety, especially at a time when there is a heightened level of terrorist threat and our armed forces are under increasing pressure from competing demands.
It will take some weeks to put in place the legislation and the discussions and consultations that I have proposed. Meanwhile, the House will agree that the best possible outcome is for the employers and the FBU to reach a negotiated agreement. I urge the FBU to call off further strikes and get back to the negotiating table in the remaining weeks available.
David Davis: May I begin by thanking the Deputy Prime Minister for making his statement and for prior warning of it? I should like to add our support to his calls for the FBU to call off its irresponsible strike action. May I also take this opportunity, as he did, of offering the thanks of the House to the armed forces, the other emergency services and, most particularly, the retained firefighters, without whose service the safety of the public could not be guaranteed?
Sadly, we are becoming all too familiar with hearing a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on fire strikes. Today we will continue to look for answers to the questions that are still unanswered. By taking this opportunity to raise a number of practical matters with him before dealing with the substantive new announcement, I hope that I will give the House time to digest the full import of his proposal.
Throughout this action, we have tried to extract from the Government commitments in several areas, including transitional funding and the effects that modernisation will have on the fire service. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister told a Select Committee that this 48-hour strike would cost the taxpayer £6 million; that is on top of the £70 million cost of the strikes to date. Will he confirm those figures to the House, and, given that this is such a large sum of money, precisely how he will meet the transitional funding required? Also, exactly which of the public services that he referred to will be reduced, or eliminated from his departmental budget, as a result of the union's needless strike action? Will he also confirm that those fire authorities that have already modernised will not be hit financially as a result of any budget shortfall?
As the Deputy Prime Minister said, throughout this action the Fire Brigades Union has repeatedly claimed that modernisation will mean job losses and the closure of fire stations. The best way to dispel lies is with the truth. Will he tell the House what job losses and station closures he expects as a result of modernisation? Since it is in everybody's interests to ensure that members of the
722
union return to work as soon as possible, can he refute union claims that his plans for the fire service will result in 4,500 job losses and the closure of 150 stations? If he cannot refute those claims, can he tell the House how he will maintain high service levels throughout the country and especially in rural areas, and—as I have asked him before—halve the level of deaths, as has been done in other countries?
Given the FBU's irresponsible action, members of our military are yet again on the streets of the United Kingdom, protecting the public from fires. The cover they have provided throughout the action has been excellent, and we thank them for that. Everybody wants this series of strikes to come to a rapid end, and that means persuading the firefighters that Bain is a good deal, and that they should persuade the FBU to accept the deal.
The dominant and immediate issue, however, is that of public safety, particularly given the combination of possible terrorism at home and war in Iraq. Last week, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister specifically about the cover provided by 16 Air Assault Brigade, and how it was going to be replaced when that unit was committed elsewhere. I am afraid that he tried to bluster his way out of the question. As column 26 of Hansard shows, he said:
"I should point out that most of the quotes that the right hon. Gentleman gave came from the press. I am not as confident as he is about press reports on these matters".—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 26.]
I suspect that his civil servants gave him a talking to after that, because a day or two later he had to write to me. The key sentence in his letter was:
"For strike action on 28 January"—
today—
"16th Air Assault will be replaced in full."
In the past two weeks, the Ministry of Defence has failed to give an answer on this, and last week the Deputy Prime Minister refused to give an answer. Can the House of Commons now have a straight account of exactly how the Government are going to protect the public, with troops being deployed to Iraq?
Of course, the Opposition have faced this lack of response from the Government before on raising public safety issues. First, the Government deny the significance of the issue, then they rubbish the feasibility of the proposal, and finally they try to claim credit for doing what we called for in the first place. We saw this with the red fire engines, and I suspect that we will do so again with the use of the law in this dispute. As we agreed last week, the risks of strike action increase every week with the combined threats of terrorism and war in Iraq. This week, the prospect of resolution of the strike looks as far away as ever. So the House can understand the Deputy Prime Minister's frustration, and his probable belief that these negotiations will get nowhere in the foreseeable future; indeed, that is pretty much what he said today.
As I understand the Deputy Prime Minister's proposal, he will take to himself the right to impose a conclusion of the negotiation process, and to decide the firefighters' terms and conditions. What is absolutely unclear is what he will do if they continue to strike, against his decision. We will look at this proposal carefully, and if we are persuaded that it will work we

723
will facilitate its progress through the House; however, we do not know that it will stop the strike. It may well end the negotiations, but it will not stop the strike, and doing so is the key issue.
Throughout the strikes, the Deputy Prime Minister has rubbished our calls for an injunction, calling them inflammatory. Does not the action that he has proposed today inflame the situation without necessarily providing any prospect of a resolution? This morning, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions rightly said that the strikes are
"completely pointless, would not achieve anything … and put the public at risk."
He was right, but if that is not a public interest argument for an injunction stopping the strike, I do not know what is.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister once more whether he will request the Attorney-General to seek an injunction against the strike on public interest grounds. We all know that the final decision will be made by the courts, but that will not happen without initial action by the Deputy Prime Minister. We will look carefully at his changes to the 1947 Act, but action to stop these dangerous strikes is what the public want.
The Deputy Prime Minister: At the beginning, I should express appreciation for the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation and support for the emergency services, which everyone on both sides of the House fully endorses.
On the cost of the dispute, I told the Select Committee that I thought that it was about £5 million, although there are other estimates. However, it is probably something like £1 million a day, but we have to pay more if we are using troops during the dispute, so it may well be £2 million a day. There are negotiations between different Departments, and various costs are involved, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that I cannot be precise. However, I have said that the net cost to the Department is £70 million; if other Departments are included, it is about £100 million, which is a considerable sum. I pointed out to the Select Committee that I therefore face some difficult choices, as that cost will not be funded from reserves but from my Department's budget. Sometimes, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, Departments underspend and sometimes they overspend, and I have to make a judgment about where that money will come from, but it will come from the Department. The more money that is used for the dispute, the more difficulties are created—do I cut back programmes or, indeed, do I find transference money necessary for the two or three-year deal proposed by Bain?
I shall have to deal with those difficulties as they arise, but we cannot be certain that they have been resolved until negotiations have been concluded. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree that we would like the dispute to finish. I would like the negotiations to result in a settlement with as little bitterness as possible. The longer disputes go on, the greater the difficulties. It is far better to have an agreement, which is why I fundamentally believe that it is far better to provide opportunities for an agreeable negotiated position than to impose a solution. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether legislation will in fact secure what he wants—the ceasing of a strike if he made it illegal or the
724
Attorney-General took action. The situation is difficult, but the evidence does not necessarily lead one to accept that by introducing such legislation the dispute will be ended. I do not believe that that is the case, and my own experience shows why. One has to make a judgment, and I have sought to do so.
If I can just deal with the role of the Attorney-General, I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the Government's job to make a judgment about the Attorney-General. I notice that every time a statement is made in the House, the shadow Attorney-General is never here to give his view.
David Davis: I will bring him next time.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Well, do that so I can ask him directly for his advice. It will be the same as the advice I get from the Attorney-General—he has to make a judgment. He consults, takes various matters into account and makes judgments about public safety, but it is he who makes the judgment—the Government cannot direct him to do so. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Attorney-General keeps himself fully informed of the situation. We are therefore at odds about the best way to use legislation. I have proposed intervention and the possibility of an imposed solution, which allows an awful lot more time while discussions are under way in the House and consultations are conducted for negotiations to continue. I would like a negotiated settlement—let us be clear about that. I want the employers and the employees to work to find a settlement themselves.
My proposal almost suggests an end-date for the negotiations that have been going on for nearly 12 months since the first announcement of strikes. In any reasonable assessment one would assume that a negotiated settlement could be achieved within a 12-month period. I hope that that will be done in a shorter time but, quite apart from the extra costs involved, we are in special circumstances and are reaching a stage where public safety is a concern. Everyone in the House praises the emergency services currently in operation but we all accept that they are not as good as having full-time firefighters. I am therefore obliged to bring the situation to a conclusion, hence the reason for my judgment today.
As for jobs lost, the Bain inquiry makes it clear that there is no need for compulsory redundancies, even through the modernisation proposals, and refers to the number of early retirements through the pension scheme. The situation faced by those in the union is quite different from that which was faced by the miners, who were told, "We're closing 100 pits and 100,000 workers will be redundant from tonight." That is not the position that is facing the fire workers, and it is wrong for them to suggest that it is.
The closure of fire stations is unjustified. Again, I refer to the Bain inquiry. At the end of the day, we have to strike a balance between intervention and prevention; that is what the new risk assessment is about. Risk assessment is not new to the fire service—it has constantly undertaken it in relation to the siting of fire stations. That should continue, and it is not proposed that it should change, but the balance between intervention and prevention that Bain talked about is an important part of it.

725
As regards public safety concerns and the use of armed forces, whenever there is a deployment of whatever divisions of whatever parts of the Army, the armed forces have told us clearly that there will be no reduction in the numbers of people deployed and that full cover will be provided. All that I have to do is to accept the word. of armed forces representatives that they have the same amount of people, that the trained personnel are in place and that they can maintain the same level of service. I have no reason to doubt that, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was doubting it. He played around with which regiments are here and which are there. That is fair enough—he might find it interesting—but for me the reality is whether the same amount of troops are deployed in the same way and whether they possess the same skills. We are giving them extra equipment. That is good enough for me, and if it is good enough for the armed services, I accept their word on that.
In all such matters, Secretaries of State are accountable for making a balance of judgment, and I have given the House my best consideration of that. Apparently, the Opposition would rush into making legislation to ban strikes or to give directions to the Attorney-General. That would not help the situation. I have struck a balance that means that there is an end to the time in which negotiations can take place. I shall take powers, with the consent of the House, to implement such an agreement. If it is not implemented, I can implement it through the power that I am seeking today. The important point is that there is time to continue the negotiations. That is what we want—for both parties to get back to the negotiating table.
Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and join him, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, in expressing our thanks to the armed forces, to the other emergency services and to the many retained firefighters who are working to help the public during strikes.
As he will know, Liberal Democrat Members have agreed with him on many of the actions that he is taking during the dispute, including the need for a fair pay settlement linked to real modernisation along the lines of the Bain review. However, we cannot agree with the statement. Does he not realise that rushing the proposed emergency legislation through the House will be seen as a measure that is designed to inflame the dispute, not to solve it? Throughout the dispute, the Deputy Prime Minister has worked hard to win over the hearts and minds of firefighters. Why, then, is he now seeking to alienate them with this panic measure? Will he acknowledge that rushed emergency legislation has a very chequered history in this House? Does he recognise that if rushed legislation on dangerous dogs was flawed, rushed legislation on fire services could be fatal?
The Deputy Prime Minister claims that yesterday's decision by the FBU executive was the trigger for today's statement. We share his regret and anger that the FBU has pressed ahead with strikes and appears to have decided to turn its back on ACAS, and we share his view that the Government could not leave that decision unanswered, and did indeed have to act. However, surely now is the time for compulsory and binding
726
arbitration. Why have the Government not announced that they will require the FBU and the employers to attend talks at ACAS, forcing both sides to the negotiating table? The Deputy Prime Minister says that he wants the involvement of the independent arbitrator, and that is the most sensible way forward.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise what a dangerous precedent he is setting? Who will be next on the Government's hit list for imposed pay settlements without negotiation or independent arbitration? This is a huge centralisation of power. Will the Government's next target be health workers or teachers, or will Ministers reserve such treatment for the emergency services, including the ambulance service? The Deputy Prime Minister rightly tells us that his top priority is public safety. Does he not realise that if Ministers were to intervene in two-hour stoppages, however frustrating, the practical effect could be to reduce public safety, as firefighters would be likely to withdraw their labour completely?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he is reported to have said that transitional funding for modernisation could be cut if strikes go ahead? Does he realise that far from punishing the firefighters, that would punish the British public and local communities? Will he also explain his astonishing revelation that the cost of the strike is coming not from the reserve, but from his own Department's budget? How he can justify that decision, which he himself admits will hit those most in need?
Throughout the dispute, Liberal Democrat Members have given the Government the benefit of the doubt. We completely agreed that the FBU's 40 per cent. pay claim was outrageous and that any fair pay settlement must be linked to real modernisation. Yet we also believe that today's statement is a major mistake by the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister is in great danger of losing the support of the public and of the House.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for offering the typical support that Liberal Democrats provide in such difficult situations.
As I understand his case, he believes that there should be fair negotiations connected to modernisation, and that both parties should be involved. We can all put our hands up in favour of that—for nine months, we have been trying to get the two parties to do precisely that. His solution appears to be to force both sides to go to arbitration. Presumably, that would require some legislation to direct them, but he is telling me that I should not use legislation in that way. At the moment the firefighters are refusing to go to ACAS, and I do not think that they will change their minds simply because the Liberals get up and say that they should do so or that I should not introduce legislation. Does he accept that I would require legislation to direct them to go in as a negotiating team? Does he think that that is an easy process? It certainly is not. He is not jumping up to correct me, so I assume that he accepts that we need legislation. Curiously, the Liberals have supported similar legislation—the Fire Services Act 1947. Admittedly, there were not so many of them then, but nevertheless they supported the essential principles of that Act. In various disputes, the Secretary of State has

727
to make decisions in areas where public safety could be threatened, and that is presumably why such provisions were included in the 1947 Act.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I am rushing the legislation, but that is not so. I have to consult everybody, including the Liberals—I have started that process, and perhaps they will rethink their position—and I must then make a proposal to the House, which will debate the primary legislation. I suspect that there may even be a statutory requirement to lay an order, so that the House would have to debate the matter again. That is not a quick process. It will take several weeks for the House to discuss the proposals, which means that there are many weeks in which the negotiations can continue without any enforced situation. It is a matter of judgment, and I have decided to take this course of action, which allows for negotiations, but says to both parties, "You cannot continue to have deadlock in this situation without facing possible intervention with the agreement of this House."
Mr. John MacDougall: Would my right hon. Friend join me in expressing his condolences, and those of the House, to the family and friends of Sidney Lennon, who was affectionately known as John Lennon, his wife Linda and his son Paul, who tragically died through fire at their home in my constituency, in Hill Road, Kennoway in Fife, at 3 am on Sunday morning? Sadly, in those tragic circumstances, the issue of the Bain report cropped up in the media. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that there are no proposals by the Government that would weaken public safety during the early hours of the morning, which are known by fire brigade staff as the dead hours?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I can tell my hon. Friend that I read of a tragic case—I think that it was in the Daily Mirror—in which people died during the evening in terrible circumstances in a fire that occurred at their home. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to express their support and deepest sympathy, through my hon. Friend, for the family that is facing such tragedy.
1 can give my hon. Friend an assurance that public safety will be maintained at the highest level. He mentioned the Bain report—the point of that was to increase fire coverage. It is not always a matter of intervention. The tragedy of many deaths that occur as a result of fires at night is that although the firefighters are quick to get there, a fire that might have been prevented by fire prevention techniques of some kind is often already well advanced. I do not know whether that was so in the case my hon. Friend mentioned. There is a great deal of evidence to show that we should emphasise prevention rather than intervention and achieve a better balance between them. That is precisely what the Bain inquiry proposed, and I want to discuss with the FBU how we can achieve that.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: As the last Secretary of State who had to face prolonged public sector strikes, may I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that he continues to take a firm stance on the firefighters' strike? Will he tell the House when, according to the latest Government estimate, the
728
continued need to use the armed forces in the dispute will start to impact negatively on national security in the context of Iraq?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words of support. As regards the armed services, we would take their advice. They tell us that the use of troops in the present dispute does not impinge in any way on the contribution of the armed forces to the situation in Iraq or to fighting the fire dispute. I am sure that they will make it clear if it does impinge on their capability. Obviously, these matters are assessed from time to time. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be better if we brought the dispute to an end, preferably by negotiation. What I have done today is to set an end date to the negotiations.
Mr. Doug Henderson: I have a lot of sympathy with my right hon. Friend's suggestion in his statement that there is a need to reform the employers' side of the negotiating structure in the fire service. I understand the need for change in that respect, but may I prod him about his intentions in a situation where the Secretary of State imposes a settlement? Will there be an implied no-strike clause included in the legislation whereby in the event of a union not accepting the Secretary of State's position and taking industrial action, an injunction would be sought to bring the union and its members back into procedures?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend is aware of the sensitivities involved in such matters. He is right to point out the responsibilities of the employers in these circumstances. That was pointed out by Bain, who proposed radical changes for the employers as well as the trade unions. We have already set in hand a number of changes on the management side, which require Government action. I have indicated to the House that we intend to do that.
With regard to the Secretary of State taking action in the way that I described today, it is not an imposition on the unions; it is an imposition on the fire authorities, which have the responsibility for the payment. That is how it was envisaged in the 1947 Act, and that is how we envisage it. If the employees refuse to accept the payment through their banks, I assume that they can send the money back. The more serious point is whether they decide to continue to strike. That is a judgment to which the FBU will have to address itself. It should make that judgment soon, rather than maintaining for a number of months the threat to public safety and the expense. The matter needs to be drawn to a conclusion. Any idea of guerrilla tactics going on for 12 months or so, which some have advocated—holding odd strikes from time to time—is unacceptable and does nothing to help public safety. I have made it clear that that will not be tolerated.
Mr. John Maples: At the Kineton army base in my constituency, with the British Army's ammunition dump, the defence fire services have two modern, fully equipped fire engines. In the normal course of events, one of those fire engines is made available to assist in local emergencies, but they have received an unequivocal order, which I have seen,

729
that in the present fire dispute, neither of those fire engines should in any circumstances be made available to help with emergencies. Apparently that order comes from the Ministry of Defence and therefore, presumably, there are similar orders to defence fire services across the country. The Deputy Prime Minister is not exactly famous for fighting his battles with his hands tied behind his back. Why is he doing so in this case?
Mr. Prescott: I do not know the details of the matter, but I will look into it. It is right for the Ministry of Defence to make decisions about the use of its own equipment in these circumstances. I do not want to prejudge the issue; I will investigate it and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Knight: I met the chief fire officer of Dorset on Friday last week to discuss the dispute. He told me that some of the modernisations that are mentioned in the Bain review have already been implemented in Dorset and other authorities in the south-west, and savings have been made accordingly. Will the employers, and will my right hon. Friend, when he takes new powers of direction over the fire service, assume that modernisation savings can be made evenly across the country?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am well aware that in a number of brigade areas some changes have taken place—some with FBU agreement nationally and sometimes with disagreement. One of the difficulties that I have experienced is that when one negotiates with the FBU one cannot assume that what it proposes will be carried out at brigade level. I have found that to be a problem in Gold command, for example. I will certainly want to look at all the modernisation measures, which should apply to all areas. The brigades that have gone ahead and implemented some of the measures should not be disadvantaged in the settlement simply because they have carried out those proposals. We will take that into account.
Adam Price: Since the last time that the fire service was effectively nationalised was during the second world war under Herbert Morrison, the Deputy Prime Minister will appreciate that he is proposing a fairly draconian measure. Does he accept that it seems to fly in the face of the Bain report, which explicitly stated that the fire service cannot be run as a central command function? If the devolved Administrations indicate that they do not want to go down the centralising route, will he allow them to retain the existing arrangements? Finally, further to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), can the Secretary of State explain what possible advantage there is for the FBU in entering into negotiations, when it is repeatedly told that there is no room for negotiation and that the Government will veto any deal and impose their own will?
Mr. Prescott: That does not seem to fit with the events, which I have watched closely. Before the FBU
730
goes into discussions, it wants to lay down all sorts of conditions. The union stated in December that it wanted to go to ACAS and that nothing would be ruled in or ruled out, but it still will not walk in and talk. It has had days and days of talking, and a few minutes of face-to-face negotiations. That is not a good way to deal with matters. I always understood that each party went in and put its case to ACAS without ruling out any other party going in. The parties sat in different rooms and ACAS officials shuttled between them to try and find some agreement. It is not unusual for demands to be made of other parties. The role of ACAS is to try and find a way forward. The FBU has announced that if there is no prior agreement, it will not go to ACAS to discuss the matter. That is stupid. It is not acceptable and casts doubt on the union's real intentions.
With regard to the decentralisation of powers, curiously one of the problems that I have is that I am trying to decentralise by taking powers away from me as Secretary of State under section 19, and the union is against that. We need to achieve a proper balance. I have said, and Bain said, that the Fire Services Act 1947 should be reviewed. I have informed the House that my judgment about many of the recommendations and the balance between them will be in the White Paper that I will shortly publish.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: We understand my right hon. Friend's predicament. He may well bring in legislation to compel arbitration, but he cannot compel agreement. That is the nub of the problem. Does he intend to impose Bain through arbitration or through legislation? Again, if he cannot get agreement, he will stack up major problems and create a great deal of bitterness. I say that with a great deal of sympathy for my right hon. Friend. I appeal to him to think carefully before he brings any legislation before the House.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of common sense. I have wrestled with the thought for a considerable time. I have been pressed from some parts of the House to introduce legislation immediately. I have never felt from my own experience, and neither does history teach, that legislation can force free people to do what they do not want to do. It is a human right to withdraw one's labour, and we have reinforced that in legislation in the House and under European conventions. We have to find a balance between all those considerations, particularly with regard to emergency services such as the fire service. Even there, if we try to force a deal on the fire service and it will not accept it, we will have another problem. I recognise that, but in my judgment people will come to the view that it is better to settle the dispute by negotiation.
All I am asking is for the union to sit down and talk. I am not asking it to accept any details, nor are the employers. We just want to sit down and talk. All reasonable people would expect that. I am trying to provide the conditions for it to take place. There will be a number of weeks before we begin to discuss possible legislation, which gives the continuing possibility, after nine months of dispute, that some kind of agreement can be found. What I am doing is indicating that we cannot continue to tolerate the continuation of the dispute with tactics that are deliberately designed to drag it out, cost

731
a great deal more and cause the greatest of inconvenience generally with the least inconvenience to the fire workers. In those circumstances, I have to say on the Government's behalf that that is not acceptable practice.
Mr. James Paice: The Deputy Prime Minister rightly referred to the fact that retained firefighters have continued to work. Indeed, as he well knows, in my part of Cambridgeshire and many parts of the country, the retained service normally provides all cover, regardless of strikes. The Retained Firefighters Union does not have negotiating rights, so negotiations are carried out on behalf of retained firefighters by the FBU. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, during the autumn, a provisional agreement was made on retained pay that would have resulted in a considerable reduction in income for a large proportion of retained firefighters? Given the sterling work that the retained service has continued to do in providing cover, does he agree that it would be astonishing if it were made the sacrificial lamb in the outcome of the talks?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government's view is that there should be a fair deal for everyone. Many of the retained firefighters are members of the FBU, which would claim the right to negotiate for them, but I am aware of the difficulties faced by those who are not members of the FBU and are not represented at the negotiating table. That was pointed out by Bain, who makes a number of recommendations about changing the structure of negotiation and discussions in the industry. We are considering those issues and I shall make a statement in the White Paper when we have reached our conclusions.
If people decide to go on strike, it is their right to do so. People who decide not to do so—in this case, they belong to another organisation—have the right to work at their workplace, and we should express our appreciation. That is a judgment for individuals, but I am aware of the difficulties and we will address the issue in the White Paper.
Caroline Flint: I recently received a letter from a firefighter at Edlington fire station in my constituency in which he rightly pointed out that there has been modernisation in South Yorkshire, including the use of defibrillators and work with the community. He wanted reassurance that the Government acknowledge that there has been modernisation in certain parts of our fire service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to that firefighter, to the public and to everybody in the House, that prompts the question why, if it can happen in South Yorkshire, it cannot happen throughout the rest of the country?
The Deputy Prime Minister: One of the difficulties that we face is that different judgments can be made in different areas, whether on the central emergency control centres or defibrillators. That raises an important issue. Such matters should be subject to national decisions. The use of such equipment should be agreed in the industry between the unions and employers and implemented. As the general secretary has pointed out, sometimes a recommendation is made, but brigades do not implement it because they have a
732
certain amount of authority. We will have to address that question. If we get a national agreement but a brigade says that it will not implement it—one of the problems that the process involves—we will have to do something about that. We will consider those difficulties in the White Paper. We want to reassure and thank those who have adopted modern methods that we think should be advanced in all areas and brigades. We should have a system in which that applies automatically, rather than in which single brigades make a decision about those important issues.
David Burnside: Those of us from Northern Ireland will welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement and give the legislation sympathy and scrutiny. Will he please give a commitment that the matter will be kept on a national level, not a decentralised one? It is important that it is debated, discussed and solved nationally. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that a firefighters' strike in coming weeks and months could seriously endanger life in this country? If we are going to war, one of the immediate reactions may be an increase in terrorism against the United Kingdom. The impact and threat of such an increase while firefighters are involved in a dispute will be to endanger life nationally. Will he try to solve the matter as soon as possible?
The Deputy Prime Minister might like to know that I met the FBU on Friday. Its members on the ground are reasonable men whose own worst enemy is their leadership. The matter needs to be settled as quickly as possible and that needs to be done at a national level, as we are moving into very dangerous territory in terms of the possibility of war and the threat of terrorism.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House that I should like the dispute to end as soon as possible on agreeable terms. I am making an appeal that serious negotiations should take place and lead to conclusions. I have proposed that other actions be taken if that does not happen over time.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the national issue, I referred to the Fire Services Act 1947, which was a United Kingdom measure. Indeed, at that time, the devolved Administrations did not exist and powers were not given to devolved authorities in different areas. The 1947 Act introduced a national requirement and I have to talk to devolved Administrations as much as other bodies to see how they feel about these matters. I have given them very quick notice—it is natural that I should do so—but I have reassured them that I will be having discussions. How we deal with the matter is a national issue, but if devolved Administrations feel that they want to deal with it differently, I must seek discussions with them.
John McDonnell: The Deputy Prime Minister failed to answer explicitly the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), so may I be more explicit in asking it? If he takes the power to impose a settlement and the FBU continues to strike, is he now considering taking the power to withdraw the

733
right of firefighters to strike? If so, many will see this as an attempt to provoke an all-out strike and an attack on trade union rights in this country.
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is quite the opposite of what I intend, but the hon. Member is known for exploiting different statements made in the House to bad effect. Let me make it clear to him: I have said time and again in this House that I do not think that the dispute can be resolved with legislation. I have resisted many of the claims that have been made by those who say, "Why don't you use anti-strike legislation or instruct the Attorney-General?" The hon. Gentleman is not always here, but if he reads the record, he will see that I have been saying that from time to time, and I believe it. All that I am doing today is saying that there must be an end to the negotiations. The dispute has now run for nine months, and I hope that it ends quickly, but if it continues, that will not be acceptable. In such circumstances, I will have a responsibility to say, "If you cannot come to an agreement and there is a deadlock, we cannot sit here and whine." I have a responsibility for public safety and to see that a deal is implemented. I hope that those circumstances do not come about and that we will not need the legislation that I am talking about. The matter might be settled tomorrow and I might not have to talk about it again. That would be good.
If the hon. Member is asking, "What would happen if?", I point out that that is always the big question in politics. I hope that reasonable people will take into account the fact that we are trying to find a negotiated settlement and are providing more room for that to happen, but those involved will have to see that there is a timetable. If they choose not to do so, I will have to consider the circumstances. I know from my own experience that free people cannot be forced to work if they do not want to do so, but this is a matter of balance. I heard the same argument about prison officers, police and so on. [Interruption.] It did not lead to the circumstances to which he refers, although, presumably, that is what he predicted, as he does from time to time. In those circumstances, a judgment has to be made at the appropriate time. I am still ever hopeful that he will make a reasonable statement to reasonable men, rather than inflaming the situation, as he does from time to time. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. McDonnell should be quiet.
Several hon.Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can call every hon. Member who stands, but they must be brief and ask only one question.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Having sat in a green goddess for the first time on Friday in Plymouth—I admired it in a classic car kind of way, but saw that it was prehistoric, unsafe and completely unsuitable for firefighting work—may I press the Deputy Prime Minister to try to ensure that many more red engines are made available? After all, they are owned
734
by the people of this country and not the striking firefighters, and he has repeatedly said that public safety is one of his primary concerns.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I had a similar experience when I rode on a green goddess in Leconfield in east Yorkshire. One admires the skills that are deployed in manoeuvring such old vehicles. We must give our armed forces the best facilities that we can for the job that we have asked them to undertake. Approximately 177 red engines are being used. There must be a balance between their deployment and that of the green goddesses. That is achieved in the way the armed services consider best and sufficient. We shall always try to fulfil their demands, but we currently have the balance that they requested.
Mr. Russell Brown: As a trade unionist, I am bitterly disappointed that we have reached the point of my right hon. Friend considering legislation. I ask him again not to listen to Conservative Front-Bench Members. They clearly want to do nothing but take the dispute to court to break it. It is interesting that they use phrases such as "stopping the strike." That can happen only through a negotiated settlement.
I implore my right hon. Friend to look beyond the dispute at the Fire Services Act 1947. Does he agree that it bears no resemblance to the operation of the modern fire service?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. I take no pleasure in coming here to discuss such a move; indeed, I do so reluctantly. Agreement about work and conditions should be between the two parties.
At the time, people perceived the 1947 Act not as anti-trade union legislation but as a means of arbitration when two parties could not agree in the special circumstances that applied. It was fully supported by Labour and Conservative Members. However, that was more than 50 years ago, and people may feel differently now.
Our recognition of the right to strike lies at the heart of the matter. I would think very carefully before taking it away from people. However, it is important that people who get into a dispute reach an agreement in negotiations. We have had nine months of negotiations, if they can be described as such, yet the claim is still 40 per cent. That is unacceptable and people must sit down and negotiate seriously.
I am here today because there appears to have been a change of tactics—rather than a change of mind—and an attempt to drag matters out. In that case, I have to make a judgment and come to the House to present it. It is not a happy judgment for me, but I am doing what I believe to be right. I always told hon. Members that I would do that.
Patrick Mercer: I spent Friday with two watches at Newark fire station. As soon as the evening watch came on, there was a shout and the fire crew were out in an amazing and admirable 45 seconds. They got on to the A46 very efficiently. However, the town and the firefighters believe that there will be job losses and that Newark will become a day station with no night

735
cover except for retained firemen. As far as I can ascertain, there is no basis for that in fact. I therefore beg the Deputy Prime Minister to dispel those rumours in as clear English as he possibly can, and to try to clarify matters without exacerbating the problem.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Another ex-Army type—they have always brought to the House some arrogance, which we enjoy from time to time.
Local committees will decide matters that affect fire stations. Repealing section 19 of the Act gives responsibility for such decisions to local committees. The people in the area will therefore have maximum influence on them.
Fire risk cover must be taken into account, and a proper balance must be struck between intervention and prevention. Again, the committee will make that judgment. I believe that that is right and that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will welcome it.
Mr. lain Luke: No one benefits from a prolonged firefighters' dispute, but does my right hon. Friend accept that many elements of the trade union movement will view his announcement with concern and, indeed, outrage? However, I hope that it will give time for thought. If the FBU returns to the negotiating table and embraces discussions on modernisation, will the Government find extra money in view of the contention that, in the past, firefighters were offered 16 per cent. over two years? Given the profound nature of the proposals in the Bain report, will the Government make a commitment to find extra money if the employers want to go down that road?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Let me make it clear that the 16 per cent. over two years was not agreed between the relevant parties, although I believe that it was discussed. We said that, as Bain pointed out, a settlement of 11 per cent. for two years and a possible agreement to extend that to three years would require a transfer of funds. It is therefore possible that the negotiations could have led to more than 11 per cent., but we never got to that point. I simply ask the FBU to sit down and discuss that. It claims that there will be redundancies and that fire stations will close. Why does it not sit down, negotiate and find out? If it finds that its judgment is correct, I assume that the members will walk out. That is called negotiating. I hope that they will not walk out, but that happens in negotiations.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about outrage, but only a few months previously the rest of the local authority workers, who are paid from the same fund, got less than 4 per cent. a year for a two-year programme, yet the FBU asks for 40 per cent. Local authority workers feel outraged that 40 per cent. from the same fund could be regarded as justified. They
736
believe that they are entitled to more, and they have a point. I have to strike a balance, and 4 per cent. and 40 per cent. do not balance properly.
Norman Lamb: Will the Deputy Prime Minister provide some clarity about the time scale to which he is working for introducing the legislation? When does he propose to publish a draft measure? Is he working on the basis that it will end the dispute or is it intended to deal with future disputes? I am not clear from his answers whether he intends to ban strikes as part of the agreement. Would he consider the alternative of moving towards an agreed no-strike arrangement? That might be an attractive way forward because there must be better ways in which to resolve disputes in emergency services than the debacle so far.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have some sympathy with the idea of a better way; I call it negotiations. It is a pity that we have not concluded them. However, we must bear it in mind that negotiations have taken place with the firemen for nearly 20 years when there have been no disputes. An agreement was reached 20 years ago. That is what people would like, but we are in the process of replacing the agreement with another. Although I have often made it clear that the Government consider all options—we must do that—rushing into strike legislation will solve nothing. If I impose a settlement that the FBU refuses to accept, further difficulties will ensue. However, I should prefer to face that. I am putting my faith in negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the difference when dealing with emergency services. The White Paper will deal with that point, which the Bain inquiry raised. My judgment is to ask the FBU to continue negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman asked how long legislation would take. That depends on the consultation, but I am talking about weeks, not months. However, weeks remain available for negotiations. I cannot therefore answer the hon. Gentleman. If I introduce legislation, hon. Members will want to debate it and any recommendations that flow from it. I cannot give an exact time, but we are looking at weeks, not months. The negotiations cannot go on and on in deadlock. I have a responsibility to act and I have given my best judgment today.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Given the Deputy Prime Minister's comments about the unreasonable actions of the FBU leadership, does he consider them, to quote Harold Wilson, "a small group of politically motivated men"?
The Deputy Prime Minister: They are a group of people who feel strongly about their negotiations and want to conclude an agreement. The leadership currently suggest that they want to follow the route of more industrial disputes; that is their right. However, I intend to introduce legislation in a specific period if the deadlock continues.

Victoria Climbié Inquiry
1.29 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Victoria Climbié inquiry.
The report of the inquiry is being published today. It is available in the Vote Office. I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for your agreement that Victoria's parents should have had advance access to a copy of the report.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I established the inquiry in April 2001 under the chairmanship of Lord Laming, formerly the chief inspector of social services. We are both extremely grateful to Lord Laming and his advisers for producing a searching and detailed report and recommendations.
Words in a report can never be enough for a family whose child has died in such terrible circumstances. I am grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Climbié for seeing me last week and allowing me to express, on behalf of the House and the country, the sorrow we all feel at the death of their beloved daughter, Victoria. Anyone who has had the privilege to meet Mr and Mrs Climbié cannot fail to be struck by their quiet dignity in the face of what happened to Victoria.
I hope the report provides them with some comfort as it seeks to answer the questions any parent would ask: what exactly happened? What went so wrong? What needs now to change to prevent services that are supposed to keep children from harm failing in the way they failed Victoria so badly and so repeatedly?
Lord Laming's inquiry lasted more than a year. His report runs to some 400 pages. We will study its 108 recommendations with care. Today I will outline the inquiry's findings and the Government's initial views. We will make our substantive response to the report as part of the Green Paper on children at risk, which we intend to publish this spring.
Victoria Climbié was part of a large, loving family living in the Ivory Coast. Her parents had agreed she could come to Europe in order to be educated. This was not about giving Victoria away; it was about giving Victoria an opportunity. All they wanted—as any parent would—was for their daughter to have the best education. Instead, she suffered the worst cruelty.
Victoria arrived in Britain with her great-aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, in April 1999. Within a year she was dead—murdered by the people who had taken the principal responsibility for caring for her: Kouao and her boyfriend, Carl John Manning. Both are now serving life imprisonment.
The cruelty experienced by Victoria before her death is truly the stuff of nightmares. Manning told the trial that Kouao would strike Victoria daily with a shoe, a coat hanger and a wooden spoon. She would hit her toes with a hammer. Victoria's blood was found on Manning's football boots. He admitted hitting her with a bicycle chain.
Victoria's final days—in the depths of winter—were spent living and sleeping in a bath in an unheated bathroom, in her own urine and faeces, bound hand and foot in a bin bag.
738
Despite valiant efforts on the part of NHS staff, Victoria died of hypothermia, after months of abuse, on 25 February 2000 at St Mary's hospital, Paddington. She had 128 separate injuries to her body. She was just eight years old.
It is a shocking but sad truth that about 80 children a year die from abuse or neglect. While a civilised society must do everything it can to protect children, sadly a few adults will always manage to perpetrate abuse, not least because those who do are, by definition, manipulative and secretive.
What makes Victoria's case so appalling, however, is that while the unspeakable abuse she suffered happened behind closed doors, in secret, Victoria herself was never hidden from the authorities or the agencies empowered by Parliament to protect children like her.
Victoria was known to three housing authorities and involved with four social services departments—in Brent, Ealing, Enfield and Haringey. Despite receiving allegations that she had been abused, none of the councils even managed to undertake a proper assessment of her needs. Social services did nothing to help her.
Victoria was known to two separate child protection teams of the Metropolitan police. Despite being told that she had probably been deliberately harmed, they failed to investigate the alleged crime. The police services did nothing to help her.
Victoria was referred to the specialist Tottenham child and family centre, managed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Despite marking her case as urgent, it failed to take any action to see Victoria. The NSPCC centre did nothing to help her.
Victoria was admitted to two different NHS hospitals—the Central Middlesex and North Middlesex. Despite suffering scalding to her head and face, and other evidence that staff saw of beatings and abuse, she was discharged and returned to her abusers. The NHS did nothing to help her.
Between April 1999 and February 2000, on more than a dozen occasions the relevant services had the opportunity to intervene to protect Victoria Climbié. More than 12 times in 10 months they failed to do so. This was not a failing on the part of any one service. It was a failing on the part of every service.
As Lord Laming says,
"The extent of the failure to protect Victoria was lamentable. Tragically it required nothing more than basic good practice being put into operation … doing the basic things well saves lives … Victoria died because those responsible for her care adopted poor practice standards."
Lord Laming considers that the current statutory framework for child protection, set out in the Children Act 1989, is basically sound. I take little comfort from that. Sound legislative policy and guidance is, frankly, useless unless we can be sure that it is implemented effectively and consistently.
Those who take on the work of protecting children at risk of deliberate harm of course face a difficult and challenging task. As Neil Garnham QC told the inquiry,
"Hundreds of children benefit every year from efficient and timely intervention by social workers, police officers and hospital staff. We would do children like Victoria no favours if we demonise entire professions as we seek to understand and remedy the weaknesses and deficiencies highlighted by a single case."

739
While public servants should enjoy our support, they should not expect our excuses. There were failures at every level and by every organisation which came into contact with Victoria Climbié. There were problems with staffing and with resources. In Haringey the council was spending substantially less than the standard spending assessment it had been allocated for children and families. In Brent the council was spending just half of what it had been allocated.
Lord Laming rightly describes as breathtaking the unwillingness of some of the most senior people in these agencies to accept that they were in any way accountable for these failures. It is his concern with this lack of accountability that leads Lord Laming to recommend change through the creation of new national and local structures for services for children and families. Lord Laming rejects proposals to separate child protection services, but calls for better co-ordination from top to bottom.
It is an all too familiar cry. In the past few decades there have been dozens of inquiries into awful cases of child abuse and neglect. Each has called on us to learn the lesson of what went wrong. Indeed, there is a remarkable consistency both in what went wrong and what is advocated to put it right. Lord Laming's report goes further. It recognises that the search for a simple solution or a quick fix will not do. It is not just national standards, or proper training, or adequate resourcing, or local leadership or new structures that are needed. It is all of these things.
In recent years there has been a renewed effort to improve safeguards for children: the Protection of Children Act 1999; the Care Standards Act 2000; programmes such as quality protects and sure start; new work on systems for identifying, referring and tracking children at risk.
Alongside the fuller response that we will include with the Green Paper in the spring, I can tell the House that there are important steps I intend to take immediately.
First, the inquiry is highly critical of the local services that failed Victoria. Since her death each has been subject to review. Some have been restructured. Some staff have been disciplined, others dismissed. In the light of the Laming report, it will be for each employer to determine whether further action is necessary against individuals, including those in senior managerial positions. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are asking the inspectorates responsible for health, police and social services to undertake further joint monitoring of these local services in north London to provide independent assurance that standards are, indeed, improving.
Secondly, the inquiry concludes that in all agencies there was a low priority given to the task of protecting children. The Home Secretary has made child protection a priority through the national policing plan. He has asked chief constables to review force child protection units and consider how to action the recommendations of the report and reflect them in their local policing plans.
Additionally, I am today writing to all chief executives in local health services and local authorities emphasising their duties towards vulnerable children and the need to reflect them in their budget decisions. Social services budgets will rise by an average of 6 per
740
cent. in real terms in each of the next three years. NHS budgets will rise by nearly 7 per cent. Extra resources should help employ more staff, including an extra 5,000 social workers, at a time when applications for social work courses, which fell for almost a decade, are now rising.
Thirdly, the report highlights inadequacies in the training of front-line professionals. Training for police officers is already being reviewed and we will ensure that Lord Laming's recommendations are fully taken on board. Social work training is also being fundamentally overhauled. From September, a new three-year social work degree will be introduced to raise the standards and status of the profession. It will focus on assessment, communication and working with other professionals—the areas where Victoria was so badly let down. The Home Secretary and I also intend to ask the professional bodies responsible for training police, social services and NHS staff in child protection to oversee a review of training needs, including a better focus on inter-agency training.
Fourthly, the report highlights the failure of agencies to adhere to common standards in the care of children. I believe that the Laming report re-emphasises the need for new national standards to which all local health and social services can work. I can tell the House today that I intend to publish the first part of those standards, covering the care of children in hospital, next month and the remaining standards by the end of the year.
Fifthly, the report says that there was confusion about guidance on aspects of child protection. Within the next three months, I intend to secure the replacement of all existing local guidance with new, shorter, clearer guidance that will reach every one of the 1 million professional staff dealing with the safeguarding of children. I also intend to simplify the wider range of Children Act guidance. It runs to more than 1,500 pages and covers 15 volumes. Some of it is out of date. Our intention is to reduce it by 90 per cent., make it available in a single volume and update it regularly.
Sixthly, more than half Lord Laming's recommendations are aimed at correcting repeated failures in basic professional practice. We are today issuing a checklist of those recommendations. Police, health and social services are being asked to guarantee that, within the three-month deadline demanded by Lord Laming, those basic elements of good professional practice will be in place.
Seventhly, the report says that there was a fundamental failure to translate good intentions into good practices. The Home Secretary and I have therefore asked the relevant inspectorates to supplement their planned joint inspections with a new programme of further visits to verify that those elements of basic good practice are being implemented, particularly where there are concerns about local services. We will also consider whether further powers are needed to intervene earlier and more effectively.
Finally, Victoria needed services that worked together. The report says that, instead, there was confusion and conflict. Down the years, inquiry after inquiry has called for better communication and better co-ordination, but neither exhortation nor legislation has proven adequate. The only sure-fire way to break down the barriers between those services is to remove them altogether.

741
Fundamental reform is needed to pool knowledge, skills and resources to provide more seamless local services for children. Therefore, I am today inviting health and social services, and other local services such as education, to become the first-generation children's trusts. Those pilot children's trusts will mean that local services for children are run through a single local organisation.
We will explore a range of models, including children's trusts, that could be led by local authorities and others, and that could be established as new public-interest organisations, drawing in the expertise of the community, private and voluntary sectors. In future, services for children must be centred not around the interests of any organisation, but around the interests of the child. Nothing—no existing organisation, no existing structure—should be allowed to stand in the way. We will of course consider in the Green Paper Lord Laming's recommendations for further structural changes.
Those reforms cannot be the end of the matter. If some good is to come out of this tragedy, lasting change must come out of it too. Lord Laming is determined that that is what should happen, and the whole Government share that determination. Victoria's parents asked for nothing more for their daughter than the opportunity of a better life in our country. I am deeply sorry that she did not get that simple chance.
We cannot undo the wrongs done to Victoria Climbié. We can, though, seek to put right for others what so fundamentally failed for her. That is what Lord Laming's report demands, and it is what the Government are determined to do. I commend the Laming report to the House.
Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and his courtesy in making it available to the Opposition earlier.
Clearly, this is an appalling human tragedy first and foremost, and it is right that we remember the feelings and sensitivities of Victoria's parents as we discuss the details of what needs to be done. That a defenceless child could be subjected to such unspeakable acts of savagery over such a long period brings shame on our society. Those who are brave enough to do so can only imagine the terror, pain and misery that she must have endured, but this is also a shocking tale of individual professional failure and systematic incompetence.
During the past 30 years, there have been more than 30 inquiries into the deaths of children who were known to social services. None seems to have had much effect. We all agree, time after time, that it must never happen again, but it does. Lauren Wright, John Smith and Ainlee Walker are only a few of the large number of those who have been failed by the system.
There are a number of questions that I want to raise with the Secretary of State, although I do not expect him to answer them in his response, as they cover important and sometimes conceptual and cultural issues that we need to examine in far more detail than is possible in the House today. Every report says that something must be done. Why will this one be different? How will the House be able to monitor progress in a truly transparent way so that this one does make a difference?
742
Communication is the main problem among different agencies. How will that improve in practice beyond just setting up new structures? What role is envisaged for the greater use of information sharing and early detection? Intelligence gathering can succeed only on a local basis. What review of the Data Protection Act 1998 will the Government undertake to ensure that nothing stands in the way of the proper sharing of information?
Will the Secretary of State tell us what action has been taken against the social workers involved in this case to give us a guarantee that they are not still responsible for children? What progress has been made to fill gaps in social work, especially in London and the south-east?
The Secretary of State did not touch on one subject: it is estimated that about 10,000 children in England and Wales are privately fostered—80 to 90 per cent. of them are west African—despite the Utting report identifying private fostering as
"clearly an area where children are not being safeguarded properly, indeed an unknown number are likely to be seriously at risk."
Will the Government be taking any action to regulate private fostering to approved lists of people only, having failed to include that reform in the Adoption and Children Act 2002? To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that the current classifications of "children in need" or "children in need of protection" militate against appropriate protection? What changes are to be made? In a case such as Victoria's, once a child is categorised as requiring family support, the child's need for protection falls from notice.
If the status of social workers is being improved and more responsibility given, equally, what measures are being put in place to ensure that incompetent social workers are disciplined as toughly as other medical professionals? What does the Secretary of State think has been learned from the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which placed a positive duty of care on parents to promote children's well-being? Do the Government favour a single system of referral and assessment to address needs—for example, child safeguarding teams proposed by the NSPCC along the lines of existing youth offending teams and sure start? Should sections 27 and 47 of the Children Act 1989 be amended to include police and GPs as agencies that should support the local authority when it is carrying out its duties in relation to children in need of protection?
Despite what the Secretary of State said, the new police national plan 2003–06 lists child protection under the heading "other policing responsibilities". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's statement today reflects a change of mind on behalf of the Home Secretary about the importance that child protection will be given.
Above all today we need to make sure that the changes recommended by Lord Laming and being introduced by the Government will allow us to get to a system in which we all know clearly where the buck stops. Professional failure on this literally fatal scale cannot, and must not, be tolerated. We welcome the concept of children's trusts, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will be well aware that the devil will lie in the details, including budget sharing, which will be worked out later.
I fully understand the difficulties faced by professionals in this very difficult area. I have been there myself. I can think of nothing that I have ever done

743
professionally as stomach churning and terrifying as telling parents that I suspected them of having abused their child. However, the primary responsibility for professionals is to the child in their care, not the professional relationship with the carer, as it has been too often. Difficult though it may be, we need to encourage that cultural change in all the professionals who deal with children. "I'm too busy/didn't suspect it/didn't have enough resources" are excuses that we cannot allow to be tolerated.
In the time available today, it is not possible to do justice to the detailed conclusions and analysis in Lord Laming's report. I hope that we will get a chance to debate those matters in great detail in Government time over the coming months. Whatever measures need to be taken must be taken, and quickly. The Conservative party will willingly give its support in this most justified cause.
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful for the tone and much of the content of what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has said, and I shall try to respond to some of the detailed points that he made.
The hon. Member for Woodspring said that there have been a lot of inquiries over the years. That is certainly true. There have been both statutory public inquiries such as the Laming report and more private inquiries into the deaths and abuse of neglected children. The hon. Gentleman asked what was different about this report and about what we could make different, and he also wondered whether any inquiry had resulted in change. I think that some of them did result in change. The Children Act 1989 is a prime example, and Lord Laming considers it the bedrock of the legislative framework for the protection of children in our country.
However, I was very heartened to hear Lord Laming say on the radio this morning that the inquiry had already had an impact, even before publication of the report. I believe that he is right. For example, the Metropolitan Police Service has fundamentally restructured its child protection services. Quite rightly, it has brought those services under the aegis of serious crime, which is arguably where they should always have been housed. That is welcome, and there have been other changes in both the national health service and social services. We must build on those changes.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked whether we could be assured that there would be appropriate monitoring of change and improvement. That is one of the issues that we will need to consider extremely carefully as we craft the Green Paper. Lord Laming's principal recommendations concern the central issue of accountability—how we can ensure that, from top to bottom, the interests of the child always come first, and that the different agencies involved in providing care and sometimes treatment are fulfilling their responsibilities. In due course, the Govt will present proposals on that.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about the disciplining of individual social workers. Some have been disciplined and others dismissed. However, Lord Laming makes a very strident point in his report when he states that front-line professionals—in social care, health care or the police service—failed to carry out the
744
elements of good professional practice. Some have paid a price for that failure, but it is noticeable that the people in charge of some of the local agencies have not suffered a similar fate, and no consequences have been felt at any level of the organisations involved.
People in charge of organisations at local level—whether they have political or managerial responsibility—need to examine the Laming report's conclusions very carefully indeed. As the hon. Member for Woodspring rightly said, they should also examine their consciences.
The hon. Member for Woodspring mentioned gaps in social worker numbers. Haringey is the authority most criticised in the report, and it was charged for the longest period with caring for Victoria during her stay in this country. It had terrible problems with the numbers of locum staff and of vacancies among social workers. It took a conscious political decision—and I think that it was the right one—to invest more money in social services and to increase pay for social care staff. Those decisions have helped to plug some of the social work vacancies that Haringey was carrying. If one local authority can do that, others should learn the lesson.
With regard to private fostering, Lord Laming has asked the Government to carry out a review of the relevant law. We are undertaking that review, and the conclusions will be part of the Green Paper.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked what the Government were going to do in respect of incompetent social workers. It is worth placing on record that, overwhelmingly, social workers do a very difficult job very well. The temptation for people—not necessarily in this House but outside it—will be to point the finger of blame. In these circumstances, that is extremely easy. However, we must ensure that there is adequate support for social work staff, and that the right safeguards are in place.
As far as safeguards are concerned, the new general social care council will, for the first time, regulate and register qualified social workers. That will be an important step towards establishing the sort of assurances sadly lacking in this case.
The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about national policing priorities. Ensuring that adequate child protection is in place is part of the violent crime priority, which is a national priority for the police service.
Finally, the hon. Member for Woodspring made a very telling point when he said that, all too often, what happens in cases such as this is that the interests of the people with the responsibility for caring come before the interests of the child. In this case, that is graphically true. Time after time, Kouao was interviewed and spoken to. Her needs were assessed and she had frequent and continual meetings with social care staff and other staff in the caring professions. It is noticeable that at virtually no point did anyone bother to ask Victoria what was happening to her.
That can be described only as a lamentable failure. We need to get the training and the relevant structures right, but most of all we must get right the culture of these vital public services. We have those services for one reason—to serve. None has a God-given right to

745
exist. The interests of those services should lie only in serving the interests of the child. That is what we must ensure happens in the future.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me the opportunity to see the report and his statement in advance. I associate myself and other Liberal Democrat Members with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about the report and about the sensitivities involved in this tragic case.
Reading through the report, I had a terrible sense of déjà vu. The same weaknesses encountered before led to the same mistakes being made, and they led to the same missed opportunities to do what was necessary to ensure that the nightmare of neglect and abuse described by the Secretary of State did not happen to Victoria. There is no quick fix, so may I ask the Secretary of State some questions?
The right hon. Gentleman talked about rationalising and replacing a welter of guidance and documentation. That is welcome, but can he tell us whether that will include clarity about what is risk and what is harm? All too often, there is confusion about that, with different definitions being applied in different parts of the country.
Will the Secretary of State say more about the children's trust proposals? The Liberal Democrats welcome the proposals in their pilot form because there is a need to explore new ways of integrating services locally. Will further guidance be published to assist local authorities in deciding whether they want to take the opportunity that he is offering them? Does he accept, however, that the boundaries between agencies will remain even when children's trusts are in place?
Will the Secretary of State say more about the area child protection committees? Legislation alone is not enough, but does he agree none the less that all the agencies involved in an ACPC must have a statutory duty to take part? In too many places, they do not join in as they should.
Lord Laming's recommendations referred to the need to move to a new system of safeguarding and promoting welfare and away from merely keeping registers. Can the Secretary of State ensure that everyone will turn up to child protection conferences and that the general practitioners and teachers are there? All too often, the key players do not take part.
Recommendation 16 rightly refers to the need to address information sharing. Information must pass freely and confidentially between the agencies. The report proposes that the Secretary of State issue guidance. When will he do so? It should be issued as soon as possible.
As the Secretary of State said, training is a key issue, but it can succeed only if we can recruit and retain enough staff. The chief inspector of social services has told us all that there is a serious crisis in the recruitment and retention of social workers. What additional steps are being taken, not least to reward experienced social workers who choose to stay at the front line to do their job and who really make a difference?
746
The national agency proposed in the recommendations has many characteristics similar to those required in a children's commissioner. I hope that it can indeed become a children's commissioner. Will the Secretary of State end the consideration process and confirm that the Government will introduce a children's commissioner in England?
As we look back on 30 years of inquiries into children's deaths, the milestones in the development of our child protection system have been marked, sadly and tragically, by the gravestones of children who suffered a nightmare of neglect and abuse. The Liberal Democrats will work with the Government to ensure that the system is strengthened and resourced and that it delivers a better quality of life for all our children.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and very much agree that there is no quick fix. However, one striking thing about the Laming report is that although Lord Laming, who has a wealth of experience as a former chief inspector of social services, recognises that some changes will take time, he has wisely put a time scale on some of the changes that he recommended. Although he realises that there is no magic wand that can be waved, he says that about 88 or 89 of his 108 recommendations should be capable of implementation in some shape or form within six months. That is why I took action as I did today. I have distributed the recommendations to local authorities and the national health service and written to them about what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is doing as regards police services. We have to get the balance right and I think that we are capable of doing so. We can fix what can be fixed quickly while recognising that some of the structural and cultural changes will take time.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the revised guidance would include clarification about whether a child was at risk or at harm. I read the report in considerable detail and it is clear that sometimes there is—at best—confusion about whether a case comes under section 17 or section 47. If it is a section 47 case, it goes up the list of priorities, but if it is a section 17 case it is deprioritised. That is one of the issues that we shall need to address in the guidance and we shall look carefully at that.
We shall issue guidance on children's trusts and an invitation to local authorities, the NHS and other organisations to make proposals. The trusts could take a variety of forms.
In recent years, there have been a number of recommendations on the structure of the ACPCs—for example, that they should be placed on a statutory footing. We must now consider such recommendations in the light of Lord Laming's broader structural recommendations to ensure that we get the overall structural balance right. The ACPCs could provide an important focus for local agencies to come together locally. However, partnership works well only when it is real rather than nominal. Although things vary throughout the country, all too often there is an assumption—for example, in the NHS—that the committees are really the responsibility of social services and no one else. We must be extremely careful to understand that what Lord Laming says is not specifically addressed to social services. He is not

747
addressing one part of the care system, but the whole care system. It is only if we get the whole system right that we shall avoid the problems that were encountered in this case.
More needs to be done about recruitment. However, the case of Haringey—of all places—should fill us all with hope. Haringey had the worst record and, arguably, some of the worst services. Who would want to work in Haringey? Well, people are working there and they are doing so because the council took the decision to raise the status and the pay of the social work staff that it employed. That is a lesson that other local authorities should heed.
Lord Laming makes recommendations about the children's commissioner, but housed within a particular national, regional and local structure. We shall need to consider carefully whether that makes sense when we make our considerations for the Green Paper.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Members of the House have the first responsibility for dealing with these issues and that it is essential to hone our anger and concern about what we have heard today into a determination to transform children's services and ensure that such a scandalous chain of events never happens again? Does he also agree that the Government have a huge responsibility to face some of the difficult issues that have been around for such a long time? For example, we need to put children's rights at the heart of any agenda for children, to address the fundamental need for a children's commissioner for all parts of the United Kingdom and to address the important point that, under the law, children have less protection from assault than adults. We must deal with private fostering and invest thoroughly and comprehensively to ensure that all who work in services for children, especially in child protection services, have the status, pay and career prospects that they deserve.
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes some telling points. He referred to anger. Both the anger and the incredulity of Lord Laming and his advisers about what happened are crystal clear from the Victoria Climbié inquiry report. It is more than a sorry tale: it is repeated failure at every level. The constant assumption made in almost every agency and by almost every member of staff was that Victoria's needs were being catered for by someone else, somewhere else. As we now know, nobody was catering for those needs. As my hon. Friend says, we really must learn those lessons now.
There are responsibilities both for local services and for national Government. The fact that we are publishing the Green Paper in the spring, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced some time ago, is a recognition across the whole Government that the existing structures, nationally and locally, need change. Some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised will of course need to be detailed in the Green Paper.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Listening to my right hon. Friend's reasoned statement, I was struck by the fact that, 30 years ago, I had just started in local authority child protection social work, and we had recently had the Maria Colwell report on an appalling set of circumstances. I find it incredible that I am here
748
30 years later after 35 inquiries listening to more or less word for word the same story and the same sad, tragic picture. However, I have taken some comfort from the statement today in that communication between professionals has been a key element all the way along the line. As someone who has argued for integration of professionals at local level and co-location, I warmly welcome the comments that my right hon. Friend has made today.
May I press my right hon. Friend on a more fundamental matter touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)? It is clear that physical punishment was an issue in this sad and tragic case. My right hon. Friend is looking at the policies of countries such as Sweden on delayed discharges and foundation hospitals. Will he also look at what other countries have done on child protection? Sweden acted to outlaw the physical punishment of children by parents 10 years ago, and while we have experienced at least one child death per week at the hands of parents and carers in the past 10 years, Sweden has had none. Will my right hon. Friend consider that as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is always worth listening to on these issues. He has campaigned long and hard for many years both before coming into this place and since he has been a Member of Parliament for better integration and co-ordination of services. There are important lessons that we need to learn from that.
It is crystal clear from this and all too many other cases that services were simply pointing in opposite directions. Social services were doing one thing, the health service was doing another and the police were doing a third thing. The consequence of that is confusion: people are passed round the system and, unfortunately, there is intervention later rather than sooner. Those are issues that we need to address. However, I say in all candour to my hon. Friend that I am cautious about confusing what happened to Victoria Climbié with issues around smacking and the reasonable chastisement of children. What happened to Victoria was of a quite different order. I know that my hon. Friend knows that. He knows the Government's position on these issues. Of course we will keep them under review, but it is important to separate the extreme violence that happened to this poor child from the sort of issues that my hon. Friend raised.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement today and his proposals to publish a Green Paper. He clearly recognises that the fundamental causes of the 80 deaths from abuse per year of vulnerable children are a lack of liaison between the relevant agencies and a lack of accountability. Both were clearly demonstrated in the tragic case of my constituent Lauren Wright.
Does the Secretary of State intend to make the new guidance statutory? Is he in a position to say today—perhaps not—how children's trusts will improve accountability?
Mr. Milburn: I know that the right hon. Lady has taken an active interest in these matters, not only in the case of Lauren Wright but in her previous guise as

749
Education Secretary in the Conservative Government. She is aware that the current guidance is statutory. That is the problem. We have to get the right combination. Of course we have to have statutory guidance. Of course we have to have the right system of monitoring. Of course we have to have the right system of accountability. Of course we have to have the right system of training. Of course we have to make sure that we have decent local management who take responsibility rather than ducking it. Of course we have to have the right structures.
Several colleagues on both sides of the House have asked what is so different about this situation and the Laming report. I believe that the difference is that we have a broad sweep of recommendations covering all the issues and a vehicle, in the Green Paper, by which they can be addressed. It is only if we get accountability, structures, training, funding and local management right that we will avoid some of the terrible problems that children down the years have had to face. I believe that we have an opportunity to do that. Children's trusts are a means to that end. I believe that they will improve accountability. One local organisation will be responsible for protecting vulnerable children and people will not continually pass the buck.
Ms Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Laming report explicitly directs most criticism, and places most of the responsibility for what happened to Victoria, not on the front-line staff but on senior managers and councillors in the local authorities. Time after time, events such as this happen, senior managers get themselves a media adviser and we hear the same old interviews about lack of resources. In many cases, those people go on to even better and more highly paid jobs. I believe that one way to stop such events happening again is to make sure that senior people take the responsibility that they are paid to take.
The practice of private unlicensed fostering, largely by west Africans, has gone on for a long time. At best, it causes all sorts of trauma. At worst, children are open to all sorts of abuse. It is time that the Government moved to close this practice down.
Mr. Milburn: To make managers accountable there has to be a proper system of accountability from top to bottom. That is what Lord Laming addresses in his recommendations. We will consider those recommendations seriously because that form of accountability is not present in the current system.
On private fostering, we will take extremely seriously the representations that have been made to us not just by Lord Laming but by others. However, let me strike one note of caution about reviewing the law on private fostering and the Victoria Climbié case. It is true that, legally, Victoria was being privately fostered. No one knew that, for one simple reason. Her great-aunt Kouao lied about who she was. She called Victoria "Anna" and said that she was her mother. Even if we had had changes in the private fostering legislation on the statute
750
book, it would not have stopped the person responsible for caring for Victoria lying. She would have continued to lie.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: For Cambridgeshire Members, I am afraid that the painful recollection of the Rikki Neave case serves only to heighten our distress at what happened to Victoria Climbié.
Substantial benefits may flow from the introduction of children's trusts, but will the Secretary of State consider in the Green Paper two consequences that ought to flow from that proposal? First, having a children's trust does not automatically remove professional demarcations and boundaries—they could persist inside one. Is there a case, therefore, for giving one professional worker, whatever their discipline, responsibility for the services provided to a child and the authority to draw together the relevant services within the children's trust and impose requirements on other services?
Secondly, if one puts all the services within the trust, one makes the accountability clearer, but the service is unified and hence potentially more resistant to external scrutiny and more likely to cleave to a single explanation. Is it not therefore more important for there to be an external voice—if not that of the children themselves, then a children's commissioner—to speak on behalf of children from an independent, external standpoint?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions. On his latter point, we will address those issues as part of the Green Paper. On the first issue, I very much agree about professional demarcations and boundaries. The disaster would be to break down boundaries between structures and organisations but retain precisely the same boundaries between professionals. That is why it is so important that we have asked various professional bodies, local government and the training organisations to produce proposals on that. For example, I have never fully understood why the skills of health visitors and those of social workers cannot be put together to offer better support to families and children in times of trouble. We should be perfectly capable of doing that.
The hon. Gentleman puts the accent on flexibility and partnership working, but that has to apply as much at the level of the individual professional in those services as at that of the individual services.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: The Secretary of State will be aware that, for 10 years, I have been a trustee of the charity Childline, which takes tens of thousands of calls each year from children who, mercifully, do not die, but many of whom suffer in silence and never reach social workers or anyone else for protection.
Childline, along with every other major children's charity, has argued for a children's commissioner for England for a number of years. The Secretary of State spoke about culture. The problem is that civil servants, by and large, do not want a children's commissioner for England. If he wishes to tackle the culture of child protection, he will have to tackle the culture of

751
Whitehall, which does not want to create a children's commissioner for England. Since every children's charity supports the creation of one, will he agree to change that culture in Whitehall? Will he act quickly to do so, because I believe that a children's commissioner would make a serious difference in protecting children?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Although we all know that this matter is grave, deeply disturbing and complex, may I appeal for brevity in questions and answers, as that is necessary if I am to call every hon. Member who is seeking to catch my eye?
Mr. Milburn: I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As for getting such things out into the open, it is very important that there was a public inquiry. Indeed, before he joined the Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was one of those who argued very strongly that a public inquiry should be conducted properly in the open, so that people could hear and see the evidence for themselves. That has been achieved.
As for a children's commissioner, I understand the concerns and views of the organisation with which my hon. Friend is associated. Of course we will consider those issues in drafting the Green Paper. Again, let me say that it is very important that any structure or post that we put in place fulfils a function that will make a difference. Let us forget about making suitable gestures or getting the right symbolic policies. Symbolic policies do not save lives. What saves lives is good practice in social services offices, NHS hospitals and local police stations. That is the focus of the Laming report. Of course we have to ensure that we get the right combination between the national and the local, but let us remember where services are delivered: not in Whitehall, but in local communities.
Hywel Williams: I welcome the new three-year degree for training social workers, but does the Secretary of State accept that there is value in shorter, postgraduate qualifications for people with relevant degrees, as they would be more likely to attract people with life experience, whom we so desperately need to provide improved services?
Mr. Milburn: Basically, we need both. We need people who have had a former occupation or those who have a suitable qualification to come forward. If we can achieve that on a postgraduate basis, so much the better, but the training has to be right to raise the profession's status as much as anything else and to ensure that we have the people to carry out this very difficult task. As I say, good social workers deserve to be valued, not vilified.
We have to ensure that the training is right. That is why, for example, in our proposals for the new three-year social work degree, we say that no one will be able to go into post unless they have carried out 200 days of practice on the front line, so that, when they go into post, they are experienced in precisely the sort of difficulties that social workers face day in, day out. One of the tragedies of this case is that very inexperienced people were put into the most difficult position imaginable, and we have to avoid that in future.
Ms Meg Munn: I, too, welcome the emphasis on increased training for all staff involved in
752
child protection. However, it is not clear how those staff will be required to demonstrate their competence in child protection before they begin working with children. How will the Secretary of State ensure that all staff—not just social workers, but those in health care, the police and, indeed, those in education, who see many of those children day in, day out, at school—have the required skills, not just the training, to be able to fulfil their responsibilities?
Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend rightly says from her own experience, it is important that the people who work in those difficult professions have suitable competence, not just when they start, but throughout their careers. That is why it is important that we are commissioning the review of training requirements to ensure that all those who have a responsibility for safeguarding the interests of children—whether in the police service, the social services or the health service—are properly versed not just in child protection procedures, but in child development, too. That will help to ensure the competence of those people, who do a difficult job, sometimes in pretty difficult circumstances.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I welcome the statement. Will the Secretary of State say why he will publish a Green Paper, rather than a White Paper, which might imply more urgency? As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) mentioned, the tragic Lauren Wright case involved her constituency, but the senior social worker involved—the team leader—was a constituent of mine, and he did indeed resign. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there is anything in the Laming report about the Lauren Wright case? We have heard a lot today about the failings of social services—morale is obviously battered in Norfolk—but we must get across the point, surely, that the overwhelming majority of social workers do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. What advice would he give Norfolk county council as it tries very hard to improve the recruitment and morale of social workers?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I very much agree with it. I hope that the balance is struck appropriately in relation to the coverage of such issues, particularly the role of social workers. He asks why we will publish a Green Paper, rather than a White Paper. We will certainly introduce proposals in the Green Paper that will be subject to rapid implementation, but it will be right to consult more broadly on other proposals, particularly if we propose far-reaching recommendations for structural change.
Julie Morgan: How will my right hon. Friend ensure that social workers on the front line will receive the supervision and support that they need to deal with such very difficult situations? That seems to be the key to this issue.
Mr. Milburn: That is important, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, more is needed. We need people on the front line who are competent. We need management and leadership who demonstrate competence, and we need an accountability structure to ensure that. Those are

753
precisely the issues that Lord Laming has been grappling with in his recommendations, and we shall consider those issues in the Green Paper.
Mrs. Joan Humble: When my right hon. Friend is developing the new national structures, will he consider especially the need properly to track children and their families as they move around the country? He will be well aware that many families are attracted by the bright lights of Blackpool. Sadly, all too often, those families bring with them problems. They must not be lost in the system, and not only social services, but health services and the other agencies need to know that they are there.
Mr. Milburn: I am pleased about what my hon. Friend said, as many of the points that have been made today highlight the role of social services. As we all know, however, vulnerable children require the support not just of social services but of a range of other services, too. I know that some might be tempted to point the finger purely at one part of those services, but that is not what Lord Laming identifies: he identifies a failure across the piece. He uses a graphic phrase, which is the right one: "widespread organisational malaise". That is precisely what is present in this case. We must deal with that for the future.
In relation to issues such as identification, referral and tracking, my hon. Friend is right that there is a group of vulnerable children out there, and it is important that we get the balance right and make sure that issues of civil liberties and data protection are dealt with properly and appropriately. We must also have information systems, however, that are capable of identifying where the children are in the system to make sure that they do not disappear, whether in Blackpool or anywhere else. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety is undertaking some good work. A £24 million pilot project is taking hold in different parts of the country, and by the autumn we want to make sure that that sort of system is being spread throughout the rest of the country.
Jonathan Shaw: In 1993, a report was made to the Government of the findings from a national inspection of private fostering. The author was the social services inspector, Lord Laming. In 1998, the Utting report, by a former chief inspector of social services, was published. We have now had a further Laming report, and we will have a further review. There are 8,000 to 10,000 children involved, many of whom have come halfway round the world, and fewer checks are done for them than for child minders. These children are among the most vulnerable, as report after report has stated. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), my right hon. Friend issued a caution about private fostering: if we had a registration scheme, it would not necessarily have saved Victoria's life. I accept that, but does he accept that, given all the overwhelming evidence and the reviews presented to his Department, it would be one more safeguard for protecting vulnerable children?
Mr. Milburn: In truth, there are mixed views. My hon. Friend cogently argues from one perspective on the
754
issue, but there are other perspectives. I hear what Lord Laming said in his report today, and I know what William Utting recommended. It is therefore right and appropriate that, as the Green Paper will address in the round the issues of children at risk—I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that opportunity to get the system right in that respect—we consider the various views and recommendations in that context. That is what we plan to do.
Dr. Desmond Turner: One of my constituents who came to see me recently was the teacher who detected the first signs of stress in Maria Colwell in my constituency. I promised to pass on to the Government her suggestion that all professionals involved with children—nurses, social workers, doctors or teachers—should share a common social service practice module as a compulsory part of their training. That might go some way towards addressing the problem shown in all these reports, which is that, basically, one can have all the systems one wants, but if the people who operate them fail, through lack of quality of training or culture, nothing will succeed.
Mr. Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend except in one respect: teachers, police officers and others should be properly trained, but not in social services practice. They should be trained in child development, child protection and the safeguarding of children. If we genuinely want services in which there is not confusion and fragmentation but integration and co-operation, we must ensure that we have people who are capable of operating those services in that way. We must therefore have training that reflects those principles.
Ms Debra Shipley: The failure to protect children shames all of us. I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, and the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, which I support. There have been endless inquiries, and there will be a Green Paper in the spring. By May or June, another child will have died, and by the time the White Paper comes out, yet another child will have died. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the process will be speeded up and put high on the agenda? In terms of delivery, we must have one person who is accountable at a local level. That person should be the chief executive—I have senior legal advice on this matter, and have brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister. We also need coordination at ministerial level. Coverage by three Departments—the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office—is not good enough. Even with the best intentions, children are slipping between the cracks in provision, and they are dying as a result. I suggest that a Cabinet Minister should be made responsible for child protection.
Finally, will the extra resources mentioned by my right hon. Friend be ring-fenced? For example, in my well-run borough of Dudley, child intervention happens at level 5, although, according to the Government's guidance, it should happen at level 2. Will the resources that he mentioned allow intervention in my constituency at level 2, which is necessary to protect children?
Mr. Milburn: It must be right that we do not delay in doing anything that can be done without delay. That is

755
precisely why we are taking action today: not just publishing a report but writing directly to those who have responsibility for leading these organisations, not only in local authorities but across the national health service, too. We are giving them a three-month deadline within which they must make sure that all the elements of good practice, which are basic common sense and which were simply not in place in Victoria Climbié's case, will be in place in the future.
Secondly, my hon. Friend refers to the need to ensure that we have appropriate structures at national level. There is more that we can do in that regard. She should not, however, understate what has been done so far, such as the advent of the children and young people's unit and its work, and the role of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, who has particular responsibility in that regard. On resources, again, we must get the balance right. Ultimately, the difference is that those of us sitting—or standing at the Dispatch Box—in the comfort of the House do not have to deliver a single service to a single child. The people who must do so are the people outside. Those are the people who should be empowered and held accountable, as a quid pro quo. That is why I happen to think it is right to have less ring-fencing rather than more. In the end, public money is involved, and those people must decide how to spend the money appropriately to serve their local communities, and they should be held to account stringently and rigorously for that. If we do that, we will get the right balance between national responsibilities and local ones.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to addressing this
756
problem. Since the Maria Colwell affair in 1973, there has been a demonstrable failure to address it effectively. Will he clarify the respective roles of the proposed children's trust and the existing area child protection committees? Will he give an assurance that in future somebody at local level will be accountable, perhaps chairing a body that must legally own that particular responsibility, and that a statutory obligation should be placed on the agencies concerned that the people they send should be suitably qualified? Lastly, if something goes wrong, there should be a mechanism for a thoroughgoing and independent investigation, not a botched and obfuscated investigation as we had in Haringey when the Victoria Climbié affair first came to light.
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes a succession of extremely important points. It is important that we learn from things that go wrong. The only way of doing so is to get the facts out into the open. That is why the report and inquiry have been so widely welcomed.
I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments on the area child protection committees. He will see in the guide to children's trusts, which has been published today, that one of the forms that they could take, for example, is to group together all the services in the local area that perform functions relating to child protection, mental health services or wider children's services. The important point about that is that, once again, it provides an opportunity for local services, whether in the public, private or voluntary sector, to come together in a way that is appropriate to meet the needs of sometimes different local communities in different local circumstances.

Points of Order
2.40 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be indelicate to suggest that a fraction of the understandable compassion that we heard in the past hour for children in this country should be directed towards the traumatised children of Iraq? My point of order is this: what does it take in this House of Commons to get an emergency debate when we are on a motorway to war, which will end heaven knows where? Is not it desperately important for us to have a debate on a substantive motion on what is happening with the weapons inspectors? Millions of people outside the House think that it is high time that we had such a debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman hovers between a point of debate and point of order. He knows that there are ways to influence those people who are responsible for determining the business of the House, but the Chair is not one of them.
Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, like many other hon. Members, I represent coastal communities that face severe trauma from losing their livelihoods and way of life as a result of European Union fishing quota cuts. You will also be aware that a written statement has been laid before the House and a statement has been made by the Scottish Executive today about compensation plans. Do you know whether the Minister with responsibility for fisheries intends to come before the House so that hon. Members, especially those who represent fishing communities as I do, can question, cross-examine and scrutinise those proposals, including the lack of an application for EU match funding, which may help many thousands of my constituents?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, the hon. Gentleman is indulging in a fair amount of argument. The Chair has no intimation of such a statement, but the relevant Department is due to answer questions this week. That may or may not provide an opportunity for him to pursue the matter.
Mr. Ian Davidson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday the hon.
758
Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) expressed his concern on a point of order about the withdrawal of a question tabled in my name. He suggested that it had been withdrawn as a result of pressure placed on me. May I explain to the conspiracy theorists that the reason is much more mundane? It is simply that the bmi plane was delayed. The fact that the relevant Minister told me that he had arranged for that delay and the delay of the subsequent British Airways flight as well was simply an attempt at humour on his part.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) left his remarks open to the possibility of a perfectly simple explanation—although probably not as simple as that one.
Mr. Mark Simmonds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I require your assistance and guidance. Yesterday, the General Affairs and External Relations Council delayed the decision on extending sanctions against Robert Mugabe and his regime. Tomorrow, EU ambassadors meet, but that forum does not have legal powers to extend sanctions; only the Council of Ministers can do that. The next Foreign Affairs Ministers meeting is not until 24 February, which is six days after the present sanction regime expires.
Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, bring pressure to bear to insist that the Foreign Secretary comes to the House to explain his attitude to Mugabe's invitation to Paris, and to explain what procedures and mechanisms are being followed to ensure that sanctions are renewed prior to the key date of 18 February? If they are not renewed, Mugabe will be at liberty to travel not only to Paris, but to London, which would not be acceptable to the Government or the House while people starve and suffer brutal retribution at the hands of his thugs in Zimbabwe.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not engage too much in the substance of debate, however strongly he feels about the subject. He must know that the Chair has no power to command a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement. He may, however, find an opportunity to raise the matter, perhaps even at Prime Minister's questions.

Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill
2.44 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to persons employed or holding office in any civil capacity under the Crown; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would remove the existing restrictions placed on the employment of non-UK nationals in civil capacities under the Crown. In place of the current system, it would open up all civil employment under the Crown to applicants of any nationality, apart from those positions that would be restricted to UK nationals under rules made by the Minister for the civil service, or by another Minister or other Crown official to whom he has delegated the power to make such rules. Before dealing with the detail of the Bill, let me make it completely clear that it does not deal with asylum, immigration or work permits, and it does not affect the requirements for non-UK nationals to get leave to remain and to work in the UK before they can take up employment.
The rules restricting the employment of foreign nationals by the Crown have their roots in legislation decided 200 years ago. The Act of Settlement 1700 provides that no person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland, or the dominions thereto belonging, should be capable of enjoying any office or place of trust, either civil or military. That prohibition has been amended over the years and does not apply to Commonwealth citizens, citizens of the Irish Republic or to British protected persons employed in a civil capacity.
Section 6 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 provides that no alien shall be appointed to any office or place in the civil service of the state. Contrary to popular belief, an alien is not a funny green man from Mars with a TV aerial sticking out of his head, or a character devised by Mr. Steven Spielberg. Alien is defined in section 51(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981 as a person who is not a Commonwealth citizen, a British protected person or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.
During the second world war, defence regulations permitted the temporary employment of aliens if no suitable British subjects were available. That was replaced by the Aliens' Employment Act 1955, under which the prohibitions were relaxed so that aliens could be employed if they were either appointed in a country outside the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in a capacity appearing to the Minister to be appropriate for aliens, or employed in accordance with a certificate issued by a Minister with the consent of the Minister for the civil service. So either no suitably qualified UK nationals are available to do the work or the alien must possess exceptional qualifications or experience to do the job. Certificates last for five years and must then be renewed.
For the year 1999–2000, the number of persons employed under those certificates was a mere 20. The European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 amended the law to allow nationals of member states of the European communities, their spouses and certain children to take up civil
760
employment under the Crown, apart from public service posts as defined by the European Community treaty. The rights of nationals of member states of the European communities were extended to nationals of member states of the European economic area by section 2(1) of the European Economic Area Act 1993. Against the background of a possible legal challenge to the European Court of Justice, further changes were made in 1996 to put Irish and Commonwealth citizens on the same footing as other non-UK EC nationals. An amendment to the civil service management code was made to restrict Commonwealth and Irish nationals from being employed in posts that were reserved for UK nationals.
The effect of the existing rules, therefore, is that foreign nationals may be employed abroad in any civil post under the Crown, which includes the diplomatic service if the Minister considers it appropriate. However, for civil employment under the Crown within the UK, Commonwealth citizens, British protected persons and nationals of member states of the European economic area may be employed only in posts that are not public service reserved posts, and nationals of all other countries may be employed only in UK non-reserved posts if one of the very rarely issued certificates is in force.
Although 75 per cent. of civil service posts in the UK are available to Commonwealth, Irish or EEA nationals, the remaining 25 per cent. requiring the special allegiance of public service posts are entirely reserved for UK nationals. More posts are reserved than is operationally necessary, but that is unavoidable due to the present definition based on the EC treaty. Attempts to define public service posts must follow EC case law and are subject to judgments of the European Court of Justice.
The net effect is that it is a criminal offence, even if done by mistake, to employ a non-Irish EEA national in a public service reserved post; to employ any alien in any civil service post at all, apart from the tiny number of certificated exceptions, and although it is legal to employ in a non-reserved post the alien spouse of an EEA national living in the UK, under the freedom of movement provisions, it remains an offence to employ the alien spouse of a UK national.
That all sounds very legalistic and technical, but I believe the anomalies can best be illustrated by examples. As I have said, the Bill will not change the rules on asylum and immigration in any way. In my constituency, like many others, we now have longstanding communities, for example from Iran and Iraq, mostly comprising highly skilled professionals, many of whom were senior public servants in their home countries, who fled persecution by those dictatorships many years ago. They, and their children, who may know no other country, are entirely barred.
In Hendon, we have Chinese and Japanese communities, and also UK citizens married to people from those countries, which are important trading targets. Assuming that they retained their own citizenship, those Chinese and Japanese people are barred from, for example, jobs in the Department of Trade and Industry, but if their spouses were French, rather than British, they would not be barred.

761
A Turkish Cypriot is eligible for a non-restricted post, but a Turk is not. The notorious Abu Hamza, the fundamentalist cleric who most people think should be kicked out of this country, if not put in jail, has UK nationality and could be employed in any post, although I doubt that he would want to apply, and, if he did, I assume that he would not pass the interview. However, the American national widow of a British victim of 11 September would be entirely excluded from Government employment.
As in so many things, the police service is ahead of the game. I first raised this nationality anomaly in the context of the police regulations over two years ago, and I am pleased that it has been dealt with in the Police Reform Act 2002. Subject to proper immigration status and competence in English, and with certain reservations for sensitive posts, nationality is no longer a barrier to joining the police, and that has made a great difference to police recruitment.
In our country, some 850,000 residents of working age are not UK, Commonwealth or EEA citizens, and are thus excluded entirely. In London, one of the world's great, diverse cities, 350,000 people, or 9 per cent. of the working age population, are entirely excluded, not just from the higher echelons, but even from applying for the most junior social security clerk's job. It is no wonder that we have difficulty filling civil service jobs in the capital, when so many of my fellow Londoners are entirely out of the equation.
My Bill will tackle those bizarre and discriminatory anomalies by sweeping away the existing complex, interlocking legislation, and replacing it with a simple amendment to the Act of Settlement, so as not to
762
prohibit the employment of any person in any civil capacity under the Crown, and at the same time empowering the Minister to make rules in respect of nationality requirements for certain categories of posts, which I envisage as those where it is clearly necessary, and in the national interest, for the job to be reserved for a UK national, which is about 10 per cent. of the total. It is expected that the Bill would open up 90 per cent. of all posts to selection on merit, regardless of nationality, enabling us to build a civil service that reflects the diversity of the society that it serves. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Dismore, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. lain Coleman, Mr. Andrew Love, James Purnell, Linda Perham, John Austin, Clive Efford, Mr. Stephen Pound and Keith Vaz.

Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill
  CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY)
  Mr. Dismore accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to persons employed or holding office in any civil capacity under the Crown; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 31 January, and to be printed [Bill 48].

THE SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
Ordered,
That the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 29th January to attend the funeral of Richard Buchanan, JP, Member for Glasgow, Springburn, from 1964 to 1979.—[Gillian Merron.]

Orders of the Day

  Railways and Transport Safety Bill
  [Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Transport Committee on 18th December 2002, relating to London Underground PPP: New Developments, and supplementary memoranda from Transport for London and the Department for Transport, HC 200-i (typescript available in the Vote Office).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.54 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill will allow us to take important steps to improve the safety of transport. It will set up a rail accident investigation branch; it will introduce new alcohol offences in relation to marine and aviation activities; and it will create an independent police authority for the British Transport police. The Bill contains other measures, which will help to improve the safety of transport, and it will make minor amendments and additions to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 in relation to the tube. I shall deal with each of those matters in turn to show how the Bill fits in with measures that have already been taken to deliver a safer and more reliable railway.
  Part 1 makes provision for a rail accident investigation branch with responsibility to investigate rail accidents, including accidents on the tube. Clause 3 enables Lord Cullen's recommendations to be implemented by establishing such a branch, which will act independently of the industry and its regulators and carry out its investigations openly. It may help if I explain briefly why it is necessary.
  Following a railway accident, it is necessary to find out as quickly as possible what caused the accident and to enable remedial action to be taken as soon as possible. That can happen now, but we believe that the present system needs to be improved in line with the recommendations of the Cullen report following the Paddington rail crash. At the moment, after a rail accident the police help the rescue operation and secure the site, and after that their interest in is investigating any criminal acts. The Health and Safety Executive inspectors, Her Majesty's rail inspectorate, also attend the site because of their health and safety interest. They investigate the cause and, if appropriate, they will prosecute any breaches in respect of health and safety.
  At the moment, we do not have any one body with sole responsibility for finding out quickly what went wrong and why the accident happened without attempting to attribute blame. That is necessary because, very often, lessons need to be learned quickly. That is what happens now in the case of an air or marine accident, and it works well. Lord Cullen was right to recommend that the Government set up a rail accident investigation branch along the same lines. Following the accident at Ladbroke Grove near Paddington, Lord Cullen recommended that such a branch be established
  764
  along similar lines to the aviation and marine accident investigation branches, and that is what we are now doing.
  Mr. John Redwood: Can the Secretary of State explain why, in the case of motor vehicles, extra speed is dangerous and we ought to have more limits on speed, but in the case of the railways, we ought to urge trains to go faster and faster? Is not it the case that as trains cannot steer out of the way of danger and cannot brake very well, extra speed will cause more accidents?
  Mr. Darling: The situation is a little more complicated than that. There are obvious differences between rail travel and road travel. Generally speaking, trains run a lot faster than cars, but provided they have the right safety equipment, such as signalling and braking power—
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: I should like to finish this point before I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Provided that trains have the right signalling, the right braking power and other safety mechanisms, they can run very fast. Indeed, passenger trains in this country have been running at 125 mph for many years now, to a large extent without incident, and trains in other parts of the world, such as the TGV in France, run at even higher speeds. Provided that the right safety precautions are taken, there is no reason why trains should not travel at those speeds.
  Cars are rather different, for obvious reasons. They run in a different environment, and all the evidence shows that, depending on the conditions, cars that are going too fast can put drivers and other road users at risk. With respect to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), there is a substantial difference between trains running at speed on the railway and cars running at speed on the roads.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) first.
  Mr. Hopkins: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend earlier. To reinforce his point, the Shinkansen system in Japan has been running at very high speeds for many decades without a single fatality.
  Mr. Darling: That is right. Those trains are designed to run at high speeds and they have the necessary braking systems and track signalling.
  Several hon.Members rose—
  Mr. Darling: If we are to have a debate about the merits of cars and trains running at high speed, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson).
  Alan Simpson: I seek my right hon. Friend's guidance about braking power. He is right

  765
  to point out that Cullen made two proposals for massive structural change. One relates to the investigation of accidents and the other to the avoidance of accidents. The European model that my right hon. Friend mentioned is premised on the introduction of the European railway traffic management system for braking, or ERTMS. That was also a central point of Cullen's recommendations. The suggestion was that the regulations for the introduction of that system should be in place by 2004, and that all trains capable of travelling at more than 100 mph should be equipped with the new system by 2008. There seems to be an important gap—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is far too long an intervention.
  Mr. Darling: I shall come on to train protection, and, if my hon. Friend does not mind, I would like to do so at what I consider to be the right point.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: Well, since the merits of fast cars and fast trains are not included in the Bill, I shall give way just once more, and then I want to make some progress.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. The intentions behind the Bill are laudable and we all hope that, in practice, its effects will be beneficial. However, does he not think it noteworthy that a Bill that contains 110 clauses and seven schedules appears to contain no fewer than 73 references to regulation? Could we not have had a better idea of what the content of those regulations might be, and can he at least tell the House now whether they will be subject to the negative procedure of the House, or to its affirmative counterpart?
  Mr. Darling: That sounds to me like an extremely good bid to participate in the Committee stage of this Bill, when all these issues can be explored at length over several weeks.
  Mr. Bercow indicated dissent.
  Mr. Darling: Perhaps some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would be very pleased to see him consigned to a Committee for several weeks. The making of regulations is not uncommon in this regard, but these issues can be discussed in Committee. The point that I was going to make before the intervention of some 10 minutes ago is that widespread support exists for setting up the rail accident investigation branch—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Darling: I want to make some progress, but I promise every hon. Gentleman sitting in the House, given that there are not that many of them, that I will give way in due course.
  The fact that I think that this is the right thing to do is based on the experience of the air accident investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch,
  766
  both of which have worked very well since they were set up. The former body was set up in 1922 and the latter in 1989, and although they operate in different ways, they have been extremely effective in getting to the bottom of what happens in an accident, without attributing blame. Moreover, they have been able to reach conclusions infinitely more quickly than does the current system in respect of the railways, and on that basis I hope that this proposal will be accepted on both sides of the House.
  Mr. James Clappison: In framing his proposals, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the experience of bereaved families such as those involved in the Potters Bar railway accident? Almost nine months after that accident, those families are still waiting for an early acceptance of responsibility, and for an authoritative and full explanation of what took place. Does the Secretary of State agree that such explanations assist in the grieving and healing process for such families?
  Mr. Darling: I am very much aware of the keen interest that, for obvious reasons, the hon. Gentleman takes in the Potters Bar accident. The whole point in having a rail accident investigation branch is precisely in order to get an explanation of what happened as quickly as possible. That is one of the things that many of the relatives of those who lost their lives in that crash, and many of those who were injured, want to know as quickly as possible. So the setting up of the RAIB will be a major step forward, and it will speed matters up far more than does the current system, under which a very long time often elapses before we find out what happened and why.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Although I welcome these proposals, we must consider the fragmentation of the industry, which the Transport Committee has examined. Given that safety is of paramount importance, I wonder whether the Secretary of State's proposals go far enough. Should we not combine all the agencies that he identifies, so that a single agency can look after safety?
  Mr. Darling: No, I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend's final point. It is important to recognise that the two existing branches operate in different ways partly because of the characteristics of the industry. For example, in investigations undertaken by the air accident investigation branch, the manufacturer, air traffic control and everybody concerned are usually anxious to get to the bottom of what happened very quickly, because it may be necessary to send instructions around the world in respect of the operation of particular aircraft. On marine accidents, a slightly different approach is often taken, and the industry is structured in a different way. It has been put to me by the air accident investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch that much of their expertise and specialism might be lost if they were merged into a single body.
  I therefore think it better to establish the rail accident investigation branch and to allow the three branches to continue. If a compelling case is made in future for bringing them together, we shall look at it, but at the moment—given what I know about how they work and

  767
  the nature of what they have to deal with—we would lose a lot more by setting up a single branch, rather than continuing with the existing system. What is striking about the air and the marine branches is that both work very well and seem to be highly successful; indeed, other countries throughout the world look at them and ask how they can do the same. If something works, it is best to leave it well alone.
  Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend mentions the legacy of the rail industry, and for the reasons that he gives there is a great need for technical resources in order to carry out investigations quickly. Does he foresee that the new branch will have its own technical resources, or will it procure them from places such as the former research station at Derby, the facility through which British Railways Board built up the expertise to which he alludes?
  Mr. Darling: The answer to that is probably a bit of both. My hon. Friend is probably aware of how the air accident investigation branch works. It has its own technical back-up in Farnborough, but in carrying out investigations it is heavily dependent on outside bodies. No one branch could include the expertise necessary to consider every aspect of a train incident, for example. I am certain that, from time to time, the new branch will need to go to outside bodies to get the expertise that it needs, and that is what people would expect.
  Linda Perham: The Secretary of State mentioned accidents on the tube, and he will probably agree that it would have been useful if this measure had been in place when Saturday's accident happened. My constituents and I use the Central line a lot; indeed, there were 800 people on the train in question. We certainly need to look at accidents on the tube rather more seriously than we have in the past.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Had the RAIB already been in existence, the chief inspector would probably have decided to look at Saturday's accident. As it is, we are a considerable way down the line in finding out what happened on the tube on that day, and the causes of that accident are becoming fairly clear. As my hon. Friend doubtless knows, London Underground is in the process of deciding what needs to be done to put trains back on the Central line. It clearly wants to be sure that it has identified exactly what happened, and to take appropriate remedial action, before restoring the trains. However, my hon. Friend is right, and the new branch, had it been in existence, would have wanted to get involved.
  Glenda Jackson rose—
  Mike Gapes rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way in order of seeing: first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).
  Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to learn that my right hon. Friend is committed to allowing interventions from both genders in this House. I strongly endorse what he
  768
  says about the London underground, and I realise that inquiries into the most recent accident are ongoing. However, it is not the case that as far back as the summer of 2001, when a potentially very serious accident occurred in which four trains became blocked in a tube during the hottest day of the year, London Underground's internal inquiry found that the failure was one of command and control? Indeed, some reports on the most recent accident on the Central line point the finger at the same fault. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we do indeed learn from such mistakes, and that London Underground's current management is urged to make public such inquiries?
  Mr. Darling: I spoke to the managing director of London Underground this morning, and he agreed that the findings of the inquiry should be made public, which is the best thing to do. All inquiries should be made public so that people can see for themselves what lessons can be learned. It would not be right—and possibly I would be out of order—to go through what I know and what people believe happened on Saturday, but I can assure my hon. Friend that an inquiry is being held. As soon as its conclusions are known, I hope that London Underground will make them public. At the moment, however, further investigations need to be carried out.
  Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State will be aware that the implications of the accident on the Central line are serious for people who commute to work in central London from east and west London. He will be aware that it has been predicted that it could be at least several weeks before the Central line is operating properly. In those circumstances, will he join me in calling on the Mayor of London to delay the introduction of congestion charging until the Central line is fully operational; otherwise there will be continued chaos and pressure throughout east and west London as a result of the crash?
  Mr. Darling: No doubt, the Mayor of London will want to consider that in relation to the new scheme. I accept my hon. Friend's point that the loss of the Central line will have a major impact on commuters who normally use it, but I believe that he would agree that it is important that London Underground identifies correctly the cause of the accident, then makes sure that it takes the right remedial action before trains are put back on the track.
  If it is all right with hon. Members, I should like to make progress and return to the point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). It is important to remember that safety is not an add-on extra—it must be seen as an essential part of every activity, indeed every decision, every day on the railways. The new branch will help, but we must ensure that the right management and controls are in place, particularly for maintenance. As I have said before, the Strategic Rail Authority has provided the industry with strategic direction, and under its leadership different parts of the industry have worked together and have been able to get to grips with difficult problems that need to be resolved.
  Maintenance is critical to safety, which is why Network Rail is making a number of fundamental changes to the way in which it controls maintenance, so

  769
  getting a much-needed grip on it. We must ensure that there is accountability for what happens, and certain steps are essential if safety on the railway is to be improved. Under Railtrack, as the House will know, decisions about maintenance were farmed out to other companies in too many cases. There was no end-to-end responsibility or accountability, but that is now changing. Network Rail is operating in the public interest, and is putting safety and reliability first. In future, Network Rail will decide what work is done and how it is done. Critically, it will make sure that the work is done properly, because rigorous control of maintenance is essential for safety, as well as making good business sense. As existing maintenance contracts end, Network Rail will decide whether to extend existing arrangements or to tender new contracts to take the work back in-house, as it will do on the route between Reading and Paddington, for example. Contractors will only be appointed when Network Rail thinks that that is the right thing to do. However, whatever it does, it will ensure proper supervision of work from start to finish, which is essential and will meet demands from Members on both sides of the House for proper supervision and accountability in maintenance work. In addition, the franchising arrangements that are being overhauled will allow for tighter management of train services and ensure that some of the deficiencies left over from privatisation are finally tackled and dealt with.
  With the changes that we have now made, we have the means to manage the railway, but that needs to be underpinned by substantial investment. That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South about safety. Rail investment in real terms will be more than three times as much as it was in the decade leading up to 1997. Indeed, spending will double in the four years between 2001 and 2005, and will buy new, better and safer rolling stock—there is almost £1 billion-worth of new rolling stock now on the track, and more is on order—will help to pay for the west coast main line and other improvements and upgrades, allowing for safer and reliable travel, and will pay for the train protection warning systems that are now being installed.
  I can tell the House that train protection warning systems have been installed on 97 per cent. of trains and 76 per cent. of the necessary tracks. The programme is well on the way to completion. By the end of this year, the rest of the work agreed with the Health and Safety Executive will be complete, and a warning system will operate on all trains. There are, of course, some parts of track where a warning system has little or no safety benefit so, with the HSE's agreement, one will not be installed there. However, on the great bulk of track, all the work agreed with the HSE will be completed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South asked about the European position. There are three levels of warning system in Europe. Level 1 uses line-side signals and, although it could be installed in this country, it would restrict capacity on busy lines. It is fitted on a comparatively small number of lines in Europe, and its use is not widespread. Level 2, which is a slightly more sophisticated version, uses transmission-based signalling—it is installed on the train instead of on the track—and would allow increased capacity.
  770
  However, the House needs to be aware that level 2 of the European safety system works only on a limited number of lines, including the line between Berne and Olten in Switzerland, which does not have any junctions and has a limited number of sidings. The problem with Lord Cullen's inquiry is that the learned judge was led to believe that there was a system in Europe that was tried, tested and working and could be installed on trains in this country. That is not the case.
  The level 3 system in the long term has a great commercial and safety advantage, as it can operate on trains and monitor their progress. No doubt, one day it will be extremely useful, but the difficulty is that it is not in use anywhere at the moment. The systems put before Lord Cullen have the disadvantage that even the basic level is not in widespread use in Europe and would lead, if used here, to restrictions in the number of trains that we could run. The more sophisticated and advanced level 2 system operates on one line in Switzerland with no junctions—we do not have many lines like that—and level 3, as I said, does not exist in operation. For those reasons, I believe that we are right to ensure that the train protection warning system, which can stop trains travelling at comparatively high speed, is installed. As I told the House, 97 per cent. of trains and 76 per cent. of necessary track have already been fitted with the system.
  Alan Simpson: Can the Secretary of State clarify a point about high-speed trains and safety beyond the 70 mph limit of the train protection warning system? What safety protection mechanisms will be put in place on high-speed trains, as we clearly have to plan for their safety as well?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right that the basic train protection system will prevent trains from travelling at more than 70 mph. The train protection warning system plus, as it is known, will stop trains that are travelling at 100 mph. If a train is going faster than that, what happens will depend on a number of things, including signalling. That is usual. The point that I was making to my hon. Friend and to the House generally is that if there was in Europe a system that was better and ready for use, of course the Government would be prepared to consider it. The problem is that when comparing the railways in Britain with railways in continental Europe, we often find that we are dealing with completely different structures and different sorts of railways. It is unfortunate that it was suggested to Lord Cullen during his inquiry that there was an off-the-shelf system ready to be adapted, because it simply does not exist. By contrast, the train protection warning system does exist. Indeed, I can tell the House that the number of signals passed at danger is at the lowest level since records began. That can be attributed to two factors—first, the train protection warning system will simply stop a train and, secondly, drivers, and the industry generally, are paying greater attention to the need to observe the signals and to react appropriately.
  Mr. Don Foster: I entirely agree with the Secretary of State's decision that it is sensible to wait for ERTMS level 2, rather than to rush ahead with ERTMS level 1. However, can he reassure people that TPWS and TPWS plus, although designed to work for trains travelling at up to 70 mph and up to 100 mph

  771
  respectively, will significantly slow down trains that are going even faster than that, so that, in the event of their passing a signal at danger, the chance of there being a serious accident is minimised?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right—we are in complete agreement on that. If he would like to modify the press release that he put out earlier today to take account of that agreement, I should be grateful to him. That would save me having to put out a rebuttal of the Liberal Democrats' position.
  I turn to part 3 of the Bill, which deals with the British Transport police. I hope to be able to cover it in fairly short order, because it is not particularly controversial.
  Mr. Graham Brady rose—
  Mr. Darling: Or maybe it is.
  Mr. Brady: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from the powers of investigation, will he address the point that arises in relation to clause 7(1)(b), which appears to provide investigators with a pretty open-ended power of entry to domestic dwellings? Several hundreds of my constituents live alongside railway lines. I cannot see why a provision for a warrant would not be appropriate to protect people's privacy and property.
  Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to be included in the Committee of Selection's nominations for the Committee on the Bill, that is a point that he may wish to pursue. I agree that the granting of permission to enter people's property should be used sparingly. I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the opportunity that will be afforded to him when the Bill is in Committee to ensure that it is sufficiently tightly drawn to avoid unnecessary intrusion but still allows the investigation branch to carry out its work properly. In the past, investigators have sometimes found that their progress and ability to find things out quickly have been stymied because they could not get access. Without saying that that would happen, there are occasions where we must bear in mind that somebody might seek to conceal something, and it is important that investigators should be able to get access as quickly as possible. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that, the Committee is the place for him to be.
  Lawrie Quinn: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to part 3, I want to ask him a question about part 1. Will he and his officials—if not now, before the Bill reaches Committee—consider the need for definitions as regards what is an accident and what is an incident? As someone who spent 19 years working in the railway industry, I know that that is an important issue. I guess that the branch would declare whether it was an accident or an incident, but it would be helpful to the work of the branch to include such a definition in the Bill.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will no doubt have looked at the Bill, and will be aware that it gives a fair amount of latitude to the chief inspector as to what he investigates. In some cases it would be mandatory; in others there would be a discretion. A similar situation applies in relation to the air and marine branches, both
  772
  of which have that latitude. If the chief inspector sees something, or has something reported to him, that suggests that there might be some public interest in investigating it, he can do it. Of course, the Government are open to suggestions as to how the Bill could be improved if necessary.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: Yes, then I shall move on to part 3.
  Mr. Clapham: I refer the Secretary of State to the fact that at the present time the provisions of the Health and Safety Executive and RIDDOR—the Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations apply. Does he believe that those regulations, which call for the reporting of dangerous occurrences, could be a help in defining what is an accident and what is an incident?
  Mr. Darling: That is possible, but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) a moment ago, there is sufficient latitude under clause 6 to allow the chief inspector to take a decision as to whether or not he ought to investigate. The circumstances that might lead to his investigation would depend on the information that he had before him, and existing health and safety legislation would be of help. Again, if hon. Members feel that the situation could be improved, of course the Government are open to their suggestions.
  Part 3 relates to the British Transport police, and, as I said, I can deal with it in short order. A modern police service should be accountable to an independent police authority. Clause 17 allows that to be established. At present, the SRA appoints the board, but it would be better if the board were independent, and the Bill makes sure that it is. It also makes sure that the police force no longer relies on contracts with different operators as a basis for its jurisdiction. Clause 29 puts the British Transport police's jurisdiction over the railways in England, Scotland and Wales on a clear and wholly statutory basis for the first time in its history. That is a welcome step forward.
  As a matter of principle, we believe that the railway industry should pay the costs of policing services. We also believe that the same approach should apply to the Health and Safety Executive, so the Bill will enable the HSE to levy costs from its rail-related activities on the rail industry. For the industry, that has the advantage that it will know up-front how much it has to pay.
  I shall deal briefly with part 2, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who speaks for the Liberals, expressed such great interest in the matter. Part 2 provides that the Office of the Rail Regulator should be restructured. The rail regulator is working well, but we want to take this opportunity to bring the railways into line with other regulated industries, replacing the individual regulator with a regulatory board, which is consistent with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force.
  The Bill restructures the existing Office of the Rail Regulator, creates a statutory regulatory board in place of the regulator, building on the existing advisory board

  773
  that he already has, and enables a wide range of experience and views to be brought to decision making. We will not make the change before mid-2004, which will enable the regulator to complete the useful work that he is doing in reviewing access charges.
  Parts 4 and 5 deal with drug and alcohol limits in relation to marine and aviation activities.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: What impact does my right hon. Friend expect the provisions of the Bill to have on incidents such as the one currently being investigated by British Airways, in which a pilot who was allegedly affected by alcohol was about to fly a plane over the weekend, but was stopped because of the action of passengers?
  Mr. Darling: I am about to explain how the Bill would help. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall deal with that shortly, but I shall speak first about marine accidents.
  Tom Brake: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: I shall make some preliminary remarks, then I shall give way.
  The principle has long been accepted that we ought to have measures to reduce the effect of drinking on the number of accidents. That has been accepted for many years in relation to road accidents. It is interesting that when breath tests for drivers were introduced in 1967, it was reckoned that fatalities were reduced by about 800 a year. The measure was controversial at the time, but the principle is now accepted without question. I believe that a similar approach needs to be extended to both marine and aviation activities.
  I shall speak about marine activities first, so if the hon. Gentleman's question is about marine activities, I shall deal with it. Aviation activities are slightly different, and I intend to return to that topic.
  Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. My question was actually on the subject of roads, to which he referred. Given that the Bill provides for prescribed limits on alcohol, why have the Government not considered using it as an opportunity to reduce the limit for drivers from 80 mg to 50 mg?
  Mr. Darling: We do not have any plans to reduce the limit below the current limit. That is why the matter is not addressed in the Bill. Instead, we are introducing similar provisions in relation to both marine and aviation activities. Let me explain what we propose to do.
  Clauses 75 and 77 implement the recommendations that were made by Lord Justice Clarke in his review of safety on the Thames after the Marchioness disaster. It was also a manifesto commitment of the Government. The Bill will make it an offence for any mariner to operate while impaired by alcohol or drugs. Off-duty professional mariners are included as well if they are on the vessel and they might be needed in an emergency to protect passenger safety.
  774
  Clause 77 applies to what are referred to as nonprofessional mariners—people whose employment is not in the field. We could have extended the provisions that apply to professional mariners to all boats, whatever their size and speed, but we considered that they should be proportionate. There is a difference between what is needed in relation to a large passenger-carrying ship with a professional crew and in relation to a man rowing a boat in a harbour. We will consult carefully on how best to deal with non-professional mariners.
  The Bill contains a power to exempt vessels with reference to the power of their motor, size or location. We want to consult on the repercussions, as we need to get the matter right. None the less, we are minded, for example, to exempt rowing boats, sailing dinghies and narrowboats. However, larger, high-powered recreational vessels such as jet-skis would probably be included. We want to strike the right balance to ensure that we get the legislation right. The proposed blood-alcohol limit is the same as that which applies to motoring—80 mg.
  David Cairns: I thank the Secretary of State for that explanation. As a Member of Parliament representing a port area, I am amazed that such provisions have not already been introduced. Will he clarify what the research paper says about not extending the provisions to which he refers to non-professional mariners in Scotland? What legislation are they covered by? If the issue is important in England and Wales, how will we deal with it in Scotland?
  Mr. Darling: This is a devolved matter, but perhaps it would help if I explained to my hon. Friend why I do not think the legislation needs to be extended in that way. At the moment, if a non-professional mariner is suspected of being responsible for an accident and has taken alcohol—in Scotland, that can be established by the police asking them to take a breath test—that can be an exacerbating factor in the procurator fiscal deciding what charge should be brought against that individual. For example, if alcohol was present at the time of an accident involving a death, it might lead the procurator fiscal to conclude that the charge should be culpable homicide, as opposed to a lesser charge. The reason why we have drafted the legislation in this way is not only that the matter is devolved—if the Scottish Executive want to make changes, they can do so—but that the Government believe that the current powers and law would allow us to deal with someone who was not a professional mariner, but used a boat and caused a death or serious injury for a reason of which drink was thought to be a part. The existing law would allow the courts to deal with such a person.
  Moving from the sea to the air, the position is slightly different. Perhaps I can explain what we are doing and then return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). The Bill makes it an offence for somebody to undertake safety-critical aviation activities while they are affected by drugs or alcohol. Generally, the limits of enforcement will be on the same basis as for motorists, but there is an exception. As fast reflexes are essential on the part of aircrews and air traffic controllers, a lower limit of 20 mg will be set for those engaged in such activities. For all other aviation workers, however, the limit will be 80 mg.

  775
  On the incident to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside referred, I do not want to be drawn into the particular details, for reasons that she will understand. The new limit would mean that if somebody in an aircrew, for example, was found to have a blood alcohol content of more than 20 mg, they would be guilty of an offence under the Bill. Many companies have a similar requirement as part of their standing orders, as it were. It is right that the legislation on air and seagoing activities should be brought roughly into line with what has happened for a long time in relation to cars.
  Mrs. Ellman: I thank the Secretary of State for his helpful answer. Can he give the House any information about the current situation? Is he aware whether the current position in relation to aircraft and alcohol consumption is causing particular difficulties?
  Mr. Darling: I am aware that it has caused difficulties. A private Member's Bill that will be considered shortly adds to police powers to deal with someone who is affected by alcohol or drugs. The Government are well disposed to the measure, which is a welcome addition. However, current police powers, and those that Parliament will grant us in the Bill, mean that the police in this country have the ability that they need to deal with anybody—a member of staff or a passenger—who is drunk and incapable. It is commendable that the courts visit stiff sentences on people who misbehave in aeroplanes because they pose such a danger to everybody else. It is grossly unfair to an aircraft crew if people who are the worse for wear can abuse them. They can expect the courts to deal with them firmly.
  I want to deal with London Underground and clause 105. Before I consider the detailed provisions that amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999, it would be helpful if I explained the necessity for them, and where matters stand in relation to the transfer of London Underground to Transport for London. I appreciate that that matter is of interest.
  On 4 December last year, I told hon. Members that I did not consider that a transfer of the tube could take place against the background of a challenge by the Mayor and Transport for London to the European Commission's decision that the public-private partnership arrangements did not constitute state aid. I also set out my position on funding, which amounts to approximately £1 billion a year for the next seven and a half years. That position has not changed. However, we made it clear in December that we would reconsider the grant if any major unforeseen needs arose. That remains the Government's position.
  In the past few days, discussions have taken place with Transport for London. I spoke to Bob Kiley several times over the weekend. Good progress has been made on discussions to resolve the matter. Transport for London understands that no more money is on offer, except in the case of unforeseen expenditure, as we said last December. That enabled us to discuss with Transport for London a process that would lead to the transfer of London Underground on the clear understanding that all legal challenges are abandoned.
  Although an appeal was launched yesterday, the Mayor's office said that the move was technical, to stop the clock on the legal process. Discussions continue. I
  776
  want the underground to transfer smoothly because that is in everyone's best interests. Of course, I shall keep hon. Members informed of developments.
  Let us consider the sections of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that clause 105 amends and that may work to restrict the operation of some provisions of the PPP contracts when they are transferred to Transport for London. Unless alternative arrangements that are satisfactory to all parties, including those that bid for the PPP contracts, can be made, I do not intend to transfer London Underground until the amended powers are in force, subject to Parliament's consideration of the Bill.
  Mike Gapes: As a London Member of Parliament, I welcome the fact that the Government appear to be making progress in persuading the Mayor that it is time to end the legal challenges and take the road of co-operation. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will persist in their efforts because Londoners are crying out for a resolution. We should get on with the investment that London's underground needs.
  Mr. Darling: The majority of people in London now believe that whatever their differences or difficulties in the past, it is now time to get on with investing the money in the tube. I granted an indemnity to Tube Lines and Metronet because I believed that the time had come to make desperately needed investment in the tube. I am pleased that Transport for London accepts our position. We are not offering more money; we made the settlement last December. However, as we said then, the Government would have to consider unforeseen costs. The agreement, which is a development in the Mayor's past position, means that we can discuss methods of transferring the tube from London Underground to Transport for London. A smooth and orderly transfer is essential and in everyone's interests to clarify who is responsible for the tube.
  Those discussions are continuing. As I have said, I have had a number of useful discussions with Bob Kiley of Transport for London. I very much hope that the matters can be resolved, because it must be in the interests of everybody in London that we get this money into the Tube, that management is put on a sound and permanent footing and that we get on with it. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Tim Collins: The right hon. Gentleman has twice said that he has made it clear to the Mayor that no more money is available. There are, however, media reports that he may be discussing with the Mayor bringing forward to an earlier timeframe some money that was otherwise programmed to be available. Will he confirm whether that is being discussed?
  Mr. Darling: There are a variety of reports in the media that are not right, and there appear to be a variety of people telling the media various things for their own various interests.
  It is very important that the House understand the situation. I set out in some detail last December the position in relation to the transfer and the funding. I have allocated funding to Transport for London,

  777
  not just for the Tube but for non-Tube activities. As I said last December, the Department made it clear to London Underground and TFL that if something unforeseen came along the Government would look at it, in the same way as we would need to deal with it if the Government were directly responsible. If there is nothing unforeseen, the next time the spending will be looked at is in 2004, in the spending review in that year, which is when we shall look at all spending across the whole of government in the normal way.
  Because of what I regard as an extremely helpful development on the part of the Mayor, who I think recognises that it is desirable to make progress, it is now possible to discuss how a transfer would take place.
  Two matters that came to our attention in December need to be resolved before transfer by amending the Greater London Authority Act. It was always intended when the Act was drafted that as soon as the PPP was in place transfer would follow immediately. In other words, the drafters had not anticipated that there might be a prolonged dispute or appeals to the European Court, or to anywhere else for that matter.
  Therefore, it is necessary to do two things, which clause 105 achieves. First, it allows the contracts to operate as intended and allows the guarantees in place in relation to the PPP to remain. Secondly, there need to be changes to the possible insolvency provisions. At present, on transfer were either of the two consortia running the PPP to become insolvent the assets would come back into the public sector. As the Act is drafted, if there is a delay and there is insolvency, that would not happen. Clearly, Parliament intended that the tube's assets should remain in the public sector. So those two changes are essential to make sure that the PPPs work.
  For the sake of completeness I would add that the Tube Lines contract has now been signed. Tube Lines is now operating its three lines. I believe that the Metronet consortia will reach a financial close in March or April this year, which will allow the investment to go into London Underground—something that is desperately needed and long overdue.
  The Bill puts in place significant steps to improve safety, not just on the railways, but also at sea and in the air. It is backed by the necessary investment, which is critical, as well as changes in management to ensure a better safety culture. It also makes some minor adjustments to the GLA Act. It will contribute to making sure that money goes into the London Underground railway, which is absolutely essential.
  I hope that the Bill is relatively uncontroversial. There will be points of detail, which can be dealt with, but I hope that the whole House can support it without division. I commend the Bill to the House.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: I can pick up on the Secretary of State's last comments by saying that I believe that the Bill is largely uncontroversial. Clearly, issues of detail will need to be examined in the Committee, but there are many parts that we welcome. Indeed, they are a worthwhile and important contribution to the cause that I am sure all parts of the House share—the wish to see greater transport safety.
  778
  In particular, we welcome the Government's decision to legislate for the creation of a railway accident investigation branch, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) proposed when he was shadow Transport Secretary back in December 1999. It is a sensible modelling of the successful arrangements relating to aviation and maritime accident investigation. While there are again issues of detail—no doubt the industry, practitioners and others will want them to be pursued in Committee—we have no difficulty in principle with the creation of the body. Indeed, we welcome the Government's decision to create it.
  More generally, a great deal of the Bill involves the incorporation within new aspects of transport provision of legislation passed by the last Conservative Government. I refer to the extension of the Police Act 1996 to the British Transport police, matters relating to alcohol control and the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. Of course, it would be somewhat anomalous if the Conservative party, having introduced such provisions in many other respects, were suddenly to find it difficult in principle to support their extension in the way that the Government propose.
  We have no difficulty with that, but issues of detail need to be considered. As the Secretary of State and his colleagues know, there are areas in which the Government—perhaps for sensible reasons, perhaps for less sensible ones—have chosen to amend rather than simply copy over the existing provisions. We want to explore in Committee exactly why they have chosen to do that.
  The debate has already proven itself worth while, as it has enabled us to have a wide-ranging discussion on some general principles that perhaps ought to apply to transport safety. I want to comment on one or two things that the Secretary of State said in that context. I very much hope that we can continue to achieve a degree of cross-party consensus, and our starting point should be the fact that a life is a life is a life. Saving a life on the roads or in the air is at least as valuable to society as saving one in any other context.
  One aspect that Conservative Members will want to explore in Committee and on Report is whether we should be thinking about moving towards a system whereby the Government seek to save life and to commit resources that are likely to save life on the same basis across all modes of transport without differentiating, as sometimes happens now, between expenditure that would save lives on the railway as opposed to that which would save lives in other contexts.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is on to an interesting question. Was the Secretary of State too dismissive when I made the point that if slowing cars down makes them safer, surely slowing trains down makes them safer? Are not the Government speaking with forked tongue here? After every serious rail crash, they impose speed restrictions. Does not that show that similar principles apply and that speed has something to do with safety on the railways as well as on the roads?
  Mr. Collins: My right hon. Friend and I are absolutely united in that we believe that similar standards and similar beliefs should be applied across modes of

  779
  transport. That leads me to a particular issue that the Secretary of State touched on. Although I hope that there is no major difference between the parties, it is important to achieve clarification.
  The Secretary of State talked about the aftermath of Saturday's serious and worrying incident on the Central line. He made it clear—none of us would disagree with this—that he wants to ensure that London Underground can conduct thorough safety inquiries, which I am sure it is doing. He also wants to ensure that it learns the lessons of the incident and takes whatever steps are necessary to prevent its repetition. Again, I am sure we all agree with that. However, I am perhaps a little disconcerted that he did not demur when the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) said that the Central line might be disrupted or even shut for weeks.
  In that context, we in this place need to be clear about the signals that we are sending out to the railway industry, whether they relate to London Underground or the main line rail industry. It has been widely reported that 500,000 people a day rely on the Central line, so we must consider what may happen if even 10 per cent. of them switch to the roads as a result of its closure or disruption. I declare an interest in that I normally travel to the House on the Central line, but I have been unable to do so for the past two days. I have driven in, and I suspect that tens of thousands of people working in and around London have done the same.
  Given what we know about the relative safety of road transport compared with rail transport, it follows that tens of thousands of our fellow citizens are risking life and limb in a way that would not be necessary were the Central line operating. We do not know, but the Central line may be kept out of service for a period of weeks. If it is, Saturday's incident, which no doubt was terrifying for the people involved in it, may lead to actual loss of life. That would be tragic.
  I hope that all hon. Members will agree that London Underground should bear that possibility in mind, even though today's London Evening Standard is reporting that the rail unions are pressurising it to contemplate taking out of service permanently all the rolling stock currently running on the Central line if it is concluded that some design flaw was involved in Saturday's incident. I remind the Secretary of State that that stock has been used successfully for about a decade, and its removal from service would seem strange.
  I hope that the House will agree that London Underground should reach a balanced judgment on these matters. A decision to shut down the Central line for several weeks for reasons of safety should not be taken lightly, if the consequence will be that more people risk their lives travelling by road.
  The Opposition also hope that it will be possible to examine some of the other matters mentioned by the Secretary of State. I join the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about European train passenger warning systems. The Secretary of State is right to look at the practicality of such measures, and to aim for systems that work. Some siren voices always call for money to be spent on rail safety, even if that might not be terribly effective. Opposition Members will back the right hon. Gentleman if the actions that he takes to enhance rail safety are clearly based on the best science
  780
  and the most rational case. Those actions should not be taken merely in response to public or media pressure to spend money for the sake of spending money.
  In fact, the UK rail system is extremely safe, and becoming more so. It is not as safe as we should like, but there is no doubt that it is getting safer every year. The Transport 2000 spokesman, Mr. Stephen Joseph, has said that, even after recent serious rail accidents, it would be irrational for people to conclude that they would be safer travelling by road. That is entirely sensible: sadly, more than 3,000 people lose their lives, and about 300,000 are injured, on the roads every year. I hope that that statistic will be noted in the Standing Committee's deliberations on the Bill.
  I hope too that the Committee takes note of the recent observation by Andrew Evans, professor of transport safety at University College, London. He commented that a person was far more likely to suffer an accident on the way to a railway station than at any subsequent stage of the journey. The Government are right to establish, through the Bill, a rail accident investigation unit, but the message must not be that the rail industry is unsafe in its absence, nor that we need special legislation to protect people from an unsafe system. This country's rail system is basically safe. Measures can be taken to make it safer still, but we do people no favours by perpetuating the myth that travelling by road is easier and safer than travelling by rail.
  The Opposition also welcome the provisions relating to the British Transport police. The Secretary of State did not mention it, but at 10.30 pm this evening BBC 1 is showing the first part of a documentary series on the British Transport police. It will show why we have many reasons to be grateful to that force for the work that it does on behalf of so many people. I believe that tonight's episode will focus on the unpleasant but essential tasks that many members of the force perform in collecting objects—and sometimes, horrifically, body parts—from the rail network. That job has to be done and they undertake it with great care and diligence. It is right that they should have the status that will be accorded them in their incorporation under the Bill. They will no longer be treated as second-class police officers but will be recognised for doing an extremely important public safety job.
  At a time when the Prime Minister rightly warns of the continuing threat to our national security from international terrorism, and given that on so many occasions in the past terrorists concentrated their attacks on parts of the rail network, it is important for the British Transport police to know that they have the full support of people throughout the country and on both sides of the House for their work. I hope that the Secretary of State's prioritisation of their work in the Bill will also be reflected in the negotiations that he and others hold with the Treasury on the provision of resources for that police service. Conservative Members continue to hold the view that our police, in general, need more backing and that certainly holds as true for the British Transport police as for any other organisation.
  We note that the Secretary of State had to be prompted to refer to part 2, which relates to the changes to the Office of the Rail Regulator. He rightly referred—as I suspected he would—to the report of the Better Regulation Task Force in favour of the proposition that

  781
  it is better for regulatory bodies, in general, to be organised as a board rather than as an individual. However, we shall want to explore, if not in this debate certainly in Committee and on Report, the full background to the Government's decision to change the way in which the rail regulator operates. Is it the case, as some people suspect, that the Government were not exactly reluctant to implement that recommendation of their taskforce, given that the current rail regulator, Mr. Tom Winsor, has demonstrated that he is capable of being independent not only of individual concerns within the rail industry but also of Her Majesty's Government? Some Members will recall the occasion when the regulator gave evidence to the Select Committee on Transport about a difference of opinion, or of recollection, between him and a former Secretary of State. It would be a matter of great regret and some seriousness if the Government's decision to change the whole nature of the operation of the Office of the Rail Regulator were to stem from their frustration at the regulator's actions on that occasion. We hope to be able to establish clearly that getting their own back played no part in the Government's motivation.
  The Secretary of State also referred to the relatively short but none the less significant provisions towards the end of the Bill on the London underground. In his evidence to the Select Committee on 18 December, the right hon. Gentleman explained why the Bill took so long to produce, even though, when it was announced in the Queen's Speech, it was welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as a measure that we were unlikely to oppose. The Secretary of State said that the main reason was because even by 18 December he had not reached final conclusions about whether the regulations on the London underground and Transport for London should be dealt with by primary or secondary legislation. I do not invite him to comment on that point, but I suspect that it was the main reason for the hold-up in our debating the Bill.
  Earlier, the Secretary of State said that we should not believe everything that the media reported about the state of negotiations between him and the Mayor—indeed, I think that we should not believe everything in the media on any subject. However, I welcomed his comments on the tone of those negotiations and his optimism that progress is being made. It would be helpful if the Government could indicate in the Standing Committee whether, if they reach an agreement with the Mayor that incorporates the provisions to which the Secretary of State referred—that is, a binding undertaking by the Mayor not to return to legal challenge or legal action—the provisions in the Bill would be otiose and could be struck out of the draft. We shall wait to see whether the Government get into that position, but it would be helpful to know perhaps hypothetically what their view on that would be.
  Transport for London does not agree with the Secretary of State that the provisions in the Bill are intended simply to carry out the original wishes of Parliament as set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. After all, TfL in its memorandum to the Select Committee dated 11 December points to the rather unanswerable argument that the primary purpose of the Act was to transfer responsibility for the London
  782
  underground to TfL and the London Mayor. It is perfectly true, as the Secretary of State says, that other intentions were inherent, lay behind, were implied and in some cases were stated, but the primary purpose was to transfer responsibility to Transport for London. That is something that the Secretary of State does not at present propose to do.
  In its memorandum TfL states:
  "It is also certainly possible that these changes, once enacted—"
  it refers specifically to clause 105 of the Bill—
  "would permit the Government to retain control of LUL for an indefinite duration."
  That, no doubt, is not the Secretary of State's hope or wish. He has made it clear that that is not his intention, but he would find it difficult to argue but that TfL is right in its assessment of the legal consequences of that clause. We will wish to explore, perhaps in depth, in Committee whether the Government are prepared to consider some self-denying ordinances or perhaps even some legal restrictions to ensure that the provisions in the Greater London Authority Act, which envisaged that long before now London underground would be the responsibility of TfL, will be implemented rather than continually frustrated by disagreements between the Mayor, the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I do not seek to arbitrate between those individuals. I happily take the view that they are all as bad as each other, but it seems to me that Londoners and those travelling in and out of London are suffering from the inability to reach agreement. It would be helpful if they could reach some form of consensus sooner rather than later.
  The legislation will on the whole have a positive effect. Its intention is clearly to address serious and important issues in a serious and proper way. We will wish to examine points of detail. We shall in particular want to examine the way in which the welcome restrictions on the use of alcohol or drugs by aviation and maritime personnel will be implemented. The Secretary of State did not state otherwise, but he will acknowledge that legal safeguards already apply. It is an offence for someone in charge of an aircraft, for example, to be under the influence of alcohol, but he is right to say that the courageous measures introduced by Barbara Castle, who received an enormous amount of criticism for introducing the breathalyser for motorists, are not now an issue of serious public controversy or debate. It seems to me highly likely that that will also be the case once similar procedures are introduced for pilots of aircraft and maritime vessels. We will examine the detail of that in consultation with the industry, but we do not have any difficulty with it in principle.
  Mr. Bercow: Hitherto the British Transport police have operated on the basis of a part-statutory, part-contractual jurisdiction over the railways. The proposal in the Bill is to give them the status of a fully statutory body—a status that my hon. Friend welcomed. Can he confirm for me and for the benefit of the House that in addition to enjoying greater esteem as a result of their increased status they will enjoy a corresponding increase in practical powers?
  Mr. Collins: Until the very last moment, I thought that my hon. Friend was going to note that, of course,

  783
  greater accountability is one of the principal advantages of bringing the British Transport police within the regime that applies to other police authorities under the Police Act 1996. We should certainly welcome greater accountability, and it should be seen as a strength.
  Yes, it is my understanding that the changes that the Government intend to introduce will regularise the position of the British Transport police and, certainly for all purposes relating to its management, control, accounting and accountability, they will be treated essentially like any other police authority, while recognising that they are, of course, a national organisation, not based on a county structure that would otherwise be the case.
  The powers of the British Transport police will not be significantly altered by the Bill, but, as I said earlier, we would all recognise that, given the security considerations that perhaps apply more to railway stations and lines than to almost any other public structure, or series of buildings or public spaces, it is indeed appropriate that the force should have the full range of powers that they need to discharge their duties, which are likely to become more, rather than less, important in the years to come.
  I was saying a word or two about the provisions that relate to alcohol testing. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman)—I am afraid that she has just left her place—referred to the highly publicised incident in Stockholm. I understand that the legal authorities are still considering that matter, so we must not comment in detail on the case, but it certainly indicates that there is a topicality in the Government's proposals. That is in a sense commendable, but they cannot claim any credit for it, as they could hardly have known what was about to happen.
  However, it was notable that—I hope that this does not intrude into the detail of the case—it was reported that the person concerned was breathalysed. Of course the incident occurred in Sweden, not in the United Kingdom, but it is interesting to note therefore that perhaps Sweden is slightly ahead of us in such provisions and that we are dealing with something that the international aviation business is unlikely to find particularly controversial.
  It is the Conservative party's view that the Government are right to introduce legislation on transport safety, but our view is that, from time to time, it would be more appropriate for the House also to consider road safety issues, given that travelling by road is by far the most dangerous form of transport in this country. Sadly, it is by far the form of transport in which the largest number of lives is lost. Indeed, there are some very alarming statistics, not only the often-quoted figures in relation to the number of motorists or their passengers who are killed on the roads, but almost 1,000 people a year are killed even though they are pedestrians or pedal cyclists, many of whom are children. It is not easy to suggest that there are simple legislative solutions to those issues, but they need to be put on the public record and discussed in the House every time that we talk about transport safety.
  When the media talk about transport safety, they almost invariably dig out the stock footage of rail crashes. There have been some very horrific rail crashes, but the media seem to ignore the fact that, tragically,
  784
  10 people die in this country, on average, on the roads every day, week in week out, and it might help if, from time to time, they gave that fact a little more publicity to balance out the reality, instead of giving a slightly misleading impression.
  I had hoped that the Secretary of State might have said a word about the relationship between the railway accident investigation branch, which he proposes in the Bill, and the work of Railway Safety, which, as he will know, has been set up by Network Rail and succeeds the previous arrangements that applied to Railtrack. The Minister for Transport is nodding. Perhaps he will say a word or two about that in his closing remarks.
  Railway Safety says on its website that its 2003 railway group safety plan
  "adopts a long-term goal of reducing to zero the number of events with the potential to cause a collision or derailment and that are under the direct control of Network Rail and the train operators."
  That is clearly a worthwhile and welcome target, but I hope that we will not make the mistake of taking the view that, somehow, the rail industry fails if it does not deliver a reduction to zero instantly or overnight. A lot of work will have to be done before that can happen, but there is no doubt that a great deal of very hard work is being undertaken.
  We do not propose to oppose the Government on this legislation for the sake of opposition. When they are doing something that we broadly welcome, we will tell them so, which is what we are doing on this occasion. We will want to explore points of detail and points that the Government have perhaps not fully thought through. On the whole, however, the Bill will and should command cross-party support, and is likely to be welcomed by all those involved in travelling when it reaches the statute book.
  4.10 pm
  Lawrie Quinn: It is a pleasure and an honour, as someone who spent 19 years working in the railway industry, to contribute to this important debate. Before I entered the House, this subject occupied my every waking hour, and sometimes my sleeping hours. On many occasions, in the middle of the night, I was rung by control to be told that there had been an incident or accident somewhere. As I result, I had to respond in the manner to which the Secretary of State alluded in his opening remarks by trying to ensure that the system was safe and that any injured people were dealt with appropriately, and moving as swiftly as possible to restore the railway.
  In relation to some of the interventions by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about speed and the necessity sometimes to place speed restrictions or other restrictions on the railway system, those are, of course, a result of railway group standards and the safety standards that apply to the industry. Not applying a speed restriction or a temporary signalling arrangement to a particular section of track would not only be foolhardy but very dangerous. It would add considerable risk, and defeat the whole object of what is Britain's safest transportation system.
  I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). This is a first for the Conservative Front-Bench team, but he seemed to have great knowledge that reflected research

  785
  undertaken in preparation for the debate. He and I recently attended a useful and helpful reception—I in my capacity as co-chairman of the all party-group on railways, and he in his as the Opposition transport spokesman—and he was very welcoming to those in the railway community who do so much to keep our railways safe.
  With those few remarks to establish my credentials to speak in this debate, I want to bring to the House's attention one or two concerns about the Bill. I tried to deal with one of them in an intervention on the Secretary of State earlier: the question of the definition of what is an accident and what is an incident. Again, I listened carefully to the thoughtful contribution from the Opposition spokesman, who continually described the accident—as I would put it—that occurred on the Central line as an incident. I do not know whether the fact that there were no fatalities was a consideration in relation to his definition. It illustrates my concern, however—and that of many who work in the railway industry— that the important question of definition should be clarified. Even if that point cannot be dealt with on the face of the Bill, I hope that the issue will be focused on in Committee.
  In terms of my railway experience, a signal passed at danger—a SPAD—is an incident. It would be an accident if, as a result of that SPAD, a further collision occurred, and people were injured or substantial damage was done to the equipment and engineering systems of the railway infrastructure. I hope that that starts people thinking about what we should do to address the important problem of defining the difference between an accident and an incident.
  Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to determine the difference between an incident and an accident. Some industries have a long history of doing that. In the mining industry, Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines would be called to incidents or occurrences. I referred the Secretary of State to RIDDOR as a pointer for such a definition.
  Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend is right. His former industry of mining and my former industry had similar safety cultures. Some of their regulations have parallels. We learned from previous mistakes, built on the regulations and put safer systems in place.
  Mr. Don Foster: I accept that we need the definitions and I have drafted an amendment that might satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that count. I hope that it will be selected for debate in Committee. Does he accept that, for the rail accident investigation branch to develop its intelligence, it will need to deal not only with accidents but the incidents that he describes, just as the air accidents investigation branch considers near misses as well as actual accidents?
  Lawrie Quinn: I agree. In fact, the categorisation would allow the accident investigation branch to apply the appropriate resources and to define the specialist technical resources that it will need to decide how quickly attention should be given to an incident. For example, an incident that involves a SPAD might be the
  786
  result of a problem with the signalling. It might be possible to put a temporary operating mechanism in place, such as a speed restriction, and fix the problem the following weekend to allow the tracks to be run at full line speed. Obviously, the process would be different in the case of an accident and might necessitate the closure of a line, railway diversions and so on.
  Mr. Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Bill differentiates between a serious accident and an accident? On the face of it, an accident may not appear serious, but the investigation could discover a fault in equipment or track that would have repercussions in other parts of the railway. A problem might not be immediately apparent when an accident occurs. Is not there a problem with the definitions?
  Lawrie Quinn: There is a distinction between the need to have a definition in the Bill and the reality of the good safety culture in the railway industry. I cannot stress too strongly how safety conscious and committed to safety the people who work in that industry are.
  Let us consider the perspective of the driver of the train on the Central line at the weekend. His instinct was to report the fact that there was a problem with the train. That reaction is instinctive for anyone who works in the railway industry. A clearer definition would aid the important work carried out by the new organisation and, as the hon. Gentleman said, add to the categorisation of lessons learned to ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes.
  I have a personal concern that relates to my private Member's Bill, which I hope will obtain its Second Reading on Friday. The Bill seeks to revitalise and bring up to date the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. From my personal experience of dealing with accidents and incidents during my railway career, I have great respect for the Health and Safety Executive and its inspectors, particularly those in the railway inspectorate. I regard them as the colleagues of anyone who works in the industry.
  Clause 102 proposes a new railways safety levy. My concern is that, by clever movement of public moneys, it would introduce an opaque bureaucracy that may be unnecessary. At the end of the day, the passengers and those who move freight by rail will pay, perhaps through subsidy from the Government. In an early bid to my colleagues in the Treasury, I ask them to consider the resources being given to the HSE and ensure that it is properly funded from the public purse, rather than by the merry-go-round financial arrangement that I think I detect in clause 102. I hope that the Standing Committee will consider that point.
  I turn now to an issue of confidentiality that arises from clause 8(4). I have worked on many construction sites close to the railway; they are very dangerous places to be. On one site, we had a series of minor incidents, and the clerk of works placed the letters "PTB" on his hard hat. When people inquired what that meant, he replied that the letters stood for "person to blame".
  People who work in the railway industry share the goal of having a safe, working transport system. They need to be confident that confidentiality will be maintained when they report a mishap and that they will

  787
  not be reported to management or the police. I detect a clear consensus on witness confidentiality not only among employees in the railway industry such as my former colleagues but among employers. That is part of the system used by the air accidents investigation branch and investigations into other forms of transport, and it should be enshrined in the Bill.
  Mr. Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend take that principle further and agree that there should be encouragement and support for employees who report to senior management when they see things being done incorrectly? There should be whistleblowing when corners are cut that may lead to problems later on. I understand that there is fear in the industry about whistleblowing in those circumstances.
  Lawrie Quinn: On most of the sites that I looked after when I was a railway civil engineer, I was responsible for holding fortnightly safety meetings. I used to open every meeting by reflecting on the fact that if we had a safe site with good communications, and people shared knowledge of problems, such as an untied ladder or problems with overhead electrical systems, as soon as they saw them, we would prevent accidents that might have resulted in serious injury or fatality.
  We must bear it in mind that we are dealing with not only those who work on the railways but the travelling public and dangerous chemicals and substances that are transported on the railways. There is a wider public obligation to make sure that information is given to the people in charge as quickly as possible, and that must be enshrined in the general safety climate of any transport system.
  Mr. George Stevenson: On the confidential reporting of concerns, is my hon. Friend aware that, two or three years ago, some railway companies introduced a confidential reporting system on a pilot scheme basis? In the airline industry, a confidential reporting system does indeed exist, particularly in respect of air traffic control. Should that not be rolled out throughout the whole transport industry, including the railways?
  Lawrie Quinn: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done with the Transport Committee, which reflected on exactly that point in 1998. In my experience, such an idea would certainly help to create a general climate of good practice and a safe transport system; indeed, that is good practice in terms not only of protecting people, but of enhancing the safety reputation that any transport system should have. It is unfortunate that, because of the pressure of trying to get the job done, such a consensus is perhaps not reached throughout the entire organisation. The provisions included in strengthened health and safety legislation and in this Bill will encourage the establishment of the safe systems that we want.
  I shall be brief as I am conscious that many colleagues want to get in. On clause 8 and learning from past investigations and mistakes, it is essential to ensure that the Secretary of State gets regular feedback from the track-side about any problems. We have started to move away from the fragmented situation to which
  788
  privatisation led, whereby a more legalistic framework was put in place, and people stopped talking and wanting to share information openly.
  Everyone connected with the industry always has something to learn from such investigations—from the Secretary of State to the linemen at the track-side and the people on the platforms. It is absolutely essential that the rail accident investigation branch have a statutory duty to report to the independent railway safety and standards board, which in turn should have a duty to disseminate such reports throughout the railway industry. What happened in the west country could occur in the north-east or in the north of Scotland, and it is crucial that we establish a transparent approach. Clauses 8 and 9 and clause 6(4) deal with that point, and I hope that the Standing Committee will examine in detail what can be learned from past investigations.
  Last week, the all-party group on rail had the privilege and pleasure of visiting the British Transport police control room at Victoria, and it proved very useful for representatives of both Houses to witness the complexities involved. I very much welcome the Bill's proposal to enshrine a railway policing authority in British Transport police. It is important that all communities can talk directly to police forces, but I make a plea to the Secretary of State, and to the Ministers who will take the Bill forward, to look again at such provisions. The industry that I used to work in delivers many journeys and moves much tonnage every day of the year. It is important that we do not forget the staff—the people who work day in, day out—and give them an opportunity to participate in the important governance work of British Transport police. Again, I hope that Members can take a look at that in Committee. I wish the Bill well, and hope that its progress through Parliament is speedy so that we can make sure that we get an even safer railway fit for the 21st century.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), who demonstrated in his speech, as he does in everything that he does for the all-party group, his deep knowledge and concern for the railways. No doubt, Members on both sides of the House will regard him as yet another contender for membership of the Committee considering the Bill.
  As other hon. Members have mentioned, last Saturday's accident on the tube throws into stark relief the importance of vigilance on safety in public transport. Liberal Democrat Members have long argued that public transport should be safe, reliable and affordable—the most important of those three considerations is safety. Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), I wish to make it clear on the record that, as the Bill includes a number of measures that will drive forward the issue of safety in our transport systems, we shall certainly support it on Second Reading, notwithstanding the fact that we want to explore a number of areas in Committee and propose some changes.
  As hon. Members have said, the Bill is limited in scope. Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I find it particularly disappointing that there

  789
  is little reference to the vital issue of road safety. I have already noted that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, no doubt doing yet another stint in Westminster Hall at the moment, has hinted on a number of occasions that the Government intend to introduce a road safety Bill in future. If that is the case, I hope that we will receive confirmation of the Government's intentions later, as such a measure is vital, not least because we are already three years into a supposed 10-year road transport safety strategy.
  Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I think that it is important to put on the record our view of how safe the railways are already. Indeed, despite Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Hatfield and Potters Bar, our railways are five times safer than they were back in 1975. The sad truth is that those improvements have not been mirrored on our roads. In fact, the statistics are stark. Since 1997, fewer than 150 people have died on our railways, but a staggering 17,000 people have died on our roads. There is therefore much to be done to improve safety on our roads, and it is a pity that the Bill is almost silent on that issue.
  Tom Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in relation to road safety, the Government could look at a problem with car auctions highlighted by Families Bereaved Through Car Crime, a Belfast organisation? It is possible for an 11-year-old to purchase a car, get together with friends, then go joyriding.
  Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I was horrified to learn that it was possible for children as young as 11 to go to an auction, buy a car then, tragically on some occasions, go off joyriding—a euphemism, as it is certainly not joyful. I hope that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have taken note of what my hon. Friend said.
  The Bill is limited in scope. We welcome many of the measures that it includes, but it is important to set it in the context of other issues that, surprisingly, it does not cover. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby will know only too well how complex the issues relating to safety on the railways now are, especially following privatisation. Anyone who has read the excellent briefing, "Railway Safety and Accidents", which was published earlier this month by the Library, will get a flavour of the degree of complexity that exists. Far too many bodies are involved in railway safety. For example, authorising a new railway carriage involves three different bodies—one to authorise the safety arrangements for the interior of the coach, one to deal with the exterior, and another to say whether it is safe to go on to the track. It was therefore appropriate that Lord Cullen recommended that there should be a single rail industry safety body that would take on many of those responsibilities and reduce the need for such a large number of bodies.
  The rail regulator's proposals in that respect are far less radical than those of Lord Cullen. Nevertheless, they are receiving a great deal of support and it is possible that such a body—a more limited body—will be established within the next few months. I hope that the Minister will tell us that it has the Government's
  790
  approval and that the only reason that it is not mentioned in the Bill is that its establishment does not require primary legislation.
  Chris Grayling: I echo the comments about the desirability of streamlining systems, structures and organisations. Given the hon. Gentleman's reference to privatisation, does he agree that it is important to put on the record that Lord Cullen's report said that there has been no deterioration in overall rail safety since privatisation, and that the tragedies that have taken place on the railway are the result of internal system failures. He was keen to stress that privatisation has not made the railways more dangerous.
  Mr. Foster: We could start quibbling about interpretations of Lord Cullen's report, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied carefully, as I have. I could find other parts of the report that refer, for example, to the problems created by the fragmentation of the industry. It is increasingly clear that problems in the rail industry have arisen as a result of years of neglect and underfunding, which arose partly because of the obscene conflicts between shareholder profits and passenger safety. That is why we were keen that measures should be introduced to change the arrangements for Railtrack.
  Mr. Hopkins: Might Lord Cullen have made a different comment had his report been written after Potters Bar and Hatfield, rather than before, given that contractors were clearly implicated?
  Mr. Foster: I do not want to comment on that particular issue, although I shall touch on Potters Bar in a moment.
  There is an urgent need to simplify the safety regulatory structure on our railways. Personally, I would much rather that those arrangements were similar to those that exist for the Civil Aviation Authority, whereby there would be a safety regulator and an economic regulator within the overall structure of the Strategic Rail Authority, but with the operation of appropriate Chinese walls. Complexity is compounded by the involvement, as is proper, of the European Union. Who, within this jungle of regulatory bodies, will be responsible for telling us which takes precedence in the event of a conflict between the operation of technical specifications for interoperability and our own railway group standards?
  Mr. Clapham: As the hon. Gentleman says, there is an issue about the boundaries of the various agencies that are responsible for safety. With reference to a safety regulator, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 applies to the railways, so the Health and Safety Commission becomes the safety regulator advising the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right. He is aware that there are a number of other bodies, some of which are about to change their names and their functions, which are also involved in these matters. The complexity is similar to that relating to who is responsible for

  791
  carrying out investigations into accidents or incidents. One of the good features of the Bill is that it will provide greater clarity.
  On the aspects that are not covered by the Bill, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned the importance of learning lessons from things that have gone wrong. He is right. It is a great pity that the Bill does not contain a specific requirement for the Secretary of State to report to the House at appropriate times on the progress that is being made in implementing recommendations arising from inquiries and investigations into accidents and incidents.
  For example, 33 of the recommendations of Professor Uff and Lord Cullen are still outstanding, well after the recommended date for implementation. It may be sensible for the Secretary of State and the industry to argue that some of those recommendations are inappropriate and should be changed. We have discussed ERTMS, for example. It may be deemed appropriate not to proceed with certain recommendations, but there should be regular reports to Parliament about the progress of recommendations, with an explanation about why some are to be ditched.
  There is also a concern that some investigations are taking far too long. If we are to learn the lessons, we need clear answers, as others have said. We are still waiting for the final report on the train derailment at Hatfield, which took place in October 2000. We were told some time ago that the final report would be published by the end of 2001, yet we are still waiting.
  Notwithstanding the matters that have been omitted, the Bill contains many welcome measures. The establishment of an independent body responsible for rail accident investigations—a move recommended by Lord Cullen, which should have been in place by now—is proposed, and we welcome that. We are concerned that too much of the detail is to be provided in regulation rather than in the Bill, and that there may still be a number of conflicts to be resolved—for example, between those who want to carry out an investigation to find out what has happened, and those who are keen to ensure that we get the railway running again as quickly as possible.
  There will be tensions between other bodies for example, the transport police, who want to establish whether anyone is culpable, and the accident investigation body, which is interested in identifying the cause of the accident, and may not be concerned with liability and responsibility. Others, such as insurance loss adjusters, will also have an interest in the investigation. If an inquiry is subsequently set up, there could be a conflict between the inquiry, the rail accident investigation branch and the various other bodies.
  I am well aware that clause 7 proposes primacy for the RAIB, but there will be situations where that is inappropriate, as happens now. We need to explore with Ministers in Committee how all those potential conflicts will be resolved.
  There is also concern about the resources that will be provided for the new body. It is worth remembering that Her Majesty's rail inspectorate currently aspires to investigate 3.5 per cent. of all incidents and 20 per cent. of train accidents. To do that work, between 19 and 28 inspectors are at least notionally available in any week. It will be vital for the new body to at least match that
  792
  level of activity to maintain its basic intelligence, but it is a little difficult to see how it will do so with the 10 inspectors that it is likely to be given.
  There is further concern about the level of support and resources, as has been mentioned. For example, will the Health and Safety Executive's laboratory at Buxton be made available to the new body? As the Minister will know, that laboratory is capable of carrying out forensic examination of large sections of track or even whole carriages. If it is to be made available, will there be a charge? Given how expensive such a charge would he, is £400,000 a year in running costs an appropriate figure?
  The changes to the Office of the Rail Regulator are also welcome. After all, they take one step further the moves already introduced by Tom Winsor in setting up his own advisory body. The Secretary of State is right that the office is now the only regulatory body that does not have its own board; at least, a board is being set up and it is appropriate to bring it in line.
  The sad thing about the proposal is that it does not go further. On 15 October 2001, when the then Secretary of State announced plans to turn Railtrack into a not-for-profit organisation, he said that it
  "would need far less intense regulation. We therefore intend to streamline the existing structure".—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 956.]
  The Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as it then was, talked in its first report of 2001–02, which was published in January 2002, about the need for a review of the respective roles of the regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority after the change in status of Railtrack. The Bill merely establishes a regulatory board, but fails to take forward either the promise of the previous Secretary of State or the advice of the Select Committee.
  Chris Grayling:The hon. Gentleman and others might remember that the previous Secretary of State intended not only to streamline the powers of the rail regulator, but pretty much to abolish them by introducing an Act of Parliament that would have removed the regulator's powers entirely. I suspect that his ambitions were even more draconian than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Foster: Perhaps we can now persuade the former Secretary of State to become a member of the Committee, so that we can quiz him about those issues.
  Many issues need to be questioned still further, but one of the welcome measures is the new arrangements in respect of the British Transport police, which not only put them on to a statutory footing, but give them their own authority. Like so many of the things done by this Government, however, that has been a long time in coming. Looking back at the history books, one finds a departmental press release from 31 July 1998 entitled "British Transport Police to get independent control." We have therefore been waiting since then for the proposal to be implemented. Belated though the measure may be, it is none the less welcome.
  A couple of issues surprise me in what is being proposed. Given that the model for the new British Transport police authority is based on the Police Act 1996, I find it surprising that there will be an

  793
  arrangement in which the Secretary of State will appoint the chairman. All other police authorities make the recommendation themselves.
  Finally, I turn to aviation and shipping in respect of alcohol and drugs. Last Saturday's incident in Stockholm has been mentioned. It is important to place on record the fact that it was clear from what happened subsequently and the actions that were taken by the airline how seriously British Airways takes the issue. The sad truth is that for far too long we have had no alcohol limits or linked testing regimes for mariners and those who work in aspects of the air transport industry that are critical for safety. We have waited a long time for such measures.
  Back in 1992, the Hayes report that followed the Marchioness disaster made recommendations for shipping. We are considering them 10 years later. The air accidents investigation branch made similar recommendations on air travel. Measures for which we have waited a long time are nevertheless welcome and we look forward to discussing some of the details in Committee.
  When the Secretary of State answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about whether he could reduce the acceptable amount of alcohol from 80 mg to 50 mg for drivers, he replied that he had no intention of taking action. It is therefore surprising that the Department for Transport has consulted on the matter for several years. Paragraph 13 of the consultation document that was first published in February 1998 states:
  "This strongly suggests that drinking by drivers in the 50–80 mg range is a significant and largely hidden cause of accidents."
  I hope that the Secretary of State was listening to that. Clear research evidence supports a reduction to 50 mg. If that is right for drivers, it is a more appropriate amount than the 80 mg for which the Bill provides.
  We understand the reasons for clause 105, which amends the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It exists to help the Secretary of State dig himself out of the hole of part-privatisation of the London underground. The poor drafting of the Act and the Government's failure to think through the details and implications of the daft part-privatisation proposals led to the provision. If the infraco goes bust between now and handing over the three tube lines to Transport for London, the liquidator is likely to use public assets to pay off the banks or other creditors. The British people would thus lose an asset through the Government's incompetence. So much for sound planning. At last, the Government are trying to put matters right. We will therefore support clause 105 because it makes sense to protect a public asset.
  The Bill contains many provisions that are long overdue. Although much needs to be done to tidy it up, we broadly welcome it and we therefore support Second Reading.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. George Stevenson: I support the Bill. It is another example of the Government's determination to put safety, especially in
  794
  transport, at the top of our agenda. However, I want to tease out several matters for clarification by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  The proposal for a rail accident investigation branch has elicited a general welcome. However, I wonder whether the Government's approach to that important issue has been sufficiently radical or courageous. I am particularly bothered about the powers of the rail accident investigation branch, which will have a duty under the Bill to investigate serious accidents. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) spoke of the distinction between accidents and incidents, which is extremely important. I do not intend to labour that point. It has been well made.
  The part of the Bill that deals with the branch's powers says that with regard to less serious accidents the branch will have a discretion. Indeed, the Secretary of State may by regulation enact that discretion. The point that needs to be made is that if the tragic criterion for a serious accident is the number of people killed or injured, that means that less serious accidents are those that, thankfully, do not result in death or injury, as was the case with the recent incident on the underground, bad as it was. Then we are in danger of losing a real opportunity of learning the lessons from what might be termed relatively minor accidents. Even though they did not result in people being killed or injured, their lessons could be very important in developing measures to prevent possible future accidents.
  That distinction bothers me considerably, because there seems to be a determination to deal with serious accidents—those defined by the number of people tragically killed or injured—while there will be discretion with regard to those bad accidents that luckily did not result in serious injury or death, and therefore opportunities may be lost to learn lessons from them.
  Next, I seek clarification on what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the rail accident investigation branch being based on the air accidents investigation branch model. We all understand that. Lord Cullen referred to it in his report. Let us look at what the air accidents investigation branch actually does. Regulation 4 of the 1996 regulations relating to it says that
  "the sole objective of the investigation shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents."
  I emphasise "prevention".
  The rail accident investigation branch, which is supposed to be based on that model, is, as I read the Bill, reactive and not proactive. That is an extremely important point. Lord Cullen made it clear in his report that he supported the approach taken by the AAIB. If I read the Bill correctly, we have a reactive situation on serious accidents, a discretionary situation on what are deemed to be less serious accidents, and no preventive responsibility at all, such as the air accidents investigation branch has. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to give us some clarification on that.
  With regard to the regulatory board and the Office of the Rail Regulator, I had some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said. The proposals are based in part on the Better Regulation Task Force recommendations. A comparison of the House of

  795
  Commons brief on what the task force says with what the Government propose gives rise to some areas of concern.
  For example, the Better Regulation Task Force says:
  "The advantages of a board structure were felt to include:
  Ensuring a wide range of expertise within the decision making process."
  Fine. There is also this reference to
  "Increasing continuity of decision making".
  That is also fine. There is this, too:
  "Greater transparency and accountability of decision making."
  Now, as I read the Bill's proposals on the regulatory board, I can see the first two of those crucial objectives being achieved—the Better Regulation Task Force refers to that, or at least to their having a good chance of being achieved—but I see no indication that transparency and accountability will be achieved. Indeed, if I read the proposals correctly, the Government are effectively proposing to transform the advisory body to the rail regulator into a statutory board. That is as far as it goes, so I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider the extremely important issues of transparency and accountability.
  I welcome the proposal on the British Transport police, which is very sensible as it has been explained to us. However, I want to raise two or three concerns with my right hon. Friend. A main objective of the proposals is to base British Transport police on the tripartite or triumvirate system—involving the Government, the police authority and the police—under the police Acts, which, effectively, are the framework in which our policing works. Fine. We can all support that, but the industry will continue to fund British Transport police.
  There is always a little unease when an industry that clearly has a direct interest in what a body such as British Transport police is doing provides the funding for it. I do not want to labour that point, as I want to make another. People say that the British Transport police will be funded by the industry, but we should consider the fact that the industry is 80 or 90 per cent. funded by the public purse, as are Network Rail, 80 per cent. of the train operating companies and the Strategic Rail Authority.
  What is really meant by the idea of the industry funding British Transport police? In truth the public purse is funding British Transport police. We should consider that alongside the tripartite or triumvirate system that the Government want to apply to the force. I also wonder how public interest and accountability will be safeguarded in that system. As I read the proposals in the House of Commons Library brief, it is anticipated that the police authority would be made up of perhaps four representatives of passenger interests and four representatives of the industry. Fine. I do not know how much expertise would be involved there.
  Mr. Don Foster: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, does he agree that it is important for the representatives of the rail industry to include people who are employed in it?
  Mr. Stevenson: That is a valid point, but the main thrust of my remarks is that the public purse is paying.
  Mr. Foster: In a roundabout way.
  Mr. Stevenson: No, not in a roundabout way. The public purse is involved very directly. It is misleading to
  796
  think that the industry is providing the funding. Without the public purse, none of this would be happening. Again, accountability is extremely important, and whoever sits on the British Transport police authority should reflect such accountability and transparency.
  I turn briefly to the question of alcohol and drugs, and to the proposals relating to air crew and to what are called safety critical staff. I am somewhat worried about the distinction being made between air crew—that is, pilots—and other staff. Air crew will be subject to a maximum of 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, on the basis that they need quick reactions. I understand that, but crew working on engines will face a limit of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.
  What sort of message does that give? I understand the effects that alcohol could have on someone piloting an aircraft, but is it any less important that people doing the critical safety work on engines should also be subject to the stricter regime? One could argue in the public interest that, for flight crew in particular, there should be no tolerance of alcohol content in the blood whatsoever
  Finally, I turn to a matter that has not yet been mentioned—the incorporation into UK law of the 1999 convention on international carriage by rail, COTIF. The Government say that that will take account of the changes in railway management and the separation of operation and infrastructure. This raises an important safety issue. The fragmentation of the industry has been a factor in the serious loss of confidence in railway safety in this country. I am delighted that Network Rail has understood that in-house maintenance of the railways will be not only cheaper, but far safer. I congratulate it on taking back in house some of the Great Western railway.
  Mr. Clapham: Does my hon. Friend agree that outsourcing undermines the safety culture? That is true in the nuclear industry, as well as in the railway industry. Only 18 months ago, inspectors reported on safety standards in the nuclear industry and their report showed that the privatised utility, British Energy, undermined the safety culture. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good to see Network Rail bringing back in-house maintenance?
  Mr. Stevenson: I welcome the point that my hon. Friend makes. I do not want to reopen the debate about the chaos of privatisation, but a previous chief executive of Railtrack placed on record the fact that the company was unable to reconcile the interests of shareholders with those of safety. I hope that the incorporation of COTIF into UK law does not mean that the Government intend there to be more fragmentation of the industry. The lessons are there to be learned, and Network Rail is to be congratulated. I hope that the Government will encourage as much as possible the very welcome process that puts the public interest first when it comes to safety, and the move to bring maintenance back in house. Not only is in-house maintenance safer, but the present system is three times more expensive than was the system under British Rail.
  My final point is a plea to my right hon. Friend concerning mark 1 slam-door carriages. They were due to have been phased out or replaced by January this year, but that is not going to be achieved. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about that.

  797
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will deem my observations to be positive rather than critical. I very much welcome the Bill.
  5.10 pm
  Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) who, through his work on the Select Committee on Transport, can bring expertise to bear on this subject. I also appreciated the speech made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), who worked in the transport sector before he became a Member of the House and can thus bring to life what is sometimes a rather dry subject.
  I very much welcome the Bill, which has as its theme the promotion of safety for the travelling public, and I wave it a metaphorical handkerchief as it passes through the House.
  I note the view of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and some hon. Members that the Bill contains nothing on road safety. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that that does not mean that the Government accord road safety policy less priority but, rather, that it is travelling at least as quickly in a separate but parallel lane.
  Travelling by rail is already much safer than travelling by road. We need to remember that point as we deal with the safety provisions in part 1. If we drive up safety on the railway and place all the costs on the tickets of the travelling public, we price people off a safer system and on to the roads, which are already less safe and which will then become more congested.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested that we should make the trains slower. The difficulty with that is they would become less competitive compared to road travel. That is the wrong way to promote a coherent transport policy.
  It is important for the Government to send the travelling public a clear signal that their policy is to ensure that the costs of travelling by bus or rail will not rise faster than the costs of travelling by car. That is a key component of a coherent transport strategy, which the Government risk abandoning.
  With reference to part 1, safety must be paramount on the railways. Safety was improving under British Rail and has continued to improve since, but one death on the railways remains one death too many. It is not the case, as has been asserted sometimes—and, indeed, this afternoon—that a disaggregated or fragmented transport system is inherently more dangerous than an integrated one.
  The most disaggregated transport industry is civil aviation. The airlines do not run the airports or air traffic control. They do not own or maintain the planes: they lease them. Just about everything from baggage handling to meals is contracted out. There are many different airlines and owners of airports.
  The industry is highly fragmented, but flying is the safest means of travel. Air travel is extremely popular. Furthermore, in response to the arguments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I remind the House
  798
  that the industry is entirely profit-driven. I reject the argument that there is conflict between fragmentation and safety and private ownership and safety. The record disproves that.
  Mr. Don Foster: I have listened with interest to the comments of the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect. Is he not fundamentally wrong on this issue? Surely he accepts that there is a difference between monopoly and competition. In the airline industry, there is competition and that automatically drives up safety standards; no one wants to fly in an unsafe plane. In the rail industry, Railtrack was a monopoly so there was a conflict between passenger safety and shareholder profit.
  Sir George Young: I entirely reject that argument. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South deployed the argument that a fragmented industry was less safe than an integrated one. However, the safety record for civil aviation is even better than it is for the railways, yet the industry is the most fragmented that one could possibly find. It is subcontracted and specialised, yet it works. A comparison of civil aviation with rail substantiates the argument that there is nothing wrong with a privately owned disaggregated industry running a transport system.
  Mr. Stevenson: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take my word for it, I am sure that he will look at the documented evidence from the former chief executive of Railtrack who said that fragmentation had been bad for the industry, and from the train operating companies and so on. It is not my argument; it is documented throughout the industry.
  Sir George Young: Sadly, the statistics do not support the hon. Gentleman's argument. Safety has improved since privatisation. The railway is now safer than it was before privatisation, but we have to make it even safer. The hon. Gentleman's own Government have kept roughly the same structure that they inherited from the Conservatives. There is Railtrack, or Network Rail; there is a series of train operating companies with franchises; there are people who own the rolling stock; and there is a regulator. I did not intend to be so partisan, but I was driven to it by interventions.
  I am attracted by the policy of replicating the well-tested air accidents investigation branch and marine accident investigation branch models. When I was at the Department of Transport, I was impressed by the AAIB at Farnborough, which puts together after an accident a jigsaw puzzle with pieces missing and pieces damaged. It is painstaking and methodical professional work against a background of tragedy, and I commend the AAIB for what it does.
  The AAIB does not face the potential conflicts of interest that confront Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. As the AAIB does not validate any particular design of aircraft or system of air traffic control, it is completely impartial in investigating what goes wrong. So I see the attractions of that model.
  It is possible to develop the opposite case, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South did, for what one might call an integrated approach, with constant

  799
  contact between those investigating accidents and those monitoring safety on a daily basis. Under the proposals, the rail accident investigation branch will not receive all the reports that HMRI used to receive on signals passed at danger, severe congestion and so on. It will not have day-to-day contact with the operation of the railways, but against the background of the problems at Ladbroke Grove one can see the conflict of interest under the current regime. At the moment, the Health and Safety Executive must both discover the cause of the accident and decide whether to prosecute under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 for any breaches of safety regulations. It is a public prosecution body; it can bring cases to court. Supposing, for the sake of argument, it has at a previous stage validated a particular layout of signals: one can see the potential conflict of interest.
  The proposed regime allows the RAIB to concentrate on discovering the cause of an accident without worrying about conflict of interest or about prosecuting, but that means that another body has to go round the course to see whether there has been an infringement of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. I have just three questions about this part of the Bill. What happens during the transitional period during which the new RAIB is set up and responsible only for inquiries but during which presumably many of the personnel come from HM RI and may have given advice under the previous regime? How are we to prevent the conflict of interest that is at the heart of the Bill in the short term?
  The explanatory notes tell us that the running costs of RAIB will be £1.85 million. Is that a net increase, or are the costs offset by reductions in the costs of HMRI, which will presumably no longer do the accident work? How does the new regime interface with the criminal justice system? The RAIB will be involved after an accident. HMRI will presumably decide whether to prosecute. If there has been a fatality, the British Transport police will be involved. The railway operators will be wanting to get the system up and running again. Some rather complicated choreography will have to be worked out if we are not to have duplication, lack of co-operation and delays in getting the railways up and running again.
  Turning to part 2, I have no difficulty with replacing the regulator with a board, which I gather will have four members. In considering who to appoint, the imperative for the Government must be to attract private capital back into the railways and restore confidence in railway investment following the demise of Railtrack. So I hope that the board will comprise people who understand how to attract private capital and retain investor confidence. Those on the board must not be agents of the Government, but as the responsibilities overlap to some extent with those of the Strategic Rail Authority, they need to be on roughly the same wavelength.
  The regulatory task will be different with the publicly owned Network Rail, rather than with Railtrack. There will be less emphasis on preventing excess profits and more on maintaining an income stream for private capital. The wisdom of Solomon will be required in fixing the track access charges, which are at the heart of the system; they are the main costs of the train operating companies on one hand and Network Rail's main income on the other.
  800
  It is a good idea to try to depersonalise the Office of the Rail Regulator. There had been signs of an ego trip. Sadly, there have been some personal vendettas in the past and a lack of empathy with Railtrack when it existed. I hope that there will be slightly less of that with a board because the relationships between the industry's various components are crucial.
  There is a risk of losing the progress made in the past 10 years in gaining access to private capital. If we go back to the previous position whereby investment in the railways was constrained by what the Government could afford, we will have lost a lot of the advantage of the past 10 years. Since 1997, and until quite recently, one of the problems that the railways did not have was that of raising capital. Railtrack was able to spend every penny that it could raise. Then we had the debacle, and now the industry cannot borrow what it needs from the private sector.
  I hope that the new board will build some bridges to re-establish investor confidence in the railways, so that, on top of what the Government are putting in, it can have a substantial injection of private capital. [Interruption.] The Minister for Transport is exhibiting some agitation. If he wishes to relieve it by intervening, I should be happy to give way.
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I am finding some difficulty with the model that the right hon. Gentleman seems to propose. He seems to suggest that in a situation where money kept being pushed at an inefficient company that was certainly not able to provide the service cost-effectively, a board of the regulator would have taken a more approving view of that company's coming around with the begging bowl—to use the regulator's words—to be relieved of the consequences of its inefficiency. That might work in the very short term in a bubble economy; it is no model for effective investment or a sustainable private enterprise.
  Sir George Young: It is not the case that the problem was solely an inefficient company; there was an inefficient Minister and the relationships broke down. That was at the heart of the Railtrack débâcle.
  Mr. Spellar: As the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that there was a conflict between the regulator and Railtrack—indeed, the begging-bowl speech took place within a few days of the last general election—in no way can any argument be made that the regulator had been influenced by a Minister. The regulator's views had been determined by his judgment of the company's management. How could a board rationally have taken a different view of that company's efficiency?
  Sir George Young: The Government pulled the rug from under Railtrack because they wanted it to fail. [Interruption.] I hope that, at some point, there will be a full inquiry into Railtrack's demise, including into the Treasury's role, which was absolutely crucial in the weeks before the rug was finally pulled from under Railtrack. We saw the scene of the Secretary of State for Transport leaning over the patient, trying to encourage him back to health at the same time as he put his foot on the oxygen pipe, ensuring that the patient would expire.

  801
  I want to make progress and move on to part 3, on the role of the British Transport police. After rail privatisation, the British Transport police were parked with the Secretary of State for Transport. As a matter of interest, it would be helpful if the Minister could say in his winding-up speech whether the Home Secretary's published figures on crime and on the number of police include or exclude the British Transport police. Some 75,000 crimes a year are reported by the British Transport police, and there are 2,100 police officers. Such figures are regularly published by the Home Office, but do they include the British Transport police?
  Will the Minister say whether British Transport police officers are armed, or whether they have to look to some of the other forces for that degree of specialisation? Will it be policy to have a separate brand for the British Transport police? At the moment, if one sees a policeman on a railway station, one does not know if he is in the ordinary police or the British Transport police. It may be policy to have both looking the same, or it may be that there is a desire to develop a different identity and culture for the BTP. Will the Minister shed light on that?
  When the Minister winds up, will he explain the relationship between the Secretary of State for Transport and the Home Secretary on responsibility for the BTP. Clearly, most of the expertise in that area rests with the Home Office, whereas it is a small part of the Department for Transport. The consultation paper states that the Secretary of State for Transport would
  "have regard for the Home Secretary's primary role in policing matters."
  It continues:
  "The Secretary of State would undertake his duties alongside the Home Secretary."
  What exactly is the relationship? Is the Department for Transport simply a conduit for Home Office initiatives on law and order, or is there a separate and independent element of advice in the Department for Transport that it adds to advice from the Home Office?
  Andrew Mackinlay: I endorse almost everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, which is unusual but, for me, very good. Is it not the case that one of the things that the Minister must do tonight is reassure those in the British Transport police who work on the London underground that they will not be absorbed into the Metropolitan police, which would be unhelpful for them and for the travelling public, and which I understand is under consideration at present? I am certainly against it.
  Sir George Young: Although the hon. Gentleman posed the question to me, I am smart enough to see that he aimed it at someone else. I am sure that the Minister will address that issue. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to establish the BTP as a separate authority and not to integrate part of it into the Metropolitan police. The words of assurance that he seeks, however, had better come from someone else.
  To conclude, this is a worthy if unexciting Bill, and, as far as I am concerned, it can have a green light.
  5.27 pm
  David Cairns: Like all Members who have spoken, I support the Bill, and I commend the various expert speeches that we have heard by Labour Members and the one that we have just heard by a distinguished former Secretary of State for Transport.
  I want to commend the speech by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) particularly with regard to his wise injunction that we do not exaggerate the level of accidents in the rail industry. It is a comparatively safe industry, and although we all aspire to make it safer, we should not scaremonger among the public about how dangerous it is. An analogy exists in relation to crime. We know that the fear of crime in people's minds is far higher than the reality. The fear of crime, however, has a knock-on effect on people's behaviour in relation to whether they go out, which has a knock-on effect on the streets and the environment in which they live. Similarly, if the fear of an accident on the railways far outstrips the likelihood of it happening in reality, people will be put off from using the railways, which will have a knock-on effect on their long-term viability.
  I therefore applaud the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and those of the Secretary of State—people might say, "He would say that, wouldn't he", but it is true. We should send out the message that although we are taking steps to set up this accident investigation branch, it is not because of some enormous crisis that needs to be addressed. It is because we are learning from best practice, learning the lessons that we need to learn from tragedies, and moving forward to make the railways even safer. There have been tragedies, however, and lives have been lost. It would be glib and offensive to say that there are no problems on the railways and no lessons to be learned. A balance must be struck.
  The current arrangements are fragmentary and are in need of improvement. Lord Cullen identified in his report the need for a single investigatory body, which will act quickly and transparently. He was also looking for a body that would have the force to make recommendations that would be implemented and followed through, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson)—who has just left the Chamber—was advocating in his well-argued speech. The existence of lacunae in the system was borne out by evidence to the Cullen inquiry. The joint rail unions spoke of their concern about the relatively low number of investigations. Counsel for the bereaved and injured of the Southall and Ladbroke tragedies were worried about the lack of transparency in the system. Passenger groups expressed repeated concern about the lack of machinery to implement the recommendations of investigations and inquiries. The Bill is to be applauded if it addresses those problems.
  Several hon. Members noted that the air accident and marine accident branches have existed for many years. By all accounts, they work well. However, the railways are complex. I listened with interest to the exchanges between the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on the fragmentation of the rail industry compared with the fragmentation of the aviation industry. Those are complicated matters.

  803
  Unlike the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I would be happy to serve on the Committee, which I suppose is a pitch to whoever makes that decision. The complexity of the different regimes would repay scrutiny in Committee so that we learn lessons from them and decide what is appropriate.
  The paramount consideration is the need for the independent rail accident investigation to work closely with the regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority and, ultimately, the Government. Lord Cullen had to balance those factors. In establishing an independent body, he had to decide whether to run the risk of removing it from the decision-making structures to such an extent that he weakened its impact. In the inquiry, he said:
  "I have to weigh the potential disadvantages, the most significant of which is the loss of direct connection between the investigator and the regular contact with the operation of safety systems. However, on balance I consider that the stronger arguments are in favour of change, and I accordingly recommend that the responsibility for the investigation of accidents should be entrusted to an independent body which is set up for the purpose."
  Lord Cullen is flagging up a warning note that when the policy is implemented the independent body does not spin off too far from the mainstream where the decisions are made.
  Hon. Members said that 10 professionals will work for the branch with eight support staff. As a complete layman, I have to say that that sounds a small number, but perhaps the reason for it will become clear in Committee when we receive an outline of their duties and responsibilities and know how they will co-operate with other agencies.
  The decision to replace the single regulator with a board has been universally welcomed. It is sensible and in line with practice in other privatised utilities. The Bill makes it clear that the board will be slimline, independent and focused, with a majority of non-executive members. Is it too much to ask that they know something about the railways? The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire spoke about the need to have people who attract private capital. That is undoubtedly true. I appreciate that the board will not be same as the Strategic Rail Authority. I have been impressed by the knowledge, experience and commitment to the railways that the new faces at the SRA have demonstrated. It must have people with experience of the private sector and the railways, which it regulates, who would be suited to serving on the board. I know that the branch board primarily has an economic regulatory function, but I would welcome people with experience of the railways serving on it. Of course we know that that was not always the case with the people who took key decisions at Railtrack.
  The board will have a variety of tasks. It will have to juggle viewpoints and experiences. There will undoubtedly be stresses between the need to keep it small and tightly focused, and the need for its members to have a wide variety of experience.
  There is specific mention of the need for Scotland, Wales and the various English regions to at least be represented. I shall be looking at how that can be done. Would individuals each have a remit to represent the views of a region, or would that representation be drawn from the experiences of the people appointed to the board? That can be discussed in Committee.
  804
  I want to say a few words about other safety implications that are not related to accidents on the railways. I have in mind the safety of stations. This argument may seem esoteric, and I appreciate that there have not been any major disasters connected with station buildings, but this is a live issue in my constituency. Railtrack decided that Gourock station was unsafe and, with no regard to anybody else and completely against everybody's opinion, it set about spending millions of pounds to make it safe. That money could have gone towards a larger and better development proposal to benefit the entire community.
  Despite the wishes of myself, the Member of the Scottish Parliament, the local council and the developers, who have all met Railtrack, and the views expressed by the local community that the station is not unsafe and that millions of pounds should not be spent on a Victorian white elephant, Railtrack has gone ahead and spent the money. I have been wondering how I could appeal that decision. The Strategic Rail Authority said that the matter was not its concern, and as, thankfully, no accident has happened, the matter does not fall within the remit of the various accident investigation boards.
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Does my hon. Friend agree that a better use for the millions of pounds to which he refers would have been to employ more British transport police officers? One way to improve passenger safety in stations and on trains is to have more policemen and women on the beat. Would my hon. Friend like the extra strength and authority given to the British transport police in the Bill to be followed up by extra funds?
  David Cairns: I agree, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will make those points if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I am speaking about safety connected with the fabric of the building, and not the endangerment of the public by criminal activity.
  This matter is vital to my constituency. In the spurious guise of tackling safety considerations, Railtrack has squandered millions of pounds of public money propping up a Victorian white elephant and doing work to the sea wall beneath the station, which is completely unnecessary—it could not be justified by any independent assessor. However, as the issue showed up on Railtrack's radar as one of safety, we have no avenue of appeal.
  The money has been spent, the contracts have been signed and a brilliant redevelopment opportunity in my constituency has been squandered. Although I am delighted that that terrible company, which was incapable of giving a straight answer and had a "now you see it, now you don't" attitude to funding, no longer exists, my constituency has lost out badly. I hope that Members of Parliament will be able to approach the new regulator and appeal such decisions before contracts are signed.
  I turn briefly to part 4 on shipping and alcohol. As a Member of Parliament for what is still a busy port, although not as busy as it once was, I welcome the Government's plans to regulate alcohol consumption in the maritime industry. I have to confess that I was

  805
  slightly surprised that regulations, which apply to other modes of transport, do not already apply to shipping. People in charge of passenger ferries are every bit as liable on safety grounds as those who drive cars and buses, and they should be subject to the same breath test regime.
  Although the Secretary of State greatly helped me when he responded to my earlier intervention, I am still slightly confused as to the role of non-professional maritime activity in Scotland, as opposed to that in England and Wales.
  Let us consider the example of someone who is operating a jet-ski on Loch Lomond while under the influence of alcohol—although one has to be rich to own a jet-ski, it is a very popular past-time on Loch Lomond—and whose behaviour prompts a call to the police on the suspicion that they are under the influence of alcohol, even though no accident occurs. Will the new regime apply to that person in the same way that it would apply if they were using a jet-ski on Lake Windermere? My right hon. Friend told me that if an accident occurred and the procurator fiscal was looking to bring a case against the person concerned for that reason, the fact that they were under the influence of alcohol could be taken into consideration in the procurator fiscal's contemplating the level of charge.
  However, I am not talking about cases where an accident occurs. Many of the people who are done for drunk-driving have not in fact caused accidents; they are pulled over because they were weaving all over the road. If the new regime will not apply in Scotland, I should like some assurance—now, in writing or in Committee—as to the measures that law enforcement agencies in Scotland could pursue to ensure that the same tough and rigorous laws that apply south of the border are also applied north of the border.
  I want to finish with a quick word on the London underground. The idea that what happens on the underground is of interest only to London Members of Parliament has always amused me: that is simply not the case. Many hundreds of thousands of people travel into London from outside the Greater London area and use the underground, and the underground and the vitality of the London economy are tremendously important to the rest of the UK. We are talking about taxpayers' money that is waiting to be invested in the underground, and it is as much money paid by my constituents as it is money paid by London constituents. I am very pleased that the Mayor of London is at last seeing the sense of allowing the Government to continue with their policy, but I am disappointed that it has taken so long. Reform of, and investment in, the London underground are vital not just for London but for the whole of the British economy. So I encourage my colleagues on the Front Bench to ensure that the investment that the Government have committed to the underground, but which has been held up by the Mayor of London's dogmatic attitude, is delivered into the system to make those improvements.
  On that final, slightly controversial note, I welcome the Bill and I hope that it has a speedy passage through both Houses.
  5.42 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), and I am particularly pleased to see the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), in his place. Two weeks ago, he and I had a very profitable debate on transport safety in Wiltshire, and I intend to touch on that issue once or twice in the next few minutes.
  I welcome the Bill, for which there has been a great deal of cross-party support. There are of course omissions, however, and I want to touch on them in my speech. I have a very fond recollection of the Health and Safety Executive. Before being elected to this place, I was involved in safety for one of the largest industrial complexes on the south coast, and I worked very closely with the HSE in that role. I grew to appreciate its expertise and dedication, and to know very well how under-resourced it was, and how difficult it was for it to carry out the functions required of it. Indeed, it was difficult for it to do anything more than the scratch the surface—a fact that left a great impression on me. I also learned that there was a slight lack of specialisation within the HSE, which it itself recognised. It is very difficult to spread the discipline of safety across the field. Certain areas have specific needs and specific quanta of expertise, and I imagine that that is why we have the air accidents investigation branch and the marine accident investigation branch. Rightly, we are now to have a rail accident investigation branch as well.
  I do not want to deal principally with rail but rather to address one of the major omissions that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) alluded to, and which relates to roads. Shortly after I was elected, I was present at the scene of a road traffic accident on the A36. A police constable—the constable with whom I was supposed to be visiting areas in my constituency that suffer from petty criminality—was summoned to the scene, and it rapidly became apparent that this was a major incident. It transpired that a family of four had lost their lives when a lorry crossed on to the wrong side of the road. That was deeply traumatic for all concerned, not least the emergency services who attended. My regard for them, already high, went up by leaps and bounds.
  I mention that because we need a sense of proportion when considering accidents that occur on our transport network. As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, the accident rate on our roads vastly exceeds that on other forms of public and private transport. At Potters Bar, seven people tragically lost their lives, and 31 people died at Ladbroke Grove. However, day in, day out, 10 people a day lose their lives on our roads. Since 1997, there have been 136 rail deaths, but well over 17,000 deaths on our roads. Clearly, one's chances of sustaining a serious injury or dying on our roads greatly exceed one's chances of suffering a similar catastrophe on other forms of transport. We need to get that across, not least because we do not want people to desert public transport to use the roads and paradoxically, as other Members have said, drive up the sum total of road deaths.
  Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is making a good point; we need to keep a sense of proportion. Does he accept that the Health and Safety

  807
  Executive has not always exercised a light touch on the railways? For example, I understand that if the speaker system does not work in one carriage in a train, it is grounded and cannot run until the public announcement system is replaced. Does he think that a heavy-handed approach?
  Dr. Murrison: My right hon. Friend has made a good point. Indeed, that may be one of the drivers behind the creation of a rail accident investigation branch, which would take over many of the HSE's functions. I feel very strongly, however, that there should be no latitude on safety on public transport. We all know of near misses—many hon. Members have referred to near misses in various guises this afternoon—where things have developed from apparently trivial slips or omissions. I therefore counsel caution before trivialising cases of the sort to which my right hon. Friend referred.
  Rob Gifford of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—PACTS—corresponds with most hon. Members and has said:
  "Someone needs to do some hard thinking and ask why we are prepared to invest so heavily in rail safety and so little in road safety, which offers much better value for money per life saved."
  That sounds harsh—when talking about lives saved we do not necessarily want to talk about the cost. However, in public health terms, we must.
  In 1997, the Government established a ministerial responsibility for public health. I have argued elsewhere that the post has not been a great success, particularly in driving down the number of casualties on our transport system. However, that area, I respectfully suggest, is of legitimate concern to a public health Minister with cross-cutting responsibility who is surely tasked with driving down mortality and morbidity. I fear, however, that the intervention of the relevant Minister has not produced that result, which is a pity. I am disappointed that the Bill does not mention road safety, given the emphasis on safety in other forms of transport. I very much hope that Ministers will address that omission in Committee.
  I represent a rural area, and it is incumbent on me to mention the problems of the countryside. In the rural White Paper, the Government rightly said:
  "Public concern about road safety in rural areas is growing. Levels of traffic are increasing faster on rural roads than on urban roads … Road accidents on rural roads are more likely to be fatal, for all types of road users, than in towns."
  The Government's road safety strategy says:
  "We are therefore proposing to develop a new hierarchy of roads defined by their function and quality, which would combine flexibility at local level with consistency nationally."
  The road safety strategy made it clear that primary legislation was required for the rural road hierarchy to be implemented. I have to say, however, that the Minister's response to my debate on road safety in Wiltshire earlier this month was somewhat lukewarm. I hope that he will dispel that impression today. It was particularly unfortunate given that the debate took place on the same day that the Bill had its first outing.
  It is a great pity that Ministers have not acted on the Transport Committee's criticism of the Government's lack of urgency in introducing a rural road hierarchy. That criticism was made in June 2001. Here we are in January 2003, yet we have heard nothing beyond
  808
  blandishments and the promise of things to come. I hope that the Minister will be able to correct me if that is a misapprehension.
  The grim reaper is particularly fond of inappropriate speed as an immediate way of dispatching people on rural roads, but speed acts in more subtle ways than that. It intimidates walkers, cyclists and horse riders, and generally degrades the enjoyment of the countryside for those who live there or visit it for leisure purposes. The Government's failure to incorporate their hierarchy of roads into the Bill, where it would fit very well, is a missed public health opportunity.
  In dealing with accidents on roads, it is important to deal only with the evidence. A firm evidence base is essential because there are many paradoxes in transport safety, and paradoxes lead to the potential for political opportunism. The Minister will remember that we discussed examples of that in a lighter moment during the debate two weeks ago. One paradox concerns the removal of white lines on roads where one would intuitively imagine that that would make them more dangerous, not safer. In fact, the early evidence in Wiltshire suggests that that is not the case. A great deal in this field is surprisingly counter-intuitive.
  A road accident investigation branch would help to introduce some rigour into the investigation of road traffic accidents, both collectively and individually, and could make suggestions on how they can be prevented. For example, the 54 per cent. reduction, from the 1981 to 1985 baseline, in those killed or seriously injured in accidents on roads in Wiltshire, compared with a 47 per cent. reduction nationwide, requires explanation. It should be the function of a road accident investigation branch to shed light on that and determine how best practice, if that is what it is, in Wiltshire can be applied more generally.
  Clearly, the Bill will involve costs. The regulatory impact assessment identifies a staffing level of 22 for the rail accident investigation branch. There is some controversy as to the exact number, but we can agree that it will be fairly small. A staff of 22 is pretty lean and mean. An equivalent body for roads, given the unremitting nature of road accidents, day in, day out, would not be able to do anything with that number of staff. The cost of road traffic accidents runs into many billions of pounds a year, and the potential savings to the public purse and to others would dwarf any outlay.
  I warmly welcome the Bill, but I regret the omission of the promised hierarchy of rural roads and of a road accident investigation branch, which would complement the rail accident investigation branch extremely well. I urge the Minister to think again.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome the chance to speak on Second Reading, as I broadly support the Bill, like other hon. Members who have spoken. I speak as a rail commuter of 34 years' standing. I have never yet driven to the House of Commons. I have travelled by train every day, and I feel much safer being driven by my splendid ASLEF driver than I would if I were driving, even at a relatively low speed. That is a comment on my driving, as much as on the safety of the railway system. We have spoken glowingly this afternoon about how safe rail travel is, but we should

  809
  remember that the genesis of the Bill was a number of serious railway accidents. Before we are all swallowed up in the warm glow of consensus, we should remember the things that have gone wrong and those that are still not right.
  I offer the House a personal anecdote. Just over three years ago, it was suggested through a third party that I might take photographs of the state of the track north of Hadley Wood tunnel, an area that I know quite well, on the east coast main line, and send the photographs to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who was responsible for transport at that time. I did not do that, because I did not have time and I was not minded to do it, but it was a serious suggestion. Some time later, there was an accident at Hatfield, and some time after that, an accident at Potters Bar. Potters Bar is the next station north of Hadley Wood, and Hatfield is another three stations further along on the same stretch of the east coast main line. I suggest that there might have been some good purpose in my photographing that track, and sending it to the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, although of course I take no responsibility for the terrible things that happened later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) suggested that we should study accidents that did not result in serious injury or death, but which illustrate the problem. I shall describe such a case, which occurred at a siding in Yorkshire, where the nose of the points was removed—that is, the central metal part of the points, where they join. Six months later a train was directed over the points and was derailed. It was a coal train and no one was hurt, but it was still a serious derailment. Why did it happen?
  First, the points should have been clipped—that is, they should have been clamped together on one side so that they could not be moved. Secondly, fuses controlling the signals should have been removed. Thirdly, reminder appliances should have been placed over the operating switch in the signal box. Fourthly, notice detailing the non-availability of the points should have been issued to all drivers and signals in the area. None of that was done. The responsible contractor was Jarvis, the contractor responsible for the track at Potters Bar.
  There is a problem with contracting and the contracting culture in the railway industry, and I do not stand alone in saying that. I refer to the comments by Stanley Hall, who spent a lifetime with British Rail as a senior signalling and safety officer at the highest level, who stated in "Rail" magazine this month:
  "One of the worst decisions of those who designed the privatisation structure has proved to be the reliance of the industry on outside help … No one wants another organisational upheaval but the present system is unsafe and expensive."
  This month we saw Network Rail take maintenance in the Reading area in house, with the promise of two more areas being taken in house. That is to do not only with cost but with safety as well.
  We should remember that even though travelling by rail is safe, and even though railway travel has become safer, it is still potentially very dangerous. One accident on a railway line can cause a horrendous number of deaths. I am old enough to remember the Harrow and Wealdstone disaster, which was terrifying and awesome.
  810
  I have made my point: the Bill goes in the right direction, but to be effective it must affect what happens on the railway track now. I could relate one or two more anecdotes told to me by staff who work in the railway industry—for example, about contractors who dispense with the use of a look-out when they are working at night. There have been fatalities of railway workers, who are as important as passengers in matters of life and death. The contracting record is not good. I look forward to the contractors being taken over progressively by Network Rail, and a much safer railway environment for the foreseeable future.
  6 pm
  Mr. Michael Weir: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I also wish to give a general welcome to the Bill. I think that that gives the Minister a full set of parties supporting the Bill.
  Much has been said in this debate about safety on the railways, and the Secretary of State said that safety was paramount. Many of the current worries about rail safety have undoubtedly been exacerbated by the privatisation of the railways, which has ensured that a multiplicity of organisations are responsible for rail safety, including train operating companies, Railtrack—now Network Rail—the Health and Safety Executive and others. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) pointed out, Network Rail has recently demonstrated the case by renationalising part of the line between Reading and Paddington to keep prices down and ensure the quality of the work. Victims of the Potters Bar crash have blamed Jarvis, the contractor responsible for maintaining the tracks in the area, for failing to carry out its work to the required standard, leading directly to the crash.
  Those worries continue on the railway and also in respect of the London underground proposals. Much has also been said about the derailment of a train on the Central line on Saturday. The RMT has expressed serious concerns about what is happening as London Underground heads towards the PPP. Indeed, one of the weekend newspapers reported it as saying that a Piccadilly line driver had recently expressed concern about a banging noise, but was told that if he refused to drive the train and it was found to be safe, he would have to "face the consequences". If that is true, it is a terrible indictment of what is happening on the London underground. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made a very good point about how safety should be pre-emptive as well as reactive. That must be considered as the situation progresses.
  It seems to us self-evident that privatisation has exacerbated the problem through the profit motive and the dispersal of responsibility. We believe that only by running the rail network on a not-for-profit basis can we ensure that safety is put before profit. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) cited the airline industry in support of his argument, but I am not sure how that position can hold water, given the perilous financial straits of many airlines. Some airlines are running on a state subsidy, while many large American ones have sued for chapter 11 protection because of their financial position.
  Much was made of high-speed rail links, especially in Japan. However, its Bullet trains were brought into being with specifically designed new lines. One of the

  811
  problems of the rail system in this country is that there has been no investment for many years, which makes it much more difficult to upgrade lines so that they can take new high-speed trains. That has been demonstrated by the difficulties encountered on the west coast main line.
  We are pleased that the Government have decided to implement the recommendations of the Cullen inquiry and accepted that Her Majesty's rail inspectorate could not adequately perform the dual role of safety regulator and accident investigator. We accept that the new body will be better placed to deal with investigations into rail accidents.
  Like many hon. Members, however, we have some concerns about the specifics of the Bill. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), I referred to the definition of accidents. While the Bill requires the new body to investigate serious accidents, it allows it discretion over whether to investigate non-serious accidents. In my mind, a problem therefore immediately arises about what constitutes a serious accident, as the Bill gives no definition. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South asked whether a serious accident was one in which people lost their lives. How is such an accident defined? In many cases, it will be obvious that an accident is serious, but there could be a fairly large grey area, so it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify his definition.
  There is a potential problem of accidents that may not superficially be serious—whatever the definition—but have grave implications for safety in other parts of the system. It is worth remembering that large parts of the east coast main line were effectively closed for a long time after the Hatfield accident because of worries about equipment on the rails. The Bill does not adequately cover that.
  A relatively minor accident that disclosed a fundamental flaw in some aspect of equipment or use might have a serious effect on the whole rail system. It would have been helpful if the Government had laid the regulations before the House and included definitions in the Bill. That could have assured us that the new bodies were committed to undertaking a range of investigations into all sorts of accidents rather than allowing the system to slip back into its old ways of investigating only obviously serious accidents.
  I am not clear about the way in which the new body links with other organisations, especially the Health and Safety Executive, which might have a role in investigating apparently minor accidents. How would it cross-check with the rail accident investigation branch? For example, how would evidence taken by the Health and Safety Executive be used if a further matter came to light that would encourage the new body to investigate the incident further? Would the new body be informed automatically of findings during investigations into apparently minor incidents that might have wider implications? Would it be able or obliged to take over that investigation if the issue affected the rest of the rail network?
  812
  The Transport Salaried Staffs Association raised anxieties in its briefing for the debate about confidentiality, especially about clause 8(4). The briefing states:
  "It is expected that regulations will provide that a witness statement given to the RAIB may not be disclosed to a third party (such as the police or the Health and Safety Executive) without consent, or a court order. For RAIB to be effective it is absolutely essential that operational staff have confidence in its integrity and expertise. Confidence in RAIB is dependent upon employees being assured that these statements … are treated as confidential."
  It argues that those matters should be specified in the Bill. I understand its point and agree in principle.
  However, what would happen if the position were reversed, and an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive unearthed information that made it more appropriate for the RAIB to take it over? Could statements to the Health and Safety Executive be passed to the new body, or would the RAIB have to start from scratch?
  Other hon. Members have mentioned clause 102, which gives details of the railway safety levy. There appears to be confusion about that because one briefing suggests that the provision relates to the RAIB, but it appears to refer only to the Health and Safety Executive. It is not clear who will pay the levy because that is to be stated in regulations. Subsection (5)(b) simply provides for the Secretary of State to determine
  "the persons by whom the levy is to be paid".
  Disputes have occurred in the past between various parties, such as Railtrack, the train operators and the contractors about responsibility for rail accidents. That has been mentioned especially in the context of Potters Bar. At whom does the Minister intend to aim the levy? Will contractors such as Jarvis, as well as the train operating companies and, presumably, Network Rail, be obliged to contribute to the levy? It has already been said that much of the money in the rail network is public money, but there should be fair sharing between all the agencies for the levy.
  The Secretary of State skipped perfunctorily over part 2, which relates to the establishment of the Office of the Rail Regulator. We would generally welcome that. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) mentioned the responsibility of members of the body for Scotland, Wales and the English regions.
  It may not entirely surprise the Minister to be told that we would urge upon him the need to ensure adequate Scottish and Welsh representation on the Committee. Indeed, there may be a case for a separate Scottish Committee to consider matters relating to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but this is as much a practical as a political point. He should be aware that the structure and control of the railway system in Scotland is not identical to that in the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular, the Scottish Parliament has some powers in these areas.
  Rail journeys that commence and end in Scotland are within the ambit of the Scottish Parliament. Those that begin in Scotland but cross over the border are within the ambit of this House. The result is that control of most of the commuter traffic in Scotland, and in particular commuter traffic going into Glasgow and Edinburgh, is devolved, while control of intercity rail

  813
  travel is essentially reserved. That leads to some strange anomalies. In my Angus constituency, which is on the main east coast line, many services that are effectively local services for the people in the area are intercity trains reserved to Westminster.
  Therefore, I urge the Minister to give careful consideration to this matter, and not simply to dismiss this request for separate Scottish representation. It is important that the Scottish Parliament be fully involved in discussions on all aspects of the railways that relate to Scotland, particularly within the boundaries of Scotland, for which it is responsible.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, a substantial part of the Bill relates to the British Transport police. Under clause 74, Scotland is included. This will now be the primary Act for the British Transport police; it is not amending legislation with regard to it. On the face of it, much of the Bill relates exclusively to England and Wales.
  Mr. Weir: The policing of the railways would presumably be a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament, as the normal police process is devolved. That is another example of the need to make sure that there is separate Scottish representation. That must be taken on board, because otherwise not only will the Scottish Parliament have no input in respect of devolved rail services, but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it will have no input into their policing.
  6.12 pm
  Linda Perham: Like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I was pleased to listen to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), speaking with great knowledge and experience of the railway industry and as an engineer. We in this country do not value our engineers enough. I have been married to an engineer for more than 30 years and I certainly value him.
  It is very important for Parliament to make laws to improve transport safety, so I extend a general welcome to the Bill, in particular its provisions to enhance and modernise the functions of the British Transport police. I spoke this afternoon to the chief constable of the British Transport police, Ian Johnston, whom I have known for a number of years, since his time as an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police. The service that he commands is very supportive of the Bill's provisions.
  The British Transport police occupy a unique place in the world of the emergency services. It is a flexible service that facilitates and adds value to the work of other emergency services, while carrying out its own priorities of crime control and accident prevention. We are not always aware of its presence, but, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said, last year it dealt with 75,000 crimes and 40,000 minor offences.
  The BTP have developed particular expertise in controlling graffiti, policing sports fans and handling major incidents, including terrorist actions. While I am on the subject of major incidents, I am sure that the
  814
  House will join me in sending our best wishes to those involved in dealing with the frightening accident on the Central line at Chancery lane on Saturday. As I mentioned when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, 800 people were involved and over 30 were injured. Large numbers of people in my London borough, including me, travel on the Central line and I have eight Central line stations in my constituency. The Central line around Bank is the busiest part of the underground, and losing the Central line service for any length of time is a huge inconvenience to my constituents as well as all commuters and visitors to the capital.
  As soon as the incident was reported, the BTP responded, along with colleagues from City of London police, the Metropolitan police, the fire brigade and ambulance services. London Underground also provided a rapid specialist response. The first BTP officer was on the scene within seven minutes of the call, and assisted the other emergency services in evacuating the passengers from the train.
  The role of the police service in the early stages of a major incident is to facilitate the actions of the rescue and medical services. A major incident was declared by the BTP duty officer following a quick assessment at the scene. In such cases, it is imperative that a quick assessment is made, as there is potential for terrorist incidents in the current climate. The BTP has the expertise and training to make a rapid assessment of incidents on the underground and the railway network, and it should be praised for having done so in this instance. About 30 BTP officers attended the scene, and the co-operation between the services at Chancery lane was very good indeed.
  Setting up a new police authority for the BTP should be widely welcomed—indeed, it has been in the House this afternoon. That will be helpful in putting BTP officers on an equally constitutional footing to those of Home Office forces, which is important in a number of ways—for example, helping to get powers similar to those of Home Office forces to employ community support officers. An independent authority will help to address perceptions of partiality in terms of the force being too weak or too tough on the industry.
  The establishment of an independent authority will address issues of confidence, trust, accountability and transparency, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) during his intervention on the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). It is disappointing, however, that the opportunity has not been taken to formalise the BTP's extended jurisdiction, which has been secured temporarily by anti-terrorism legislation.
  At present, the BTP run the risk of losing their extended powers, not because people do not believe that they should have them, but because, in the eyes of the legal purists, they were secured by the "back door" of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Bill's placing of jurisdiction on a statutory rather than a contractual footing is a satisfactory arrangement. Placing BTP pay and conditions in a regulatory framework governed by the Secretary of State is a helpful move in the force in modernising and achieving comparability with the Home Office forces.

  815
  I shall briefly discuss other provisions. I welcome the measures relating to alcohol limits for mariners and aviators, but I am one who happens to believe that the alcohol limits should be reduced from 80 mg to 50 mg for drivers and mariners. The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to that.
  Finally, the introduction of the rail accident investigation branch will provide greater clarity of responsibility and a speedier understanding of the cause of accidents. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covered that and said in response to my intervention that, had the Bill been in place, the chief inspector of the RAIB would have been involved in considering the Central line accident. If the RAIB is to be effective in determining primacy at an accident site, it must benefit from legislative backing in resolving potential conflicts between safety and criminal justice requirements.
  I would have liked the Bill to achieve a greater exploration of the scope and powers of the RAIB, but I hope that those issues will be covered in Committee, where I hope to serve.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Boris Johnson: It is a great pleasure to be called at last. I would have found sitting here throughout the debate as some people find enduring the railways under this Government were it not for the fact that that has been alleviated by some good speeches, not least that of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), whom it is a pleasure to follow.
  Of course, I agree with the vast bulk of the Bill. It is sensible to set up a special body to investigate accidents, particularly if that will lead to fewer fees for lawyers when such things happen. Also, I of course think it important that skippers of ships should not be inebriated. One can but approve the provision about drunkenness on ships, but I hope that the Minister will assure the House that it will be confined to ships, and that he will apply a light touch to the tiller when it comes to those who enjoy the very lavish hospitality at events such as the Henley regatta. Drunken oarsmen should not be subject to excessively draconian enforcement, as they are not intended to fall within the dominion of the Bill.
  I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), a former Secretary of State for Transport, said about the role of the British Transport police. Their duties could be alleviated if it were made absolutely clear whether it was an offence to take a bicycle on a train. I know that my right hon. Friend is a keen cyclist, as I am. I hope that the Minister will recognise that bikes are clean, green and far safer in regard to other road users than cars. Their use should be encouraged. I should like the law to be applied uniformly. Everyone should have the right to take their bike on the train.
  I am interested in one particular element of the Bill—what the Secretary of State called, in his opening remarks, the restructuring of the Office of the Rail Regulator. That is a euphemism: the regulator is going to be abolished, not restructured. The single regulator will be replaced by an office with at least four people appointed by the Secretary of State. There will be a separate chairman and chief executive, at a cost,
  816
  according to the explanatory notes, of at least £200,000. However, that is the least of my objections to the proposal. I want to probe the Government's motives in abolishing the rail regulator in that way. Is the proposal the best thing for the rail industry and, above all, the travelling public?
  It is easy to see why the Government have chosen this option when one remembers the murky events of 7 October 2001. That was when Railtrack was done to death by the Government, and when shareholders, who included my valiant, Labour-voting secretary, were despoiled. That led to a further deterioration in railway performance, and to a huge extra burden on the taxpayer. We must not forget that, in 2000, Railtrack was able to raise £2 billion on the market.
  Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out, safety improved throughout the period of privatisation. Last summer, the proportion of trains running on time fell from 83 per cent. to 81 per cent. That compares with the 90 per cent. achieved under Railtrack.
  To understand the disaster that the Government have wreaked on the railways, one must go back to the moment when the former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), decided to ignore the regulator and destroy Railtrack. It was technically in the power of the regulator, Tom Winsor, to increase the funding to Railtrack by raising the fees payable by the 25 train operating companies. It was also possible for the regulator to order an interim review of Railtrack's funding and to save the company. In retrospect, we can see that such a move would have saved the taxpayer a great deal of money, and obviated the need to pay out £500 million or £1 billion in compensation.
  Not only was the regulator circumvented, but he was threatened by the former Secretary of State with the legal extinction of his powers. The Government were less than candid about that threat, which eventually cost the former Secretary of State his job, although he made seven heroic attempts to hang on to it. It would be fair to say that the refusal of the regulator to lie down and die incurred the deep displeasure of the Government and, I suspect, that it led Ministers not merely to abolish him but also his office and to repose his powers in the hands of at least four other people appointed by the Government.
  Do the Government care at all about the independence of the successor office? My case is that they should care and I shall set it out briefly. The regulator should be free to safeguard the economic health of the railways and that means operating in the interests of the travelling public and of the potential investor in the railways, and not merely acting on behalf of the Treasury.
  Anyone who has flown over Britain, as I did on Saturday, can see the need for that investment. There are plenty of new prisons all over the country and plenty of shut Beeching railways, with grassed-over lines. It is fascinating. Everywhere one looks, however, one sees snarled-up, choked-up traffic—testimony to the failure of the Government's transport policy. We need an independent rail regulator not only to decide how much Network Rail needs, as he will by the end of the year, but

  817
  also because he can stand up to the Treasury and reassure passengers as well as those who are thinking of investing in rail.
  Rail needs massive investment and we need someone who will not be needlessly—[Interruption.] The Minister of State speaks from—what is it called? [HON. MEMBERS: "A sedentary position."]—or sitting down, to put it in Anglo-Saxon.
  We need a regulator who will not deter investment by being subject to political manipulation and abuse. We need someone who will not be pointlessly controversial or on an ego trip, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire has pointed out, but who will be firm with the Government in the interests of the travelling public and the potential investor.
  I hope that the Minister can reassure me, but I am not convinced that the new office proposed in the Bill will have that independence. Is the Government's intention that the new office of rail regulation should be composed of poodles and lap dogs, or will it be genuinely independent? The City was truly shocked by the way in which the Government rode roughshod over the present regulator and seized control of Railtrack. By that action, they undermined the confidence of potential investors in rail and we are all paying for it.
  The Government have a bad record for trying to nobble regulators. We saw their scandalous behaviour recently in the matter of Sir William Stubbs and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. The net result, tragically, was not only to frustrate the legitimate expectations of thousands of hard-working A-level students but also, staggeringly and very sadly, to undermine confidence in A-levels themselves, which have served this country well for the past 50 years and—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's point germane to the Bill?
  Mr. Johnson: You will divine that the point is wholly germane, Madam Deputy Speaker, as it relates to the Government's ruthless abuse of regulators.
  In conclusion, I hope that the Government will guarantee that the replacement Office of the Rail Regulator will be truly independent and that they will reassure the travelling public of that. The new office should be allowed to guarantee the economic health of the railways and to protect passengers and future investors from disastrous political interference of the kind that we have seen. If the Government can give us those guarantees, I shall be more than happy to support the Bill.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I have four brief comments. The first is about the British Transport police. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State use this opportunity to deal with the extended jurisdiction of the British Transport police that was provided under anti-terrorism legislation? As he knows, under the provisions of that legislation, that jurisdiction is time limited and will expire. We can scrutinise the Bill in the Standing Committee and we should take this chance to deal with that matter. Will he also confirm
  818
  that the British Transport police provisions will apply to Scotland? I notice that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), in his normal knee-jerk reaction to anything that seems to break up the United Kingdom by stealth was happy to welcome the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's position.
  On the question of what I call the interface between the UK and Scottish legislation—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and the Secretary of State covered—in one or two areas the division between the responsibilities of the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Executive might be too inflexible in practice. I can certainly see the logic of some of the divisions of responsibilities, but it seems strange, for example, that the position of non-professional mariners and the power to enter certain places are to be left to the Scottish Parliament, but the Westminster Parliament will deal with powers to arrest on ships and aeroplanes. In the attempt to be logical, an inflexible arrangement may have been established. I hope that we can examine that matter in Committee.
  Like every other hon. Member who has spoken, I welcome the Bill in most respects. However, I wish to make two further suggestions. I support the abolition of the Office of the Rail Regulator, but I do not support its replacement by an office of rail regulation. I take the view that now that we have a Strategic Rail Authority, which is rightly operating in a much more proactive fashion, we do not need so many regulators. Is it not time to simplify the regulatory system, just as we have simplified the system of ownership and train operating companies, rather than coming back in a few years with another proposal, this time to abolish the system of rail regulation?
  The debate has inevitably concentrated on railway issues, but, as several hon. Members have pointed out, the debate is not only about railways but about transport safety. It is not in rail, sea or air transport but road transport that the vast majority of deaths and injuries occur. Hon. Member after hon. Member has pointed that out. Given that the Government have decided to include some measures relating to road traffic in the Bill—I refer to clause 103, which deals with road traffic penalties—could we not use this opportunity to address road safety issues? Could we not implement some of the long-awaited recommendations of the road traffic penalty review, which has been going round the circle of Departments for about five years?
  Here is an opportunity to do something about road safety. I hope that the Government will consider tabling amendments in Committee or on Report, especially given the emollient words of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). If the Government do not wish to table amendments themselves, may I suggest that it would be a good idea to indicate that they would give a fair wind to any Back-Bench Members' moves to that effect in Committee or on Report? I know that on one or two recent issues the Government have been happy to accept amendments on controversial issues from the Back Benches. Perhaps Back-Bench Members could assist the Government in their objectives on this matter, too.
  6.34 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I remind the House of my interests: my husband is an airline executive and I have personal interests in the RAC, Railtrack, Eurotunnel, British Airways, BAA and First Group. I recognise the importance to the United Kingdom economy of all the industries that the House is discussing this evening—especially rail, air and shipping—and I recognise in particular the contribution that the railway industry makes to North Yorkshire and my constituency of Vale of York.
  This is big and significant Bill. It already runs to 110 clauses and 7 schedules, with scope for many implementing regulations, which might not be open to full scrutiny by all hon. Members. The Conservative party welcomes much of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, much of it reflects Conservative party policy and draws on Acts of Parliament passed during the years of the last Conservative Government. As my hon. Friend also said, we find the Bill largely uncontroversial, although we shall seek to explore some issues of detail.
  As a number of hon. Members have stated during this excellent debate, it is interesting to note that there are no provisions relating to road safety. Will the Minister take note of our concern that safety should be treated equally across all modes of transport? In the words of my hon. Friend, a life is a life is a life. So have the Government considered introducing similar provisions to those contained in STATS 19 to cover railway accidents? Will the Minister respond positively to the plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) for the creation of a road accident investigation branch similar to the arrangements for rail that we are discussing now?
  We welcome the setting up of an independent rail accident investigation branch, as first proposed by the Cullen inquiry and publicly backed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) shortly thereafter. We will carefully consider those provisions, and it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm this evening whether the RAIB will have the power to investigate accidents in the channel tunnel. The task of investigating any accident in the tunnel should be given to a suitable bi-national body.
  Will the Minister further clarify with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly the relationship between the reserved and devolved powers in the context of the Bill? The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), among others, referred to that issue.
  We recognise the relative safety and increasing safety status of our railways. To his credit, even the Deputy Prime Minister recognised that rail privatisation was not a contributory factor and said:
  "Safety was not better under the public sector in that industry."
  and
  "I have never accepted 'public good, private bad".—[Official Report, 9 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 714–15.]
  The statistics bear out the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks. In October 1979, five people were killed and 52 injured at Invergowrie. In April 1979, seven people were killed and 67 hurt near Paisley. In June 1975, six people were killed and 38 hurt at Nuneaton. In February 1975, 43 people were killed and 74 hurt in the Moorgate underground disaster. In December 1973,
  820
  10 people were killed and 94 hurt in the Ealing accident, and in August 1973, five people were killed and 50 hurt in Glasgow. So the statistics dispel any myth that the numbers involved in rail accidents have increased since privatisation; on the contrary, the record has improved.
  The Secretary of State was reluctant to be drawn on part 2, under which the office of rail regulation will be created. If replacing the rail regulator with a board is such a good idea, why was it not introduced in the Transport Act 2000? I was privileged to be involved when the Transport Committee took evidence from the then rail regulator, who was very forthcoming about the untenability of his position when he might have been minded to act in a certain way on Railtrack's demise and when the Secretary of State told him that he was prepared to put emergency legislation through the House to prevent the rail regulator from acting in that way. The Conservative party wishes to strengthen the office and role of the rail regulator, not to weaken it. I ask the Minister what position the present rail regulator will hold on the board under the new provisions.
  On part 3, under which the British Transport police will be put on a statutory basis as a separate authority, I simply note that, as was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), it is not entirely clear what the status of that force will be. Surely, the Bill should clearly state that the British Transport police are separate from the Metropolitan police or any other local police force. We believe that the Bill could make that clearer.
  On part 4, which extends to shipping provisions on alcohol and drugs, I am curious about the exemptions put to the House this evening. We would prefer important items such as the power of the motor, the size of the ship and the location of the accident to be defined in the Bill rather than in regulations under clause 77(5)—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in his intervention. That also prompts the question of how broadly the provisions in clause 76 relating to professional staff who are off duty will be applied. Surely the Government must have in mind a rota, with first on call for emergency duty, second on call for emergency duty and so on. In general, though, the provisions in part 4 are welcome in resolving situations such as that which arose in the Marchioness disaster.
  Many would say that the provisions in part 5 on alcohol and drugs in relation to aviation are not just welcome but long overdue. Will the Minister confirm that those provisions apply to airlines and crews of all nationalities using UK airports? We have observed, as have several hon. Members who have raised these concerns this evening, that the differentials in the prescribed limits as between pilots and flight navigators, engineers, radio telephony operators, flight attendants, air traffic controllers and aircraft maintenance engineers are confusing. We believe that the provisions are unnecessarily complicated, and that uniform prescribed limits for all personnel would be much easier to apply. It would help our understanding of the Bill if the Minister would explain why different prescribed limits have been set.
  Mr. Spellar: That is a strange position for a Conservative: wanting to over-prescribe when there is

  821
  no requirement, for safety reasons, for undertaking such measures. I should have thought that the most sensible approach would be to have different levels according to the level of criticality and the nature of the job, so that we are not over-prescribing or imposing over-onerous provisions on people at work.
  Miss McIntosh: Those Members who are fortunate enough to serve on the Standing Committee will have plentiful opportunity to explore the matter in detail. I firmly believe that the rules are drafted in a misleading and confusing way, which will not lead to an easy application.
  Lawrie Quinn: rose—
  Miss McIntosh: The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) made an intelligent and positive contribution. The House benefits from his knowledge and experience of the industry, and he has made a strong bid to serve on the Committee. Regrettably, owing to the time available, I will not be able to accept an intervention from him at this stage. He raised a serious point relating to how we define accidents and incidents.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) also raised a genuine concern that minor incidents should not be blown up into major ones. The Opposition are concerned about the very sweeping nature of powers of investigation under clause 7, such as the right to enter land, including a dwelling house adjoining or abutting railway property. We shall call for the rail accident investigation branch to make an annual report to the House, which will be debated annually by the Transport Committee, to enable the House to monitor its work and the execution of its powers by its investigators.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and his contribution to transport policy over the years. He eloquently pointed out the potential conflict of responsibilities between the personnel of the rail accident investigation branch, Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, the Health and Safety Executive, the police and the train operating companies. Will the Minister inform the House what will be the exact relationship between those bodies in the context of this Bill?
  We shall also consider closely provisions in clause 1, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South again referred—regrettably, he has not returned to the Chamber—relating to the convention on international carriage by rail, separating the functions of train operating from the management of track. I remind the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members that a former leader of the Labour party who is now a European Commissioner in Brussels first proposed such a separation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, there is a similar separation operating in aviation policy, where it works well and profitably.
  I also note that there is a huge scope in schedule 6 for an open-sesame approach to statutory instruments. The Conservative party regrets the influx of statutory
  822
  instruments and regulations that are not exposed to full scrutiny either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. We note the provisions in clause 105 for the transfer of powers relating to railways in London and the history behind those.
  We are delighted to give the Bill a fair wind on Second Reading. We support its main thrust, much of which is based on sound Conservative policies and on Acts of Parliament adopted under a Conservative Government, although we shall seek to explore certain aspects of it, including any omissions, in detail.
  6.45 pm
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I am grateful to hon. Members for contributing to a useful debate. Unlike Question Time, however, no inducements were offered to Ministers to accept various amendments. There was also the contribution by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), but I shall come to that later. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have been responsible for responding to other debates, and I find it slightly unusual to make a winding-up speech both in this atmosphere and at this hour.
  Before I respond briefly to the points made, I want to remind hon. Members of the Bill's significant aspects, many of which will be discussed in Committee. The Bill includes a wide and diverse set of measures ranging from the creation of a new and independent body to investigate accidents on the railways to giving British Transport police an accountability structure that we all recognise is appropriate for a modern police force. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and others for their contributions on the British Transport police and the excellent role they play. They are increasingly successful in the fight against crime on the transport system. The Bill also introduces alcohol limits for shipping and aviation.
  The creation of a body to investigate rail accidents was a main recommendation of Lord Cullen's report into the Ladbroke Grove accident. He recommended that it should be modelled on the existing investigation branches for air and marine accidents. He also recommended that its sole task should be to determine the cause of accidents. The Bill creates just such a body. Unlike existing rail accident investigators, the RAIB will be independent of the rail industry and those responsible for regulating the railways. It will carry out its investigations free of any conflicts of interest, either real or perceived. That is an important point in light of comments made in the debate. The reports will be published promptly, which deals with one of the significant criticisms of the current regime, and victims of accidents will be kept informed of the progress of investigations, a problem that has been mentioned in the past year in particular.
  The Bill will also create a police authority for the British Transport police and a police force for Britain's railways. That will be modelled closely on existing authorities for local constabularies.
  Andrew Mackinlay: Existing legislation provides for the British Transport police to police ports. The option is not being exercised now, but it has been in the past. Some small ports, including Tilbury, Felixstowe, Tees

  823
  and Hartlepool, and all those in Scotland are not policed by dedicated police forces. Will the Minister keep that option open so that the Government can put the police back into many of our sea ports, perhaps for security reasons?
  Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend alludes to the fact that many of the major ports have dedicated police forces. Discussions take place with county constabularies on the policing of a number of minor ports. As I have said to him privately, I take his point on board. We will consider it further and get back to him. I realise that he represents the port of Tilbury and is in touch with such issues.
  The British Transport police will gain a wholly statutory jurisdiction, which they currently lack. The other railway measures include the restructuring of the Office of the Rail Regulator. We propose that it now be headed by a board rather than a single regulator. I point out that that is in line with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force, and I hardly think that it can be argued that it in any way undermines the position of the regulator, precisely because it is being applied throughout the regulatory regime. As far as I am aware, that has general approval from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was unfortunate that the measure was taken out of that context in one or two contributions today.
  The Bill allows the UK to ratify the new text of an international rail treaty. It provides for the introduction of a levy to fund the Health and Safety Executive's rail-related activities and to replace the overly bureaucratic system of charging by the hour. The Bill will also amend certain sections of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 regarding the London underground. It will ensure that the Act operates as intended, and I certainly assure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that it does not provide a position in which its implementation can be postponed indefinitely. The Bill deals with circumstances that probably could not have been envisaged when the GLA Act was passed. There is a hiatus because there is still a legal appeal by Transport for London, which could undermine the purposes of the Act. The Bill is intended to remedy that.
  The Bill seeks to improve safety at sea and in the air. We propose the introduction of alcohol limits for mariners and certain aviation personnel whose role is critical in safety. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) did not clarify why she believes that where certain groups require stricter limits, those should apply to everyone else even though such limits are not required by the nature of their job.
  Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend is probably aware that I was trying to intervene on the hon. Lady on that very point. Will he confirm that at the moment the railway industry designates safety-related posts, and the existing legislation for that industry works very well? Indeed, if the hon. Lady seeks a model to demonstrate that it works well, she should look no further than the railway industry.
  Mr. Spellar: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that the hon. Lady took those points on board. She may reflect on her position before the Bill goes into Committee.
  824
  As hon. Members will know, the introduction of legislation to control alcohol misuse by mariners was one of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Clark's inquiry into the Marchioness disaster. A new offence will apply to all on-duty professional mariners who exceed the set limit and to any off-duty mariners who would play a role in evacuating passengers in an emergency. The limit will also affect some, but not all, recreational mariners.
  In reply to the hon. Lady, the reason for dealing with some of those matters by regulation is to allow us to have much fuller discussion and consultation with those who will be affected. Frankly, if we do not get the provisions right, it will also allow us to amend them more easily than we could through primary legislation. There is a useful debate to be had about the appropriate limits. We have to balance the general convenience of the public with the need to maintain safety. I am sure that the hon. Lady will come to appreciate our position during the Committee proceedings.
  On the aviation side, the limits will apply to aircrew, air traffic controllers and licensed aircraft engineers. The police will be responsible for enforcing the limits, and they will be able to test mariners and safety-critical aviation personnel for alcohol where they have reasonable suspicion that an offence may have been committed.
  I turn now to the points made during the debate. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and a number of other hon. Members raised the question of road safety, which is very important. However, it would have been helpful if they had prefaced their remarks by pointing out that our roads, along with those in Sweden, are the safest in Europe. Under Governments of both parties—I say this with a former Transport Minister on the Opposition Benches—there has been a steady decline in road deaths. Indeed, in respect of the carnage on the French roads and the measures that need to be taken in France, only a couple of months ago the President of France held up the British record as an example.
  Steady progress has been made in a number of areas, and we are looking at where the next moves can be made to improve road safety. For example, we have the best record in Europe for car deaths, but our record on child pedestrian accidents—although it is improving, and although we have gone from the bottom to the middle of the European league—still has further to go. There is a very heavy geographic concentration of such accidents, particularly in the north-west. That is precisely why, in the autumn of last year, I announced some £17 million to £18 million to fund not just a study, but the undertaking of various projects in those boroughs, in order to ascertain the reason for, and the remedies for, the much higher incidence of child pedestrian accidents in those areas.
  In the same way, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has launched a consultation on the use of mobile phones. Again, we will introduce secondary legislation to deal with what is widely perceived as a problem and as a threat to safety on the roads. That is the way to deal with that problem.
  On the ownership and driving of vehicles, hon. Members will have encountered advertisements for the V5 registration form for cars, which will prevent people

  825
  from obtaining licences so easily, particularly for stolen vehicles. Frankly, if a car auction is allowing someone to drive off a site without insurance, by definition, we should be looking at such behaviour. However, in general car, auction companies are becoming increasingly co-operative in dealing with illegal vehicles such as untaxed and uninsured vehicles. Either the Under-Secretary or I will write to the hon. Member for Bath with some of the relevant details. I hope, too, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will get the message out in their constituencies, and get their local authorities, police forces and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to work together to deal with the problem of rogue vehicles and rogue drivers, and steadily to eliminate many of them from the roads. The hon. Member for Bath also mentioned the Office of the Rail Regulator's consultation on safety. In fact, it is almost finished, and we hope that it will come to a conclusion in the not too distant future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson)—he is chairing a Committee elsewhere in this building, so he is unable to be here for the wind-ups—raised the question of accidents and incidents, which we shall need to discuss in Committee. However, I counsel a degree of caution in terms of the danger of over-emphasising this issue. We could arrive at the position that was reached in the nuclear industry, whereby a previous Secretary of State with responsibility for energy said that he wanted every incident, however small, to be reported to him. That led to an utterly nonsensical situation. We therefore need to look at levels of significance and prioritisation, and to keep a sensible difference in definition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South also asked about the reason for the delay in the implementation in respect of the mark 1 trains. I am not sure whether he was present for Transport questions, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the reason for this problem very clear. Between them, the train operator and Railtrack totally failed to undertake the necessary work, or to realise that work was necessary to provide the electricity supply that would enable new trains to be brought on stream.
  The Government are committed to delivering a transport system that is modern, reliable and safe, and central to quality of life. This Bill will be an important part of that change. It will improve safety and improve public confidence in the safety of the transport industry, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Railways and Transport Safety Bill—

  RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 11th March.
    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. 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.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
    6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Other proceedings
    7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any other further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Caplin.]
    The House divided: Ayes 346, Noes 95.

    Division No. 68]

    [6:59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Casale, Roger

    Ainger, Nick

    Caton, Martin

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Allan, Richard

    Challen, Colin

    Allen, Graham

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Chidgey, David

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Clapham, Michael

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Austin, John

    Clelland, David

    Bailey, Adrian

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Baird, Vera

    Coaker, Vernon

    Baker, Norman

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Barrett, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Coleman, Iain

    Battle, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Beard, Nigel

    Cooper, Yvette

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Corston, Jean

    Bell, Stuart

    Cotter, Brian

    Benn, Hilary

    Cousins, Jim

    Bennett, Andrew

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Crausby, David

    Berry, Roger

    Cruddas, Jon

    Betts, Clive

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cummings, John

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Borrow, David

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Breed, Colin

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Davidson, Ian

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Denham, rh John

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dismore, Andrew

    Burden, Richard

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Burnett, John

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Burnham, Andy

    Doran, Frank

    Burstow, Paul

    Doughty, Sue

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Cairns, David

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    827

    Edwards, Huw

    Kidney, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Farrelly, Paul

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Fisher, Mark

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Flint, Caroline

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Follett, Barbara

    Lamb, Norman

    Foster, rh Derek

    Lammy, David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Foulkes, rh George

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Lepper, David

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Gardiner, Barry

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Gerrard, Neil

    Linton, Martin

    Gidley, Sandra

    Love, Andrew

    Godsiff, Roger

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Goggins, Paul

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Grogan, John

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    McDonnell, John

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    MacDougall, John

    Hanson, David

    McFall, John

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    McIsaac, Shona

    McKechin, Ann

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    McNulty, Tony

    Heath, David

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    McWalter, Tony

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McWilliam, John

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Heppell, John

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Heyes, David

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Holmes, Paul

    Martlew, Eric

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Merron, Gillian

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Miliband, David

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Mole, Chris

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Moore, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moran, Margaret

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Morgan, Julie

    Hutton, rh John

    Morley, Elliot

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Illsley, Eric

    Mountford, Kali

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Mudie, George

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Mullin, Chris

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jamieson, David

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Organ, Diana

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Keetch, Paul

    Owen, Albert

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    828

    Pearson, Ian

    Spellar, rh John

    Perham, Linda

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Picking, Anne

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stevenson, George

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Plaskitt, James

    Pollard, Kerry

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Prescott, rh John

    Stringer, Graham

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Stunell, Andrew

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Purnell, James

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Rammell, Bill

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Thurso, John

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Trickett, Jon

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    Truswell, Paul

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Rooney, Terry

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Ruane, Chris

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Ward, Claire

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Watts, David

    Salter, Martin

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Sanders, Adrian

    White, Brian

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Sawford, Phil

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wills, Michael

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wilson, Brian

    Sheridan, Jim

    Winnick, David

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Singh, Marsha

    Woolas, Phil

    Skinner, Dennis

    Worthington, Tony

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

    Southworth, Helen

    Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Fraser Kemp

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Collins, Tim

    Barker, Gregory

    Conway, Derek

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Boswell, Tim

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Brady, Graham

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Brazier, Julian

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Burns, Simon

    Fabricant, Michael

    Burnside, David

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Burt, Alistair

    Cameron, David

    Flook, Adrian

    Cash, William

    Forth, rh Eric

    Chope, Christopher

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    829

    Francois, Mark

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Goodman, Paul

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Randall, John

    Grayling, Chris

    Robathan, Andrew

    Greenway, John

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hammond, Philip

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hendry, Charles

    Salmond, Alex

    Hermon, Lady

    Simmonds, Mark

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Spring, Richard

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Steen, Anthony

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Syms, Robert

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Lidington, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Watkinson, Angela

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Weir, Michael

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Whittingdale, John

    Maclean, rh David

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Wilshire, David

    Mercer, Patrick

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Wishart, Pete

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Young, rh Sir George

    Page, Richard

    Paice, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Paterson, Owen

    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

    Pickles, Eric

    Mr. Mark Hoban

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    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 the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department in the name of Mr. John McWilliam may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Question agreed to.

    RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY 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 Railways and Transport Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act,

    (b) expenditure incurred by the Office of Rail Regulation in connection with the performance of its functions, and

    (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Question agreed to.

    RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
    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 Railways and Transport Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the imposition of railway safety levy on persons who provide railway services, and

    (b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Question agreed to.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
    That, in accordance with the Resolution of the Standing Committee dated 21st January 2003, the programme order of 7th January 2003 in relation to the Local Government Bill shall be amended as follows—
    In paragraph 2 of the order (proceedings in standing committee to be brought to conclusion no later than 6th February), for '6th' there is substituted '13th'.—[Mr. Heppell]
    Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 5th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents)—

    (1) the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr Secretary Blunkett relating to Police Grant Report (England and Wales) not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, and

    (2) the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government Finance (England) not later than six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Secretary Blunkett relating to Police Grant Report (England and Wales); and the proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption, and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to them.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
      Question agreed to.

  Lord Chancellor's Department
  7.15 pm
  The Chairman of the Committee of Selection (Mr. John McWilliam): I beg to move,
  That Mr A. J. Beith, Peter Bottomley, Mr James Clappison, Ross Cranston, Mrs Ann Cryer, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mr Hilton Dawson, Mr Mark Field. Mr Clive Soley, Keith Vaz and Dr Alan Whitehead be members of the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  Let me make it plain at the outset that this is not a question of whether the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is not an active, able and respected Member of the House or of the respective merits of her and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It is about maintaining the ratio in the selection of Committees in this House.
  The Committee has 11 members, which gives us a ratio of seven Labour members, three Conservative and one other. The one other member is, of course, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, a Liberal Democrat. That reflects the composition of the House, which the Committee of Selection calculates to three decimal places.
  If the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) is again suggesting that we move away from a system that selects Committees that reflect the composition of the House, I suggest it is wrong to do that on a Committee that does not cover the whole United Kingdom. I also suggest to him that it is not a good idea anyway. What is more, I suggest to him that getting other parties involved in the selection of members of their own parties to allocated places on Select Committees could lead to all sorts of difficulties.
  Mr. Alex SalmondMay I remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who is now on the Front Bench? He pointed out that, on Select Committees,
  "the Liberal Democrats are currently over-represented by two".—[Official Report, 21 November 2003; Vol. 394, c. 883.]
  If that is the view of the Minister, why is it not the view of the convener of the Committee of Selection?
  Mr. Mc William: That may be the view of the Minister on the basis of his sums, but my sums are probably rather more accurate.
  Including the Select Committee that we are dealing with, which changes the ratio, there are 464 places on Select Committees. If there were a Committee with 464 places, it would break down as follows: Labour 292; Conservative 116; Lib Dem 38; UUP four; DUP four; SNP four; Plaid Cymru three; SDLP two; and independents one. However, we are dealing with a Committee of 11.
  To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for North Tayside, because of the situation in respect of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and the need to ensure adequate representation from Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionist party is over-represented in its membership of Select Committees. The
  832
  amendment that he has tabled would exacerbate that enormously, as one can see when looking at the figures that I have just given.
  Mr. Salmond: If the amendment would exacerbate the over-representation of Ulster Unionist Members, why would not the motion exacerbate the overrepresentation of the Liberal Democrats?
  Mr. McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Labour party as well as the Liberal Democrat party is over-represented. However, that happens because the size of the Committees is rounded. [HON. MEMBERS: "That's all right then."] Is it all right? I remember intervening on the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in the debate on the Committee of Selection to ask who would be cut in half. We are considering decimal points and parties that are represented by fewer than 10 Members. The Labour party and the Conservative party are represented in hundreds; the Liberal Democrats are represented in multiples of 10—there are nearly 40 Liberal Democrat Members.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Who represents the interests of the minority parties on the Committee of Selection? Liberal Democrat Members always used to try to represent not only their party but the other minority parties. There is a problem only because it appears that the Liberal Democrats have failed to represent the other minority parties. [Interruption.] Let me finish. That is also true of other members of the Committee.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That was a rather long intervention.
  Mr. McWilliam: As Chairman of the Committee of Selection, I act as independently as possible. I have a reputation for that. The minority parties made representations to me some time ago. They were dissatisfied with the Liberal Democrats and they made an agreement with the Government that the Government would represent them. We are dealing with that now. Nominations were tackled in the usual way.
  Nominations are routinely made to the parliamentary Labour party and approved before they are put to the Committee of Selection. The other parties have their systems for nominating members. The minority parties operate through the Government Whips Office, and that happened in the case that we are considering.
  Andrew Mackinlay: My hon. Friend rattled off a load of numbers. I was waiting for the next part of his contribution because he told us the allocation but not the entitlement on a strict pro rata basis. He said, for example, Labour—292; Conservatives—160. To how many members is each party entitled? I support the underdog. We should discriminate in favour of the smaller, minority interests in such a massive Parliament.
  Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution. The House agreed last night that the

  833
  Committee would have 11 members. I explained earlier that the ratio is seven Labour, three Conservative and one Liberal Democrat—
  Mr. Salmond: One other.
  Mr. McWilliam: One other. However, on a strict ratio that should be a Liberal Democrat. We try to stick to that fairly.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the Committee deals with a Department that does not operate in all parts of the United Kingdom. I was waiting for him to explain why that observation was relevant to the debate. Will he now do that?
  Mr. McWilliam: Yes. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom that the Department does not represent. I therefore subtract from the figures that I gave earlier the Scottish National party entitlement of four and conduct some redistribution. However, that would not result in another party receiving a different number.
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing that point, he will have to subtract all the Labour Members from Scotland and redo his calculations. The amendment proposes the nomination of a member of the Committee from Northern Ireland, so why is the point relevant?
  Mr. McWilliam: Even if I subtracted the Labour Members, it would not change the ratio by anything that would allow an extra member from Northern Ireland. In fact, as I have said, the Ulster Unionists are overrepresented in their total membership of Select Committees.
  I do not want to detain the House any longer. It has been done fairly; it has been done clearly; and it has been done openly.
  David Burnside: rose—
  Mr. McWilliam: I have been overly generous in giving way, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is from Northern Ireland.
  David Burnside: I read Quintin Hogg's "The Dilemma of Democracy" when I was at school. He warned of the threat of an elective dictatorship. In the short time since I entered the House, it has surely been right to have overrepresentation of minority parties, whether Unionist, nationalist or whatever, to try to bring the Executive to account. Since the Committee legally covers the Union of England and Northern Ireland—there might not be much left in the future—it would be—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his intervention to a close?
  David Burnside: My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) should be on the Committee.
  Mr. McWilliam: I caution the hon. Gentleman about using his source as an authority on the Committee that
  834
  we are selecting tonight, since that source was the reason why it is only now, after 20-odd years, that we are appointing a Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. The hon. Gentleman's source, the former Lord Hailsham, insisted that if the new Select Committee system was to go forward in 1979 he would vote for it only as long as it did not cover his Department. Therefore, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's source is tainted.
  We have gone on long enough. It is obvious that we want to get on with this. We have waited 20-odd years for a Committee that should have been set up 20-odd years ago.
  I commend the nominations to the House.
  7.27 pm
  Pete Wishart: I beg to move, To leave out "Mr. A. J. Beith" and insert "Lady Hermon".
  I begin by assuring the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that there is nothing personal in this. Our amendment is purely political, moved in order to address the continuing exclusion of the minority parties from the vast majority of Select Committees.
  We particularly enjoy these debates. They are always quite convivial and are always quite entertaining. I particularly liked the bravura performance of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) last night on the establishment of the Committee under consideration. Such debates also allow us to draw attention to the wonderful world of Select Committees.
  We have had a number of debates about Select Committees in the past year, most of them very much to the dissatisfaction of the minority parties. I particularly recall the debate on modernisation, in which we tabled what we thought was a very reasonable and sensible amendment, suggesting that one place should be set aside for the minority parties in each departmental Select Committee. We thought that that was reasonable and fair. We argued for the amendment and divided the House on it. We were overwhelmingly and comprehensively drubbed in the vote. We admit that and we expected it. We accepted that that was the will of the House.
  However, we returned with an even more reasonable suggestion: that each of the minority parties should have one representative on one departmental Select Committee over and above their nation or region of interest. I do not think that it is possible to be fairer and more reasonable than that. I am disappointed that we have made no progress on what is not an outrageous demand.
  What also disappoints us is that it seems to be only the Select Committees that deny this access. We are able to participate in all the other institutions of the House. We can participate in debates if we are fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. We are involved in question sessions and we participate in questions on statements. But for some reason, Select Committees are impervious to change. They remain out of bounds to the minority parties. Surely it is time for that to change.

  835
  We have tried patiently and consistently to put the case that Select Committees must reflect not just the crude arithmetic that seems to be bandied back and forth in these debates, but the political reality of a multiparty House in a multi-party United Kingdom.
  Mr. McWilliam: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but will he reflect on the situation before 1997? The Government had a majority of one on Select Committees because of the ratios. We are trying to deal with a situation in which Governments may not always have such a huge majority. Therefore, under his proposal and in a situation such as that before 1997, the Government of the day would not have a majority at all. That would cause a problem for the Select Committees.
  Pete Wishart: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention incredible. Surely, in these circumstances—the Government have a massive majority—we have an excellent opportunity to involve the minority parties in the functions of the House and there is nothing to be lost in allowing us to participate in Select Committees. Sometimes, we have to remind many Members that there are more than just the three main establishment parties in the United Kingdom, and they would find that out if they ventured across the borders of Scotland or Wales.
  Jim Sheridan: For the sake of clarity, when the hon. Gentleman talks of minority parties, is he including another minority party—Sinn Fein?
  Pete Wishart: I serve as a joint Whip for two minority parties when we deal with the Government, but we are talking about minority parties including the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionists and the Ulster Unionists. That does not include Sinn Fein.
  Mr. Salmond: And the Social Democratic and Labour party.
  Pete Wishart: Yes, and the SDLP.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that minorities should be over-represented. That is entirely right and it is how we achieve equality in such situations. We must over-represent the minority parties in the House to reflect the political reality of the UK. On this Bench sit Members from the SNP, which is the second party in Scotland. Our party is the principal Opposition in the Scottish Parliament and it may soon form the Government of Scotland.
  Here also sit Members from Plaid Cymru, which is the second party in Wales and the principal Opposition in Wales. It will soon form the Administration in Cardiff. Behind us we have the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) and behind Labour Members sit Members from the SDLP. When Stormont sits, members of those two parties effectively form the Government of Northern Ireland. Surely departmental Select Committees should reflect and acknowledge that reality.
  The proposal to establish the Committee was made, but when the nominations for membership were made—lo and behold and surprise, surprise—there was nobody
  836
  there from the minority parties. That is what we expected, and there was as much chance of a minority party being represented on the Committee as there is of me being made Lord Chancellor, heaven forbid.
  Mr. Salmond: Good idea.
  Pete Wishart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion—who knows?
  Mr. McWilliam: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that he cannot be Lord Chancellor because he is a Scot. The Lord Chancellor is a Scot.
  Pete Wishart: I am not in the business of ruling myself out of any particular task, but perhaps Lord Chancellor may be a job beyond me.
  Our amendment would replace the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). The House must agree that one could not find a more appropriate and suitable candidate for the Committee than the hon. Lady. A more gentle and fragrant alternative to the gruff and bellicose voices of Ulster, which we usually hear from hon. Members who sit behind us, could not be found. Indeed, she has already impressed the House with her polite yet tenacious approach in debate and in Committee. She is also something of an authority in legal matters, which one would think an advantage in the Committee.
  Before taking a seat in the House, the hon. Lady spent 10 years as a lecturer in European, international and constitutional law at Queen's university. Surely such specialised knowledge and experience would increase the influence and status of Select Committees, inside and outside the House. She is an asset who should be employed in the Committee. Indeed, she should have been one of the first ports of call when the Committee was being established.
  The hon. Lady is a suitable choice, and we would hope that she becomes Chairman of the Committee. It is no great surprise or secret that that chairmanship is intended for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I have spent too long in the usual channels and the Whips Office not to know that that is the case, but we are offering the House a choice—a proper election, not an election made behind closed doors in the Whips Offices where there is the whiff of smoke and a carve up between the Whips. We want the decision to be taken here on the Floor of the House. We are extending the franchise to Members here, who have a choice as to who will be Chairman of the new Committee—the hon. Member for North Down or the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I hope that they exercise that choice and support our recommendation that the Chairman should be the hon. Member for North Down.
  If the amendment is successful, if we manage to get the hon. Member for North Down on to the Committee and into the Chair—I realise that that is a lot of "ifs"—the minority parties would have their first-ever member on the Liaison Committee. Of the 34 members of that Committee, the Liberal Democrats, with 47 Members of Parliament, already have two—
  Mr. Paul Tyler: We have 53 Members of Parliament.
  Pete Wishart: I take that correction. With the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, there would be

  837
  three Liberal-Democrat members of the Committee. The minority parties have 23 members, but no place on the Committee. The House should put that iniquity right and make a strike for fair representation by minority parties on the Liaison Committee.
  We watched the Liaison Committee in action last week, when members had the opportunity—
  Mr. McWilliam: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The chairmanship of the Select Committee is a matter for the Select Committee, when it is formed. Neither I nor the Committee of Selection know who the Committee might select.
  Pete Wishart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman makes that contention genuinely, but it is not much of a trade secret that the most likely Chair of the new Select Committee is the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
  Mr. Salmond: The solution is obvious. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is in his place. All he has to do is intervene and say that he has no ambition to chair the Select Committee. The matter could be cleared up here and now.
  Pete Wishart: I thank my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed declines to give that categorical pledge. That does not surprise me.
  The minority parties are increasingly being excluded from the Committees of the House. I gave the example of the lack of access to Select Committees, and the same applies to the Liaison Committee. We are also worried about the Joint Committees of both Houses. We believe that they will be used as a form of pre-legislative scrutiny. We are effectively debarred—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman was on track when he spoke about replacing one hon. Member with another. That is the proposal to which he should be speaking.
  Pete Wishart: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that the minority parties seem to be excluded from the Committee structure of the House, and from the Joint Committees of both Houses. If we are excluded from pre-legislative scrutiny, that would be unacceptable. I hope that the House does not go down that road. The minority parties have to be involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. We need an assurance that we will not be left out.
  The Leader of the House has given us warm words over the past few months. We have taken them at face value. He is aware of our concerns, and is trying to find solutions. In the previous two debates on this matter, I have said that I believe that the Leader of the House and the Government have been trying to find a solution. They have been constructive and we appreciate the
  838
  assistance and support that they have given the new arrangements for the minority parties. All aspects, other than access to Select Committees, have worked well.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a lot of talk about modernisation, and that the proposal would be a good move in that respect?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) that we are not talking about modernisation of the House. He must confine his remarks to the amendment.
  Pete Wishart: I am grateful again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I conclude by acknowledging the assistance of Conservative Members, who believe that we have a reasonable case. I hope that we will be able to enlist their support for the amendment.
  It is time to make progress. We want some results. We could start with hon. Members supporting the amendment. We are not asking for much—one place in a non-regional departmental Select Committee for each of the minority parties in the House. It is a reasonable request. I hope that the House supports it, and the amendment before it this evening.
  7.39 Pm
  Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said that the amendment applies to a non-regional departmental Committee. That is so, but the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are all guilty of not seeking representation in Northern Ireland, with the result that people from that region cannot join our parties. All hon. Members in those parties should reflect on the fact that we contribute to the disenfranchisement of people in Northern Ireland in that respect.
  Is it really acceptable that such a major Committee, dealing with the portfolio of the Lord Chancellor's Department, should have no representation from Northern Ireland? Our Lord Chancellor also undertakes functions that historically belonged to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He is currently in charge of the courts, the appointment of the judiciary and all other constitutional issues relating to Northern Ireland. That is another powerful argument for accepting the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will not take my remarks personally as I hold him in the highest regard.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: But my hon. Friend will not vote for the right hon. Gentleman.
  Andrew Mackinlay: No, I shall not vote for the right hon. Gentleman because, to his credit, he is now a member of one of the principal political parties. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat party has reached critical mass and is probably the most effective Opposition party in this place. In the past, the right hon. Gentleman could have referred to himself as a member of a minor party, and I am sure that he did so. He is not challenging me because it is on the record that he referred to himself in

  839
  that way. However, he is no longer a member of a minor party but of a substantial party, which could form the principal Opposition after the next general election.
  Mr. David Laws: The hon. Gentleman says that the Liberal Democrats are a major party in Britain, so would it make more sense if a Member from a minority party swapped with someone from the Government or the Tory Benches, rather than with the only Liberal Democrat Member proposed as a member of the Committee?
  Andrew Mackinlay: That is a good point and all the big parties should reflect on it. One of the strengths of the House of Commons is that there has always been a place for the minor voice—[Interruption.] Members may laugh, but the point is important. The office that you hold, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is charged with the protection of minorities. In a legislature of 659 Members, there is a powerful case for discriminating in favour of the smaller interest, whether geographical or political. That is one of the strengths of a democracy.
  We go around the world telling new legislatures to build in safeguards and ratchets for minor interests. We should do the same in this case. I do not want to labour the point, but there is a powerful regional case to be made for Northern Ireland representation on the Committee.
  Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument that a representative from a Northern Ireland party should be a member of the Committee. Some of those parties hold this House in high esteem and want it to be retained, but is my hon. Friend arguing that Members from parties that do not value this place and want to undermine it should also be able to serve on the Committee?
  Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased that my hon. Friend made that point. Our mandate does not come from the constitution but from the folk who sent us here, so I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams)—the Sinn Fein Member—does not contribute to our debates. The good folk of his constituency sent him here. That is their right—they gave the mandate and they can take it away. As regards my hon. Friend's intervention, there are Members with whom I fundamentally disagree but they have been sent to this place with a mandate and they have a right to be heard
  The overriding consideration is the regional dimension, so we have to recognise that we cannot have more members from the mainstream parties. It would be disingenuous of the three main political parties if we were not prepared in this case to support the nomination of the hon. Member for North Down.
  7.44 pm
  Peter Bottomley: I shall not pay a lot of tributes to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). When I saw the amendment, I determined that I should vote for him rather than the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), because, as I am a reasonably senior Member of the
  840
  House, I might have been at risk of becoming Chairman and it is not one of my ambitions to become a member of the Liaison Committee.
  The Government, or the Labour party, should have learned lessons from the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges in the last Parliament. When there was a vacancy, the Conservatives proposed that Martin Bell join the Committee. He had direct experience, was a one-term Member of Parliament and served with some distinction. It is also worth recognising that Select Committees seldom have contested votes that matter. There may be times when they want to make a point, and there may have been times in the previous Parliament when there were serious contested votes, but at present that is not likely to happen, and if it did, it is not likely to matter a great deal.
  So the best advice that I would offer the House is to accept the motion unamended, but see whether the Labour party will consider following the precedent set by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament and whether it might put right a point that has been well made, which is that it would be suitable for Northern Ireland to have a member of the Committee. Perhaps we can meet the point without doing the slightly offensive thing of challenging the Committee of Selection, which does a pretty good job honourably and pretty effectively.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: It would be a matter of challenging the Committee of Selection if the people who were challenging it were represented on it, but, given that they are not, it is legitimate to bring the matter to the Chamber for general debate.
  May I summarise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) some of the key arguments? We know from the debate that this is not about arithmetic. If it were, a Liberal member of the Committee would not be proposed, because as we know from the remarks made from the Government Front Bench, in mathematical terms the Liberal party is overrepresented on Select Committees.
  The reason the figures given by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection do not stack up with regard to minority parties was stated by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). The three major Westminster parties do not stand in Northern Ireland, so the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee by definition has to include all the representatives of Northern Ireland parties, and that skews the arithmetic for the Select Committees overall. In the rest of the Committees, the minority parties are well underrepresented, as the Liberals are over-represented.
  This should not be a matter of mathematical representation. When the late Donald Dewar and I were engaged in discussions about setting up the Committee system of the Scots Parliament, it was clear in mathematical terms that the three independent Members—the Green Member, the Scottish Socialist Member and Dennis Canavan—were not entitled to representation on the Scottish parliamentary Committees. Yet we agreed that they should have that representation, regardless of the mathematics, because we felt that any minority voice should have all the opportunities to be heard that the Parliament offered.

  841
  There was not even an argument or a debate about it. It was the right thing to do. It was not a matter of arithmetic. The right thing for this House to do is make sure that minority parties are properly represented through all the mechanisms of the House.
  The request articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside is not unreasonable. He asks for three additional Select Committee places across all the Select Committees. That would allow each minority party to have one place on a departmental Select Committee over and above the place that they must have on the territorial Committee. That is a de minimis demand. It is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable position.
  Mr. Alan Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about additional places for minority parties, but surely his argument should have been made last night when we set up the Committee with 11 members. Surely he should have moved an amendment then to add an extra person, rather than supporting the amendment tonight, which would remove all Liberal Democrat representation from the Committee.
  Mr. Salmond: My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside is perfectly capable of making our argument, but the over-representation of the hon. Gentleman's party is caused by the Liberal Democrat insistence on being represented on every Committee, regardless of whether the arithmetic justifies it. I agree that a way round the problem is to expand the size of three Select Committees. Several Select Committees already have expanded to allow the minority parties to be represented, but in all fairness, when the Liberals were charged with the responsibility of representing the minority parties, they did not fulfil it ethically. Their idea of representing the minority parties was to replace a minority party place on a departmental Select Committee with a place on the towering heights of the Catering Committee and other such Committees of the House, which are interesting and in which we enthusiastically participate, but are not quite the same as challenging Secretaries of State and Departments.
  I had the enormous pleasure of doing a television piece for an event that is going on elsewhere this evening—the Channel 4 political awards—with the very hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). She is one of the finalists for the Opposition politician of the year award. She has extensive legal experience, so it would be reasonable to accept the amendment.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) knows full well that I have the highest regard for his abilities. I have supported him for other offices in the House, but I am slightly surprised that someone of his calibre has not seen this argument coming and insisted that his party should do its bit in being fair to the minority parties.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) says that the Liberal party has approached critical mass. Things usually approach critical mass when they are about to explode. None the less, even if the Liberal party has approached critical mass, its members should remember when they were in a minority party and therefore be fair to the minorities parties, which do not have that number of hon. Members.
  842
  My final argument is one of unity. Where else on the face of this planet would an amendment be supported by the Scottish National party, by the Ulster Unionists, who are diverse in their political views, and even by the Democratic Unionists, who are extremely diverse and, even more so, by the Social Democratic and Labour party? That is unheard of. The amendment has unified the minority parties, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside represents the minorities parties. They have never been prepared to argue their case together before, but they have come together on questions of fairness, parity and having access to the channels of the House. The House would be less than gracious if, either in the vote later this evening or, alternatively, through the Minister's means, it were not prepared to concede to those perfectly reasonable demands.
  7.51 pm
  David Burnside: I wish to make a parochial comment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I am not experienced in the procedures of the House or the Select Committee system, so I do not want to walk over ground about which I feel unsure.
  Criminal justice has undergone a major review in Northern Ireland since the Belfast agreement, as has policing. There are many concerns, some of which are not shared across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland, and different points of view. I believe that Select Committee membership lasts for the lifetime of this Parliament, so it is personally appropriate that an Ulster Member should sit on the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down is experienced in legal matters, so it would be very appropriate in this case that she serve on that Committee at a time when many more changes have been proposed to criminal justice in Northern Ireland and there is the debate about our constitutional position in relation to the Belfast agreement and the Lord Chancellor's reserved powers in our legal system.
  Mr. David Heath: I simply want to place on record the fact that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is playing a very important role on the Standing Committee that is considering the Criminal Justice Bill, as I know from my experience of serving on that Committee. She is a great help to the whole Committee. I would strongly support her membership of the Select Committee if that were not in replacement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who would be an even better advertisement for that Committee.
  David Burnside: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that praise for my hon. Friend the Member for North Down.
  The possible transfer—I think it highly unlikely—of justice and policing to a re-established Stormont Executive will also occupy the House during the lifetime of this Parliament. That strengthens my opinion that this is an appropriate one-off appointment for my hon. Friend the Member for North Down. That is all I wish to say on this subject.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: May I apologise in advance to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House? I am wearing a loud tie today in celebration of cancer research week, as that is what Members have been requested to do. When I rose to speak in Westminster Hall this afternoon while wearing the very same tie, the sound system promptly collapsed and the sitting had to be suspended for quite a long period. I hope that my tie will not have the same effect this evening.
  The point made by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) is appropriate and I hope that, in the long term, the Government will take it into account. I want to make it absolutely clear that my colleagues and I are sympathetic to the point of view of the minority parties because we have been in their position. For many years, we had precisely the same problem that they have now encountered. I very much regret that they decided that we were not their best advocates: they now look to the Government, as has been made clear this evening, to act on their behalf. If the case is made for an additional representative from the minority parties for this or any other Committee, they should look to the Government to find a place for them, and to substitute one of their Members for a Labour Member. That is not a matter for us.
  What I want to make clear is that there was no discrimination—to take up the word used by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—in favour of minority parties in the past. When I was my party's Chief Whip and previously, there was no such discrimination. We did not look for it—we would have loved it if it had happened—but we understood the arithmetic of this place. As the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), has made only too clear, the arithmetical equation is difficult. Often, for a comparatively small Committee, it is a very difficult task to try to find representation from all parts of the House, geographically as well as by party.
  It is disappointing—I put it no stronger than that—that the minority parties have chosen this occasion to seek to remove a Member from a Committee and to put on one of their own. There have been plenty of opportunities previously that would have been more appropriate and that covered all parts of the United Kingdom represented by those parties. I accept their point, however, that it has been difficult in the past for them to obtain seats on several Committees.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) referred to two examples. I know that positions have recently been sought on various Bill Committees: for example, on that considering the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. A place was requested and a Member was nominated to take up a position on that Committee, but he did not attend.
  Mr. Llwyd: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his point further, a Government Whip put forward my name without my knowledge or permission, and I did not take part in that Committee. I removed my name via the Chief Whip's Office, so there is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. Tyler: I find that very interesting, as it underlines my point. If the negotiations between the minority
  844
  parties and the Government Whips are not working, that is not a matter for my party, and we should not be penalised. On that occasion, we were denied a second place on the Committee because those parties did not take it up, which was very regrettable. They also insisted on a place on the Local Government Bill Committee, but they could not find a Member to take it up, although that Committee involved important issues affecting Wales. It is therefore regrettable that they should attempt to take out their grievance on my colleagues.
  Pete Wishart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not insinuating that we are not doing the work on Standing Committees. That is not the case. We are prepared to do that work—we have served on several Standing Committees previously. We have no problem with places offered on Standing Committees. The issue is Select Committees.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are again starting to stray way beyond the terms of reference for this evening.
  Mr. Tyler: My point is that the minority parties cannot cherry pick. If they wish to take a full part in the business of the House they cannot simply opt for the most attractive Committees. If they were so keen to increase their representation, they should have sought to amend the size of this Committee. They had an opportunity to do that last night, when there was an open-ended debate. I regret very much that the minority parties decided to use this opportunity, and that they attempted to remove my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed from the Committee. With 53 Members of the House, we are clearly entitled to one Member on this Committee. If the minority parties wanted an additional Member, they should have negotiated directly with the Government or they should have sought to increase the size of the Committee. My colleagues and I will support the motion tonight.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Greg Knight: I pay tribute to the work of all members of the Committee of Selection. It is testimony to how well they do their task that we rarely debate their recommendations.
  There are two issues to consider. The first is the principle of whether the Select Committee should be established. We decided that yesterday. The second is the narrow issue of its membership. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) is right: it would usually seem offensive to challenge the recommendations of the Committee of Selection, but in this case something has gone wrong and the House is being asked to make an important decision on something that has caused controversy. We are entitled to ask why the minority parties are unhappy with the recommendation and have felt moved to table an amendment.
  When my party was in government, the member of the Committee of Selection who represented the largest minority party spoke up for the interests not only of his or her party but for the interests of all other minority parties. For many years, that job was discharged very well indeed by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). During my time in

  845
  the Government Whips Office, the only dispute that I recall was over the appointment of a Conservative member to a Committee and the omission of another Conservative member. I cannot recollect any time when the minority parties had a gripe, and the system worked well.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) took on the task in 2001. He has subsequently relinquished it, and it does not matter whether that was at his own request or because others were dissatisfied with his decision making. The transfer of responsibility, supposedly to a Labour member of the Committee of Selection, has not worked satisfactorily. The Committee is composed of nine members—six Labour members, two Conservatives and one Liberal Democrat. As the Government are taking on the role of looking after the minority parties, there is perhaps a case for giving the minority parties a place on the Committee of Selection so that they can have a voice. It has never been the case that the members of the Committee have represented all shades of opinion, but they have always tried to reflect accurately the views in the House. That is clearly not happening.
  The impression that has been given, certainly in recent months, is that the Liberal Democrats are getting more than their fair share of plum places, such as the nomination to the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Dept. We all know about the usual channels agreement, and I understand that this Committee chairmanship will go to the Liberals if the motion is approved unamended. They have two places on the important Modernisation Committee. Minority party Members do not have a voice and, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said, they do not have a place on the Liaison Committee either. One cannot justify that merely by reference to the arithmetics. The operation of the House and its Committees has always been based on an element of compromise. There is a perceived injustice here, and I hope that the Government and the Committee of Selection will be prepared to reflect on that well beyond the conclusion of this debate.
  I have some sympathy with the arguments of the hon. Member for North Tayside. We should not view the selection as a beauty contest between Berwick-upon-Tweed and North Down. Both the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) have qualities that would be of use and benefit on the Select Committee, but there is a feeling that we have been here before and that the voice of the minority parties has not been heard when matters of selection have been discussed. For that reason, although the amendment is not ideal, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it in the Division Lobby.
  8.4 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I begin by associating myself fully with the remarks of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who paid tribute to the work of the Committee of Selection. As he pointed out, it does its difficult job so well that we rarely have to have debates such as this.
  846
  The Chairman of the Committee has assured the House that it seeks to ensure party balance and fair representation for the smaller parties, but we are being asked to debate, and possibly vote on, an amendment to the Committee's motion tabled by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) that would replace the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), from the Liberal Democrats, with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), from the Ulster Unionist party. There is not a single Member of the House who does not think that the hon. Lady would make an admirable member of the Committee. Indeed, I think I speak for all hon. Members when I say that, in her short time here, she has won our affection and admiration. However, I urge the House to follow the judgment of the Committee of Selection and to reject the amendment, and I shall explain why.
  First, let me address the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about the Government's role in defending the interests of minority parties. I do not want to intrude too deeply on private grief between the Liberal Democrats and the other smaller parties, but we have been here before. Last time we debated these matters, the point was made clearly by the smaller parties—here I do not include the Liberal Democrats—that since the Government had taken on responsibility for their interests, the arrangement had been working much better. I see that the hon. Member for North Tayside is nodding in agreement. That slightly contradicts the point made by the official Opposition spokesman that the Government are not doing the job properly or, at least, they are doing it no better than the Liberal Democrats. I shall go on to address that case in a moment.
  The Government are aware that the smaller parties are concerned about their representation, and no one has done more to try to press their case than my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who this evening is at the same event as the hon. Member for North Down, and, I hope, also receiving an award.
  Mr. Salmond: I had something to say about the right hon. Gentleman on the same programme, which no doubt is being shown as we speak.
  The Minister says that things have improved, and that has been conceded by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). However, there is an exception in the case of Select Committees and, in particular, the Liaison Committee, where there has been no progress or improvement. If there can he improvement in one direction, cannot the Minister find it in his heart to improve the situation with Select Committees as well?
  Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I am about to say.
  As I was saying, the Leader of the House has acknowledged that the smaller parties, particularly the Scottish National party, have a grievance in this matter. We have said that the Committee of Selection is aware of those concerns and that it should make every attempt to be as fair as possible when proposing Committee membership.
  Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who asked in vain for the figures on Committee membership. I have given

  847
  these to the House before, but it may be helpful to the House if I repeat them. If there were strict proportionality in dishing out membership, the Labour party would have 292 places; we currently have 295. The Conservatives would have 116, and they have 115. The Liberal Democrats would have 38, and they have 40, while the Ulster Unionist party would have four, but it has five, so both those parties are slightly overrepresented. The Democratic Unionist party would have four seats, but currently it has only three. The Scottish Nationalist party would have four, but it has two. The Welsh nationalists would have three, and they have three. The SDLP would have two, and it has two.
  My hon. Friend said that we should fight hardest for the smallest, and that principle is right. According to strict proportionality, the independents would have no seats, but they have one, so they are the most overrepresented of all the groups in the House.
  Peter Bottomley: If the number of places is more than half the number of MPs, how can the Minister say that an independent Member does not justify a place? Surely one rounds up from half a place.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Having had this conversation with officials earlier, I think I am right in saying that, given strict proportionality, the independents would have half the number of places. Obviously, that is impossible, but my point is that, statistically, the independents are generously represented in having one post.
  In an intervention, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) objected to the fact that, in their attempt to improve the representation of smaller parties, the Government bounced him into membership of the Standing Committee on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. I should say that I am in possession of an e-mail from the hon. Member for North Tayside, who is responsible for looking out for the interests of the smaller parties. According to that email, he is requesting a place for that very Member on that Committee, so it is clear that there has been a breakdown of communication between them. When the Government try to do the right thing, we get it thrown in our faces.
  Mr. Salmond: I hear that there are currently breakdowns in communication even within the Cabinet, never mind between anyone else. Let us get back to the key point of the arithmetic and the figures that the Minister read out. I want to introduce him to a little in the way of percentages. As I understand it, he said that the Liberal Democrats are over-represented by two—they have 40 places, instead of 38—and that the Scottish National party is under-represented by two: it has two places, instead of four. Does that not constitute a 50 per cent. Under representation for the SNP and a marginal over-representation for the Liberal Democrats? Let us accept for the sake of argument that the Minister's figures are correct. Does he not understand that, where a small number of places are involved, it is rather important to make sure that the party concerned has at least its full quota, if not considerably more?
  Mr. Bradshaw: I have been totally up-front about this. I have made it absolutely clear that the Liberal Democrats are currently over-represented and that the
  848
  nationalists are under-represented. In fact, the SNP is the most under-represented of all the small parties, but I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) that this is the very worst example of the case to be made for extra SNP representation—I understand that that is not what the amendment is asking for—because the nature of the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department means that, to a large extent, it does not deal with Scotland. Time and again, we have accepted the point that the SNP is under-represented.
  Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that point, but does he also accept that the only reason the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party are close to, or above, their accorded arithmetical representation is that they have to fill places on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee?
  Mr. Bradshaw: The DUP is actually underrepresented, even given that fact. Regardless of how one does the arithmetic, I was simply trying to give the House the figures on proportionality, and on representation on Committees.
  Mr. Greg Knight: May I take the Minister back to the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who said that there is a case for the overrepresentation of minorities on Select Committees? Does the Minister not accept that a Government with a majority such as his ought to be a little more generous?
  Mr. Bradshaw: As I have already pointed out, we are being much more generous than the right hon. Gentleman's party ever was when it was in power. If he will allow me, I was about to say how we hope to be even more generous in the future.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside raised the specific issue of membership of Joint Committees. As he is involved in these discussions, he will be aware that the balances of such Committees are particularly complex, and that they must be approached case by case. However, discussions are under way through the usual channels, and although they are not complete, and although I would not want to pre-judge their outcome, the Government are confident that, in the right context, we can come up with a formula that can provide better representation for the smaller parties, while preserving those necessary balances. Such Committees might indeed need to be larger than normal, in order to achieve that.
  I hope that the hon. Member for North Tayside will therefore feel reassured that the Government are trying to address the grievances that he raised. With that, I leave it to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, if he wishes to, to reply to the debate.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. McWilliam: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply.
  I have little to say save that it is a problem in a House of this size to make sure that everybody is represented, when some parties have four, three or two members here. As I said, we take it to three decimal places, and try

  849
  our best to make sure that the ratios are accurate. We do our best to make sure that when representations are made to us, as they have been, we listen.
  Regrettably, on occasion, we have to table a motion, but unless the House wants to overturn the system that it has used for a long time and introduce a system that may work in this Parliament but perhaps not in future, I suggest that it vote for tonight's motion. If it does not do so, what has been suggested could turn and bite if parliamentary proportions change dramatically.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 233.

  Division No, 69]

  [8:16 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Barker, Gregory

  Moss, Malcolm

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Ottaway, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Paterson, Owen

  Brady, Graham

  Pickles, Eric

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Burns, Simon

  Burnside, David

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Burt, Alistair

  Randall, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Flight, Howard

  Ruffley, David

  Flook, Adrian

  Salmond, Alex

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Goodman, Paul

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Syms, Robert

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Tredinnick, David

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Watkinson, Angela

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Weir, Michael

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Whittingdale, John

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tellers for the Ayes: Pete Wishart and Hywel Williams

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Borrow, David

  Allan, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Breed, Colin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Austin, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Bailey, Adrian

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Burnett, John

  Battle, John

  Burnham, Andy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burstow, Paul

  Beard, Nigel

  Cairns, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Berry, Roger

  Casale, Roger

  850

  Caton, Martin

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Jamieson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Chidgey, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Clelland, David

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Kidney, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Cohen, Harry

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Corston, Jean

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Cousins, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Lamb, Norman

  Cruddas, Jon

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Cummings, John

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Lepper, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Linton, Martin

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Love, Andrew

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Drown, Ms Julia

  MacDonald, Calum

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  MacDougall, John

  Edwards, Huw

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  McKechin, Ann

  Farrelly, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Flint, Caroline

  McWalter, Tony

  Follett, Barbara

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Martlew, Eric

  Galloway, George

  Merron, Gillian

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Gardiner, Barry

  Moffatt, Laura

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Mole, Chris

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Moran, Margaret

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Morgan, Julie

  Grogan, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mudie, George

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hanson, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Olner, Bill

  Organ, Diana

  Heath, David

  Owen, Albert

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Hendrick, Mark

  Pearson, Ian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Picking, Anne

  Heppell, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Heyes, David

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Holmes, Paul

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purnell, James

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Illsley, Eric

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  851

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Ruane, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Trickett, Jon

  Sanders, Adrian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sawford, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Ward, Claire

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  White, Brian

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Woodward, Shaun

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

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Spellar, rh John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stevenson, George

  Young, rh Sir George

  Stringer, Graham

  Stunell, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes: Jim Fitzpatrick and Mr. Fraser Kemp

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Mr A. J. Beith, Peter Bottomley, Mr James Clappison, Ross Cranston, Mrs Ann Cryer, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mr Hilton Dawson, Mr Mark Field, Mr Clive Soley, Keith Vaz and Dr Alan Whitehead be members of the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Compulsory Retirement Ages (MoD)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  8.28 pm
  Mr. David Laws: I am pleased to be able to raise this extremely important issue on behalf of a number of my constituents, although it will also be very relevant to many other people across the country.
  The compulsory retirement age for people working for the Ministry of Defence was raised with me at my advice centres in Yeovil by a number of constituents who were employees working in the Ministry of Defence in the constituency area. I was surprised when they first told me that they would be forced to retire at the age of 60 because that appeared to go against the thrust of Government policy, including the Department for Work and Pensions Green Paper that was published recently. I told the individuals who came to see me that I would check matters with Departments but that I would be surprised if the Ministry of Defence was not about to change its view.
  The Government's position is that we should no longer have a compulsory retirement age of 60 and that we should consider not only increasing it to 65 but giving people the option to work beyond that age if they wish. I refer hon. Members and the Minister to a statement that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office made to the House of Lords on 22 November 2000. He clearly said that:
  "it is Government policy that there should be no unfair discrimination in the Civil Service on the basis of age."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 807.]
  The Treasury confirmed that policy as recently as this month in response to a question from me about compulsory retirement ages. In a written answer, it stated:
  "Government policy as set out in last year's pensions green paper is to encourage people to work up to the age of 65 and beyond if they wish. Public service employers are reviewing their retirement policies to take account of that."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 429W.]
  The Department for Work and Pensions underlined the position of the Treasury and the Cabinet Office in a Green Paper in December and in a parliamentary written answer to me on 15 January, in which the Minister for Pensions clearly stated:
  "The Government will continue to encourage all employers, including those in the public sector, to review their retirement policies to allow people who want to work beyond normal retirement age, and should they wish, beyond state pension age, to do so."—[Official Report, 16 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 667W.]
  Government policy in all the Departments that have primary responsibility for pensions—the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry, which is conducting a review of the matter—is reinforced by the trend in European Union legislation. The Under-Secretary knows that the Green Paper that the Department for Work and Pensions presented last month confirms that the Government are developing proposals to outlaw age discrimination in employment and vocational training by December 2006.

  853
  The Green Paper states:
  "This accords with the EU Employment Directive on equal treatment. It will bring sharper focus on changing culture and attitudes regarding older workers, and offers us a significant opportunity to address wasteful discrimination that is damaging to the well-being of so many people in their fifties and sixties."
  The Government confirm that, under the directive, which is due to be introduced at the end of 2006,
  "compulsory retirement ages are likely to be unlawful unless employers can show that they are objectively justified."
  In the light of clear Government policy, it is surprising and disappointing that the Ministry of Defence has declined to make any movement in its direction. I hope that I do not anticipate too much of the Under-Secretary's contribution from his letters to me on the subject in the past month or so. I should like to believe that he has had an opportunity to reflect on the powerful arguments that my constituents presented. Perhaps he will tell us that the Ministry of Defence will inch towards general Government policy.
  I was disappointed to receive a response from the Under-Secretary in his letter of 23 January 2003. It suggested that, following a recent Ministry of Defence review,
  "we had decided for the moment not to change our retirement policy … we believe we must strike the right balance between the business needs of the Department, the interests of our workforce as a whole, and the aspirations of those who wish to work for longer."
  It is difficult to ascertain how that balance has been struck when the Ministry has so clearly rejected the trend of Government policy and EU law and declined to give people the opportunity to work beyond the age of 60 if they wish.
  That is particularly surprising in the light of the fact that the Minister himself recognises in his correspondence with me that there is an EU review in this area and that under that review the Department will be forced to look again at this issue and probably to change its practices.
  When we consider the reasons for the Ministry of Defence rejecting the Government's position in this area we find some even more surprising arguments being deployed by the Minister. I refer him to his letter of 30 October 2002 to me on this point, in which he appears to set out the policy of his Department and explain why it is different from that of the Government as a whole.
  The Minister refers to four reasons for rejecting the movement of the Government as a whole towards giving people more choice in this area. The first is that there is, according to the Minister,
  "no compelling business reason for us to retain people who currently have a normal retirement age of 60 beyond that age. Recruitment and retention in these grades is not generally a problem".
  There are very many reasons to reject that line of argument. They are clearly set out in the pensions Green Paper. When I put that specific argument yesterday by telephone to one of my constituents and quoted the Minister's statement that
  "Recruitment and retention in these grades is not generally a problem"
  854
  my constituent told me that he did not find that particularly convincing, since he is being paid a recruitment and retention premium precisely because he is in a job where the Ministry of Defence needs his skills. Yet there is no presumption that he will be allowed to work on when later this year he reaches the age of 60. That seems completely irrational and unfair to him.
  The second reason the Minister gives for sticking with the Ministry of Defence existing policy in this area is that, according to him,
  "our review has highlighted the age structure imbalance in the MOD's civilian workforce which has arisen over the past 10 years".
  The Minister goes on to explain that his Department, in particular areas, has a large number of more elderly people in employment and wishes to see that change.
  That is a very strange argument. Many other Departments, many businesses, will have experienced the same sort of changes as the Ministry of Defence has experienced over the last 10 years, and their age structure will have moved in that way as well. The Ministry of Defence age structure will also in part have moved in that direction because the proportion of those in employment is becoming greater for the elderly age groups right across the economy.
  Therefore, the reasons that the Minister gives seem particularly weak, and should seem particularly weak in this place, where the age structure would look rather similar—indeed, perhaps rather more serious from the Minister's perspective. It might be unsubtle of me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reflect upon the age and experience of those who preside over our proceedings, but if we applied the same sort of logic as the Minister is applying in this case we would lose many talented and experienced people who preside over, and are involved in, our activities.
  The third reason the Minister gives for sticking with the existing Government policy in this area was linked to the second. It is that, according to the Minister,
  "a higher retirement age would inevitably slow down the rate of upward movement through the organisation."
  In other words, it would not create enough ability to bring on the good young people coming through.
  The Minister himself at some stage in the not too distant future, perhaps shortly after the end of this Parliament, will begin to approach the age that we are discussing. I wonder whether it is in his mind that he should at that stage make way for some of the young people who were elected as Labour Members in 2001 and 1997. I wonder whether he is putting that proposal to the Prime Minister. He is nodding his head. I am willing to let the Prime Minister—the right hon. Gentleman is always faced with this sort of difficulty at reshuffle time—that the Minister, in spite of all his skills, is willing to put his post at the Prime Minister's disposal in order to make way for the able young people in the Labour party.
  I do not find that particularly convincing. The Minister has a great deal of skill and experience; he knows his job well. We should retain such skills and abilities, and not assume that at the age of 60 people should be cast adrift in the way that the Minister appears to imply in his correspondence with me.
  The final argument of the Ministry of Defence for sticking with the existing Government policy is that it may have to make further manpower reductions, that it

  855
  does not want to have to make additional people unemployed, and that therefore it wants to focus its efforts to reduce the workforce on those aged 60.
  To me, it is clearly ageist and clearly prejudiced to judge whether people should work in an organisation not according to their ability, competence and the skills that they have accumulated, but simply on the fact that they have reached some age that has been chosen arbitrarily. That is precisely the reasoning that the Department for Work and Pensions is seeking to challenge in its Green Paper.
  I refer the Minister to chapter 6 of that document, which is entitled "Extending opportunities for older workers". He will see that the Department cites, with some admiration, employers who continue to employ many people who have reached or gone beyond 60. Employers such as the packaging company in south Wales referred to on page 97 point out:
  "Our continuing profitability and success is a testament to the commitment, loyalty and productivity of our older workers."
  The Minister is missing something there.
  I am also disappointed because one of the final paragraphs of the Minister's letter acknowledges:
  "There are good arguments on the other side too".
  However, he merely mentions
  "promoting age diversity and lessening hardship for those who have to leave".
  He does not mention the importance of experience, talents, fairness and the fact that those individuals have accumulated experience, and therefore that training and other costs would necessarily be lower.
  The Minister is missing a number of key points here, and the penultimate paragraph of his letter to me of October 2002 says:
  "I cannot agree that our policy discriminates unfairly on the grounds of age."
  That is very odd indeed, and it puts him in direct conflict with Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions.
  Today, I received a letter from the deputy general secretary of the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance on enforced retirement at 60 in the MOD. Mr. John Amos states:
  "Our understanding is that the MOD is now the only one of the major Departments, which has refused to move from its policy of requiring all people to retire at age 60.
  Some of our members have been victims of that policy, having been required to retire at age 60 irrespective of the fact that they were still doing a good job and irrespective of their financial commitments. Such a waste of commitment and expertise."
  He points out:
  "The MOD is going to have to fall in line eventually. It should have the good grace to do so now."
  Discrimination on the basis of age should be no more acceptable in our society than any other discrimination. The reasons that the MOD is giving for sticking with its existing policy are weak and unconvincing. It must get its act together in this area. Its policy is out of step with that of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions, stated Government policy and the emerging EU legislation. It is wasteful, unfair, out of date and inefficient.
  856
  In a few years, the Minister will have to come back to the House, or one of his successors will have to do so, to tell us—
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: One of his younger successors.
  Mr. Laws: As my hon. Friend says, perhaps one of the Minister's younger successors, or the Minister himself, will have to come back to the House to tell us that he is changing his Department's policy and give us the reasons for that. However, that will be too late for many people who are facing compulsory retirement at 60 now. The Government should get a grip on the issue now and the MOD should change its policy now.
  8.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing the debate and pay tribute to his efforts in pursuing the cause that he is further pursuing tonight. He has made important points on an issue that I know is of real concern to his constituents who want to continue their employment in the Ministry of Defence beyond the normal retirement age. I am very sympathetic to the difficulties that retirement at 60 will present for some of them, so I want to explain why we have concluded that it is not, at present, in the wider interests of the Department as a whole to make a change in retirement ages.
  The Ministry of Defence employs some 89,000 civil servants who work alongside military colleagues at all levels, from the London headquarters to operations overseas, to achieve defence objectives. We need a wide range of skills. Civilians in the Department include engineers, scientists, project managers, logisticians, commercial officers, claims and legal experts, accountants, and IT specialists—I need not go on.
  We need people to do strategic planning and to develop policy on the size, shape and deployment of the armed forces. We need people to work on support operations, international defence policy and defence relations, defence diplomacy, the modernisation of NATO and enhancing European defence capabilities. We need people to do science and technology research and management, to acquire and support equipment for the armed forces, and to do logistics support for the armed forces. Other functions include finance, personnel and contract management. We are a large, complex and diverse organisation.
  Ensuring that we have the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time requires a personnel strategy that recruits suitable people, trains and develops them, deploys them, rewards and recognises them and manages their performance effectively. Retirement also forms a key part of that strategy, as it has a direct influence on recruitment, advancement and the availability of core skills, and on our ability to match our work force to the job that they need to do.
  Since 1992, more than half the civilian employees in the Ministry of Defence, mainly industrial skilled and semi-skilled grades and junior support staff, have had the option to retire at any time between 60 and 65. The remainder, mainly those in professional and managerial

  857
  grades, have a normal retirement age of 60, although extensions beyond that age are allowed exceptionally where there is a business need to keep someone on for a short while. There are good reasons for this difference, based on the Department's needs for different skills, and the recruitment and retention position in our many different grades and occupational groups. That does not lend itself to a one-size-fits-all solution.
  Mr. Laws: Is the Minister sympathetic to looking at the position of people who receive a recruitment and retention allowance or premium? They are clearly valued and needed by the Ministry of Defence. Could not they be given particular attention, given that they do not meet the criteria that the Minister listed?
  Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I shall describe in a moment how we sometimes allow people to stay on, and hope to show how the circumstances that he set out are covered by present policy.
  In 1999, the Government published their code of practice on age diversity in employment, and Departments were asked to review their employment practices with a view to implementing any changes by 2005. At the Ministry of Defence, our review has been of the case for giving those who have to retire at 60 the option to work to age 65.
  The review was very thorough. We examined the business case, the impact on promotion and careers, on our diversity policies and objectives and on pay bill and redundancy costs. Our conclusion was that we should not make a change at the moment. I should like to explain our reasons for this.
  Our starting point was the business needs of the Department. We concluded that there was no compelling business reason to raise the age of retirement to meet the Department's needs to keep people in employment whose skills we would otherwise lose. We have pockets of recruitment and retention difficulty, and some isolated skills shortages, but they are not necessarily of the kind that can be remedied by retaining staff beyond the age of 60.
  Of course, like other employers, we face a challenging recruiting climate, with a reduced number of younger people becoming available for employment. The 16 to 25 age group will decline from its 1991 level of 16 per cent. of the population to 12 per cent. in 2011. However, keeping staff at the end of their careers is not a substitute for recruiting.
  Retraining forms an important part of our strategy. It is vital that we are ready to equip employees of all ages to cope with new demands and challenges, but we need also to attract people who can bring with them new skills. Our retirement policy therefore needs to sustain a throughput of people to create the headroom for recruitment.
  It is particularly important that the Ministry of Defence competes successfully in its traditional recruiting area to address a worrying upward drift in the age of our work force. The Ministry of Defence has a markedly older work force than the rest of the civil service: our age distribution peaks in the age category 50
  858
  to 54, whereas the rest of the civil service has a peak at 35 to 39. Nearly half of the Ministry of Defence's staff are over 45, with only 22 per cent. under 35. That compares with 30 per cent. under 35 in the public sector and 41 per cent. in the UK labour force as a whole. Only 10 per cent. of our junior managers are under 30. The peak age of staff in our key middle management grade has risen from the mid-40s to the mid-50s in the past decade.
  That age profile is a result of the reduction of about 40 per cent. in the size of the civilian work force since the early 1990s as a consequence of the changed international security situation. The achievement of that reduction by natural wastage and voluntary redundancy has meant that we have undertaken comparatively little recruitment over many years.
  I should make it clear that nothing that I have said should be taken as implying that, as a Department, we do not value the contribution that older people make to the defence effort. In many areas we could not do without their experience and commitment and, as I have explained, a majority of our staff can already work to the age of 65. However, the health of any organisation depends upon maintaining a balanced age structure, with a regular intake of new blood and good opportunities for people to progress.
  Mr. Laws: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. Can he confirm that by 2006 his Department will have to scrap compulsory retirement at the age of 60 because of the European Union equal treatment directive?
  Dr. Moonie: I shall come to that point later in my speech.
  Raising the retirement age would simply exacerbate our current imbalance. That brings me to a further reason for making no change at present. If we were to keep people in employment for longer, there would inevitably be an adverse effect on the opportunities for advancement and promotion of people in lower age groups. Our review included some detailed statistical analysis and modelling, which highlighted in particular a worsening of promotion prospects at our key middle management level. That would be damaging to one of our key personnel priorities: refreshing our work force by bringing in and bringing on talented people at all levels. It is important that decisions that improve the lot of one section of the work force are not at the expense of others: we need to have regard for the interests of everybody, whatever their age.
  Our final consideration was the potential additional cost to the defence budget. At a time when the MOD faces continuing manpower reductions as we find new and more efficient ways of delivering defence capability, it would make little sense to allow some people to go on working beyond the age of 60 while paying redundancy costs to encourage others to leave below that age. That would not be a sensible use of taxpayer's money.
  I recognise, of course, that a number of MOD employees have compelling reasons for wanting to work beyond the age of 60, and would undoubtedly be capable of continuing to deliver valuable service but at present cannot. I also understand that, for some, retirement at 60 can bring a degree of hardship, and I

  859
  naturally regret that anybody should find themselves in that situation. I have to say, however, that the retirement age of 60 has been in place in their terms and conditions of service since the early 1990s, and there has thus been time for them to make supplementary pension provision.
  Those people who are aware that they will have fewer than 40 years' full service by the time that they retire have the option to buy added years of reckonable service, which increases the individual's pension and lump sum from the permanent civil service pension scheme on retirement, and the benefits payable to their family after death. Should an individual decide to buy additional years, they will receive tax relief on the payments.
  In an ideal world I would, of course, want to extend the option to work beyond the age of 60 to anybody who wanted to do so. That has not been an easy issue for the MOD, and we have had to make very fine judgments in the light of a wide range of factors, many pulling in opposite directions. It is a matter of balancing the needs of the Department, our work force as a whole, and those who aspire to work for longer. We have concluded that for the moment our overriding priority must be to redress our age imbalance and to improve the upward flow of talented people. Moreover, maintaining a steady flow of recruitment and upward movement are the key levers in our strategy to widen diversity in the MOD by increasing the numbers from under-represented groups who join and reach more senior levels in our organisation.
  However, the legislation that the Government have undertaken to have in place by 2006 to implement the EU equal employment directive on age discrimination will have wide-ranging implications for age retirement. It will extend the facility to all civil servants to work up to the age of 65. In the particular circumstances of the
  860
  MOD, it makes real sense for us to plan for our changes to happen in parallel with the implementation of that legislation rather than to rush into a change now that would not serve the wider interests of the Department.
  That will also enable us to take into account the package of reforms set out in the recent Green Paper on pensions to encourage proper pension provision by individuals and employers and to encourage greater participation of older workers in the labour market. That included a proposal to raise the pension age in the civil service from 60 to 65, and we shall therefore at the same time be able to bring pension age and retirement age into line.
  In my view, the key to all this is to encourage flexible retirement alongside longer working lifetimes. We must in future be able to provide options for people to retire at a time that meets their particular circumstances, and to step down or go part-time as they approach retirement. My Department will look at that as part of its further review, with a view to introducing flexible arrangements that meet the needs both of our business and of the people who work in it.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see from what I have laid out tonight that this is a complex decision that the Ministry of Defence has had to take and not one without some regret on my part. Having looked carefully at the issue within the Department, I feel that at present we have no option. When the Government introduce legislative changes that mean that we must comply with the new directive, of course we shall do so, but we need the additional few years that that delay gives us to correct the age imbalance in our work force and to provide proper opportunities for all of them for the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Film Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on such an important subject. I am interested in films, but I do not claim to have any expertise in such matters. I know the films that I like, but I shall not engage in a subjective examination of various films or the artistic merits of the British film industry compared with others. When we debate the film industry we usually discuss the artistic merits of respective talents in the industry, rather than concentrate on the character of the industry, which I want to do today.
I come to the debate not so much as someone who is interested in films, but as someone who is interested in the industry and how public policy supports it. I am a member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee and the film industry is not part of our remit. However, we have been examining biotechnology and the way in which British industry is changing and adapting. This country trades not on the basis of historical patterns of industrial activity, but on new patterns that are based on comparative advantages, especially creative and innovative talents. It is desirable to study the film industry in that context.
The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is now discussing the film industry, which it has not done for some considerable time. A few weeks ago, Sir Alan Parker set out the Film Council's changed strategy, which is why it is appropriate to focus now on how the film industry is supported. When talking about the film industry, there is a temptation to refer to current events. For example, we could wax lyrical about the British Academy of Film and Television Arts nominations, the extent to which "The Hours" did well at the Golden Globe awards or the prospects for British films or talents to do well at the Oscars.
I turn now to the creative business supplement to the Financial Times in which Alistair Owen quoted Bruce Robinson, the writer-director of "Withnail and I", who helpfully set matters in context when he said:
"The British film industry is like the British weather… You get one hot day and papers say, 'Phew! What a scorcher! Hottest day on record!' Then next day it's raining again."
That must be what if feels like to the film industry. Only a few weeks ago there was doom and gloom and talk of how difficult it was for the film industry, after which there were newspaper reports saying what a good year 2002 was and what a big increase there had been in the number of films doing well at the box office as well as in attendances at cinemas. There was also talk of new talents in production and so on. However, they are not necessarily long-term issues, and public policy has to avoid being subject to short-term enthusiasms, however
194WH
great they may be. We must set up a framework within which the film industry in Britain can succeed. I do not want to engage in a romantic revisiting of Ealing Studios—however desirable it may be for Ealing Studios to be reborn—but to think about the structure of the industry and how public policy should relate to it.
Sir Alan Parker's speech on behalf of the Film Council last November was a substantial and positive step forward. He was arguing that the renewed strategy for the film industry should be built around three objectives: the first was that the industry should be distribution-led, rather than production-driven; secondly, that support for the industry should be orientated towards skills; and thirdly. that we should have the right infrastructure, particularly for studios and technical facilities. I do not disagree with those objectives. He made a powerful and persuasive point when he said:
"Now is the time to recognise that our industry's obsession with public funding for production is taking us nowhere."
Sir Alan Parker was criticising, and rightly so, what had previously been a tendency, particularly of the Arts Council—prior to the establishment of the Film Council—to put money into films, not least through the premier fund, on the basis of subjective judgments about their merits rather than with any market-led anticipation that they would be successful films that would gain release and reach a substantial audience. We have to think again about the way in which we structure public policy; it should not be designed around a concept of what is a British film. The Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee is asking, "Is there a British film industry?" The proper question to ask is to what extent there is a film industry in Britain and how we can help it to grow.
I am not being pedantic, but if we are not careful we will once again be trying to define the nature of a British film, as distinct from anything else. We should not do that. The recent film "Cold Mountain" is a good example of my argument. It is an American-funded film; it had a British cast and crew of 150, who conducted their work in Romania. Is that a British film or is it not? To me, in public policy terms, that is not the main question; the question is to what extent there is British content. When Nissan came to the United Kingdom, we did not say that the cars must be British; the market was concerned not with whether they were British, but with their quality. We were more bothered at the time with their British content than we would be now. It was content that mattered.
A year or so ago, the first Harry Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", was a tremendous showcase for British talent, but it was an American film. We need to be concerned not with matters as set out by the Select Committee, but about stimulating British content. I do not want the British film industry to be put into a secret garden, where others do not enter and where we engage in positive artistic activity for our own benefit but find that the rest of the world simply ignores us and moves on. The British film industry will not profit by such action.
We must distinguish between public policy purposes. There is a risk that because we are dealing with something that has substantial artistic content, we treat that artistic content as if it were indistinguishable from

195WH
our approach to industrial policy, but we can clearly separate the two. The separation partly involves public funding streams. For example, the Film Council has access to funding streams intended to support the artistic elements of the industry, such as the reconfiguration of the national film and television school, and the first light scheme which offers initial funding for first-time directors. Those are important and desirable developments.
I hope we will soon hear more from the Film Council about the proposals that were the subject of consultation last year. The proposals related to support for British cinema education for the specialised distribution of British films with an artistic and creative character, as well as support for those in exhibition. The number of screens in the United Kingdom has increased by approximately 50 per cent. in the past five or six years. Cinema attendance has also increased by more than 50 per cent. There are a substantial number of art-house theatres, and with the opportunities offered by multiplexes there can be a significant place for films with an art-house character. That is important for the development of United Kingdom creative activity.
The Film Council is right to contemplate using part of the capital fund to try to secure the physical presence—through the purchase or lease of screens—to establish places where art-house pictures can be seen. Some of the print and advertising that supports the distribution and awareness of those films is valuable. All of that is part of a context of support for the industry as an artistic activity. It would be no different if we sought to support music in its creative activity and the contribution that the music industry can make. They are simply two different types of artistic activity.
We must consider the nature of the industry as a whole, as Sir Alan Parker is doing. What is the role of the public sector in the industry? It is not to try to second-guess the market. Over recent years, we have seen comprehensive efforts put into trying to guess what type of films people want to see and to get the British film industry into the marketplace through subsidisation. Subsidy has not worked any more effectively in this case than it has for any other industry. We need something different, something market-led, something that recognises that the role of the public sector is to try to deal with what would otherwise be market failures.
Public policy should respond to competitive pressures. For example, although countries throughout the world offer tax concessions that are designed—I suspect Canada is the classic example—to secure a physical presence for their film industry, the same competitive situation applies as for the trade support or export promotion of any other industry. The same contest applies to inward investment as would apply to Nissan—bringing a large film to this country can have the same beneficial consequences as bringing in a large manufacturing plant or service industry. The economic spread-out is equally important.
Let us look at where we need to act to sustain relative competitiveness. We must understand where our comparative advantages take us. In the context of public policy, we must consider where there are externalities that will not be re-appropriated by those in the
196WH
commercial sector who would spend their own money. There is, therefore, an underlying rationale for investment by the public sector, because it would create the correct context for the whole industry. Let me start with one or two examples regarding training and skills.
I have already mentioned the National Film and Television School and the role of the Film Council in working with Skillset to bring forward a strategy to promote training and skills for the film industry and the audiovisual industries. That is important. We cannot expect there to be spontaneous training activity by commercial organisations to the extent that is necessary in the whole industry. It is a normal expectation that some organisations will train, to the extent that they need trainees, and that others will have a wider training role, but we need some degree of public sector support for the industry, especially as it comprises many small operators and firms. We need to get behind the industry. I hope we shall see a substantial push from the Film Council in redirecting some of its resources to get behind Skillset—I hope that that was its intention—and ensuring that there is substantial training activity in the film industry.
I raised the question of script development with the Minister's colleagues about a year ago. It could be said, in terms of the return for the money that is spent by the public sector, that script development should also be considered to be commercial. This country does not have the distribution-led companies—the majors—that exist internationally and in the United States. Those companies expect to have a couple of hundred scripts in development at any one time and they know that only a small fraction of those will come to fruition. Such companies have the resources and they put them into script development. However, the resources involved are not very dramatic. As companies would usually work only with individuals who are trying to develop scripts, £1 million spent on script development would go a long way.
A small sum of public money could also go a long way in generating much United Kingdom content. For example, let us consider UK writers, such as David Hare in relation to "The Hours", Julian Fellowes in respect of "Gosford Park" last year, or Ronald Harwood's scriptwriting in relation to "The Pianist". The quality of script development and the screenplays that are produced by UK writers are exceptionally good. We must trade on that and ensure that the US majors do not overlook much of the positive writing in the UK simply because there is so much scriptwriting activity in and around Hollywood. As we can see in respect of, for example, the Harry Potter series, which is set in Britain, writing can make Britain a desirable location in which to undertake a film. Many benefits have flowed from that series in terms of UK marketing, tourism promotion and so forth.
Training and skills are the first part of the strategy, and script development is the second. Sir Alan Parker was right to focus on the key issue of understanding the nature and structure of the industry. If we are going to influence the industry, we must work with it rather than contrary to it and in conflict with it. I do not dispute what Sir Alan Parker said—I am sure that he is right—which is that the industry is essentially distribution-led. If we were to ask the major companies what business they are in, they would say, "The business of

197WH
distributing films and responding to markets." The key factor is that distribution is the linchpin of the market. Even large production operations with large portfolios are burning money in order to produce films. They are taking substantial risks at the production end, and even if they produce a portfolio there is a risk that companies will not produce enough successful films to make an overall profit. Companies have to do two things: generate cash to support production activity, and spread their risk. One way for a company to spread risk in distribution is to distribute not only its own films but everyone else's. That way, even a vertically integrated company would have the risk associated with production, but also the certainty of gaining from distribution activity when the industry is prospering. Distribution is the linchpin and is absolutely critical to the industry, so how do we deal with that?
In his speech, Sir Alan Parker said that we needed to reflect on the character of the tax relief offered. Some form of tax relief is essential for the long-term competitiveness of the British film industry. Certainly, that is the course that other countries are taking. International competition will get tougher now that New Zealand is on the scene and central eastern European countries are getting stronger. What is the character of the incentive that we want to give? When I read the speech, I was interested in—and thought I understood—the argument about the importance of distribution in the industry. It was argued that a tax concession should be related to distribution, because the incentive for the industry should be pulled by distribution, rather than pushed by production, which has simply failed to meet the market. What would the result be? We do not know; we have had no suggestion, and one of my purposes in securing this debate was to allow us to think about that.
I suggest that we take a step back and ask, "What is the character of distribution?" Distribution stands between two activities. The first is cash-generative activity, such as the distribution of films, their exhibition and cinema attendances. There is $1.2 billion dollars' worth of such activity in the UK. We have a big cinema audience—I read in the newspapers that it is now the largest in Europe—and have bigger box office takings than Germany. We are a big market, and a lot of cash is being generated. There is also production activity. The latest figures suggest that UK production has picked up again after a difficult period—difficult not so much for the British element, although it had its consequences for us, but because of the actors' strike in America and the reduction in American activity. There are also quite a lot of co-productions, as they, too, have picked up in the UK.
At the centre of the argument for being distribution-led is the ability to mesh cash generation with the burning of cash because of vertical integration in the industry. Should any tax concession not relate directly to that key element of the industry? Instead of focusing tax relief on writing off costs of production until 2005, would it not be better to be specific about promoting the UK as a place with strong cinema audiences? There is a powerful incentive to come to the UK for creative and technical reasons associated with the quality of our film industry and activities.
I am not a tax expert, and some might be able to give reasons why my argument is flawed, but as a starting point for discussion I believe we should consider not tax
198WH
concessions that are ring-fenced for British films but tax relief incentives designed for film production activity in the United Kingdom. We should relate that directly to the cash being generated in the UK. Vertically integrated companies are the ones that matter most.
If I remember rightly, the five largest cinema exhibitors consume something like 75 per cent. of the box office. Those five exhibitors are all directly related to major US production companies. They generate a lot of cash in the UK and they pay tax on it; they have various reliefs and concessions, but they pay tax. The companies are not British but international, probably US, companies. Should we not say that in the UK those companies should be able to offset the tax that they would otherwise pay on their cinema-related receipts against the costs that they pay in the UK in relation to film production? Should we not offer a tax concession that is directly related to that connection? We should say: "Come to the UK, where you will generate cash in cinemas. You need cash and you want a cash flow. The extent to which we relieve you of tax affects your cash flow. Let us enhance your cash flow through tax concessions so that you can fund films better in the UK. Come to the UK, where your qualifying expenditure will be matched with tax concessions." That qualifying expenditure would be film production expenditure in the UK, and it would be the basis on which tax relief could be offered on cash generated by film distribution. Technically, it would not be a tax concession for distribution; it would be a tax concession for the underlying economic rationale of being a distribution-led industry.
I freely confess that one of the advantages of being an Opposition Back Bencher is that one can fly kites and it does not do one too much harm if one is not successful. One can think about public policy and try to stimulate debate and a response from Government. In that respect, I have had some entertainment over the past few months with the Communications Bill. I have also had some fun with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Happily, it has been sporting about it; the Minister for Sport is here and 1 am happy to pay tribute to his Department. I do not know whether this sort of debate is his sport or not.
I should be attending Standing Committee E at the moment talking about the Communications Bill, but instead I am here talking about it, making two points that I feel are relevant. First, a provision in the early part of that Bill gives Ofcom a power to support training in the broadcasting industry. Skillset is the training organisation in the sector: it would be sensible for Ofcom to have a power to support Skillset training that is relevant to the audio-visual industries. There is substantial read-across between the technical requirements of broadcasting and film, although there are differences. The film industry would benefit from Ofcom having that power and being able to consider wider issues than the requirements of the broadcasting industry.
Secondly, clause 256 of the Communications Bill contains a provision that some hon. Members will recall. It relates to Ofcom's regular, probably five-yearly, review of the public service broadcasting remits—the ecology of public service broadcasting. As we know, public service broadcasting potentially has a significant role to play in the film industry. FilmFour is

199WH
an instructive case. It was a brave attempt to create, off the back of the resources of a public service broadcaster, something akin to a UK integrated film production and distribution company. It was not on the scale of Polygram, although, as it turned out, even Polygram was not large enough to survive as an international company. FilmFour is a similar example: the volume was not there, and the range and size of activities were not great enough. One could argue about the relative merits of "Charlotte Gray". I am told that it did not lose money, but that is not the point. One should never reach, and one cannot survive in, a situation such as this when everything hangs on the success of one film.
The demise of FilmFour, in its previous form, shows that we cannot achieve a UK distribution activity on our own; we need to be part of an international context. About 80 per cent. of the revenue from a successful film will be derived from overseas box offices rather than from the UK's.
That is not to say that FilmFour will not carry on. Channel 4 may continue to put money into 10 or a dozen UK films a year, and the BBC puts money into films—after "Mrs Brown" we have "The Lost Prince". The BBC is quite well funded at the moment, all things considered. Things have moved on since the Edwardian era, and in the 21st century the BBC is the only organisation in Britain that can afford to put red carpets on a beach. If the BBC can afford to engage in the production of quality drama, which it does well—I did not mean to be disparaging; I thought "The Lost Prince" was very good—I hope that it does so not only for UK broadcast but for distribution to broadcast companies and channels overseas, and perhaps for wider distribution to cinemas and exhibitions, having regard to associated and ancillary rights.
Under clause 256 of the Communications Bill, when Ofcom considers public service broadcasters and the way in which their remits are fulfilled, it will have no regard to Channel 4's film making, except the part that is directly related to broadcasting in the United Kingdom. Ofcom will have only the same regard to the BBC's film production. That is wrong, and our experience of industry regulators tells us that if something is not mentioned in statute—as film is not mentioned in the Communications Bill—the regulator will not have regard to it. A regulator will not extend beyond its powers in legislation because of the risk of challenge and matters being ultra vires. In any case, Ofcom will have a great deal of work to do.
I do not suggest that Ofcom should become the film industry regulator, and I suspect that the film industries would hate that to happen. However, as Ofcom will examine public service broadcasters and their activities, I have no doubt that it should examine the way in which broadcasters interact with film industries because the broadcasters could be a substantial source of activity for the film industry.
I shall draw the threads of my arguments together. The Film Council has performed a great service by starting to redefine the public policy response to the film industry. It is important to distinguish between where and how support is given, although perhaps Sir Alan Parker's speech did not do that sufficiently. The support given to the art-house and creative side, per se, of the
200WH
industry is similar to lottery-funded support given to artistic and sporting activity on its own merits. Good ideas relate to getting such productions into multiplexes and giving more support for subtitling, advertising and print promotion, all of which is excellent. However, that should be distinguished from the strategy for the industry as a whole, which is more about tax concessions, training and the development of the underlying industry.
I have proposed an idea about the way in which tax concessions could be implemented, but time is pressing. We are reaching a point when films that might benefit from existing tax concessions before they conclude in 2005 are going through production. Anybody who is presently contemplating making new films is probably not anticipating tax concessions from the UK Government. Decisions will be made quickly, which is why time is pressing. I hope that the Government will examine the form that tax concessions should take when they consider how to support the industry. I hope that they will also consider that public service broadcasters and Ofcom, through the Communications Bill, should be encouraged to work with the film industry as a joint venture to stimulate the UK audio-visual sector as a whole.
I hope that I have made some contribution to thinking about film policy, if from a somewhat amateurish standpoint. I hope also that people in the film industry will recognise that we understand that we have a role to play in helping them. The industry will rest not just on the creative talents of such people but on the public policy framework that we put in place. It has been nearly four years since the House of Commons held a debate on the film industry. The time is absolutely right not just for a debate but, through the Government's initiatives, for a substantive debate about film policy, perhaps in the context of the Budget.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to remind the Chamber that it is the established practice in these 90-minute Adjournment debates to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before conclusion, which means that we now have 25 minutes left for general debate. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who seek to contribute to bear those conditions in mind.
10.5 am
Mr. Chris Smith: I begin by reminding the Chamber of my declaration of interests in the Register of Members' Interests and by recording my honorary life membership of BAFTA. In that context, I am extremely pleased that the three films that have received the most nominations for BAFTA awards this year—"Gangs of New York", "Chicago" and "The Hours"—all contain significant elements of British talent.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on raising this very important subject. I agree with much of what he said, particularly his final remarks about the necessity of ensuring that Ofcom, in its overall role in the communications world, considers the relevance of film in the broadcasting environment and in other respects, too. I shall return to that in a moment.

201WH
My first point is about the tax incentive regime. The hon. Gentleman described an intriguing scheme for developing Sir Alan Parker's comments on the way in which the tax regime could support distribution rather than just production. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's scheme would work, but it certainly merits some attention.
However, I hope that in accepting Sir Alan Parker's absolutely sensible analysis that it is not just production but distribution and scriptwriting—the two ends of the film-making process—that matter, we do not throw the baby out with the bath water and remove entirely the measures in the tax regime to encourage investment in UK production. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced the tax incentive regime in his first Budget in 1997. Its term has since been extended on a couple of occasions, but its effects were restricted in the most recent Budget because considerable abuse was occurring, particularly in the television sector. The regime is still in place, however, and I very much hope that it will remain. It has been instrumental in ensuring substantial investment in the UK film industry from British and other companies. Such investment would not have been made without the tax incentives.
Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should go further. At the moment, the tax incentive is limited to movies that have an overall budget of £15 million or less. It might be sensible to change the provision to bring larger budget movies into the tax incentive regime, which could cover the first £15 million of expenditure. Instead of saying that only movies with a budget of £15 million or less should qualify for the incentive on production, the first £15 million of expenditure on any movie made in the UK, which has significant British content, should be eligible for the relief.
If we made that change, it would have one very significant effect: it would become even more attractive for big-budget movies, particularly those generated by American studios, to be made in Britain. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire rightly observed, we are in a competitive market, particularly across the English-speaking world. Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are attractive locations for film making. They all have tax regimes, some of which are more attractive than ours. We have an advantage given the quality of the skills, personnel and technical expertise based in the UK, but that is not enough to make the UK the premier location for making large American movies. If we can put in place a tax incentive of the kind that I have suggested, it would have a positive economic effect. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport can take that idea to his discussions with the Chancellor over the next few months.
The second issue I want to touch on is the looming problem of the piracy of moving image material. It particularly concerns film but it applies also to television. The issue of piracy—the counterfeiting of material, particularly in a digital format—has bedevilled the music industry for many years. The music industry loses millions of pounds every week because of the unauthorised, illegal digital transmission of musical material, and the issue is beginning to affect the film and television industries in a major way. We know, for example, that there are already 40,000 illegally copied editions of "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" in circulation around the world. We also know that many
202WH
movies get pirated before they have been released in any location and are transmitted from computer to computer across the world well before they are issued for general release. It does not take a genius to understand that if that sort of illegal copying and distribution of pirated material expands, it will strike at the heart of the economics of the movie and television industries, in which case we will all be poorer because movies will not get made.
There are ways in which we can try to combat piracy. Technical solutions such as digital watermarking and signature systems can be included in material. Pirate copies can be traced back to the person who is doing the copying, but one can take action against them only if all parts of not only the content production industry, which includes the film industry, but the transmission industry, which includes servers and telecoms companies, cooperate in trying to stamp out such illegal activity.
Two things are necessary for that to happen. First, there has to be proper copyright protection in law. The European copyright directive, which was agreed in principle about a year or so ago, has recently completed its consultation process for inclusion in United Kingdom law. Something is expected from the Department of Trade and Industry on that, possibly in about a month's time. It is important that that is done, and that it is done quickly and in the right way.
Secondly, all parts of the relevant industries need to be encouraged to come together and agree common procedures and standards in order to combat the problem of piracy. Ofcom is ideally placed to carry out such a ring-holding exercise. Specific statutory powers are not required for Ofcom to do that, but I hope that Ofcom can be encouraged to do it. When the Communications Bill is on Report, perhaps the Government might view with some sympathy an amendment to give Ofcom the authority to engage in combating piracy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take that suggestion back to his ministerial colleagues and that that is something that can be done.
We have a film industry of considerable strength and importance in this country. It has made a very important contribution to our economy and our culture over a number of years. We need to play to that strength and to nurture it and I have described two ways in which we might be able to do so.
10.16 am
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this debate. If it has indeed been four years since the previous debate on the film industry, that debate took place approximately three years before I was elected to Parliament. I declare my interest, which is mentioned in the Register of Members' Interests. I am proud to have supported the film industry in the past through my membership of the board of Edinburgh international film festival and the Lothian and Borders screen industries office. Like many others, I have also enjoyed many evenings at the cinema and I am glad that we have had a wide-ranging debate on the importance of the industry.
The industry is important for several reasons. To most people in this country, the film industry means a good night out. Once a year they see a lot of glitz and

203WH
glam at the Oscar ceremony or the Cannes film festival. However, the fact that there are many more column inches in the press about the lives of celebrities than about the industry itself means it is not surprising that often the industry feels left out in the cold. The film industry is important, both in the UK and worldwide. Earnings not only provide jobs and income, but add a diverse cultural dimension to life. We all benefit from cultural diversity and from enjoying the talents of others. Film allows us to see around the world and into the lives of some and the imagination of others. One of the most memorable descriptions of cinema and film television that I have heard was from Bernardo Bertolucci talking about his work in Edinburgh. He said:
"In the cinema we dream with our eyes open."
Many individuals and organisations are doing good work on behalf of the industry, and cries for a level playing field with other countries are often heard. The tax regime has already been well explored this morning and I hope that the Minister will take on board what has been said. We must support the industry to stop jobs going elsewhere and being lost to this country. Certain films belong in this country. I hope that the Minister will explore not only the alterations to the tax regime raised this morning, but any other options raised by experts in the industry. Sir Alan Parker has already been mentioned and there are also a number of experts and people working in the industry worldwide who would like to film in this country. However, for financial reasons, films are sometimes made elsewhere, or made partly here and partly elsewhere. It was ironic that, as a Scot, I should watch a film called "Braveheart", knowing that part was filmed in Scotland and part in Ireland.
There are many jobs in the industry, and Britain has a reputation for world-class skills, both traditional and high tech, in film making. Those skills have not only resulted in productions being brought to this country but have provided jobs abroad for people from Britain, who have gone on to perfect their skills with top international companies, such as Industrial Light and Magic.
Although the names of those in the spotlight are the ones that come to mind, there are many workers behind the scenes. Names like Sean Connery and Ewan McGregor, both from Scotland, trip off the tongue, but possibly more important than the few with a high profile are the many writers, directors, producers, camera operators, lighting and sound technicians, wardrobe and set designers and those involved in the finance, right down to those who provide the catering on sets. They all contribute to an industry from which we all benefit, if it thrives.
Schoolchildren ask me who is the most famous person I have met. I tell them that it is not the Queen or Tony Blair but that some time ago I met the current James Bond, Pierce Brosnan. Films and television make a big impact on their lives. Although I have had the pleasure of meeting some of the celebrities in the industry, what has stuck most in my mind was a documentary called "This Mine is Ours", which I worked on some years ago with the miners of Monktonhall colliery outside Edinburgh, 3,500ft underground. I was a minor part of
204WH
the crew, but the film won a BAFTA award for best documentary of the year. It was a privilege to gain an insight into that workers' co-operative, which struggled to regenerate a mine closed by the National Coal Board, and to see the story shown on a television screen and shared with an audience throughout the UK and possibly the world. We must not undervalue the importance of the documentary in the film industry.
Some years ago Michael Winner was asked by a budding young film maker for advice on how to progress in the industry. The answer was stark. He was told to leave the country and go to the United States: British films did not make money, there was little or nothing left of the industry and the future was not here. We must ensure that what is left of the industry is encouraged to grow.
One way to realise the full potential of film is to acknowledge the impact that the right film can have on tourism. Tourism is accepted as a major employer, with thousands of jobs depending on the promotion of a quality service, yet advertising budgets for tourism authorities often cannot provide the profile that would bring financial rewards and result in more jobs.
I have no doubt that there will be a huge spin-off for New Zealand following the production of "The Lord of the Rings". Not only did tourist attractions in Scotland record significant increases in visitor numbers when "Braveheart" was released in the cinemas, but the numbers increased again when it was released on video and when it was shown on television. There is widespread acceptance of the importance of tourism, and there is much evidence of the importance of the publicity generated by a television programme or film in that connection: film maps of regions where productions were made are now common, as are tours of film and television locations.
Whenever public money is linked to the film industry, there are stories of financial disaster waiting in the wings. As I said, I shall not go into the problems caused by the changes in the tax regime or into those of films funded through the lottery, except to say that the successes of most film studios are based on a large slate of productions and that disasters are the norm. Usually, one blockbuster will not only pay its way but will cover the cost of the turkeys. In this country the volume of production does not enable that to happen. Therefore, large-scale productions such as those made by the Hollywood studios are not the way forward.
There has been discussion about whether we should support only British films, but it is difficult to say what constitutes a British film. There have been many memorable ones—the Bond series, the Harry Potter films, "Bridget Jones's Diary" and "Trainspotting", part of which was based and filmed in my constituency. One might not have thought that that kind of film would produce tourists for Edinburgh, but I am assured that Japanese tourists want to see what happened where.
The industry has a long and proud track record of participation in world film festivals. I have been involved in the Edinburgh international film festival, which is the longest continually running festival in the world. Film festivals provide shop windows for important but less glamorous aspects of the industry. Apart from feature films, there are documentaries, short films and animation, which often provide a good

205WH
introduction to the industry. Recently, many films have been produced using high-tech special effects, but we saw what Wallace and Gromit could do with plasticine alone when they came to life on the screen. Even pop videos can be at the cutting edge of film production.
Some of the most dynamic and creative people in the world work in the industry. We have made a significant contribution to it in the past; I hope that the Minister will assure us that we shall do so again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. The two previous speakers quite properly drew attention to their entries in the Register of Members' Interests, and I am grateful to them. As approved moderator of our proceedings, I have the benefit of having a register before me to which I can refer, but other Members do not have that privilege, unless they have had prior notice. In the most polite way, I must point out that it would have been helpful to other Members if those two Members had spelled out the range and nature of their interests.
Mr. Chris Smith:On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I apologise for having been too brief in my introduction. The register records that I have a position as an adviser to the Walt Disney company.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:I am sure that no apology is necessary.
10.27 am
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing the debate and on introducing the subject in a non-partisan and extremely helpful way. The quality of debate has been high—although it will go downhill from here.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sir Alan Parker. who effectively drew three conclusions in his recent speech—the industry should be distribution-led, there should be an emphasis on skills, and more needs to be done about the infrastructure. I took the hon. Gentleman to agree with Sir Alan, and so do I. The hon. Gentleman posed the old question of what is a British film. The debate has shown that we cannot define it, but we can say that Britain needs to be involved in the industry in any way it can.
The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) suggested a change to the tax regime, giving concessions on the first £15 million of production costs rather than a concession for productions that cost under £15 million. That sounds like a bright idea and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. The right hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about piracy, a global problem that requires a global solution. Will the Minister say what has been done at European Union level to help tackle that problem?
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) referred to the people behind the media spotlight—those who earn their living in the industry and are important to it. He also mentioned the importance of documentaries. He probably does not know that I have visited Monktonhall colliery, and I shall talk to him about it after the debate. Not many
206WH
people will remember the struggle of the Monktonhall miners' co-operative but I had some involvement in it in my previous life.
The film industry's impact on tourism is vital. Harry Potter has done a marvellous job in creating a map of places around the United Kingdom. Indeed, King's Cross station has visitors looking for platform nine and three quarters. My constituency has a connection with Agatha Christie, but we may not have exploited that enough. The films have not been made there, but the scripts for many movies originated in the work of Agatha Christie and that gives us a movie connection. I am sure that all of us can find some such connections in our constituencies.
The Film Council takes the lead in enhancing Britain's film-making credentials. Britain markets itself as a highly skilled place for film making with lots of people in production, location work, special effects and technical aspects. Many US companies use Britain to make films, bringing in American money. However, the success of those Hollywood films often means that profits leave the United Kingdom. Sadly, Britain cannot compete with Hollywood.
Sir Alan Parker, as chairman of the Film Council, recommended in his speech in November that Britain should focus on improving infrastructure,
developing a highly skilled and flexible work force, developing ways to counter the effects of studios moving shoots to cheaper locations, and revising the definition of what constitutes a British production so that more money may remain in the UK economy.
Given high British costs, the danger is that our film industry will suffer unless what we can offer is "value added". That point is echoed in the Relph report, which suggests that British bargain budget production facilities are not bargain enough. There is a risk that if the UK trades on high-quality facilities, it will lose business elsewhere.
In 2001, the British film industry suffered as a result of many films not gaining a high return on production costs. That was exacerbated by the strike in the US film industry, which reduced work opportunities, and by the decision of many Hollywood studios not to locate productions outside the US after 11 September 2001. However, recent figures suggest an upturn in the industry's fortunes. Although only 43 films were made—many co-financed rather than solely British—the Americans are back. In 2001, American studios spent about £230 million in the UK; last year, they spent about £270 million.
Other areas of concern cited in the past include the amount spent on films in Britain through lottery funding. The criticism has been that those films have not seen a return on the £100 million spent on them over the past five years or so. More generally, the Film Council shows that in 2001 the average solo British production cost £3.5 million but netted £755,000 at the box office. In 2002, Film Four was closed by its parent company, Channel 4, for not being viable.
My party, like all parties, wants a strong and comprehensive film industry that uses all the skills, trades and talents that go into film making. Policies could be developed to ensure that existing talent is used and that the available money goes further. We still produce great film makers. Our technicians and actors

207WH
still feature in successful major films made here and overseas. What is lacking is a comprehensive long-term plan for the UK film industry. We can attract new money. For example, we could build on the great support that exists among the public for British film making. Have the Government considered how many members of the public might be prepared to invest small amounts in the film industry, knowing full well that they are not likely to see a return, but hoping that their investment would mean that films were made and that there might be a small percentage chance of one of those films turning out to be a blockbuster?
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire had the interesting idea of having tax concessions on cinema seat receipts to help UK production. We have talked a great deal about distribution problems, but it was not clear from the hon. Gentleman's comments how those tax concessions would relate to those problems. However, in terms of providing extra revenue to help production, his idea seemed a good one.
I hope that the Minister will explain what more the Government can do to attract investment into film. I would like to know his long-term vision, and that of the Government, for the UK film industry.
10.35 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on his success in securing this debate. It was mentioned earlier that we had not had such a debate for some four years, so this one is long overdue.
As many contributors have said, there is some perplexity over what actually constitutes the British film industry. Sir Alan Parker, in the well-documented speech that has been referred to this morning, said that we should not be thinking about a British film industry but about British film industries, in the plural.
The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) established the Film Council and a great deal of credit must go to him for having had the foresight to make that move. It is now easier to focus on the areas in the British film industry that need to be focused on. If it considers Sir Alan Parker's speech, and the aspirations behind it, the Film Council will offer extremely good leadership. Speaking as an outsider, I think that it will carry the industry kicking and screaming into the realities of the 21st century.
The UK has a successful film industry, as can be measured by the number of people who visit cinemas to watch films—films made here and films made elsewhere in the world. The latest figures show a 13 per cent. increase in cinema admissions last year and a 10 per cent. increase in box office takings for the exhibitors. If cinemas are to grow and develop, we need them to show American mega-movies and blockbusters, but we still need them to show films that are made in the UK and reflect our culture in stories about us.
In the past 40 years, we have been obsessed with public funding for our film industry. That funding has been concentrated on production. Many people contend that the funding has not taken us very far. Over the past seven years, we have had lottery subsidies, and over the
208WH
past five years we have had production-focused tax breaks, which the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury introduced when he was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Those subsidies and tax breaks have been successful in some ways, but it is questionable whether either of those sources of funding has delivered the fundamental structural changes that will be needed if the film industry is not to continue to suffer recurrent crises every five years or so.
If the present structure has not worked, what solutions will sustain a successful film industry in the future? The debate has recently been opened up within the industry. As we all know, the industry needs to embrace significant change, but the debate has also covered the future role and influence of Government. The Government have an important input into a large range of issues. As has been mentioned many times this morning, perhaps the most important input is in fiscal policy. The existing tax breaks have been extremely helpful. The 100 per cent. first-year write-offs were introduced under section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997. That has certainly generated employment and delivered successful films. It is due to end in July 2005, which seems to be some time away, but in terms of film production it provides a window of opportunity of only another 18 months. It is important that, when the Minister responds, he informs us how the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regards the matter. If only 18 months of active space is left within which the film industry must operate, some consideration must be given to how to extend that period. Section 42 of the 1997 Act continues to attract the big American productions to our shores and keeps both Shepperton and Pinewood studios open.
However, although tax breaks have been useful and helpful, they are considered in some quarters to be inefficient. There is a view that the underlying philosophy of sale and leaseback is not helpful, and is rather flawed as regards the film industry. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister explain the Government's thinking on tax breaks? The way forward, as envisaged in a recent speech by the chairman of the Film Council, is on three fronts, which were well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire.
Sir Alan Parker believes that distribution, not production. should be the leading force. In his words, there should be a pull factor, not a push factor—which means that the industry should be market-led. That is how most businesses and industries operate throughout this country and the world: they look at the market and they produce things that people want to use or to see.
Mr. Simon Thomas: On the creation of a market, particularly a greater market for UK-based films, what value does the hon. Gentleman place on festivals? For example, yesterday was Wales cinema day; three quarters of cinemas in Wales took part in it. Since it was introduced two years ago, the numbers attending have doubled year on year. Surely there is a role for festivals to play in creating the market, but can there be that pull factor for the industry as a whole?
Mr. Moss:The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He more or less answered his own question by saying that Wales cinema day has been a tremendous success, and I have no reason to doubt that. I think that it was a point well made and the Minister will no doubt take it on board.
The other two matters listed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire were skills and infrastructure. The film industry needs to examine how it does things and its internal structure. There is a particular problem with low-budget films, particularly low-budget British films, whose principal, or only, market is the United Kingdom. The Relph report, commissioned by the Film Council last year, concluded that, unless there were fundamental changes, British film making at that level could cease to exist in a few years' time. The report showed that film makers in France, Denmark and Germany all made films more cheaply than we can in this country and that the essential need is to make films whose budgets reflect their market value.
As for skills and training, the film industry—as we all accept—is a people business. In this country, we have a good record of producing people with great talent, but there is now a dearth of skilled people. The Film Council admits that there are not enough good writers, new editors, cinematographers and production designers. Training is now a critical consideration and the Film Council needs to work more closely with the Government to develop a strategy for the future. Perhaps more lottery money should be diverted into training, as well as contributions from the industry itself. It is a surprise to learn that until now the film industry itself has not invested in training as a way forward. Training should be developed across the board, and that includes script development, production, distribution and exhibition.
On infrastructure, it is obvious from the comments we have heard this morning that film production is extremely mobile—New Zealand was mentioned in that context. Many Governments are dreaming up tax incentives to attract big-budget Hollywood film productions. Investment is pouring into new film studios in countries as diverse as South Korea, Thailand and Australia as well as New Zealand. We must establish working partnerships with those countries as well as develop critical financial incentives for the home-based infrastructure. The trend will not be reversed. As traditional trade barriers come down and digital technology frees up film production, it will go, literally, anywhere in the world.
Serious challenges face the film industry. However, we have a good record and immense talent. Working in partnership with the Government and the DCMS in particular, the British film industry should have an exciting future ahead.
10.45 am
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on initiating this morning's debate, which has been constructive and excellent. I will make sure that comments are conveyed to the powers that be in the Treasury and other Departments. I convey the apologies of my hon. Friend
210WH
the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, who would normally be present for such a debate. He is in a Standing Committee this morning. I have drawn the long straw while he has drawn the short one.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for his contribution. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire tried to highlight how the sector is a major contributor to wealth creation that has a strong industrial base, and how it should be evaluated against those criteria. My right hon. Friend took that on board some years ago when I served under his leadership on the creative industries task force, which brought together several Government Departments. The Film Council and other initiatives came out of that task force, which was driven by two factors: new technologies—information technology and computerisation—were converging with the arts in ways that needed to be managed, and a tremendous amount of talent was domiciled in this country. My right hon. Friend also understood that globalisation was on the agenda in ways that we had never envisaged because of the ability to move information at the drop of a switch. The technologies interfacing with the arts and creative industries needed to be directed in new ways.
The comments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire about the film sector were of particular relevance to the way in which we should develop future public policy. If we do not proceed in the way in which he described, which the Film Council supports, we will not be able to capitalise on this major industry. I must admit that I checked my notes when he mentioned the extent of the film industry. The global market for film is worth approximately $50 billion, of which we have approximately $4 billion. More importantly, some 44,500 people are employed in film and video production in this country. Those are quality, skilled jobs, and that underlines their importance to the economy and to wealth creation.
To home in particularly on the UK film industry, it is quite successful. If we consider how far we have come, such success is pretty impressive. For example, last year British productions were nominated for no fewer than 20 academy awards. Three of those nominations—best supporting actor, best original screenplay and best make-up—show how the industry is coming on. In 2002, 175 million cinema tickets were sold. That is the highest number since 1971, which shows how much growth there has been. Total spend on film production in the UK in 2002 was up by £22 million on the previous year, rising from £410 million to £433 million. That represents an increase by a factor of four since 1992, when total spend was at just less than £98 million. The Government believe that a successful film industry is good for Britain in various ways. That has been clearly outlined in this debate.
The impact of film on tourism and related developments, which was picked up by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), is an important consideration, but what have we done to encourage the industry? Sustainability is a word that has not been used this morning, but it encapsulates much of what has been said. Sustainability is important, particularly in respect of the recent history of the film industry. We are trying to ensure that the industry is sustainable in respect of intellectual property and that it is focused. We introduced tax incentives in 1997, which to date have provided the industry with more

211WH
than £100 million-worth of direct benefits to film production. That tax relief was due to end in 2002, but it was extended until 2005 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 allows producers of films that cost less than £15 million to claim relief in one year of 100 per cent. of the production costs. That relief is used primarily by UK producers who make lower-budget films, and it will remain in place until July 2005 for films that are intended for cinema release. Section 42 of the Act allows producers of films with budgets of any size to claim relief over three years on 100 per cent. of the production costs. That relief is often claimed by the larger US production teams. It is not unlimited, but it remains in place for films that are intended for cinema release.
The tax regime has been central to this debate. The issue was sparked, to some extent, by Sir Alan Parker's speech in November 2002. Where are we taking tax and how can it be used more creatively to become a pull-through factor in distribution? The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made some valid points about that.
This year, Film Council officials are planning to discuss such issues with my Department, the Inland Revenue, and possibly the Treasury, with a view to firming up their thinking and developing it into hard proposals. I will ensure that this morning's contributions are fed into the early stages of that discussion along with Parker's suggestions on strengthening distribution rather than focusing on the production side. A balance must be achieved. I am far from expert in this area, but Parker's speech last year opened up the debate and we want to move it forward.
The question of skills has also been covered. People will know that the Film Council has established a programme to improve skills throughout the industry and to deliver training on film business skills. The council has co-financed new development agencies in each of the English regions in order to improve the coordination and growth of the film industry across the country. I speak from experience of my city of Sheffield, which now has a strong cultural industries quarter.
We have not yet mentioned, and should factor in, the role of our higher education structure. Sheffield Hallam university, which has a major faculty on the subject, is now linked to the creative industries quarter. There are more than 2,000 quality jobs in that area, and that number is growing. Together with the regional development agencies, we are trying to increase access to venture capital, as that was another of our major problems in developing the industry.
The Film Council has taken the issue of training seriously. To ensure that the younger generation is enthusiastic about film making, it has set up the first light scheme, which encourages young people to learn the practical skills of film making. Children from across the country have benefited from what is proving to be an extremely popular scheme. The Film Council funds the British Film Institute, which provides education about, and access to, the moving image; it, too, is quite successful. The BFI promotes greater understanding
212WH
and appreciation of, and access to, film and television culture and is renowned worldwide for its work. The BFI also operates the world's most extensive film and television archive with the National Film Theatre. There is also the Regus London film festival.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) referred to what happened in Wales yesterday; such events about the promotion of films are to be welcomed, wherever they take place. The subject of film studies is now on the national curriculum, and there are special programmes for the further understanding of films. With the aim of providing a focus for encouraging foreign production companies to come to the UK, and to build relationships abroad, the Film Council funds the British Film Commission and the British Film Office in Los Angeles. When I was Minister for Trade, I met several people from that office, which has been extremely helpful in stimulating inward investment into the UK. That in turn feeds into the UK production infrastructure and nurtures a more richly skilled work force. Such cross-fertilisation is necessary in this global industry.
It is worth noting that inward investment from international film makers locating productions in the UK increased by some 16 per cent. from £230 million in 2001 to £267 million in 2002. That is more than four times the £58 million spent on inward investment in 1992. That is the background of our achievements to date.
If I have time, I will set out further plans for the film industry, but I should now like to concentrate on aspects of the film industry that the Government are supporting. The Government, working with the industry, set up the skills investment fund to support a number of priorities identified by the industry, including new trainees and a health and safety executive. All British productions are asked to contribute to that fund, and public funding for training through the Film Council now more than matches the contribution from industry. I welcome that partnership, which is now tangible, and can be measured.
The Government have also significantly increased investment in Skillset—the sector skill council for the audiovisual industry, which has already been mentioned—and that has been welcomed across the board. Skillset and the Film Council are mapping the key training needs for the film industry, and plan to develop a comprehensive training strategy this year. We look forward to the outcome, and to working with them and taking forward their conclusions. We also fund the national film and television school, which provides high quality post-graduate education opportunities for those entering the industry.
The Government are keen to ensure that the industry takes full advantage of the new digital technologies. My Department, which works with the Film Council, commissioned a research study to identify the implications of digital technology for the film industry with the aim of provoking discussion. That information can be accessed on the DCMS website.
There is much to be proud of, but we cannot afford to be complacent. The number of UK film productions fell in 2001-02 after the record in 2000. The reasons why that happened. which include foot and mouth and the problems with the Screen Actors Guild in the US, have

213WH
been articulated today. Nevertheless, many in the industry recognise that the fall in production does not represent a return to the industry's recession of the 1990s. As I mentioned earlier, inward investment by international film makers increased by some 60 per cent. in 2002, which was a vote of confidence in the industry.
Alan Parker, the chairman of the Film Council, made it clear in his speech to the industry on 5 November that the UK film industry—
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order.

Religious Persecution (India and Bhutan)
11 am
Andrew Selous: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue.
As a secular republic since it was granted independence, India has committed itself to religious toleration. Events over the past few years have, however, threatened to tarnish that reputation. Bhutan has a reputation as a remote and isolated country, which is slowly opening up to outside influences. Its treatment of ethnic and religious minorities, however, leaves a great deal to be desired.
India is governed by a coalition called the National Democratic Alliance. The Bharatiya Janata party, a Hindu nationalist party linked to militant Hindu groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal, is the leading party in the coalition. Since the BJP came to power in 1998, persecution of Christians and those of other faiths has risen enormously in certain parts of the country. Such persecution usually emanates from militant Hindu groups and state and local governments rather than directly from the national Government. However, the BJP's emphasis on Hindu expansionism has helped to create a climate in which the persecution of Christians in particular can flourish.
The BJP's close links with the VHP and the Bajrang Dal are of great concern as those groups have been implicated in many attacks on both Christians and Muslims in which the attackers usually escape justice. Page 1 of the United States State Department's annual report 2000 on international freedom states:
"ineffective investigation and prosecution of attacks on religious minorities is interpreted by some extremist elements as a signal that such violence is likely to go unpunished".
That is partly due to weaknesses in the legal system, although many observers attribute it in large part to links between those groups and the BJP.
Over the past four years, many Christians have been killed or wounded by Hindu militants, although most of those attacks go unnoticed by the outside world. Occasionally, an incident comes to the world's attention: in January 1999, an Australian missionary, Graham Staines, and his two young sons were burned to death in their camper van by a mob of extremists, which made headlines around the world.
More common are attacks and murders, which go largely unreported. At the end of September 2000, a Christian woman in a remote part of Tamil Nadu state was burned to death in an attack by local extremists on Christians in a village. In February 2001, a gang of Hindu extremists beat to death a young Christian evangelist, Riyaz Augustin. In the same month, a Catholic priest, Father Tommy Manjuli, was shot dead by an unidentified gunman, who was believed to be a militant. Sometimes, the name of the victim is not recorded for posterity. In December 2000, the body of a 35-year-old man involved in Christian missionary work was found in a remote part of Orissa state. Extremists who were angered by his evangelistic work had apparently murdered him. His body was found only after he had been missing for some time.

215WH
Hindu militants particularly target evangelists, missionaries, religious orders and Christian leaders such as pastors and priests, who are subject to the biggest threat because they are active in living out their faith. Those people are also easy targets because they make long journeys in isolated areas as part of their work, and many of them have been killed and attacked in recent years. Churches are regularly attacked by mobs of Hindu militants, who are often armed and shouting anti-Christian slogans. Many Christians have been injured in those attacks, and Church property is frequently destroyed.
Other campaigns of intimidation may be more subtle but still have malicious intent, such as the campaign in the summer of 2001 to close down some Christian orphanages. Bishop M. A. Thomas, who runs such an orphanage, received death threats. Last year, in a widely circulated e-mail, a prominent Hindu militant made a thinly veiled death threat against a Christian leader, Dr. John Dayal, who is the secretary-general of the All India Christian Council. Dr. Dayal has campaigned vigorously on behalf of Christians and other minorities, especially the Dalits, who were formerly known as the Untouchables. His effectiveness is probably the reason why he has been targeted.
We know from recent surveillance in Gujarat, where the Muslim community was targeted, that more than 2,000 people have been killed. There is evidence of complicity of the state authorities in that carnage. Indeed, there are rumours that Hindu militants are planning to rise up against the Christian community in Gujarat in the same way that they rose up against the Muslim community last year.
Those are not the only incidents of threats and intimidation. Recently, a confidential circular from the umbrella militant Hindu organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, was discovered. It was sent from RSS headquarters in Nagpur, Maharashtra state, to local RSS officers. Although only recently uncovered, it is believed to have been in circulation for some two years. One commentator notes:
"the circular contains a total strategy for persecuting, weakening and marginalizing the Christian, tribal and Muslim communities through economic boycotts, media onslaught and conflict provocation."
It advocates waging a terror campaign against various minorities, including tribal peoples, lower castes, Christians and Muslims. Article 11 calls for
"mass rapes of Muslim/Christian women during riots".
That is a sinister precursor of what actually happened in Gujarat last year when Muslim women were gang-raped by Hindu militants.
Shockingly, article 4 of the e-mail suggests that doctors sympathetic to the aims of the RSS should inject newborn Christian babies with diseases that would handicap them, and should prescribe dangerous drugs to Christians, tribal peoples and Muslims. Article 32 urges the killing of "anti-Hindus", and article 26 discusses a plan to starve non-Hindu groups in areas where there are food shortages. It discusses continuing the malnutrition of Christians.
216WH
Article 12 recommends lies and deceit as a means of discrediting minorities:
"Place images/idols under the ground near non-Hindu religious structures … new literature to be fabricated to prove all old churches … are old Hindu structures."
The tactic was used very successfully against Muslims by the RSS and the VHP in a notorious incident in 1992. A mob of Hindu militants stormed the mosque of Babri Masjid on the dubious grounds that it was built on the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. Indeed, as the BJP owed its subsequent electoral triumphs at least partly to the incident and the way in which it was manipulated, the tactic proved successful beyond all expectations.
The close links between the RSS and the governing political party, the BJP, become all the more sinister in the light of the RSS document. One Indian commentator stated:
"It frightens me that the leaders of our country, while telling the world that they respect freedom of religion, are really working for an organisation that has no problem killing, raping and poisoning those of other religions to advance their agenda of Hindu extremism."
The circular is far from unique. Typical of other threatening literature is an e-mail from a supporter of the RSS concerning a series of planned evangelistic meetings in Sikkim, which were to be conducted by a Christian, Dr. Paul Dinakaran. The writer encourages fellow militants
"to disrupt the proceedings and if possible intimidate and threaten"
Dinakaran, and urges:
"If he does not vacate Sikkim in three days time an attempt should be made to kick him out and set his residence on fire."
There are general as well as specific threats. An e-mail from a Hindu militant a few months ago, which was intended for wide circulation, states:
"On the other hand, if Muslims and Christians use perfidy and force in conversion, as they frequently do, we have to act with merciless ferocity and militant determination",
using
"unwavering force without quarter, delivered calmly without passion or attachment."
The following example, which was reported by a western missionary who was in India with her husband but who has since returned to Britain, shows the threats and intimidation that Christian and other faith leaders face:
"The local community had had visits from the police and had been told to inform on us … Our Hindu friends came to us and told us that we were on a killing list. The local Catholic priest was, as well. It had been passed to all the local shopkeepers who had been told to inform on us. Everything we did or said was thereafter re-hashed until we had assumed sinister, subversive roles and were [seen as] a danger to the community".
The reference to the role of the police in that example should set alarm bells ringing. Elements in both local and national Government are unsympathetic to the plight of Christians, Muslims and other minorities. Officials and police are often reluctant to register or investigate attacks even when they are reported to them and the Indian Government refuse to denounce the activities of militant groups such as the VHP and the Bajrang Dal. Given the close links between the BJP and such groups, that comes as no surprise.

217WH
Other significant instances of persecution are occurring in India. The state of Tamil Nadu has just passed a law that claims to ban conversions "by force or fraud". However, it has been widely seen as an attempt to prevent all conversions to Christianity in the state. It is the culmination of a campaign by militant Hindu groups against Christian conversions. They allege that all conversion to Christianity is "by force or fraud". The leader of the RSS recently claimed:
"No-one converts voluntarily. It is motivated by greed".
The law is also aimed at stopping Dalits converting from Hinduism to other religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. Many Dalits see Hinduism as an oppressive religion that keeps them at the bottom of the caste system. Over the past couple of years, a number have converted to other religions, saying that they find greater freedom that way. State authorities vigorously opposed a recent conversion rally in Tamil Nadu, at which a number of Dalits converted to Christianity and Buddhism.
Christians and Dalits in India fear that the law will spread to other states. There is even a similar Bill pending in the national Parliament. Such laws will make it easier for militant Hindu organisations such as the RSS to harass and obstruct Christians witnessing to non-Christians, and they will give the mobs an excuse to attack evangelists on the pretext that they are breaking the law. The laws would also be a means of stopping the Dalits converting to other religions.
Will the Minister tell me what action Britain is taking to raise those issues with the Indian authorities? Our strong economic and cultural ties with India are likely to give Britain added opportunities to raise such issues. I realise that India is notoriously prickly concerning what it sees as outside interference, but there are ways in which such matters can be raised sensitively and appropriately.
The Indian Government need to crack down on the activities of Hindu militants. Those carrying out attacks on Christians, Muslims and others need to be caught and punished; justice needs to be done and to be seen to be done. The Indian Government need to be reminded of their international obligations, having ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights in 1979, as well as similar covenants and conventions. Above all, the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Vajpayee, needs to be told that strenuous statements asserting India's commitment to secular, pluralistic government need to be backed up by strong action to demonstrate that.
Our Government can also take action closer to home. The VHP has an active British branch. Despite the repeated involvement of the VHP in atrocities in India, the VHP UK branch has charitable status, with all the advantages that that brings. Will the Minister ask his counterpart in the Home Office to launch an investigation into that? We need to be sure that money raised in this country under charitable pretexts does not end up funding the dubious activities of a militant organisation in India.
I want to consider another example in the same part of the world: the country of Bhutan. Bhutan has the only Buddhist Government in the world and Christians in the country face growing discrimination and persecution, which, unlike in India, comes directly from the national
218WH
Government. In parts of the country, state officials, such as district administrators, apply huge pressure on Christians to force them to renounce their faith. That intimidation includes severe beatings, imprisonment, verbal threats and forced participation in de-Christianising rituals. Census officers sometimes mark the names of Christians in the register and threaten to delete their details if they do not renounce Christianity. Some observers believe that there is a strong possibility that, if current trends continue, Christian communities could be evicted altogether from Bhutan within a few years.
The British Government need to make strong representations on those points to the Government of Bhutan. I realise that Britain does not have formal diplomatic relations with Bhutan, but our high commission in India has a section that deals with Bhutanese issues. Britain also trades with Bhutan, and is an aid donor to the country. That should provide a useful context in which to raise issues of religious liberty.
Last year, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) tabled a series of written questions on the persecution of Christians in Bhutan. As part of his reply, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), declared that the Government had no reason to discuss the issue with fellow European Union member states. That is simply not good enough.
The Government claim to put human rights and religious liberty at the heart of their foreign policy. Various former Ministers, including the present Secretary of State for Wales when Minister for Europe and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) when Minister of State at the Foreign Office, have reiterated that. The situation in Bhutan warrants a higher priority in discussions with other EU countries. That is especially true given that the EU has some links with Bhutan that are independent of Britain. Also, I gather that the EU is considering increasing development aid to Bhutan. If that is so, it should provide a good opportunity for the UK Government to raise human rights issues with their EU counterparts.
The Under-Secretary also declared that the form and content of a proposed Bhutanese constitution is a matter for the Government and people of Bhutan alone. However, that is not entirely true. The drafting of the constitution is not purely an internal matter, because Bhutan joined the United Nations in 1971, and by virtue of its UN membership has pledged itself to bring its law, including any constitution, into line with the universal declaration of human rights. Article 18 of that declaration upholds the right to freedom of religion. The international community has every right—indeed, an obligation—to ensure that article 18 is upheld and respected in Bhutan.
These are important issues, which I say again I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put on record. While I have been speaking in this half-hour Adjournment debate, it is very likely that somewhere in India or Bhutan, or in both countries, someone has been attacked purely because of their adherence to their faith. The Minister, whose Government claim to put great emphasis on religious liberty, should urgently address that. Taking the steps that I have outlined today would be a good start.
11.17 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on the clarity of his arguments. In the short time available, I hope to address many of the points that he raised.
I start by making it clear that religious intolerance is deplorable in the United Kingdom, India, Bhutan or wherever it occurs. The close links of many British people of Indian origin with their families in Gujarat, Kashmir, Punjab and elsewhere in India mean that Britain has an especial interest in and responsibility to human rights issues in such areas.
The Government have put the promotion of human rights at the core of their foreign policy. The United Kingdom has a long-standing tradition of raising religious freedom issues around the world. In doing so, we take the 1948 universal declaration of human rights as our starting point. Article 18 of that declaration is clear and unambiguous on religious issues:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observation."
We take that very seriously.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), the then Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, made abundantly clear in July in replying to an Adjournment debate on violence against Christians in Asia, the Government unreservedly condemn the persecution of individuals because of their faith, wherever they are and whatever religion they practise. We certainly take every opportunity, both on our own and in conjunction with European partners, to urge states to pursue laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect, and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks.
Wherever possible, we work with officials, religious leaders and non-governmental organisations at international and local level to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. Indeed, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last year, we co-sponsored a resolution that made clear our determination and that of the international community to work towards eliminating all forms of religious intolerance.
The FCO's work is done not only through the European Union and the United Nations; we believe that it is vital to work with and alongside non-governmental organisations. I was pleased when the FCO restarted the religious freedom panel in December 2001. It is an informal contact group of NGOs based in the UK which are concerned with religious freedom worldwide. The panel's purpose and aim is to share information, to discuss strategies and to promote international religious freedom. I welcome the fact that most faiths are represented, including Christian Solidarity Worldwide, with which I know the hon. Gentleman has links.
Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman's specific worries about religious freedom in India. It is worth starting by saying that India has been seen as a model of a successful
220WH
religiously diverse and democratic state for many years. It has won high standing throughout the world because of its respect for, and celebration of, religious diversity. India is a vast country with a population of more than 1 billion people and it is true that diversity is, and should be, inherent in its identity. Although the majority of the population are Hindus, people of all faiths—including Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists—live largely peacefully together in Indian society. The concept of an Indian state in which all religions flourish was central to Mahatma Gandhi's thinking. He wrote:
"Indian culture is neither Hindu, Islamic or any other, wholly. It is a fusion of all."
That is absolutely right.
The vast majority—82 per cent.—of India's population are Hindus. However, the population contains a substantial minority of Muslims. Owing to the size of India's population, that represents 120 million people. Although the Christian and Sikh communities are small minorities that each represent 2 per cent. of the population, more than 20 million Christians nevertheless live in India, which is a substantial number.
The right to the freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution of India. Article 25 of the constitution states:
"All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion".
That is one of the clearest and least ambiguous statements of commitment to be found in the constitution of any country in the world. The Prime Minister of India, Mr. Vajpayee, reaffirmed in his new year message this year that India had been
"secular since the beginning of her known history".
He rightly defined secularism as
"the duty to show respect for all faiths and to practise no discrimination among citizens on the basis of their beliefs".
The founding principles of India and the words and commitment in the constitution are very strong. However, tensions between Hindus and Muslims and Hindus and Christians increasingly pose a challenge to the concepts of secularism, tolerance and diversity on which India was founded. We have heard disturbing accounts, especially about attacks on Christians and Muslims, and I verify that concerns are well founded.
Violence against Christians in India increased significantly between 1998 and 2000. The Indian United Christian Forum claimed that the number of attacks against Christian institutions in 1998 alone was more than the total number of attacks between 1964 and 1997. Although the Catholic Bishops Conference of India reported in April 2001 that attacks had decreased since then, violence and the threat of violence remain a serious problem. The hon. Gentleman referred to the recent attack on Joseph Cooper, an American missionary, in Kerala, which was a particularly shocking example. That is not the only example of attacks on Christians, and the hon. Gentleman referred to many of them.
We welcome the fact that the Chief Minister of Kerala responded with a clear denunciation of that attack and we welcome the swift action of the Keralan police to arrest several people who were suspected of being involved in the assault. We hope—and urge—that the

221WH
perpetrators will be quickly brought to justice, and our high commission in Delhi will continue to watch the situation closely.
The attack on Mr. Cooper was reminiscent of the brutal murder in January 1999 of an Australian missionary, Graham Staines, and his sons. Mr. Staines had worked with leprosy sufferers in Orissa for more than 30 years and had devoted himself to alleviating their suffering. That was one of several vicious assaults against Christians and Muslims that took place in 1999 and 2000. We have expressed strong worries about the attacks.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the situation in Gujarat. The violence that engulfed Gujarat between February and April 2002 was the worst outbreak of religious-related violence that had occurred in India for more than 10 years. Christians suffered badly but Muslims were the main victims of the atrocities. We have expressed our concerns and we welcome the fact that the Indian Government have publicly condemned the violence. Prime Minister Vajpayee called it a "blot on India", and I agree with that assessment. We are worried by reports that the state Government of Gujarat did not do as much as they could to stop the violence. The National Human Rights Commission of India has accused the Gujarat Government
"of a complicity that was tacit if not explicit".
Nevertheless, we welcomed the Government's quick response in October to stop further violence after the terrorist attack on a Hindu temple in Gujarat.
We remain concerned about the welfare of many in Gujarat, especially Muslims and Christians. We welcome the Government of India's assurances that they will take action to bring to justice the perpetrators of violence, but we understand that, to date, there have been no prosecutions. We have repeatedly voiced our concerns with the Indian authorities about such matters. We have also rightly offered practical assistance. The British Government have provided immediate relief assistance to victims of violence. We are now
222WH
considering whether we can support practical measures under the human rights project fund to encourage reconciliation between the communities in Gujarat.
Andrew Selous: Will the Minister speak to his counterpart in the Home Office about the United Kingdom charitable status of the VHP?
Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next remarks. We are aware of the concerns about the links about the VHP and the BJP. It is worth saying that the BJP-led national Government have criticised the VHP's extremist rhetoric. Nevertheless, as for charitable status, the Charity Commission is keeping the activities of VHP-UK under review. If the hon. Gentleman has specific evidence about the VHP-UK's activities, I am sure that the Charity Commission would be interested to receive it.
I turn now to Bhutan, which has a population of almost 2 million. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is predominantly Bhuddhist. Its law allows for religious freedom, but Bhutan has not ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights. None the less, the international community expects Bhutan to observe the internationally agreed standards that it sets out. The hon. Gentleman referred to his concerns about the work of the European Union. We have certainly voiced our worries about it. The EU is providing assistance to Bhutan and, as is traditionally the case with its programmes of assistance, it is taking a carrot and stick approach. We shall push it further.
There are concerns; we have raised them, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there remain grounds for hope in India and Bhutan. It is crucial that progress is made. The values of human rights and religious tolerance are values that we expect in this country, in India, in Bhutan and throughout the world. Within the Government, we will use our best offices to ensure that those values are upheld.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Voter Participation
2 pm
Jim Sheridan: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me time for a debate on voter participation. I genuinely believe that the problem of apathy among the electorate throughout the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance not only to my party, but to all political parties in Britain. If we do not deal with it, there is a distinct possibility that the country's whole democratic process will be in danger of collapse or near collapse.
Like many other hon. Members, I become frustrated when people do not vote. We all know of the tremendous fight people conducted over the years so that others might have the right to vote. I want to draw attention to several reasons why people choose not to vote. I hope that other hon. Members will share their experiences of why people do not participate in our electoral process.
There has been a worrying increase in the number of people who fail to take part in our electoral process. We are in grave danger of taking democracy for granted in the United Kingdom. As politicians, we should not be paranoid and believe that apathy exists only in politics. I am sure that hon. Members can describe other forms of apathy in their communities, whether it is in respect of community councils, churches, youth organisations and so on. Persuading people to become involved in organisations that affect and influence their lives is becoming more difficult.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for why people choose not to vote. We must make all the necessary changes to the voting system to encourage people to come out on polling day and ensure that they are an integral part of the electoral system. The use of electronic online voting would increase the number of younger voters. Making use of as much of today's technology as possible is certainly worthy of consideration. As politicians, we should mount an awareness campaign showing first-time voters the importance of using their right to vote and how that keeps alive the notion of democracy. There is a worrying trend of young people showing no great interest in the world of politics.
Recent surveys commissioned by the Electoral Commission noted that 40 per cent. of the electorate did not turn out to vote at the general election. Such figures are replicated at both local and regional elections throughout the United Kingdom and indeed throughout Europe. There was an abysmal turnout in the European elections. Equally worrying was a recent survey carried out by the children's BBC "Newsround" programme, which showed that only 27 per cent. of 400 seven to 15-year-olds would be concerned if they lost their right to vote. Two thirds of our youngsters do not believe that voting is important or relevant, and that rings alarm bells, at least in my mind. We must never forget that those seven to 15-year-olds are tomorrow's voters.
On the subject of young people and their participation in the voting system, it may be appropriate to refer to the voting age. I have an open mind on that, and I welcome the views of other hon. Members. Regardless of the voting age, however, we must all work
224WH
hard as politicians to engage young people in politics and to convince them that they can and will influence their own lives and those of others if they participate in the voting process.
Anne Picking: Does my hon. Friend consider that there is a case for compulsory voting? Does he share my view that if people do not participate in the voting democracy of the country, they do not have a say in what the Government do?
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend raises an important point about compulsory voting. When people choose not to vote, they should not be allowed the same opportunity as others to participate in the complaints procedures of national and local government. Moreover, I share her view that compulsory voting is worth considering. Perhaps the Minister will say whether there is any evidence that compulsory voting encourages people to vote?
Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that in a country where there is
compulsory voting—which I believe is the case in Italy—there have been since 1945 as many Governments as there have been years. Although there have been enormous turnouts, by some standards the country has a less than satisfactory democratic system.
Jim Sheridan: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Italian politics, which I do not share, although my understanding is that the problem with the political process in Italy has more to do with proportional representation than with any other voting matter. I do not believe in proportional representation. It does not enhance people's wish to vote.
Martin Linton: Does my hon. Friend accept that international figures show that turnout in countries that have proportional systems is 10 per cent. higher than it is in countries that have our system? Does that not show that there may be some benefit in a system that is more proportional—not so much because of proportionality, but because everybody has an incentive to vote when a vote is certain to make a difference?
Jim Sheridan: The figures that my hon. Friend has cited may be right, but that does not necessarily mean that PR or any other exercise leads to better government, although it enhances people's choice.
As a citizen of the United Kingdom—a normal Joe Bloggs, not an anorak—I ask what would encourage me to vote? Compulsory voting is not worthy of active consideration, although I would be keen to hear the Minister's and hon. Members' views on that. What is wrong with asking people to take time out to register their vote? If a person is too lazy to go to a polling station or cannot be bothered to do that, why should that individual be free to participate in any other aspect of governmental or local authority policy? I understand that situations arise when people cannot reach polling stations for various reasons, and measures such as postal voting or increased access for disabled people are in place to accommodate that.

225WH
Perhaps we should consider the time scale in which voting takes place, and whether it should be the current one day or whether voting should be spread over several days, including weekends. Where should people vote? Perhaps the general public should be able to vote in places that they frequent, such as supermarkets, libraries or workplaces. It would be extremely interesting if we could create a way for employers to allow their employees to vote at their workplaces. We should make use of new technology, such as electronic online voting, given that many everyday activities such as banking and shopping are carried out online with ease. Those are only several practical measures that are worthy of further consideration and debate.
We must examine how we politicians portray ourselves and how the press and other media portray us. Although I accept that journalists and television presenters have an important role in today's society, I think that they would recognise that they have a fundamental responsibility to report accurately the work of elected politicians. There is over-concentration by the press and other media on what politicians do in their private lives, and insufficient concentration on what they do in their working lives. That is somewhat regrettable. I firmly believe that the electorate are completely turned off by such trivia and are more concerned about what politicians can, and will, do to influence their lives.
That is not always the journalists' fault. There are many examples of the press and other media being used by our fellow politicians to spin and to undermine each other, which feeds the frenzy for trivia. Although the press and other media have a responsibility to report accurately, they are not helped by such unacceptable behaviour by politicians.
I turn to television presenters and commentators. It now appears to be sexy to hear or see the aggressive interviewing of politicians by commentators who are more interested in their own ego than in conducting a mature interview and getting mature answers. We all know who the aggressive presenters and commentators are. I find it strange that fellow politicians volunteer their services on those programmes when they know that the presenters are interested only in promoting their own egos. Some presenters treat politicians with utter contempt, and politicians who give succour to such aggressive interviewing should perhaps reconsider their attitudes.
I recall Brian Walden of days gone by, who was one of the best interviewers at getting a response from politicians. I long for the day when the Brian Waldens of this world return to the political scene and hold politicians to account instead of discussing trivia. That is not to say that journalists and television commentators should not pursue all issues of public interest with vigour and hold politicians to account for their actions.
We must consider how the public can come to perceive us, the politicians, through our good work. Politics is about opinion, but the negative campaigning becoming more prevalent in the political world contributes greatly to turning voters off politics and politicians. It is unfortunate that no Members from the Scottish National party are present. Perhaps they do not have an interest in what the people of Scotland think of their politicians. The SNP's negative campaigning is a
226WH
perfect example of how to turn people off, particularly in the run-up to local and parliamentary elections in Scotland. Last time there were elections in Scotland, turnout was pathetically low. Unfortunately, parties such as the SNP concentrate on the personalities of individuals, and that reflects the lack of substance in their policies.
It is vital that, in future elections, every party—in Scotland and elsewhere—should promote the importance of voting, and that there is none of the usual petty and at times spiteful campaigning. I shall certainly urge my party to avoid any kind of negative, personalised campaigning, as I firmly believe that the general public do not wish their politicians to behave in such a frivolous and contentious manner. Perhaps we all should remember that, particularly at Prime Minister's Question Time, when we sometimes behave like bears in a trap.
British voters have, for some time, been disenchanted with the electoral system, and are now sympathetic to the notion that they have no control over their destiny or direction in life. We will never improve our notion of democracy and debate if the electorate has such a low opinion of our system, and we must encourage greater constituent interaction in all our communities to reflect people's interests and, more important, regain their trust.
We are in danger of going to war in the middle east with Iraq, and that could have massive ramifications for everyone in this country, as was more than adequately pointed out recently by the Prime Minister. He reminded us that we live in a time when citizens face extreme danger from terrorists, many of whom ignore or undermine legitimate democratic processes at every opportunity. We should remain vigilant and focused to protect our hard-fought-for and hard-won democracy. We should hold it dear.
In conclusion, we live in a country that is proud of the history of its democratic process. Over the years we have influenced other countries to follow suit, and we should be extremely proud of that. We must not allow ourselves to take our eye off the ball by allowing our own democracy to be undermined or undervalued by voter apathy. I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister and other hon. Members because this is a vital issue, not only for the current generation of politicians but for those coming behind us. We must ensure that the public genuinely believe that we have a job to do and that we get on and do it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I notice that six hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, only three of whom have given prior notice—[Interruption.] Do we have a percussion section in the orchestra? Can the Control Room sort out that noise please?
I want to explain to those who are unaccustomed to established practice in the Chamber that we commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before conclusion of the debate. That means that we have 39 minutes in which to try to fit in six people's speeches, so I ask all hon. and right hon. Members to make their comments pertinent and concise and not to accept or make interventions that could be covered in another way at another time.
2.21 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on the thoughtful, measured and comprehensive way in which he introduced this extremely important debate. I agree that Brian Walden was an exception to the rule. The fact that he was previously a Member of this House and had real contact with real people may be why he had more idea of what they were interested in than do many of the commentators and interviewers that we suffer from in the media.
I listened to your very proper admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I want to be brief. I will refer to the written statement made by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions last Thursday about electoral pilots. That referred specifically to the May 2003 local elections, so it is strictly outwith the subject on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, this year's experience will be extremely important when it comes to deciding what it is sensible to do in relation to the general election, whenever it is held. The Minister said:
"I have now accepted 61 applications, covering 6.5 million electors."
That means that a very large percentage of people are taking part in the experiments. At the end of his statement, the Minister said:
"The pilots are an important step towards our aim of holding an e-enabled general election sometime after 2006."—[Official Report, 23 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 18-19.]
So there will be a period during which we can take careful stock of the situation and decide whether the lessons learned will be useful for a general election. A number of the new applications accepted from local authorities refer to all-postal ballots. Many Members have some concerns about all-postal ballots and the opportunities for fraud and intimidation and therefore for distorting the result. Ministers will have to take that carefully into account.
Leading on from the intervention made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), there is a real danger that by concentrating on peripheral issues—some would say gimmicks—the Government will ignore one extremely important lesson. According to the Electoral Reform Society, in the 2001 general election no less than 70.3 per cent of those who voted had no impact whatever on the result. That figure is composed not only of all those who voted for defeated candidates, but includes all those whose votes were over and above what was needed to achieve a success in that constituency.
The biggest single disincentive to voting is the knowledge that one's vote does not matter in many parts of the country. The hon. Member for Battersea was right—the House of Commons is not the only place where proportionality is of concern. Almost uniquely, our electoral system gives people a disincentive to vote because they know that it makes no difference.
I pray in aid the following figures to show the extent of the problem, because the aggregate average figure for turnout is misleading. For example, in Liverpool, Riverside, where the result seemed to be a foregone conclusion, the turnout was 34.1 per cent. The constituency has always been and is likely to remain a safe Labour seat. Voters knew that their vote would have no impact on the result. In Glasgow, Shettleston
228WH
turnout was 39.7 per cent.; in Glasgow Maryhill, it was 40.1 per cent.; in Salford it was 41.6 per cent.; in Leeds, Central it was 41.7 per cent.; and in Manchester, Gorton it was 42.7 per cent. There were very low turnouts in all those constituencies because the electorate knew that their vote would have no appreciable effect.
By contrast, in marginal seats where every vote counted, the turnout was much higher. Several of the following are Liberal Democrat seats, but that is a coincidence.
In Winchester, where my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) had a majority of two in 1997, the turnout was 72.3 per cent. It is worth noting that the Conservative candidate and his wife were not registered to vote in the constituency, being still registered in Scotland. In Hexham, where the Conservative had a majority of 222 in 1997, turnout was 70.9 per cent. In Northavon, turnout was 70.9 per cent.; in Torridge and West Devon, it was 70.5 per cent.; in Somerton and Frome, it was 70.3 per cent.; and in Norfolk, North, it was 70.2 per cent. Under the first-past-the-post system, average figures are misleading.
I hope that I have made one point clear: when a general election seems to be a foregone conclusion nationally, and when locally—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To do justice to the subject, I am suspending the sitting to give the engineers time to sort out the sound problem from which we are suffering. I will add injury time at the end. It was not so bad when the voice of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was being amplified, but the sound is now so poor that it is pointless to carry on. With the indulgence of hon. Members, we will wait until we get the all clear.
2.26 pm
Sitting suspended.
2.43 pm
On resuming
Mr. Tyler: I hope that that my words of wisdom have been recorded somewhere and that they have not disappeared into the ether, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to note your assent. I hope that it was not my loud tie, worn in the interests of cancer research, that caused the confusion. I apologise if that was so.
If we cannot do anything to make votes of equal value and ensure that people can be confident every time they vote that they will have an impact on the result, turnouts will continue to drop. I shall give another illustration. When I was first elected in February 1974, I had a majority of nine. Clearly, my clever constituents had worked out that my majority would be narrow and there was a turnout of 83 per cent. in the then Bodmin constituency. In my present constituency, the majority was nearly 10,000 at the 2001 election. People worked out that the national result was a foregone conclusion and that the seat was relatively safe so the turnout dropped to 63 per cent. There is a direct correlation between people's perception that their votes matter and turnout. I refer again to the extraordinary statistic that 70.3 per cent. of those who voted, let alone those who

229WH
were discouraged from voting by the way in which the system operated, had no effect whatsoever on the result of the 2001 general election.
The useful, but marginal, reforms that are being piloted at the moment are well worth pursuing. However, unless the Government are prepared to grasp the real problem at the bottom of our electoral system, we will continue to see fewer people willing to go to polling stations to exercise their democratic rights. The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire is absolutely right that this is a critical issue about which we should all be concerned, but we need to take radical action to deal with a radical problem.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have almost exactly 30 minutes in which to accommodate five hon. Members.
2.45 pm
Mr. John MacDougall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on securing this debate on a very important issue. He referred to the democratic deficit throughout the world. There are certain countries where we would like democracy and which do not have democracy but, in our own country, we have a democratic embarrassment because turnouts have decreased significantly over the years.
I recall, as will every hon. Member present, that a turnout of between 70 and 75 per cent. could be expected in every constituency not so long ago, irrespective of voting patterns. I also recall that when the referendum was held on the Scottish Parliament, aspirations were high and there was a 70-odd per cent. vote in favour of a Scottish Parliament. However, when the Scottish Parliament was elected, the turnout was lower.
People's first reason for voting is their aspirations. I wish that solving the problem were as easy as looking at other countries. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about the Government's proposals for policies that could be developed to encourage greater turnouts at election time.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned Italy. A comparison can be drawn between the situations in Italy and in Australia, where there is compulsory voting, and one can ask whether the two cases are identical. Did the countries return the same results, or was there greater confidence in Australia than in Italy? Was the situation more stable in Australia than in Italy? One can also compare our situation with that of Sweden. My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire referred to weekend voting in Sweden, which has had a flexible voting system for many years and has turnouts of more than 80 per cent. Weekend voting and voting in supermarkets have been referred to. However, turnout has been getting lower in democratic countries throughout the world, irrespective of the voting systems in place. There is clear evidence that fewer people think it is valuable to vote in the democratic process although we encourage more democracy throughout the world. There is a conflict not only of conscience but of identification. How can we convince other people that democracy is valuable if we cannot convince our electorate that voting is valuable?
230WH
I do not want to repeat much of what has been said because as you rightly pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is an issue of time—I suppose that it would be appropriate to say that I shall short-circuit my contribution.
May I reflect on turnouts? The turnout was between 70 and 75 per cent. two parliamentary elections ago, and the turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections was 60 per cent. There was a 54 per cent. turnout in my constituency at the last general election, and a national turnout of about 56 per cent. The trend is clear. I am not so sure that PR will bring about a higher turnout in the Scottish Parliament elections this year. I would like to think that it is a solution to the problem, but time will tell.
Credibility is a big issue, as is education. The system used can have an influence, but any steps taken to change the system would have to be considered very carefully indeed. However, systems do not bring about greater enthusiasm for the democratic process. People may be fined for not voting but that would not necessarily make them more interested in the result, as my hon. Friend said, and would not necessarily bring about good government. We have to ask what it is that we actually want to improve.
I mentioned education and I mentioned other countries. We have all expressed concerns over Zimbabwe, where we would like a democratic process to be introduced in the best interests of the people. However, if we cannot make moves to encourage greater turnout in this country, our arguments are less strong.
I welcome the opportunity to have this discussion and to hear from other colleagues. We are all concerned about this issue. Whatever the solution may be, we would all like to find one that encouraged young people to see how important it is to cast their vote, and to see that—whatever the system—they can influence government and opinion.
There is a concern about how politicians are portrayed. I can remember a time when, if people saw their MP walking along the road, there was greater respect—irrespective of whether the MP was female or male. That respect was greater than the respect given to MPs today. We are almost getting to the stage where, in certain quarters, MPs are frightened to mention that they are MPs. We have to ask why politicians today are considered less credible than were politicians in the past. I am concerned about the credibility factor. We all care about our constituents, we all want to see the job done and we all want to make a difference to better our communities—but do the people believe that those are our intentions, or do they believe that that is just spin and that we care about our own objectives rather than those of our communities?
I would like to hear from the Minister about the consideration that the Government have given to possible systems. Again. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire on giving us this opportunity to discuss a very important subject.
2.52 pm
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on securing this debate today. It is important to members

231WH
of all parties and members of none. Legislation that is passed and the way in which the country is run affect us all, including those who do not vote. There are a number of things that we can all do to improve voter turnout, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the election in Winchester in which the Liberal Democrats beat the Conservatives by two votes. The Conservative candidate and his wife were not on the electoral register; they were still registered in the south of Scotland.
A number of things can be done to make it easy to vote: we can ensure that registers are accurate; we can explore weekend voting; and postal voting, which has already been mentioned, could improve things, although fraud is a key concern. Other things to consider include internet voting, electronic voting and telephoning voting. The best recent example of that was the telephone voting on "Pop Idol" on television, in which more people voted than voted in the last European election, and three times as many young people voted as voted in the general election. If people think that they can influence the result, they will get out and vote. We must make it easy for shift workers, the elderly, carers and those with mobility problems. That issue is covered by the fact that anyone who wants a postal vote may have one.
Making it easy for people to vote is probably the easiest aspect of this debate, but getting people interested and engaged in the process will also have to be tackled. As has been mentioned, education is vital. I support, and my party supports, giving the vote to 16-year-olds. Why should people pay tax but not be able to vote? Lowering the age would not increase the percentage of people voting, but it would increase young people's engagement.
People have been asked why they do not vote. Sometimes, the answer is that they are not interested in politics, but if they are asked whether they are interested in the health service, they say yes. They are interested in the education of their children, crime on the streets, defence, foreign affairs and Iraq, which was mentioned earlier. International development might not immediately strike a chord, but most people are genuinely concerned about the poor and starving in third-world countries. To engage people in the process, we must make them enthusiastic about it. Politicians must take a lead.
It has been said that the behaviour in the House of Commons, particularly during Prime Minister's Question Time, is an absolute embarrassment. As a newly elected Member, I found it embarrassing to sit in what has been described as a bear pit. It is no wonder that people who see that on television become disengaged from the process. Also, there have recently been allegations of fraud in MPs' expenses claims. We have no control over what is in the press—rightly so, we benefit from a free press—but the press must take a responsible attitude on the matter.
At the last general election, for the first time ever, more people did not vote than voted for the winning party. Recently, the British National party won a
232WH
council seat. The BNP has never won a council seat where the vote was more than 40 per cent. Apathy is a real danger to us all.
PR would improve the situation, because it would be felt that a party had a strength of voice in Parliament that reflected the percentage of people who had voted for it. I feel disfranchised in this place because many MPs want a substantive vote in the House about sending troops to war in Iraq but are unable to vote on a subject that they would dearly like to discuss.
As has been mentioned, many seats are considered relatively safe seats. PR would deal with that.
To sum up, we must make it easier for people to vote. If people cannot be bothered to cast their vote, compulsory voting is not the answer, because it would hide the problem. People would go out and vote, but they would not want to vote. We must get people interested in and enthusiastic about the system. That calls for inspirational leadership. There is a danger to us all if people are disengaged, and we would all benefit by encouraging more people to vote.
2.57 pm
David Hamilton: I shall be brief. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) introduced this important subject. As several issues have already been covered, I shall speak briefly on those that have not.
The equal value vote issue is separate from the argument about the democratic deficit—people not voting. I accept that there is an argument for proportional representation, but we must be aware when we talk about it that there are different types of PR. For example, a form of PR is used in the European elections, which have a turnout of only 20 per cent. We must be clear about the type of PR we mean.
John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the low turnout for European elections is more about the European system than about the electoral method?
David Hamilton: It says much about the European system, which brings me to my next point. It is important to recognise that people do not turn out if they feel disengaged from the decision making. For example, it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire said, that people turned out in substantial numbers to vote for a Scottish Parliament, but only 61 per cent. turned out to vote in its first election. The PR system shouts to me of compromise—that is what it is about. The people who argue for PR normally come second in the running and are trying to take a position of power.
There is a bigger issue than PR. We must try to encourage people and bring them into the discussions. It is very important that political education starts in schools. It does not have to be dealt with in a party political manner. One of the best debates that I have heard was in a primary school. Children of primary age raised various issues such as foxhunting and so on that did not actually affect them but were important to them. I have attended public meetings that were less political than those very good discussions at Rosewell primary school in Midlothian. If we could proceed in that way, we could talk about the system and the best way to encourage voting.

233WH
I am an ex-miner. In the pits we used to vote at the pit head, and the average turnout was 81 per cent. That was because the vote was taken to the people. When the previous Government argued for, and forced the unions to hold, postal votes, the turnout plummeted to 51 per cent. It is horses for courses—an old saying—and we must try to look at different options.
I agree that we should make voting more accessible. People currently have just one day in the week—a Thursday—when they can vote. That is not a great system; weekends would be better. Enabling people to vote in the big shops—Tesco and other supermarkets—would be one way forward. If we took the vote to the people, there would be an increase in the number of votes being cast.
It is important that we recognise that in the UK more elderly people than younger people vote because they appreciate the value of what they have. Voting is a gift and I cherish people's right to vote. People in many countries wish that they had such a right. I believe strongly that the Australian system, which features compulsory voting, should be considered. I know, however, that people might resent that and I do not think it would be a great idea for one Government—this Government—to argue the case in isolation from other parties. There would have to be a cross-party discussion on compulsory voting, because whoever delivered it might be rebuffed for forcing people to turn out. The onus is on hon. Members to get out there and tell people the reasons why it is important they should vote and why they should not feel disfranchised.
The situation regarding local elections is very bad throughout the country. In my area, 59 per cent. of the population voted on local government, because it was tied to the Scottish Parliament elections. However, only 59 per cent. voted at the general election. People felt that there was an issue surrounding the Government's performance and they wondered whether their votes would count. When people who have never bothered to vote come to see me, calling me by the wrong name and saying that they did not realise I was their MP, I get angry. There is an old adage that says, "If you do not vote, what are you complaining about?" People can ensure that their views are expressed only through voting.
Some of the points that I have made have already been covered well and, bearing in mind what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will try to cut my remarks short. Electronic voting is an excellent idea, but it would apply only to a limited number of people and it could be corrupt. Whichever system we adopt, it should be a complementary system that deals with various issues. That is how we should address the issue of voting in the UK. Let us make voting appealing to people.
3.2 pm
Ms Oona King: I am grateful to have the opportunity to talk about Government measures to improve voter participation. Hon. Members will know that in 2001 we had the worst turnout since 1918. Never have so many people been turned off by politics and politicians. Turnout was as low as 34 per cent. in some areas, and in some wards during local elections it was as low as 12 per cent. In my view that is a crisis and we must consider it.
234WH
We must consider whether to change the system fundamentally. We credit ourselves with giving democracy to the world—we did—but our political and electoral machinery has become outdated, in the same way that our industrial machinery became outdated after the industrial revolution. We must update it if it is to meet its 21st century job description, which is to deliver the will of the people and to encourage the people to exercise their will.
I shall mention the practical issue of trialling proportional representation in local elections. In November 2001, Lewisham council applied to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—as it was then—to have a trial additional member system in the 2002 local elections. It was refused on three bases. First, that would require a change in law. Since the law will have to change to move the European election dates that need no longer be an obstacle. Secondly, it would mean that different councillors were elected by different means under a top-up system. The Greater London Authority has shown that that can work. I do not think that Trevor Phillips has suffered very much as a result of being a top-up elected representative. Thirdly, Lewisham was told that there was no evidence that the reform of systems increases turnout. Frankly, everyone knows that those who live in safe seats are less likely to bother to vote, and that was clearly shown in the most recent general election. Turnout in the 100 most marginal seats was on average nearly 10 per cent. higher than in the 100 safest seats.
I have been instructed to be brief, and I will be, but I want to add that participation is not just down to whether people think that they can affect the result, but whether people think that the result will affect them. In other words, it is down to whether Westminster has relevance to them, and whether what happens in Westminster affects what happens on the streets or estates. Politicians have some responsibility in that respect. We have to learn to speak in plain English.
I would like the voting age to be lowered to 16. As has been said in the past, there should be no taxation without representation. I do not understand why that should not be true for 16-year-olds who pay tax. We need electronic and telephone voting, and we should consider making voting compulsory, although I hear what hon. Members say about it being unpopular. Perhaps I am influenced by the fact that I lived in Australia for some time, where voting is compulsory and that issue never came up. We think that compulsory voting would be unpopular because that is not how we do things now, but if we are to deal with the crisis that we face, we have to start doing things differently.
Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister would write to the Secretary of State about the Lewisham trial period and whether a trial can be arranged in time for the next elections.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call on Martin Linton and ask him please to be brief. That is not an instruction, but a polite request.
3.6 pm
Martin Linton: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) for securing the debate, and I am sorry if not all my points are in accord with his.

235WH
We are all addressing the same problem, which is that 5 million fewer people voted in the most recent general election than in the previous one, in which there were 2.25 million fewer voters than in the election before that. A cumulative loss of 7.5 million voters clearly shows a crisis in the system. I support all the mechanical, logistical improvements that have been made to our voting system. Indeed, I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that recommended in 1998 that we have postal voting on demand and a rolling register, and that we introduce various other reforms. I am glad to say that those reforms were introduced in the Representation of the People Act 2000.
Schemes on early, electronic and weekend voting are worth piloting. I think that we can go much further down that road. My hon. Friend mentioned Sweden. In this country, we have pilots for early voting. I succeeded in getting the deadline for postal vote applications moved to one week before polling day, and that was a great help in the most recent election. Without that amendment, the deadline would have been two weeks, so I regard the change as an important advance. However, that is still not far enough; those voting in the Swedish election can cast a postal vote in any post office in the country up until the Friday before a Sunday election. Indeed, in certain big post offices in Stockholm and other large cities, people can vote in a post office on polling day if they happen to be away from their home town. Also, in certain Stockholm post offices, if people cast a postal vote before 5 pm, it will get to their polling station before the close of polls at 8 pm. There are no real technical difficulties involved; we could go much further down that route and make voting easy for everyone.
We on the Home Affairs Select Committee never believed that such changes would add any more than 5 per cent. to voting turnout. In fact, because turnout has gone down for other reasons, we have not even had the satisfaction of such an increase. I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) about the voting system determining voter turnout. There are two important factors: first, the difference that a vote makes to the outcome of the election—that is important, I think—and secondly, the difference that the outcome of the election makes to someone's life. That explains why so few people vote in European elections, and why the vote in local elections is so much lower than in national elections. When one takes that into account, there is no doubt—it could not be clearer—that the main reason for the low turnout in this country is the voting system. The solution, which could not be more obvious, is to change the system.
On average across the whole globe, turnout in first-past-the-post elections is 58 per cent., which is similar to the figure in this country, while turnout in proportional systems is 68 per cent. Even that understates the difference that the system makes. We already had low turnout in national elections, European elections and local elections before the last general election. Turnout in general elections has decreased from 71 to 59 per cent., turnout in European elections has decreased from 36 to 24 per cent. and turnout in local elections has decreased from 40 to 33 per cent. In the international league table of turnout, we are in 65th place. The United
236WH
States, which shares our system, is in 138th place out of 163 countries. Nobody can doubt that our voting system is uniquely likely to lead to low turnouts.
I am sceptical whether compulsory voting would make much difference. The international figures show that, if one takes turnout as a proportion of people of voting age rather than as a proportion of people who are registered to vote, compulsory voting does not make that much difference because it tends to make people not register. If we consider voters as a proportion of people of voting age, we find that in countries with compulsory voting turnout is 69 per cent., which does not say very much, and in countries with non-compulsory voting it is 63 per cent. There is a difference but it is not staggeringly large. Giving people something off their council tax if they vote would be a better way of incentivising them than making voting compulsory, which would introduce feelings of guilt that would put people off voting.
My final point is that the biggest problem in this country is not that voting turnout is low everywhere, but that it is low in safe seats. Other hon. Members have mentioned the seats where there is a problem: Liverpool, Riverside; Manchester, Central; Glasgow, Shettleston; Glasgow, Maryhill; Salford; and Leeds, Central. If one looks at Winchester, Mid-Ulster and Tyrone, the turnout is good by the standards of countries such as Germany and Sweden. It is good because several parties have a chance of winning those seats. There have been narrow majorities in the past, which means that not only every voter is incentivised to vote but every party is incentivised to campaign. Multi-party fights for narrow majorities give people the incentive to vote. If we could reproduce that in every seat in the country, the system would not matter. We cannot reproduce that turnout across the country because the first-past-the-post system creates a huge number of safe seats, which turn people off voting, turn parties off campaigning and turn people away from the political system because they feel that they have no purchase on it.
There are clearly many other causes of low turnout and there may be an international trend towards lower turnout, but if one compares this country with other countries there is no doubt that the single biggest reason, which overshadows all the other reasons by a factor of 10, is the voting system and specifically the existence of so many safe seats. Each party regards its safe seats as a source of strength, but really they are a source of tremendous weakness. We could have another 2 million Labour votes in every election if the people in our safe seats had the incentive to vote. We understate our electoral support in every election by 2 million or 3 million votes because most of it is in places where it makes no difference whether one votes. We underestimate the party's popularity and strength. We have solid support in mining seats, but half the people do not go out to vote. That has spread to huge areas of the country, where people feel no incentive to vote. Let us have a voting system—I do not mind which it is—that allows everybody to go to the polling station secure in the knowledge that their vote will make a difference.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind hon. Members that conventional practice is for each of the three winding-up speeches to last for 10 minutes.
3.14 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) because I could not agree more with his comments about the need to change the voting system. I am not so sure about the overwhelming popularity of the Labour Government, but I shall leave that aside.
The 2001 general election gave us the lowest turnout since 1918. Indeed, some would say that it was the lowest turnout ever in this country, given the circumstances of 1918. Only 59 per cent. of the electorate were sufficiently engaged in the democratic process to play their part in choosing the Government. It is significant that that followed on from 1997, with a turnout of just over 71 per cent., which was then the lowest turnout since 1951. Many people had identified a worrying downward trend in participation in elections prior to 2001, but why did the Governments of the day not act sooner to deal with what has now become a crisis?
My further questions concern what action is being taken to deal with the problem and whether the issues behind the falling turnouts are being addressed? In 2001, more than 60 per cent. of 18 to 25-year-olds did not vote. If the problem is not dealt with adequately, that level of disengagement will pose a threat to the long-term health of our democracy. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate. It is timely, given the urgency of the situation, and appropriate given today's launch of the votes at 16 campaign in the House of Commons.
Why are people choosing not to exercise their democratic right? We have all experienced the responses of constituents when we are canvassing. The conversations that I have had with people who intend not to vote accord closely with the points made by Hansard Society's briefing "None of the Above". It would have been unusual for anyone in 2001 to have gone a whole day without hearing the words, "What's the point? You're all the same." It is not only young people who are disenchanted with politics and politicians. There are responsibilities on us as individuals in our constituencies and within our parties to change public perception. I hope that, in my next campaign, I do not hear so much of that argument. We, as well as the Government, must take the appropriate action.
Soon after being elected in 2001, I hosted a tour of Parliament for a group of young constituents, who were participating in the Princes Trust volunteer scheme. As a new Member of Parliament, I accompanied them along the Line of Route. They questioned parliamentary procedures in the most challenging way. Since the election has become more distant, I have not had the same experience. Interestingly, not one of those young people had voted in the general election. The main reason for that was that they did not understand what was going on, so it did not seem right to vote. That is a good reason not to vote.
That was against a background of the local council having started various initiatives to engage young people in the political process. In 1997, Poole council set up a primary schools council, a secondary schools council and a youth forum. Some schools accepted the
238WH
council's offer to run elections for their representatives, so that provided some practical civic education. In addition, many schools in my constituency have school councils.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's commitment to citizenship education. It has been part of the national curriculum since September 2002. It was recommended in the Crick report in 1998. It is early days for an evaluation, but it will be important to review what is taking place in schools and the impact that it is making. There is obviously much more to the problem than just encouraging young people to vote. They must have a true understanding and an incentive to participate in the wider realm of democracy.
On Friday, I joined Poole's youth forum for the election of Poole's member of the youth parliament. More than 70 young people attended a lively evening. It started with pizzas and ended with a disco, while the middle part focused on political debate and processes. All those initiatives are important, but it is important to appreciate that whatever we do in schools will not be enough unless we, as politicians, change—Prime Minister's Question Time is not a good role model.
Voting at 16 is the logical conclusion of citizenship education in schools. The arguments are well rehearsed and come down to the rights of young people. Young people have a responsibility to pay tax; they can marry; they can bring up a family and they can join the armed forces, and there should be corresponding rights. I therefore welcomed the confirmation, given in July 2002 by the Minister with responsibility for young people, that the Government would consider any recommendations from the Electoral Commission following its review on the voting age over the coming year. A point raised at the launch this morning was that MPs who support the cause have an ideal opportunity to give leadership in their constituencies and in Parliament to raise awareness of such an important issue. It is, of course, Liberal Democrat policy to lower the voting age to 16.
I also welcome the Government's new commitments to increase spending on youth services. One of the benefits is that there will be additional opportunities to promote citizenship education in different ways. There is also a need for more information and citizenship education for adults. It is interesting that some non-voters can be engaged in political activities—for example, marches and protests. Globalisation protests are a prime example: people think that they can make a difference, and they care about the issues. Democratic ballots are enthusiastically embraced when people believe that their opinions will make a difference on issues that directly affect them. As an example, we have only to look at the housing transfer ballots; in contrast, ballots on how local council structures might be changed had, for the most part, woefully low turnouts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West said, there was a high turnout for voting for "Pop Idol".
We have to rise to the challenges and make changes appropriate to the 21st century. We need to instigate institutional change so that Parliament has more relevance. It needs to be more representative, with more women—dare I say it?—more younger people and more people from ethnic minorities. People want candidates to be more in tune with society and more accessible. I think the Government have given good leadership by permitting all-women shortlists. Last week, I was

239WH
pleased to attend the first Question Time on youth issues, but I thought it bizarre that the proceedings were interrupted twice for 12 minutes while voting took place in the House. As well as being considered as a measure for increasing voter turnout, surely there is a case for using electronic voting in this place.
Many hon. Members have suggested measures to make voting easier. Of course there is a case for making it easier in order to oil the wheels of democracy. One beneficial effect would be an increase in turnout, but we are not looking at very large shifts. It is important to make it easier, but at the same time we must be wary so that we avoid fraud, attempts at impersonation and so on. There are the simple mechanical changes. We have all noticed the improvements, such as the fact that it is already easier to obtain a postal vote. I agree with all the points that are being made, such as where we vote, how we vote and so on. Such issues need to be looked at, but the core point is changing the voting system.
I am an MP in one of the 100 most marginal seats. Indeed, it is probably near the top of the list. It was a marginal seat for the Conservatives in 1997 and it is a marginal seat for the Liberal Democrats now. It did not have a significantly higher turnout—65 per cent.—but I suppose that it just about fits the mould. However, there was a great deal of interest and activity, and I think that that interest will go forward to the next election.
The issue is people knowing that their vote counts. Statistics show that voter turnout is higher in countries that have a proportional voting system. It is significant that the Liberal Democrats' favoured option of a single transferable vote seems to produce the highest turnouts. A change in the voting system, particularly to a single transferable vote system, would offer many advantages. I oppose a compulsory voting system. The argument was put very well by the hon. Member for Battersea, but we ignore the problem at our peril. We have seen what happened in the council elections; it is vital that we deal with the matter.
3.24 pm
Mr. William Cash: I rather disagree with the arguments that I have heard from some quarters today, especially from the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). We all agree that voter participation is a serious matter and I am not sure that we will be able to give it the attention that it deserves this afternoon. It is one of the most critical factors facing democracy in this country—indeed, Europe and the rest of the world.
The solution, however, does not turn on voting systems. I do not disregard them because changes could improve matters, but I have examined and analysed the results of the electoral pilot schemes. It is interesting to note from a Library research paper that, when a website was used for electronic voting in Crewe and Nantwich, turnout increased from 18 per cent. in 1998 to 31.4 per cent. in 2002, which is remarkable.
There are other examples, however, of places where, for some reason, the same system was used but the results were different. For example, in Chorley, electronic counting was piloted, and turnout increased
240WH
from 31.3 per cent. in 1998 to 61.5 per cent. in 2002. However, the same system was used in City of Westminster, and turnout dropped from 32 per cent. in 1998, to 27.4 per cent. in 2002. It is extraordinary that the same system doubles turnout in Chorley but decreases it in City of Westminster.
Had I more time, I could give details of other examples that show that changing the voting system will not solve the problem. Modernising voting systems with new technology will not get the right result. The problem is much more fundamental.
I was taken with the arguments of the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) who spoke about credibility and respect. They provide the key to the problem. I have spoken about the strengthening of Parliament in previous debates, and specifically about the problem of low voter turnout and respect for democracy. I have concluded that, to a certain extent, the Whip system has a lot to do with the problem, and I make no bones about making that point again. I need not repeat what I said in previous debates, but hon. Members are over-whipped. The Iraq war may turn out to be an example of a trend in the opposite direction—but people know that the bottom line is that the Whip system has tended to crush the individuality of hon. Members.
The role of the media has also been mentioned today. In many respects, unelected commentators and interviewers—who have no responsibility, who sometimes ask intelligent questions, but sometimes do not ask the right questions and none the less dominate the airwaves—have arrogated to themselves a position that is not justified and which is not necessarily in the interests of the people. Such people could make a useful contribution. There is no point in imagining that the problem will go away, but we must seriously examine it.
For example, when the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, made his statements about burglary the other day, I sought a right of reply on the "Today" programme. I set out my arguments in a letter, which astonished people because I attacked the programme for not giving me an opportunity to reply. When I got that opportunity, the following day, I was asked about House of Lords reform. That is a perfect example. People may say that MPs are ineffective, and they may say that of the Conservative party in particular, but I had quite a few things to say and had I had the opportunity to go on, it would have made a significant difference to the way in which people perceived our reaction.
There is also the question of low attendance in the House, which is a serious problem that turns people off. We hear much about the so-called yah-boo politics that goes on in the Chamber. However, it is a much deeper problem. I am not discounting the way in which the media intrude on how people perceive politics and politicians. If the public see politicians as the butt and as people who always have to answer questions from some glory boy who happens to be the key questioner at that time, however distinguished he may be, it diminishes their respect. That is the effect of seeing someone constantly being kicked into corners. It does not matter whether the politician in question is Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish Nationalist or anything else. The serious question of how we deal with that issue has to be tackled and I am not sure that I have good answers. I have been on television and radio a

241WH
great deal myself and I cannot complain about the treatment that I have received. However, from the viewer's point of view it is a different story.
Broken promises by Governments also contribute. I could enlarge on that, but I do not have much time. There is now a degree of cynicism, and people simply do not believe what they are told. It is significant that the percentage vote has dropped dramatically and quickly, particularly in the period running up to the 2001 general election. There is no question but that 59.4 per cent. was catastrophic. That was a drop from about 70 per cent., which was regarded as significantly low. When I was first elected to the House nearly 20 years ago, we automatically expected about 75 per cent. or 78 per cent. Now we have 59.4 per cent. That is absolutely catastrophic, and it could well get worse. The House has nothing to be satisfied or complacent about; we have every reason to take steps to ensure that we change the situation.
The situation is partly a result of the fact that people do not perceive politicians as having sufficient conviction. That is part of my point about the whipping system and the way in which it operates. I would agree with the findings of a report that claimed that the election of 7 June 2001 was seen as not being important and as not offering adequate choices. That situation arises when there is a lack of conviction at the heart of the political process and when people are simply gambling through spin doctors or the juggling of their manifestos in order to seem as near to one another as possible. That is quite contrary to assertions that it is all to do with proportional representation. I never heard such junk. Under a system of proportional representation, people's votes matter. If a person does not vote—I would always recommend people to vote—it matters. Low turnout has an effect, as it has, for example, in France, where there was massive abstention.
There is so much more that I would like to say, but I will conclude by saying that I very much believe that the fault lies with politicians. However, structural changes must be made, and the media have a great deal to answer for.
3.34 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate and raising such an important issue. We have heard serious contributions from a range of perspectives in what has been a good debate. Hon. Members are right to say that drops in turnout should concern everyone who cares about democracy.
There is not yet a consensus on why turnouts have dropped. In the 2001 election, the turnout dropped to 59.4 per cent. from just over 70 per cent. in the 1997 election—which itself was a drop from the 1992 election, when the turnout was 77.7 per cent. Turnout has also fallen in European elections from 36 per cent. to 24 per cent. English local elections have shown the same general trend over the past 15 years—although the turnout in the most recent local elections in England was higher than it had been in the previous elections.
We take a lot for granted. Only 100 years ago, none of the women in this room could have voted. Many of the men probably could not have voted either. All men
242WH
have had the vote for only a relatively short period; yet, after just a few generations, people take for granted the vote that was hard won over a very long period. This issue matters. If people do not vote, they do not have a voice in the choosing of their Government or the choosing of those who will speak for them. If certain groups do not vote, decisions that affect their lives will, in effect, be taken by others. Whenever there is a democratic void, anti-democratic elements, movements and parties will step into it. That is why this issue should concern us all.
There are two concerns. The first is that some groups have consistently, over a long period, been less likely to vote than others—for example, members of particular ethnic minorities, young people, and those on lower incomes. Whatever the voting system and whatever the period, those groups have been less likely to vote.
The second concern is the recent change. We do not yet know whether that change is part of a long-term trend, so we do not know whether it was just a one-off that affected the 2001 election. However, we are right to be concerned. There is no consensus on why voter turnout fell so far in the 2001 election. A range of theories has been offered. Some argue that it fell because people thought that the result of the election was a foregone conclusion; and some argue that, because of that, turnout will bounce back again when there is a closely fought election. Some argue about the fragmentation of society and a lack of party identification across the generations. Some argue that politics is too confrontational; some argue that it is not confrontational enough. There are also theories about the convenience of voting.
The fact is that we do not know why turnout fell. We will not know for some time and, by the time we do, it may well be too late to do anything. That is why hon. Members are right to raise issues that we must address immediately, regardless of the lack of consensus about what has caused turnout to fall. We have to ask what political parties can and should do. Political parties are the main forum for voter engagement—through individual politicians, candidates, local party organisations or national party organisations. I will not discuss those issues in detail now because the main issue to discuss is what we can do on a cross-party basis.
There is a perception that the Opposition are weak and that the media have felt obliged to become an opposition instead. The impact of that on people's perception of politics has not helped. Media attitudes towards politics and politicians have changed, and that has not helped either.
What can we do to address these issues? There are two areas in which the Government can try to respond. First, what more can we do throughout society, not only through Government, to promote a sense of citizenship and voter engagement and participation and, secondly, how can we address practical issues to make voting easier? Hon. Members raised issues about the voting system and the way in which votes are counted, and I shall address that in a minute.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire was right to raise the issues of education and young people. A change since 2000 is that citizenship is now a statutory part of the curriculum in secondary schools. That has the overall objective of ensuring that young

243WH
people are aware of their rights and responsibilities and that they know more about our political system, our institutions and the votes to which they are entitled.
Increasingly, in addition to work being done by schools and the Department for Education and Skills, the youth service and local organisations are working to promote young people's knowledge about political institutions and their rights. On Sunday, I visited Wakefield college, which is just outside my constituency, to attend an event for the election of members of the youth parliament. Given that the event took place at 10.15 on a Sunday morning, I expected there to be me, three members of the youth service, four teenagers and not a lot more people. In fact, 100 young people aged between 12 and 18 turned up on a Sunday morning to discuss issues that concerned them and to participate in an election for local members of the youth parliament. I thought that that showed a fantastic level of interest, and it just shows that those who think that young people are not interested in politics in the widest sense or in the issues that concern them are talking nonsense. We need to give young people more opportunities to raise their worries. The young people at the college talked about local bus routes, teenage pregnancies and the required age for entry into clubs. The issues were of immediate concern to the young people, but they were interested in issues nevertheless.
This is not about only information and education for young people, but about older people as well. The Electoral Commission has the remit for voter information, education and awareness. It has started its work only recently and it focuses on increasing the participation of groups that are especially unlikely to vote. It has worked with Operation Black Vote, for example, and we should look forward to interesting work in that area.
We should make it easier to vote. It is not a panacea, but turnout increased in pilot schemes that involved only postal voting, when voting was incredibly convenient. Convenience is an issue, although it is not the only issue, and it is a reason why I am sympathetic
244WH
to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) about weekend voting. I do not know how people find time to vote on Thursdays if they have kids, go to work and are busy. They may forget to vote on the way to work in the morning, and how will they find the time to vote if it is 8 o'clock in the evening and the kids are about to go to bed? It should not be a hassle to exercise one's democratic rights.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Battersea (Martin Linton) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) raised the question of whether the introduction of proportional representation would be effective. Hon. Members have overstated their case on that one. We have had the first-past-the-post system for decades but turnout has fallen significantly only during the past few years. The voting system does not explain changes during the past five to 15 years. Additionally, when PR was introduced for the European elections, turnout fell from 36 per cent. to 24 per cent. A range of reasons why that happened can be offered, but it is clear that no simple voting mechanism will address the turnout issues that we face. There is a wide range of problems. No one has any easy solutions, although I wish that they did because I would be desperate to implement them. It is right to try as many different mechanisms on as many different fronts as possible, and to keep the debate going in this House and throughout the country so that as many people as possible are engaged in how we can increase voter turnout and engagement in our democracy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I register my appreciation of and commendation for the good humour and patience that has been displayed throughout the tribulations of the sitting. I shall not offer an apology, because I do not think that one is necessary, but the circumstances were very difficult, and you all deserve credit.
We come now, 15 minutes late, to the next topic for consideration. My notes indicate that the subject is Humber bridge tools, but I am sure that it should be Humber bridge tolls.

Humber Bridge Tolls
3.45 pm
Shona Mclsaac: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is in fact a debate about Humber bridge tolls, not tools.
Tolls to cross the River Humber are nothing new. For example, I noted during my background research for the debate that Edward II granted a charter to the warden and burgesses of Hull to operate a ferry between Hull and Barton-upon-Humber in my constituency. In 1315, the cost of the toll for the ferry was half an old pence.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Overcharging!
Shona McIsaac: It probably was overcharging then. That charge was for a person on foot. If one was wealthy enough to have a horse, the charge was one old pence, and for a horse and cart it was two old pence. We have always had tolls to cross the Humber—they are nothing new.
However, in the 19th century it was acknowledged that the river and the ferry crossings were becoming barriers to trade and communications, so local groups launched campaigns to have a tunnel or bridge built. The lobbying continued until enactment of the Humber Bridge Act 1959, which set up the board. Its raison d'être was to raise money and to construct, operate, maintain and administer the Humber bridge. It comprises representatives from councils in the surrounding area, such as Hull, North Lincolnshire, East Riding of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire councils.
Finally, in 1971, the project was realised and the board set about borrowing money for a major construction project. At the time, it was estimated that the cost of the bridge would be about £28 million, but it had escalated to £151 million by the time the bridge opened in 1981.
Since then, the debt, repayment of loans to the Government and cost of the tolls have been of great local concern. MPs from the area have campaigned tenaciously on the subject. I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who are here today in support of the debate, and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who cannot be here today because of ministerial duties. He too has worked very hard in campaigning on the issue.
We have had successes. In July 1998, the Government responded to our concerns about the escalating debt, the interest and the cost of the tolls, and an order was passed by Parliament writing off £62 million of the debt and to suspend and reschedule the remaining debt to make debt payments more realistic. The interest rate was reduced from about 12 per cent., which was high in 1998, to a fixed rate of 7.75 per cent.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. As she will know, I have been a local in the area throughout the period that the bridge went from being a pipe dream to a reality. I have always believed that the potential benefits of movements to and from the north and south banks are considerable but hampered by toll levels.
246WH
Is my hon. Friend aware that the absence of tolls during a brief period of industrial action by the bridge board staff in the 1980s resulted in a huge increase in the traffic that went over the bridge, proving that the toll level is a major deterrent to achieving all the benefits that could result from movements between the north and south banks?
Shona Mclsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that characteristic intervention. He is right to say that traffic across the bridge increased enormously when the industrial action took place, thus proving that the tolls are still a barrier.
A few years later, after campaigning as a team on Humber bridge tolls and achieving success in rescheduling the debt, we were faced with the possibility of VAT being levied on the tolls. To be fair to the Government, however, we fought the case together and the decision that was made in Europe went in our favour and VAT was not levied on the bridge. It is levied only on tolls for private bridges. We have worked successfully with the Government.
The current campaign links in with what my hon. Friend said. The levels of the toll are creating barriers, particularly for people who want to access health care. The system has been dubbed "the toll on health". The campaign was sparked off by the reorganisation of health authorities in the area. It meant that people who used to receive various treatments for cancer, for example, in hospital in Lincoln now have to travel across the bridge to Hull and incur a toll of £2.50 each way.
The vast area of the south bank of the River Humber disadvantages those in Grimsby and Cleethorpes and those who live further west in the Isle of Axholme. In addition to the cost of the tolls, people have to make a lengthy journey to access health care, especially cancer treatment. Tolls should not be a barrier to health. In the 19th century, it was said that the river was a barrier to trade and communication; now the bridge is a toll on health.
I know from my constituency casework—as I am sure do my colleagues—that people are declining appointments because they cannot meet the cost of travelling to hospital. Relatives are having to cut down on their visits to their loved ones, even those who are seriously ill, because they cannot meet the costs of travelling daily over the bridge. It is all very well to say that people can use public transport, but as anyone who has visited that part of the country will know, we do not have direct rail links to Hull. The bus services are infrequent, especially in the evening. Unless people have cars, it is a difficult journey.
I admit that there are concessions and money is available to help a small proportion of people. If a person has the money to pay up front, there are discounts to be had. However, many people on low incomes who do not qualify for the concessions, or pensioners who are above the income support level usually cannot afford to pay £50 up front to receive a 10 per cent. reduction. There is an exemption, however, for people who receive the highest rate of disability living allowance and have a tax exempt vehicle. It is worth while my making that statement today because there are people who do not realise that they are entitled to free trips across the river.

247WH
Locally, everyone is in agreement that something must be done to assist people to access health care. The bridge board has said that, in principle, it wants action to be taken. The local authority supports the idea. In fact, my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe and for Brigg and Goole were questioned by North Lincolnshire council about the campaign. They, too, lent their support to it. The primary care trust also supports it. The campaign has been marvellously publicised by the local newspapers, the Grimsby Telegraph and the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph. Thousands of people have expressed their support for it, either through the newspapers or their MPs. Everyone agrees that such action is desirable. We must find a way forward.
We are taking part in a huge game of pass the parcel. Everyone is saying that we have to do something, but they are also saying, "It's not my responsibility", "There may be legal problems", or "We haven't got the money." I want everybody to get together and come up with a scheme that will actually get rid of this toll on health and the barrier created by the high level of tolls.
Mr. Cawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the need to find a quick solution is ever more pressing? The modernisation of the health service is leading to greater use of regional centres and specialisations, which is entirely correct from a medical point of view. However, what is an historic problem is affecting more and more families as the modernisation of the national health service moves on.
Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend is correct. As I stressed earlier, reorganisation and modernisation mean that people have to incur longer and more costly journeys to access health care. The Government have a role to play. They can provide a solution.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend has incited me to intervene. She has the backing of all the Members of Parliament in the area, but is not the real problem the Treasury, which could write down the debt? It is now a notional figure. Interest rates are much lower now than when they were fixed. The Treasury demonstrated in the 1990s that it could reduce outlay, and it has done so on many other occasions—for large-scale voluntary transfers, for example. This is a Treasury problem.
Shona Mclsaac: As in the local community, many interested groups are involved. On ministerial responsibility, many Departments have an interest—the Department for Transport, the Department of Health and the Treasury. If my hon. Friend waits a couple more minutes, I will come to my point about interest rates.
Debt is the problem. The Humber bridge makes a substantial operating profit: it raises approximately £18 million a year from tolls, of which £15 million goes to the Exchequer. The Exchequer has received more than £150 million from the tollpayers of Humberside, so the key lies with the Treasury. The Minister can have influence. I want him to re-examine the arrangements put in place in 1998 when the debt was rescheduled and the interest rates were reduced from approximately 12 to 7.75 per cent., which was a fixed rate. Everybody would now agree with my hon. Friend that 7.75 per cent. is high.
248WH
The debt arrangements will soon be due for a five-yearly review, and the Minister has scope to do something about the interest rates. He could also look at the length of time over which the debt must be repaid and extend the payment period. Both options would result in more of the money raised by tollpayers staying in the community. It would free up capital to allow organisations in the area to fund schemes to help people to access health care or help visitors to visit loved ones. We could even do something for trainee nurses who have to go to Hull for their training.
Those things could be done easily—they are not difficult. The review is coming up and the Government hold the key to providing the solution. If the Minister will consider those suggestions, I will try, with the support of my colleagues who represent constituencies on the south bank of the Humber, to ask all the interested organisations to come together at a joint meeting so that we can devise a constructive way forward. We will work together and with the Minister to try to provide a solution to this problem. I also hope that the Minister will agree to meet a delegation from those local organisations so that we can scrap the toll on health.
4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) on securing this important debate and on the clarity with which she made her points on behalf of her constituents. In my hon. Friend they have a good fighter for their cause who can make their case clearly and with some power and passion. I am pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) take an interest on this important matter from south of the Humber.
My hon. Friend gave us a brief history lesson, which I thought was interesting, but above all she gave a clear appraisal of the effects that the toll is having on her constituents, especially on those of limited means. The hon. Lady mentioned in particular the issue of the hospital, in relation to the sick, relatives visiting people there and nurses. If, once the deliberations have taken place and my hon. Friend has met various interested parties, she feels that there is some value in having a meeting, I would be pleased to see her and other hon. Members.
I shall give a brief summary of the bridge's history, which may be helpful in putting the issue, and some of the possible ways forward, in context. The Humber bridge was opened in 1981. It is not a part of the trunk road network, but was built under legislation promoted by the local authority—the Humber Bridge Act 1959, as amended by the Humber Bridge Act 1971. The bridge is managed by the Humber bridge board, which is a local authority body. Most members of the board are from Hull city council, and its local taxpayers stand to finance most of any deficit from the tolls.
The bridge was financed by borrowing from the Secretary of State for Transport and the Public Works Loan Board. It took longer and cost more to construct than was expected and traffic growth was lower than forecast because the population growth that was expected for south Humberside when the bridge was

249WH
planned never materialised. Toll income failed to cover the interest on debts, so unpaid interest was added to the debt. Capitalisation caused an exponential growth in debt from £181 million in 1981 to £439 million at 31 March 1992. It was recognised that the bridge board's financial situation was unsustainable and that action was needed. Without Government assistance, the debt would have risen to £650 million by 1997.
In July 1991, the Roads Minister announced the Government's intention to legislate in order to obtain express powers to write off or suspend debt. The Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996 received Royal Assent in February 1996. In July 1998, a new loan agreement was signed with the Humber bridge board and approved by the Humber Bridge (Debts) Order 1998 under the 1996 Act. That wrote off the debt to the PWLB and fixed a new, lower consolidated loan interest rate and suspended interest payments on some of the Secretary of State for Transport's debt. In the absence of these arrangements, the total interest charges on the Humber bridge debts would have amounted to nearly £50 million, which, without Government action, would have resulted in an impossible burden on the local taxpayers of Hull. The new arrangements initially reduced interest charges to less than £10 million, which were to be accommodated from within the bridge board's operating surplus after operating and maintenance costs had been met.
Although the bridge was built with Government loans, its financing and operation is primarily a matter for the bridge board. It is for the board to propose the tolls charged, and it can revise them only by applying to the Secretary of State for Transport, who must consider the application objectively in accordance with the criteria set out in the Humber Bridge Acts of 1959 and 1971. Under those Acts, the Secretary of State must not be unduly influenced by the debt owed to him.
The toll revision process is lengthy and includes advertising the application and the possibility of a public inquiry into objections. The decision on whether to provide discounts to, or exemptions from, toll charges is a matter for the board, except in the cases of certain groups of people and vehicles defined in the legislation. Although not obliged to do so, the board provides exemptions for disabled drivers in receipt of mobility allowance and for those who receive the higher rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance. The board has also put in place a discount scheme for all bridge users on whom tolls are levied, which is available when pre-purchasing books of tickets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes raised the issue of people travelling to hospitals in Hull having to pay the full bridge toll. The matter has also been covered widely in the Humberside press. The last toll revision public inquiry, held in December 2001, discussed whether concessions for bridge crossings should be made on social policy grounds. In his decision letter on the toll application, the Secretary of State for Transport accepted the inspector's view that any subsidies granted on social policy grounds were a matter for those responsible for the provision of health and social services, not the Humber bridge board.
My hon. Friend pointed out that the Humber Bridge (Debts) Order was made in 1998, and has added five to get to 2003. However, my Department and the Humber bridge board are undertaking a review of the debt. Any
250WH
rescheduling thought necessary as a result of the debt review will, of course, require approval from the Treasury, and would be made by order under section 1 of the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996. The order would have to be laid before the House, and would be subject to an annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons—that is, to a negative resolution procedure.
Section 75 of the Humber Bridge Act 1959 sets out how the board shall apply revenues, and it lists nine purposes for which the revenues can be used. The ninth of those reads:
"ninthly in the reduction of tolls which may be demanded taken and recovered under this Act or for such other purpose as may be approved by the Minister".
If the review went well and decided in the board's favour, an interpretation of that ninth category would have to be made to determine whether it would allow a concessionary crossing fee to be applied to those in certain categories. I am sure that my hon. Friend is not expecting any legal advice from me, but it would be for the board to interpret the ninth category, so one route down which people might go, if the five-yearly review goes favourably, would be to seek such advice and find out whether it gives them any comfort.
Shona McIsaac: Peeling away all the layers of legalese, is the Minister basically saying that there is a way forward to try to achieve our aim?
Mr. Jamieson: I have learned in this place that the intricate layers of legalese cannot be ignored. I hope that I have set out the legal position for my hon. Friend. The 1959 Act gives the board the ability to make a decision on the reduction of tolls on the basis that I outlined. However, we make the laws in this place but others interpret them. The board would need expert interpretation of the law and I said that I was not qualified to do that today. Putting this in simple terms, it seems as if there might be an avenue for exploration, at least, of an interpretation of the meaning before the board does what it urgently and earnestly desires.
My hon. Friend said that she had received representations from her constituents setting out their discontent about having to travel to and from Hull for hospital. She cited the example of people receiving daily cancer treatment but not receiving help with paying toll charges for using the bridge although a person visiting someone in prison in Hull could receive assistance with the charge. Let me clarify that because I believe that it has been mentioned in the local media.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is not a matter for my Department, but for the completeness of the debate, I took the trouble to peruse the websites of Her Majesty's Prison Service and the Departments of Health and for Work and Pensions—you see what I do in my spare time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The websites provide information on assistance that might be available to some users of the bridge. If a person is visiting a close relative or partner in prison or if a person has a low income and is a prisoner's only visitor, they may be entitled to help with the cost of the journey through the assisted prison visits scheme, which is funded and managed by Her Majesty's Prison Service.
People in receipt of income support, working families tax credit, disabled person's tax credit or income-based jobseeker's allowance can receive help with travel costs

251WH
when they attend hospital for national health service treatment and when they come out of hospital through the hospital travel costs scheme. They can also receive help with travel costs when they go to and from hospital as an out-patient for NHS treatment. They may also be able to get help with travels costs for someone whom they need to accompany them to hospital, if they cannot go by themselves.
People who are on a low income, but who do not receive income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance, may be able to get help with travel costs through the NHS low income scheme, as may people whom they require to accompany them. Further questions about those schemes should be addressed to the Department of Health; I have outlined only my understanding.
Persons in receipt of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance who visit an ill person in hospital may be able to get help with travel costs from the community care grant from the social fund. Further questions about that should be directed to the Department for Work and Pensions. My hon. Friend's constituents' concerns might be due in part to a lack of awareness of the funding available from various pots.
Shona McIsaac: I totally agree that some constituents have a lack of awareness about available help. If they contact me or any other Member of Parliament who represents the area, we put them straight. However, it is not only people on low incomes who have a problem. People on moderate incomes find the cost of the tolls a real hardship and barrier.
Mr. Jamieson: I accept that. People who are just over the barrier—on a low income, but not a low enough income to qualify for the benefits—often have problems. There might be a case for better advertising of the schemes. Some people might be paying the toll although they could apply for one of the benefits.
My hon. Friend made an extremely powerful case on behalf of her constituents. The five-yearly review is taking place, although I cannot predict its outcome because there will be discussions between the Department—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must turn our attention to the final topic for consideration today: policing in Somerset.

Policing (Somerset)
4.14 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am grateful to be able to bring to the Minister's attention the situation of policing in Somerset. Running late is a bit of a novelty. Perhaps the microphones should always go down—things might go a lot quicker and less painfully. It has certainly been a long time since I saw an hon. Member get up and say, "Can I have a yes or no from the Minister?" It was very unusual but very nice to see.
This debate is slightly unusual. I am interested in policing in Somerset but we come under the Avon and Somerset constabulary area. That area was set up to include Bristol and a very large rural hinterland. As the years have passed, we have discovered that Bristol—which is now a large conurbation—takes more and more resources. Many of Bristol's problems are not problems that we have in rural Somerset. As a result, public service agreement targets have caused more and more problems for the chief constable.
I recently had a meeting with Steve Pilkington, the chief constable of Avon and Somerset constabulary. He has been trying to work his way through the raft of targets that he has been asked to hit. The latest target is to reduce burglary in Bristol. He has been very successful in doing that, but the problem is that burglary in rural areas has gone up. It is not that he is not trying to keep the levels down; it is that the resources that he requires for the enormous Bristol conurbation are way out of proportion.
The PSA targets should be broken down further to consider both rural and urban policing. I know that it is unusual to have such a big conurbation at the top of an area, but policing resources for rural Somerset should be readdressed. I imagine that hon. Members who represent Bristol will have something to say about that, and will say it louder than I am saying this, but there is a problem. Owing to the fact that the policing plan is national, it does not consider local variations. In Somerset, the national picture cannot be turned into a local picture with the flick of a magic wand.
The chief constable's task is to spend enough money to stand still, but the precept this year means that he will not be able to do that. His additional spending for 2003–04 is £21 million—just to stand still. The inflation part of that, and pay awards, account for £8.6 million and the extra cost of police pensions accounts for £1.9 million. Service growth accounts for £11.8 million. He has nothing extra to expand policing in his area. The chief constable will have to try to deliver with what he has got.
It is very worrying to receive a letter from a chief constable saying that the likely cuts in the precept could result in up to 100 officers having to go. He has made it clear that that will not happen—so I do not want to scare the Minister into thinking that it will—but he is extremely concerned, as any chief constable would be, about what he has been offered. To hit the PSA targets, he now needs to provide an extra 193 officers and 130 support staff. That represents a rise of 6 to 7 per cent. in policing numbers.
What targets will the chief constable have to try to achieve? They are: a 15 per cent. detection rate for domestic burglaries; a 6 per cent. detection rate for theft

253WH
from motor vehicles; an 18 per cent. detection rate for robberies to be reached over two years; and to attend 80 per cent. of calls within 10 minutes in urban areas. One should note that that is the urban, not the rural, response time for policing in Somerset.
The Minister and the Government are imposing those targets on a chief constable who is finding it difficult to know where resources will come from. His increase in Government funding this year is £4.6 million—or 3 per cent. However, that figure would have to be £11.4 million just to allow policing to stand still. He will not be able to make up that differential unless he does so through efficiency measures or by putting up the precept in Somerset. That is the important part.
After this year's budget increases, pay and national insurance contributions alone will total £7 million. Over and above that, £2.8 million will have to be put aside for pensions. The only other sums that the chief constable will receive to meet the PSA targets—I have checked this carefully—are for certain specific Home Office projects on crime detection or crime reduction.
I wonder whether the targets are achievable. The increased revenue forecasts for 2004–05 and for 2005–06 are £20.5 million and £35.4 million respectively. Policing is getting more and more expensive. We want police, we need police and they do an extremely good job, but as resources are cut, it becomes harder and harder to see where the extra money will come from and how west Somerset will cope. The first thing that the inspector said to me was that we need resources. He said, "We have a drugs problem and other normal policing problems, yet I have to second officers to Taunton, Yeovil and other places." I see that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) in present. The police consistently face the problem of trying to balance the books.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), who unfortunately cannot be here because he is serving on the Standing Committee considering the Hunting Bill, has made the point that on the enormous expanse of Exmoor, radios do not even work—never mind policemen. Police in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) have found it hard to hit the response times for the fairly elderly population of Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge because of the problems of such an unbalanced society. Elderly people require slightly more; they demand high-quality policing at all times.
In our area, we have the parish warden scheme, which was set up to build up police resources. I have no basic problem with that; as an idea, it is sound. Our two wardens do an extremely good job; they work hard. When funding for them runs out, however, it will fall to Sedgemoor district council to pay. It cannot afford to do so. We would like parish wardens, and I am sure that the Minister will say that he would like to give them to us, but district councils cannot afford to fund the posts. I would like many more people to be taken on as parish wardens to try to help the police.
I would also like more special constables. As an ex-Territorial Army soldier, I know the importance of volunteers. Special constables do a phenomenal job. Bridgwater has the biggest carnival in the world; it commemorates the battle of Sedgemoor. The specials police an event that sees 150,000 people arrive in a town of a population of 30,000. There is never any great
254WH
trouble because it is policed beautifully. We know what is going to happen. We have the right people to do the job now, but given the terms and conditions and the fact that they are volunteering for what can be an extremely difficult job, the problem in future will be recruiting.
Mr. David Laws: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the prospect faced this year by his constituents and mine is a 35 per cent. rise in the police precept in Somerset in order to fund what is essentially a crime problem in Bristol? Does he also agree that Home Office Ministers should consider funding Bristol's particular problems centrally rather than at the expense of residents in Somerset? Does he further agree that if the raiding of Somerset's budget to fund Bristol continues, there will eventually be pressure for Somerset to join the more rural counties such as Dorset and to break the link with Bristol altogether?
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly valid point. He is absolutely right. The chief constable has said that he can envisage council tax on a band D property rising this year by £25.45—just to be able to police the Somerset area. As the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps we should be talking about Somerset joining another rural area such as Dorset or Devon, because as a rural area we cannot afford to police a large conurbation.
An interesting piece appeared in Bristol's Evening Post in October. The chief constable, Steve Pilkington, wrote to all the area's MPs to say that if we do not sort out the issue, council tax will have to go up. The article said that his letter was a stark warning as the Government prepared to announce the conclusion of consultation on radical changes to the funding formula for local authorities. There is real concern. I am sure that the Minister would agree that when important local newspapers lead with such stories, it does not do the morale of anybody in the area any good.
I want to bring the problem of raves to the Minister's attention. Before people ask why we are discussing raves in Somerset, I point out that Glastonbury is down the road, where one of the biggest outdoor festivals in the country takes place. We also have Steart common, an area of unspoilt beauty. In 2002, there were two raves there, which ended up with 4,000 people trying to get past three policemen. The inspector had no choice but to withdraw the policemen. The chief constable was magnanimous in saying that there were problems but that a large number of people had come through Bristol and having got away from being held there had gone to an area in Bridgwater from which they could not be removed. The resources to police rural Somerset are not sufficient. There have been opportunities to give money, and the local council, the local police and the enterprise agencies have each given £1,000 to put up gates to try to stop such people, but policemen are needed to head them off. We do not have them.
The courts system is now under threat. I know that this is not the Minister's responsibility—he is concerned with rural policing—but the court in Minehead is to shut, the court in Bridgwater is under threat, and other courts in Somerset may be closing. The police in west Somerset fear that, having arrested an offender, they will have to take him to Taunton. We only have buses; if

255WH
people do not have a car, they are stuck—and the buses do not exactly arrive every 10 minutes. That type of problem is creating enormous worry in the police system. If Bridgwater courts shut, cases will have to go to Taunton. We have an industrial town in the middle of Somerset, with all the attendant problems. Will the Minister consider how policing will be carried out if we do not have the courts system in the area to cope?
Another problem concerns the probationary service. Last week, the Somerset County Gazette ran a story, which is now confirmed, on how the probation service might have to change the way in which it works because magistrates are stopping case after case to wait for late reports. Police time, effort and resources are being wasted. We are squandering what we have. As I said when referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, my constituency covers Exmoor. If a policeman goes there, not only can he not use his mobile phone because there are no masts for his radio, but he cannot be contacted to find out what has been going on. That is a long-term worry.
The Government are putting the onus on local authorities, which are being used to cover a hole in the economy. The Government's thinking is to put the onus on them to raise the precept by 40 per cent. and ensure that local people have to raise the money so that they make the decision whether they want the policing level that they deserve. Will the Minister please look again at the calculations and allow the chief constable of Avon and Somerset to put his case? Will he make sure that the precept means that we have policing in real terms without having to beg central Government every year or put 30 to 40 per cent. on the council tax payers of Avon and Somerset?
4.28 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on obtaining a debate on policing in Somerset. I will try to reply to as many of his points as possible. He spoke forcefully about the situation in Somerset, but his argument revealed some misconceptions. It is not the case that the Government have set a vast raft of public service agreement targets. This year, the Somerset force has three nationally set targets: on burglary, car crime and street crime. All the others that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are either generated locally by the police authority or are set by it against national best value performance indicators.
It is one thing for the Government to say to a force that aspects of its service must be measured because it, like any service, needs to know how well it is performing, but quite another thing for the Government to impose targets on forces. Under the new national policing plan, the burglary target is not set nationally—certainly not at this stage—but we have invited forces to set burglary and car crime targets. Overall, we wish to achieve the PSA standard that has been set. We should not confuse targets that have been set by the local police authority and police force with Government-imposed procedure.
Mr. Laws: Does the Minister deny that the priorities of the Avon and Somerset constabulary were essentially micro-managed by his Department during the recent street crime initiative in Bristol, in order to meet specific objectives?
Mr. Denham: There was no micro-management by the Home Office, but there was a common approach to tackling street crime among the 10 forces with a major problem, of which Bristol was undeniably one. For people in the Avon and Somerset area, the initiative achieved a dramatic reduction in street crime. [Interruption.] There was a dramatic reduction in street crime.
Additionally, the initiative focused attention on other aspects of the criminal justice system, and the benefits are spreading to other areas. For example, it led to the introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service premium service. In October, that was extended to the whole of the Avon and Somerset area, so it is not the case that the advantages accrue only in a small area.
It has been interesting to hear from both Opposition parties—through the hon. Members for Bridgwater and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws)—about the break-up of the constabulary that they advocate. I am surprised to hear, particularly from the hon. Member for Yeovil, the idea that areas with the highest levels of crime should not receive additional resources. Let us compare Bristol and Sedgemoor, for example. In Bristol, 48.2 households per 1,000 are burgled. In the Sedgemoor area, the figure is 16.2. In Bristol, 17.4 households per 1,000 suffer theft of a motor vehicle, whereas in the Sedgemoor area the figure is 3.1—and so on.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bridgwater that his constituents have every right to feel safe and secure in their own homes and in the towns, villages and isolated communities in which they live. However, it is equally right that the Government and the chief constable of Avon and Somerset give priority attention to communities where crime levels are highest. I would find it very surprising if anyone were seriously to advocate that we did not do so.
The Government have made specific provision for funding for rural areas. The hon. Gentleman referred to a newspaper article that I believe he said was published before the funding formula was determined. It warned about the consequences of changes to the formula. He will know that we did not make some of the changes on which we had consulted. For example, we left things as they were in respect of the rural policing fund, from which the Avon and Somerset constabulary benefits to the tune of £1 million a year. It is expected that the chief constable of Avon and Somerset will have used that money to enhance policing in rural areas.
As a point of principle, we should not separate out the costs of forces that cover major cities from the rest of an area. None the less, we recognise that additional costs exist in cities such as Bristol. That is why it has had extra money from the street crime initiative. It has also had additional Home Office money, for example, in the communities against drugs initiative. Central Government have recognised the need to provide some earmarked funds for rural areas, such as most of Somerset, and to meet the additional costs that are involved in the city of Bristol. That balanced approach has been right.

257WH
I reassure the hon. Member for Bridgwater that we are concerned about rural areas. That is clear in the development of the police standards unit and the new performance assessment framework for the police. We are not concerned solely with those parts of the country that have the highest crime rates. We will be looking for an increase in policing performance throughout the police service. We would look with as much interest at a rural basic command unit that was performing less well than its comparator BCUs in the same or other police forces as we would at an inner-city area BCU that was not doing as well as those in other inner-city areas. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not focus solely on the higher-crime urban areas during the next two or three years. If a police service in a rural area is performing poorly down to BCU level, we will want to identify that, support it and work with it to improve its service.
I turn briefly to the funding formula. It is worth looking at what has been achieved on police officer numbers, especially against the background of a debate that may have left the impression that Avon and Somerset police have not been dealt with very well over the years. The latest published figures show that Avon and Somerset had a record number of 3,096 police officers at 31 March 2002–107 more than when the Labour party came to office in 1997. The constabulary is committed to increasing police officer numbers further and it is recruiting well. Between April and December last year, 157 new officers were recruited. The police force itself has forecast a strength of 3,187 by 31 March 2003—another record number.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I was arguing not about whether recruitment or numbers were right, but about the fact that the amount of money needed to continue to recruit just to maintain the number of policemen and women and to fund them will not be provided unless there are enormous county council precepts.
Mr. Denham: What may not have come across from the earlier parts of the debate is that, in addition to the 3 per cent. increase in police grant, to which I will return in a moment, the Government are directly picking up, through the crime fighting fund, the cost of a significant proportion of the additional police officers who have been recruited in the past couple of years. Indeed, we anticipate being able to provide further ring-fenced money to Avon and Somerset for new officers—paid for, or sponsored by, the crime fighting fund in the coming years. We are not only picking up the costs of recruiting officers in one particular year. The salary costs of those who were recruited two years ago are still being paid by central Government through the crime fighting fund. That principle of a level of continued Government support for additional officers will continue in the next financial year.
That illustrates a basic point that needs to be made. It is understandable that the focus has been on the headline figure of police grant increase. That figure has varied from a floor of 3 per cent., which Avon and Somerset has received, to a ceiling of 4.9 per cent., even for forces that the formula says should get more. I am
258WH
sure that the focus will be the same next week when we discuss the police grant. That grant increase is, however, only a part of the resources that are being made available to forces through the crime fighting fund.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the radios do not work in one part of west Somerset. The new airwave radio system is funded from central resources; it is designed to ensure that police officers have radios that do work. We will also be providing centrally funds to meet the costs of introducing the case-in-custody scheme. That major information technology innovation will provide the greatest opportunity to free up police officer time and get them away from paper-based systems. There is much more in the funding that is being made available than the headline increase in the police grant. Indeed, including capital and ring-fenced funds, police resources will increase by 6.2 per cent. overall this year, rather than by the average of 4.3 per cent. increase in the police grant.
Of course, people will always want more, and it is good that local communities have been committed to supporting their police service in recent years when people have sought extra resources. Somerset's precept for policing is a little—but not massively—below the average; presumably that reflects decisions that have been taken. It is for the police authority to decide what precept it will set. There is nothing to suggest that anyone wants to do anything other than enable the police force to continue to operate effectively at a local level.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater mentioned a few other issues with which I would like to deal. I would hope that, where parish warden schemes have been a proven success, people would find ways to continue supporting them. In most of the places to which I have been, people have found the scheme remarkably cost-effective, as there has been a reduction in costs—whether through less graffiti and environmental damage, or through fewer abandoned cars—which has benefited local taxpayers.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the valuable role of specials. He may know that a national specials weekend is being organised for 21 to 23 February to promote their role. I shall soon write to all hon. Members, inviting them to contact their local police force and offer to be involved in promotional activities that weekend. It would be enormously helpful if hon. Members involved themselves.
I should like to touch on the thorny issue of raves. I share the anxiety that raves should not become an excuse for disorder, antisocial activity, criminality or behaviour that intimidates local communities. I also recognise that the effects of raves are not always limited to the duration of the event itself. They may bring traffic congestion to unsuited roads, and there may be rubbish or problems with people moving on somewhere else after the police have used their initial powers.
Legislation was introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as a response to the growing phenomenon of the rave and the associated difficulties. Section 63 allows the police to direct rave-goers to leave

259WH
an event in certain cases. If they refuse, police are provided with a power of arrest, and on conviction the offence carries three months' imprisonment and/or a fine. The police also have powers to seize sound equipment in certain circumstances.
In the White Paper "Justice for All", published last summer, we said that we were considering extending police powers to include smaller raves and raves in buildings in which people are trespassing. We are also aware of the problem, raised by Avon and Somerset constabulary, of organisers who are directed to leave simply moving to another venue and starting all over again, and bringing misery to another community, as
260WH
the hon. Gentleman says. We are considering making it a criminal offence for someone who is given a direction to leave a rave to attend another outdoor or trespassary indoor rave event within 24 hours of that direction being given.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I understand from the chief probation officer for Somerset that although the magistrates courts building in Minehead will close at the end of March because it is too big, the service is looking for alternative accommodation. There is no suggestion of reducing the level of service to the community in Minehead.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Five o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  E-Government
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made with the development of e-government. [93526]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are committed to a radical reform of public services and e-government is a powerful catalyst for bringing about the transformation necessary to deliver the Government's vision. In recognition of this commitment, we are investing £6 billion over the next three years in e-government.

  Disabled People (Civil Service)
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made in improving the recruitment of disabled people into the civil service. [93527]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are committed to employing disabled people. As at April 2002 disabled staff accounted for 3.6 per cent. of the civil service, up from 2.8 per cent. in 1995. A service wide target has been set at 3.0 per cent. disabled people in the senior civil service by 2004–05. In April 2002 the percentage of disabled staff in the senior civil service was 1.7 per cent., up from 1.5 per cent. in 1998.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress his Department is making in implementing the Regulatory Reform Action Plan. [93528]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Regulatory Reform Action Plan (RRAP) contains 268 reform proposals that the Government have committed itself to delivering over the next three years. So far, 27 per cent. of the items it contains have been completed.

  Civil Contingency Bill
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he plans to bring forward a Civil Contingency Bill. [93555]

  Mr. Alexander
  Work is progressing well on preparing new civil contingencies legislation. Proposals will be published this Parliamentary Session. New legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many cases of computer misuse there were in his 720W
  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.[93049]

  Mr. Alexander
  There were a total of 35 cases of computer misuse in the Cabinet Office during the five years 1998–2002, broken down as follows. The numbers of those resulting in disciplinary action are shown in parentheses.

  Inappropriate use of internet

  Using another's password

  Totals

  1998

  2(2)

  2 (2)

  4(4)

  1999

  3 (3)

  0

  3 (3)

  2000

  19 (12)

  0

  19 (12)

  2001

  8(7)

  0

  8 (7)

  2002

  1 (1)

  0

  1(1)

  Total

  33 (25)

  2(2)

  35(27)

  Congestion Charge
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether individual passengers of the Government Car and Despatch Agency will reimburse the agency for congestion charges it incurs. [92996]

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

  Industrial Action/Illness
  Andrew George
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many working days have been lost in the Cabinet Office owing to(a) industrial action and (b) illness in each year since 1997. [93465]

  Mr. Alexander
  Working days lost through industrial action are recorded as unauthorised absence for which pay is stopped. The Cabinet Office (including agencies) keeps records of unpaid absence generally but they also include authorised absence. Separating the records could be achieved only at disproportionate costs.

  Sick absence figures for Government Departments are published annually in the report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". The most recent report for calendar year 2001 was announced by Ministerial Statement 19 December 2002. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House. Figures for 2002 will be announced later this year.

  Cabinet Office figures (including its agencies and non-departmental public bodies) are:

  Days per staff year

  1997

  6.6

  1998

  7.3

  1999

  6.8

  2000

  4.6

  2001

  5.7

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress is being made in providing training for people considering making an application for public appointments. [93522]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) earlier today,Official Report, column 716.

TRANSPORT

  Aviation Inquiry
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on submissions to his inquiry into aviation. [93539]

  Mr. Darling
  The Department has so far received over 70,000 responses to the airport consultation from a wide range of interest groups and individuals.

  I will shortly publish a revised south-east consultation paper which will include runway options for Gatwick airport.

  The consultation will remain open for four months from the date of publication.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses his Department has received to the "Future of Air Transport" consultation document.[93545]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department has so far received over 70,000 responses to the airport consultation from a wide range of interest groups and individuals. We will shortly publish a revised south-east consultation paper, which will include runway options for Gatwick airport. The consultation will remain open for four months from this date.

  M6
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on the proposed widening of the M6 motorway. [93540]

  Mr. Spellar
  I wrote to the North West Regional Assembly on the 10 December 2002 giving the Secretary of State's response to the 'West Midlands to North West Multi Modal Study' (MIDMAN). The study has clearly demonstrated that some road widening is a necessary component of a strategy aimed at tackling congestion on the M6 motorway. Government therefore support the study recommendation to widen the motorway from dual 3 to dual 4 lanes between Junctions lla and 19. The Highways Agency has been instructed to progress this work.

  Rail Services (Scotland)
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on investment in the east coast main line rail services north of Edinburgh.[93541]
  722W
  Mr. Spellar
  Last year the Strategic Rail Authority announced £100 million of investment for the east coast main line under a deal to extend the GNER franchise by two years. The Authority is considering how to deliver improvements to the east coast main line in order to secure greater capacity and increased line speeds.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what priority he gives to economic regeneration when planning new transport infrastructure. [93542]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's method for appraising transport schemes looks at a wide range of costs and benefits including the reduction of travel times, safety, accessibility and impacts on the environment, as well as a scheme's contribution to regeneration. We take decisions on particular schemes in the light of all of these factors.

  Cycling
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on departmental funding for local cycling projects. [93543]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Minister for Transport announced on 9 January 2003 the second round of our Cycling Projects Fund. This provides a further £1 million of funding for local, practical projects aiming to deliver an increase in cycling. The fund builds on the more than £2 million that was made available in 2002 to support 138 cycling projects.

  Road Traffic
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on road traffic reduction. [93544]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's position has consistently been that we seek to reduce the adverse impacts of road traffic, rather than the level of traffic per se.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a decision on Central Railway's application for a hybrid Bill. [93546]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are considering carefully Central Railway's proposals and will respond to Central Railway in due course.

  Wales Railway Franchise
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the specifications set out in the Wales railway franchise. [93547]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The franchise will include all local and regional passenger services within Wales, and some cross-border services. Its terms will reflect the outcome of negotiations with bidders, among other things.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority about improving local rail services.[93548]

  Mr. Spellar
  I, and other departmental Ministers, meet the Chair and Chief Executive of the Strategic Rail Authority on a regular basis; and discuss a range of issues.

  Air Travel Trust Fund
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will introduce legislation to increase the air travel trust fund. [93661]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 20 January 2003 Official Report, column 38W.

  Bus Services (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) new, (b) improved and (c) withdrawn bus services there were in (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (ii) Shropshire in each year since 1997. [93086]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not collect this information. However, I am informed by Shropshire County Council that since 1998 the total number of commercial bus journeys in the county withdrawn by operators is 1,936. In the same period the county council has provided subsidy for 2,500 new additional bus journeys some of which replaced those commercial ones that have been withdrawn.

  The council does not have available separate information about services in Shrewsbury and Atcham.

  Concessionary Travel (Pensioners)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to introduce free off-peak travel for pensioners on public transport. [93698]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 30 October 2002,Official Report, column 863W.

  Cross-Solent Fares
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received since 1977, other than from hon. Members, that the Government should subsidise cross-solent fares. [93863]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 1997, 15 representations from members of the public have been received on this matter.

  Cycling (Protective Equipment)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce legislation to compel cyclists to wear personal protective equipment; and if he will make a statement. [93734]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no current plans to make the wearing of personal protective equipment by cyclists compulsory. The Highway Code advises cyclists to wear clothing which will make them visible and which is 724W
  appropriate for cycling. It also advises them to wear helmets. We have engaged TRL to monitor wearing rates. The latest study shows that in 1999 the overall wearing rate was 22 per cent. on major built up roads. That is not a high enough level of public acceptance to introduce compulsory wearing. There would be enforcement difficulties and it could have adverse effects on the levels of cycling. However, we will continue to monitor wearing rates and will review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the benefit to(a) his Department, (b) taxpayers and (c) road users of the value of each external consultant used by his Department since its inception. [93957]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Guidance on the use of consultants by my Department requires that each consultancy project should have a sound business case which sets out the deliverables and benefits expected to accrue. Details of individual consultancies and supporting business cases are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Freight (Shipping)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much freight was carried by water in and around the UK in(a) May 1992, (b) May 1997 and (c) September 2002 by (i) all flagged ships and (ii) UK flagged ships; and if he will make a statement. [93662]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information relates to UK coastal shipping. The statistics are compiled on an annual basis only. Coastal freight traffic carried (i) in all flagged ships and (ii) 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:

  Goods lifted (million tones)

  Goods moved (billion tonne-kilometres)

  Year

  All flagged ships

  UK flagged ships

  All flagged ships

  UK flagged ships

  1991

  63.10

  22.44

  40.69

  9.84

  1996

  70.87

  17.30

  45.14

  7.27

  2001

  58.53

  7.74

  34.12

  2.96

  Minimum Wage
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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.[90597]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Increasing the minimum wage in the manner described would have no impact on the cost of salaries for employees in my Department.

  Ports (Security Breaches)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many official breaches of security have taken place at UK ports in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) region, (b) port and (c) type of breach. [93244]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 1997 my Department has recorded a total of 20 breaches of port security, ie instances where individuals have gained unauthorised access to Restricted Zones at ports. It is not appropriate to give a detailed breakdown of either the specific port or region where these breaches took place for obvious reasons.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) court actions and other prosecutions have taken place and (b) fines or other actions have been imposed, against (i) UK ports and (ii) other marine organisations and activities in response to breaches of security which have taken place at UK ports in each year since 1997; and what the nature of the breaches were in each case. [93245]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No court actions and/or other prosecutions have taken place. From 1 January 1997 until 31 December 2002 a total of seven Enforcement Notices (ENs) have been served on UK harbour authorities and harbour operators. The ENs were served under the provisions of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 and related to failings to meet the requirements of that Act. Details are as follows:

  Year

  Number of ENs

  Failings

  1997

  1

  Restricted Zone(RZ) access control

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  1

  RZ access control

  2001

  4

  Pass display (2); lack of suitably trained search staff; RZ access control

  2002

  1

  RZ access control

  Public Transport (Safety)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about new measures to protect the safety of people using public transport, with particular reference to women. [93482]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We receive representations from a number of different organisations, including some regarding personal safety on public transport. For example, last year we received a representation by the Rail Safety Task Force of Soroptomist International of south east England regarding improving safety in rail travel.

  Redhill Aerodrome
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions on which Ministers in his Department have met representatives of Redhill Aerodrome Ventures Ltd. since 7 June 2001. [93787]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 7 June 2001, no meetings have been held between Ministers in my Department and representatives of Redhill Aerodrome Ventures Ld.

  Road Accidents
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by his Department of the number of(a) accidents associated with heavy commercial vehicles in each year since 1997 and (b) the associated fatalities.[93808]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of accidents involving at least one HGV in each year since 1997, and the associated fatalities from those accidents are shown in the table:

  Accidents involving at least one HGV: GB 1997–2001

  Accidents/fatalities

  HGV accidents

  Fatalities1

  1997

  13,132

  535

  1998

  13,278

  576

  1999

  13,951

  620

  2000

  13,894

  560

  2001

  13,631

  575

  1Total number of fatalities in accidents involving at least on HGV.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) pedestrians and (b) cyclists were (i) killed, (ii) seriously injured and (iii) slightly injured in road accidents in each year since 1997; and how many were under the age of 18 years in each category. [93826]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of pedestrians and cyclists of all ages, and those aged under 18 that were killed or injured in each year since 1997, are shown in the following tables:

  Pedestrian and pedal cycle casualty data: GB 1997–2001 Casualties

  Road user type/severity

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  All ages

  Pedestrians

  Killed

  973

  906

  870

  857

  826

  Serious

  10,053

  9,575

  8,955

  8,641

  8,238

  Slight

  34,575

  34,405

  33,063

  32,535

  31,513

  All

  45,601

  44,886

  42.888

  42,033

  40,577

  Pedal cycle

  Killed

  183

  158

  172

  127

  138

  Serious

  3,409

  3,154

  3,004

  2,643

  2,540

  Slight

  21,044

  19,611

  19,664

  17,842

  16,436

  All

  24,636

  22,923

  22,840

  20,612

  19,114

  Casualties under 18

  Pedestrians

  Killed

  165

  120

  128

  120

  130

  Serious

  4,228

  3,988

  3,682

  3,465

  3,393

  Slight

  16,004

  I5,729

  14,846

  14,375

  14,097

  All

  20,397

  19,837

  18,656

  17,960

  17,620

  Pedal cycle

  Killed

  41

  35

  44

  34

  31

  Serious

  1,199

  1,072

  1,069

  850

  773

  Slight

  8,241

  7,247

  7,446

  6,425

  5,692

  All

  9,481

  8,534

  8,559

  7,309

  6,496

  Tolls
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the annual cost to his Department of reimbursing VAT to private operators of tolls on the basis being consulted upon at present. [93350]
  727W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]Current estimates are that the annual reimbursement will range from about £250,000 to £350,000.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements will be in place on 1 February to ensure that privately operated tolls do not increase by reason of the incidence of a VAT liability. [93351]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]My Department is currently consulting with owners of privately operated statutory tolled undertakings on a reimbursement scheme, which will allow qualifying operators to recover VAT included in tolls. The scheme will be in place before any payment under it will need to be made.

  The concession agreement at the Severn crossings has been renegotiated to eliminate the need to increase tolls because of the introduction of VAT.

  Traffic Accidents (Driver Liability)
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce legislation on driver liability in road traffic accidents; and if he will make a statement. [93733]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Road traffic law in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland provides for penalties for bad driving behaviour whether or not the driver is involved in an accident.

  The culpability of a motorist charged with a road traffic offence, such as dangerous or careless driving, is a matter for a court to decide.

  Traffic Safety Cameras
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the terms of reference for the "Cost Recovery System for Traffic Safety Cameras" study; on what dates(a) the study and (b) its associated pilots were completed; and if he will publish the information gathered by the study. [94092]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A trial was set up to test the new funding mechanism for safety cameras. The key tests were to reduce speeding and casualties, to encourage general public acceptance of the road safety benefits, and to ensure satisfactory working of the funding and partnership arrangements. The trial ran from 1 April 2000 until 31 March 2002 in eight pilot areas. These have been monitored and an independently produced research report of the findings is expected to be published shortly.

  Wales-England Rugby Match (Rail Services)
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has requested a copy of the independent safety report commissioned by Wales and the West Trains on the provision of rail services after the Wales v. England Six Nations rugby match at the Millennium Stadium, Cardiff; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [93255]
  728W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA has undertaken detailed discussions with the train operator about transport arrangements for this match. However, the safety report owned by Wales and Borders Trains is an internal document. Neither my Department nor the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has seen it.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to manage amnesic shellfish poisoning in scallops; and what recent discussions she has had and what representations she has received on management of amnesic shellfish poisoning in scallops. [89689]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]I have been asked to reply.

  European Union legislation lays down the health conditions for harvesting and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs and requires monitoring for biotoxins, including amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP). If statutory monitoring reveals that the maximum permissible ASP toxin level in the whole animal has been exceeded, the production or relaying area concerned must be closed until the situation has returned to normal. The Food Standards Agency, the United Kingdom competent authority responsible for shellfish issues, has received a number of representations on the management of ASP in scallops. They are currently considering the adoption of an optional derogation in EU law that would provide for a tiered approach to the testing of ASP toxins.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on 10 January 2003 on the Alda K; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey(a) during inspection for health certification purposes and (b) at Dover docks, and to where those sheep were taken; and what the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments; [92977]

  (2) how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on (a) 10 January and (b) 14 January on the Omega Livestock; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the 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 the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [92978]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows:
  729W

  Sailing date

  Total animals certified

  Where consignments were certified

  Animals rejected at certification

  Animals rejected at Dover docks

  Destination

  10 January (Alda K)

  849

  England

  0

  0

  Germany

  10 January (Omega Express)

  2,174

  England

  15

  0

  France

  14 January (Omega Express)

  2,766

  England and Wales

  13

  0

  France

  The sheep for the consignments listed were certified within 48 hours prior to export. These consignments were fattening animals transported to holdings, except for the Alda K sailing on 10 January 2003 where they were slaughter animals which went to an approved slaughterhouse. The animals which were rejected at certification remained in Great Britain.

  These figures relate to the numbers of sheep certified for export and are subject to revision and change.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to reply to the letter to her Department dated 29 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms Jean Kellock. [92281]

  Alun Michael
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Whitty, responded on 27 January.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes concerning Mr. E. Baker of Kingsbridge, South Devon dated 7 December 2002, concerning his IACS claim. [93882]

  Alun Michael
  I replied on 26 January.

  Departmental Budget
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her total departmental budget was for each year of its existence; what the projected budget is for 2002–03; and how much within each year has been allocated to(a) Rural Affairs, (b) Agriculture, (c) Environmental Protection and (d) International Environmental Matters. [89096]

  Alun Michael
  The budget figures for each year are as follows:

  £million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total Defra

  2,959

  2,459

  Rural affairs

  509

  516

  Agriculture

  1,424

  828

  Environmental Protection

  756

  841

  International Environmental Matters

  30

  29

  The amounts in the table are budgets scored within departmental expenditure limits. The figures for Rural Affairs, Agriculture, Environmental Protection and International Environmental Matters are an estimated split of direct resources, excluding overheads for central services.

  Equine Passports
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which organisations she has licensed to issue equine passports; and if she will make a statement. [93362]

  Alun Michael
  There are presently 56 equine organisations and associations that have been authorised to issue horse passports in Great Britain.

  These passport issuing organisations are either:
  Equine studbook societies who deal with a particular breed. These have been recognised under Commission Decision 92/ 353/EC. This legislation lays down the criteria for the approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish studbooks for registered equidae.
  International equine organisations that manage horses for competition or racing who have been registered under article 4 of the Horse Passports Order 1997.

  List of Organisations and Associations that have been authorised in GB to issue Horse Passports (ie equine studbook societies that have been recognised under commission decision 92/353 EC and international organisations that manage horses for competition or racing:

  American Quarter Horse Association UK

  Anglo-European Studbook Ltd.

  Appaloosa Horse Club (ApHc) UK Ltd.

  Arab Horse Society

  British Hanoverian Horse Society

  British Horse Foundation/British Horse Database

  British Miniature Horse Society

  British Palomino Society

  British Percheron Horse Society

  British Skewbald & Piebald Association

  British Spotted Pony Society

  British Warm-Blood Society and British Sports Horse Registry

  The Caspian Horse Society

  The Caspian Horse Breed Society (UK)

  Cleveland Bay Horse

  Coloured Horse and Pony Society (UK)

  Dales Pony Society

  Dartmoor Pony Society

  Donkey Breed Society

  English Connemara Pony Society

  Eriskay Pony Society

  Eriskay Pony (Mother Society)—Comann Each nan Eilean Ltd.

  Exmoor Pony Society

  Fell Pony Society

  Fjord Horse National Study-book Association of Great Britain

  731W

  Fjord Horse Registry of Scotland and Fjord Horse UK

  Friesian Horse Association of Great Britain and Ireland Ltd.

  Hackney Horse Society

  Highland Pony Society

  Icelandic Horse Society of Great Britain

  International Miniature Horse and Pony Society

  The Irish Draught Horse Society (GB)

  The Lusitano Breed Society (Great Britain)

  Lippizaner National Studbook Association of Great Britain

  National Pony Society

  New Forest Pony Breeding & Cattle Society

  Scottish Icelandic Horse Association

  Shetland Policy Stud-Book Society

  Shire Horse Society

  The Scottish Sports Horse

  Sport Horse Breeding of Great Britain

  The Sports Pony Studbook Society

  The Spotted Horse and Pony Society

  The Standard and Trotting Horse Association of Great Britain
  and Ireland

  Suffolk Horse Society

  Trakehner Breeders Fraternity Weatherbys

  Welsh Pony & Cob Society

  International organisations that manage horses for competition or racing:

  The British Driving Society

  British Harness Racing Club

  British Equestrian Federation

  Hurlingham Polo Association

  The Spotted Pony Breed Society (Great Britain)

  British Appaloosa Society

  British Horse Society

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what animal passports other than equine ones are issued that provide information about drugs administered to the animal concerned. [93365]

  Alun Michael
  Horses are the only animals that currently require a record to be made of medicines administered as required by Commission Decision 2000/ 68/EC, which requires all horses to be accompanied by a passport.

  Farm Census
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend the law to allow the Environment Agency access to farm census information and IACs returns. [87182]

  Margaret Beckett
  Information can already be released to the Environment Agency in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Statistics Act 1979 and the Data Protection Act 1998 but subject to the safeguards provided for in that legislation. Officials are in discussion with the Environment Agency about information requirements and how they may be met.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what new funding mechanisms have been introduced for flood defences; and how much she estimates they will raise in(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06. [92011]

  Mr. Morley
  No new funding mechanisms have yet been introduced. The Government are currently considering the options. The Spending Review figures announced last year for 2005–06 include an estimate of what might be raised from a new mechanism, such as a charge on development on the floodplain. This was set at £20 million out of an increase in provision for flood and coastal defence of £150 million for that year. No such amount was assumed for 2004–05.

  Flooding
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Environment Agency's report into flooding in the Marlow and Medmenham area will be completed; and whether it will be published in full. [93208]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]I understand that the Environment Agency have already started to compile and analyse data and information relating to the flooding that occurred throughout the Thames catchment during January 2003. As with previous floods there will be an analysis of what happened and the agency will make available to the public the lessons learnt from this information.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Environment Agency has to meet residents in the Marlow and Medmenham area during its inquiry into recent flooding in the area. [93209]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]The Environment Agency held a "open surgery" on 20 January from 9.00 am to 9.00 pm at Shepperton. It invited all those residents from Chertsey who had been flooded and advertised the event in local newspapers and over 500 people attended. Staff spoke to individuals about the cause of the flooding and the agency's plans for managing flood risk.

  A further surgery was held on 23 January at Egham, to which residents flooded from the River Thames downstream of Windsor were invited, and a surgery has been arranged for 30 January for residents living between Hurley and Maidenhead.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she has issued to the Environment Agency concerning priorities for capital projects to tackle flooding. [93601]

  Mr. Morley
  In order to be eligible for DEFRA grant aid a capital flood defence project must satisfy fundamental economic, technical and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score based (from April 2003) on a combination of three elements—(i) benefits as compared to cost, (ii)the number of people protected as measured by the number of households at risk, their vulnerability and the extent to which adequate advance warning of flooding can be given, and (iii) environmental protection and enhancement.
  733W
  In addition to guidance on the above priority scoring system, DEFRA publishes detailed guidance on aspects of project appraisal (strategic planning, economic, environmental, approaches to risk). The documents are intended to assist knowledgeable practitioners; they are not comprehensive manuals or textbooks and they do not define Government policy. However, compliance with this guidance is likely to produce projects that are acceptable for central Government support.

  The above are published on the DEFRA website and the Department also provides the Environment Agency with a Memorandum setting out the conditions for grant and which has further information on the Government's priorities for flood defence projects.

  Funding Commitments
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many funding commitments were launched by her Department and its predecessors in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001, (f) 2002 and (g) 2003; which (i) require bidding and (ii) are linked to a set funding formula; and what the total amount available was for each commitment; [89687]

  (2) how many funding commitments were ended by her Department and its predecessors in each year since 1997. [89688]

  Alun Michael
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost has been of her Department's television advertising campaign to discourage illegal meat imports; how many advertisements have been or will be broadcast, and at what times of the day; and if she will make a statement. [90979]

  Margaret Beckett
  The television campaign uses two public service fillers rather than paid advertisements. These fillers have been sent to broadcasters to be used in donated airtime. The cost of making and marketing the two fillers was £156,176. To 31 December, the Central Office of Information had been notified of 119 transmissions—71 at night (00:00–05:59), 24 in the afternoon (12:00–17:19)and 24 at breakfast time(06:00–09:25). However, many stations issue transmission logs quarterly, so the first full transmissions report is not due until February.

  Internal Drainage Boards
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Government Ministers are members of internal drainage boards. [91581]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]Internal drainage boards are independent bodies. This information is not held centrally. We are not aware of any Government Minister who is a member of an IDB.

  Meat Hygiene
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the European Commission's proposal to require the full recovery of meat hygiene inspection charges from abattoirs and to make all abattoirs enforce new measures for the disposal of blood. [89615]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Commission has not yet made proposals on charges to abattoirs for health inspections but we have made plain our preference for the existing structure and levels of meat hygiene charges. With respect to disposal of blood, officials are working with industry representatives to achieve satisfactory outcomes both in terms of regulatory requirements and the ability of industry to change existing practices at minimum cost and disruption.

  Municipal Waste
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the amount of municipal waste generated in the United Kingdom, using the definition of municipal waste in Article 2(b) of the Landfill Directive (99/31/EC).[89625]

  Margaret Beckett
  It is estimated that around 34 million tonnes of municipal waste were generated in the United Kingdom in 2000–01(using the definition in Article 2(b) of the Landfill Directive).

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will convene a meeting of scientists, manufacturers, her advisers and the All Party Organophosphate Parliamentary Group to assess progress in identifying past problems with organophosphate products and appropriate policies for their future use. [93692]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the request at the recent meeting of the Parliamentary All Party Group on OPs, I have asked my officials to draw up proposals for a meeting of stakeholders with an interest in the authorisation and use of OPs in the UK. I will consider these proposals when they are available.

  River Management
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the lines of accountability are with regard to the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive in the event of a river basin management plan crossing borders between river basins. [93269]

  Mr. Morley
  It is proposed that the Environment Agency will be under a duty to prepare a draft river basin management plan for each river basin district in consultation with relevant bodies and that Secretary of State should have an explicit role in approving plans, including powers to require modifications, or to reject them.

  Maps of the proposed river basin districts are included at appendix 5 of the Government's Second Consultation Paper. Four basins will cross internal

  735W
  borders, two in England-Wales (the Severn and the Dee) and two in England-Scotland1 (the Solway/Esk and the Tweed). The Directive allows individual river basins to be combined to form a district and it is proposed that England-Wales forms two districts, and it is likely that England-Scotland will combine basins to form one district.

  It is for further consideration how DEFRA and the Wales Assembly Government, and how DEFRA and the Scottish Executive will manage cross-border districts. Cross-border issues England-Scotland are treated separately from cross-border issues England-Wales to take account of the different legislation in place.
  1A small number of tributaries of the North Tyne rise in Scotland before flowing into England. Since only a small area of the basin lies in Scotland, it is proposed that it be combined with a neighbouring basin lying wholly in England, such as the Tees, into a single river basin district.

  Water Poverty
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment 736W
  she has made of the number of people affected by water poverty in (a) England, (b) the West Midlands and (c) North Staffordshire. [89676]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government do not have a quantitative definition for the term 'water poverty', and so no assessment has been made.

  Table A, which has been placed in the Library, is drawn from the DSS Family Resources Survey. This is the most recent available compiled information showing the relationship between water and sewerage bills and household incomes in England, and covers the years 1994–95 to 1998–99. The survey does not break the results down by region.

  The housing statistics division of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have used these data to compile figures on 'water affordability'as one of the Government's Sustainable Development Indicators. For illustrative purposes, this exercise used 3 per cent. as the affordability threshold for proportion of income spent on water charges. A chart of these figures covers the years 1994–95 to 1997–98.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [90875]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]Personnel records for the Crown Prosecution Service show that across the Service on 31 December 2002 there were a total of 1439 staff (approximately 20 per cent. of the workforce) working on a part-time basis. The Crown Prosecution Service does not record job share details separately. However, a number of those working part-time are working on a job-share basis.

  The Serious Fraud Office offers its staff a range of flexible working practices to assist them in achieving a satisfactory work/life balance. However it does not, at present, have any staff that have opted to work under a job share arrangement nor has it received any job applications from individuals who wish to work in this way.

  Five job sharing arrangements were in place in the Treasury Solicitor's Department on 31 December 2002. All jobs in the Treasury Solicitor's Department are advertised on the basis that they are open to applicants who wish to work flexibly, unless this is expressly excluded due to the nature of the work.

  My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate currently have no job sharers.

  Legal Action
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor General what action she has taken to bring criminal charges against persons whose names have been communicated to her following the quashing of a conviction. [88512]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 8 January]: On the basis of the information provided to me by the hon. Member, I am unable to identify the matter to which he refers.

  Police Officers (Bribery)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Solicitor General what criteria she uses to decide whether to proceed with a prosecution of a police officer for bribery in cases involving release of information to the press. [93034]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 27 January]cases involving allegations against police officers are reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors as are all cases. It is important for the maintenance of public and police confidence that the same standard is applied to all accused, whoever they may be. The Code recognises that a public interest factor in favour of a prosecution includes where the defendant"was in a position of authority or trust"
  (paragraph 6.4.d). Prosecutors will therefore have regard to the fact that police officers occupy positions of authority and trust in society.

  Under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 both the offer or the acceptance of a bribe amounts to an offence. Corruption strikes at the heart of public
  738W
  confidence in administrative and judicial affairs. In all such cases where there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction, a prosecution will normally take place unless the public interest factors against proceeding with a case clearly outweigh those in favour.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Expenditure (Somerset)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been spent on the arts in Somerset in each financial year since 1999–2000. [93130]

  Dr. Howells
  The following figures supplied by the Arts Council of England relate to the local authority and administrative area of Somerset county and therefore do not include north Somerset, Bath and north-east Somerset.

  Grant-in-aid expenditure in Somerset 1999–2002

  £

  Year

  Expenditure

  1999–2000

  324,757

  2000–01

  214,263

  2001–02

  246,322

  Lottery Expenditure in Somerset 1999-2002

  £

  Year

  Expenditure

  1999–2000

  875,740

  2000–01

  784,095

  2001–02

  590,162

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [92394]

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

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will take steps to provide free television licences for all pensioners. [93700]

  Dr. Howells
  No. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over, because older pensioners are more likely to be reliant on television as their window on the world. Older pensioners are also more likely to be on low incomes. We have no plans to extend free television licences to pensioners below the age of 75.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Businesses (Regional Variations)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the regional variations in the number of(a) new businesses registering, (b) businesses trading on-line and (c) businesses with internet access in the United Kingdom. [98210]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]: The information requested is set out in the tables

  Enterprises registering for VAT and registration rates by country

  and region, 2001

  Thousands

  Number per 10,000 resident adults

  United Kingdom

  175.5

  37

  North East

  4.1

  20

  North West

  17.6

  32

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  11.7

  29

  East Midlands

  11.6

  34

  West Midlands

  14.2

  33

  East of England

  17.4

  40

  London

  34.9

  59

  South East

  28.4

  44

  South West

  14.5

  36

  England

  154.3

  39

  Wales

  6.0

  26

  Scotland

  11.5

  28

  Northern Ireland

  3.6

  28

  Source:

  Small Business Service

  UK Businesses trading online, by Region—per cent.

  (All businesses weighted by number of employees)

  Greater London

  36

  East of England

  32

  Scotland

  29

  North West

  26

  West Midlands

  26

  Wales

  22

  Northern Ireland

  21

  South East

  20

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  20

  East Midlands

  19

  South West

  18

  North East

  15

  Source:

  DTI International Benchmarking Study 2002

  2002

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  Accessing/handling inappropriate material

  3 (3)

  8 (4)

  32 (0)

  3 (0)

  2 (0)

  Unauthorised access to or misuse of data

  13 (0)

  15 (0)

  4 (0)

  10 (0)

  4 (0)

  The figures do not include incidents occurring within the Department's Executive Agencies.

  Debt Taskforce
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many times the Task Force on Tackling Over-Indebtedness has met since its establishment; [92714]

  (2) how many DTI employees are engaged in work for the Task Force on Tackling Over-Indebtedness; [92730]
  740W

  UK Businesses with access to the Internet—per cent.

  (All businesses weighted by number of employees)

  Greater London

  96

  Scotland

  94

  Wales

  93

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  92

  South East

  92

  East of England

  91

  North East

  90

  East Midlands

  90

  South West

  90

  North West

  88

  Northern Ireland

  85

  West Midlands

  84

  Source:

  DTI International Benchmarking Study 2002

  We have a number of programmes to improve the record in all regions.

  Citizens Advice Scotland
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the representations her Department made regarding the refusal of the application by Citizens Advice Scotland to the Treasury's Capital Modernisation Fund in 2001 for funding of an electronic case recording system. [91457]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department recognises the importance of ensuring that the integrity of a UK-wide Citizens Advice Service is maintained and that the Service in Scotland is on a par with the Service in England and Wales. We have therefore allocated additional one-off project funding of £1 million from within DTI's existing budgets to enable CAS to undertake this work.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [93039]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has recorded the following statistics for the misuse categories as listed (figures in brackets represent where disciplinary action was taken):

  (3) what discussions the Task Force on Tackling Over-Indebtedness are involved in. [92715]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 22 January 2003]: The Task Force on Tackling Over-indebtedness has met 10 times.

  The Task Force has sent me its second report which I am considering. I will be issuing a response shortly.

  No DTI staff are currently engaged in work for the Task Force.

  Departmental Expenditiure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total expenditure of her Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90525]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department's expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals for 2001–02 was £705,729.

  This includes expenditure on national daily and Sunday newspapers, regional newspapers, mass circulation magazines and journals, and academic periodicals. It also includes expenditure on annual publications, in particular reference works that would not normally be considered as periodicals. It is not possible to exclude such annual publications from the above figures, except at disproportionate cost.

  Development Agencies
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what purpose Government money will be used to fund offices and staff for the Welsh Development Agency, the Scottish Development Agency, the East of England Development Agency, the North of England Development Agency and the South West of England Development Agency in California. [88586]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department is responsible for providing funding for overseas representation in California by One North East, South West of England Regional Development Agency and the East of England Development Agency to carry out inward investment activities. The Welsh Development Agency and Scottish Development International activities in California are funded separately by the Devolved Administrations.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take powers to ensure that development agencies do not use public money to open offices and employ staff overseas without parliamentary or ministerial approval. [88587]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given on 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 649W.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports she received on the transfer out of Equitable Life by the PIA's pension scheme in 1998 at the time the transfer took place. [91187]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  Export Control Act
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will announce the start date for the consultation period on secondary legislation for the Export Control Act 2002. [93468]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We expect to publish a consultation document on the secondary legislation to be made under the Export Control Act 2002 shortly.

  Future Integrated Soldier Technology
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to be consulted about the industrial implication of the contractor selection for the Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) programme; and whether she will take the value of export opportunities for British companies into account in her assessment of the relative merits of the competing contractors for the FIST programme. [93430]

  Alan Johnson
  I would expect to be formally consulted by the Ministry of Defence ahead of the preferred contractor decision and announcement. DTI officials have been taking a close interest in the Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) programme and continue to be actively engaged with both the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) and the companies over the industrial implications of the respective bids.

  An understanding of the export potential will form a part of the procurement assessment. As is usual for defence programmes, the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) takes the lead on these matters.

  North Korea
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports she has received on the use by North Korea of the United Kingdom Magnox Reactor design to build its plutonium production reactors. [91968]

  Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no reports on the design of the DPRK's reactors.

  Pensions (Keyboard Withdrawals)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements she is making to assist elderly pensioners suffering from macular degeneration to withdraw their pensions in cash using a keyboard and PIN once the new procedures are implemented. [92776]

  Mr. Timms
  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.

  PV Solar Panels
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2003,Official Report, columns 11–12W, on PV Solar Panels, why grants for PV solar panels were awarded only to public buildings in 2002 [93996]

  Mr Wilson
  The Large Scale Field Trial was open only to public buildings because European Union State Aid Rules prevented us from giving substantial grants to private sector entities for this type of research and development project.

  Small Business
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) advice and (b) financial support her Department gives to small businesses which are transferred to new owners. [92986]
  743W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Personal Business Advisers based in the national network of Business Link Operators can provide advice and support for small businesses transferring to new owners, including help with management buy-outs. Small businesses should call 0845 600 9006 to be put in touch with their local operator, or visit www.businesslink.org to find out more.

  The SBS website at: http://vvww.sbs.gov.u1c/content/ dti/bsuccession/index.htm sets out the main regulations that apply when a business changes hands, and how to comply with them.

  In addition, the Business Debtline, a 3-year pilot, provides support and advice to primarily, but not exclusively, sole traders and micro businesses in financial difficulties. The free phone number 0800 197 6026 and a self-help pack containing comprehensive advice is also available.

TREASURY

  Accounting Standards
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to give the Financial Services Authority responsibility for investigating the accounts of companies suspected of breaching accounting standards and laws; [92815]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures in place to deter breaches of accounting standards and laws by British businesses. [92827]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is one of the areas currently being looked at by the Co-ordinating Group on Audit and Accounting Issues. They will be presenting their report to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the end of the month and I expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement.

  Child Trust Fund
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out what the timetable is for the introduction of the Child Trust Fund. [93654]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will announce further decisions regarding the implementation of the Child Trust Fund as part of the Budget cycle, in line with normal practice relating to annually managed expenditure.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which types of financial service providers will be permitted to sell the Child Trust Fund; and whether(a) fund managers and (b) life insurance companies will be permitted to do so. [93655]

  Ruth Kelly
  As announced in the pre-Budget report, the Child Trust Fund will be offered through open market provision. Providers—including fund managers and life insurance companies—will be able to enter the market if they satisfy a set of conditions.

  Construction Industry Scheme
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact the extension in application of the Construction Industry Scheme to the fitting out of commercial properties has had on(a) landlords, (b) tenants and (c) other non-construction sector enterprises; whether a regulatory impact assessment has been made following the recent changes; and if he will make a statement. [93367]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There have been no recent changes to the scope of the Construction Industry Scheme. Whether the scheme applies to the fitting out of commercial premises depends on the commercial arrangements between the parties concerned. This has always been the case.

  Dormant Accounts
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the total amount of assets residing in dormant accounts and intestate estates held by(a) banks, (b) building societies, (c) credit unions and (d) the post office; [92347]

  (2) what assessment he has made of (a) the British Bankers Association scheme and (b) the Building Societies Association scheme to assist customers in tracing dormant accounts and intestate estates. [92349]

  Ruth Kelly
  We welcome both these schemes. As stated in the discussion document "Next Steps on Volunteering and Giving in the UK", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, we believe that a more comprehensive unclaimed assets scheme for the voluntary and community sector has considerable attractions. We intend to work constructively with the banks, financial institutions and the voluntary and community sector to reach a shared understanding of the assets involved, of how things can be improved and how a comprehensive database might be achieved that would lead to a considerable increase in charities' income.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to introduce legislation to place a statutory duty on banks, building societies, credit unions and the Post Office to trace owners of dormant accounts; [92348]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce legislation to enable the transfer of assets held in dormant accounts and intestate estates held by banks, building societies, credit unions and the Post Office into an independently managed dormant accounts fund, if the rightful owner or heir is not traced. [92350]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  HMS Nottingham
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 403W, on HMS Nottingham, which Department of State is paying for the cost of transportation of HMS Nottingham on a heavy lift ship. [93028]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.
  745W
  The cost of transporting HMS Nottingham back to the United Kingdom on a heavy lift ship will be met by the Ministry of Defence from within existing funds, and by flexing of priorities if necessary.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the level of real spending in the Inland Revenue in each year from 1985–86 to 2002–03, using 2000–01 prices; and if he will make a statement. [91721]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The real expenditure on the Inland Revenue Department's administration, quoted at 2000–01 prices is as follows:

  £ million

  Expenditure

  1985–86

  1—

  1986–87

  1,647.3

  1987–88

  1,718.1

  1988–89

  1,668.6

  1989–90

  1,748.0

  1990–91

  1,833.8

  1991–92

  1,919.7

  1992–93

  1,914.6

  1993–94

  2,007.7

  1994–95

  1,845.9

  1995–96

  1,871.7

  1996–97

  1,810.3

  1997–98

  1,771.7

  1998–99

  1,810.3

  1999–2000

  1,929.0

  2000–01

  2,096.0

  2001–02

  1,991.0

  2002–03

  2—

  1 Information unobtainable within the timescale.

  2 Full-year expenditure details not yet available.

  Notes:

  1999–2000—The Inland Revenue took on the Contributions Agency and Family Credit Unit.

  1999–2000—The reported expenditure from this year forward has been reported under the resource accounting, that is accruals, basis. Prior to this the figures were reported under a cash basis.

  Landfill Tax Credit
  David Burnside
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to revise the operation of the landfill tax credit in Northern Ireland. [93270]

  John Healey
  As announced in the pre-Budget report, the Government will continue a reformed tax credit scheme which will make available approximately a third of the funding that is currently going through the landfill tax credit scheme, around £47 million per year, for spending on local community environment projects. The figure of £47 million will be kept broadly constant in real terms, which will ensure that the current level of support for these types of projects is maintained. The Government are considering how this successor tax credit scheme, which will apply throughout the UK, may be changed to take account of the most serious criticisms of the current scheme made by bodies including the Public Accounts Committee. The Government will set out its plans for reform of the scheme on a Budget timetable.
  746W
  The remainder of the funding which would otherwise be going through the landfill tax credit scheme, around £100 million in 2003–04, will be allocated to public spending to encourage sustainable waste management.

  This spending will be a devolved matter, and it will be for the Northern Ireland Assembly or, during a period when the Assembly is suspended, Northern Ireland Office Ministers to determine how to allocate these funds to sustainable waste management activities in Northern Ireland.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent on aid to Afghanistan in 2002; and what will be spent in 2003. [93143]

  Clare Short
  The international community provided approximately $1.8 billion to Afghanistan in 2002. DFID's contribution is over £55 million in the 2002–03 financial year so far.

  Donor's contributions for 2003 have yet to be finalised, although there are indications that it will be broadly similar to last year.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [93045]

  Clare Short
  I am pleased to advise that we have had no recorded cases of computer misuse in the last five years in my Department.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Defence Secretary regarding safeguards on military aid to Ethiopia. [92862]

  Clare Short
  Our Country Assistance Plan for Ethiopia includes a commitment to consideration of how we might help Ethiopia reform its security sector. The first step towards this will be a joint DFID/FCO/MOD scoping mission in early April 2003.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the impact of Ethiopia's debt burden on poverty levels in Ethiopia. [92863]

  Clare Short
  Ethiopia qualified for interim debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative at decision point in November 2001. In the current Ethiopian financial year, this will reduce external debt service payments by 54 per cent. and allow an increase in poverty-targeted expenditure of around 1.3 per cent. of GDP. Ethiopia has now completed its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, called "Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Programme".
  747W
  This sets out the policy action framework not only for spending the savings from debt relief, but also for allocating all other aid and Government revenue, so that they have the greatest impact on poverty reduction.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of human rights violations by(a) the Ethiopian Government and (b) the Ethiopian military. [92864]

  Clare Short
  We take allegations of human rights abuses in Ethiopia seriously, regularly raising concerns both bilaterally and through the EU. The Ethiopian Government set out plans in its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper to make progress in these areas. Our response is set out in our newly agreed Country Assistance Plan for Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of(a) the freedom of the press and (b) the independence of the judiciary in Ethiopia. [92865]

  Clare Short
  The Ethiopian Government set out plans in its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper to make progress in these areas. Our response is set out in our newly agreed Country Assistance Plan for Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of levels of political and ethnic violence in Ethiopia. [92866]

  Clare Short
  We have covered these issues in our newly agreed Country Assistance Plan for Ethiopia, which will be available on the DFID website in February 2003.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of Ethiopia's total debt burden will be relieved if Ethiopia completes the HIPC Initiative; and when she expects Ethiopia to complete the HIPC Initiative. [92867]

  Clare Short
  We expect Ethiopia to reach completion point under the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative in 2004, at which stage, it will receive an irrevocable reduction in its debt stock. Total debt relief is expected to be US$1.9 billion in nominal terms, which is equivalent to 47 per cent. of the net present value of debt service. The British Government are concerned that no country should exit the HIPC process with an unsustainable level of debt. Where necessary, we therefore support the provision of additional debt relief at completion point—so called 'topping up'—for countries such as Ethiopia which, since decision point, have suffered shocks which reduce their export earnings and ability to service their debts.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contingency plans her Department has made for humanitarian assistance to Iraq in the event of military action; and what funds the Government will make available for such measures. [93149]
  748W
  Clare Short
  My Department is undertaking contingency planning for a range of eventualities in Iraq. The potential costs of additional humanitarian assistance under various scenarios, and how they would be financed, are under active review.

  World Trade Rules
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures the Government are taking to make the eradication of poverty the primary aim of world trade rules. [93732]

  Clare Short
  World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules need to apply to all members. But they must also be achievable by developing countries, with realistic implementation schedules and targets.

  New rules require the right balance between standardisation and flexibility. For rules to be strong and binding, they need to have enough flexibility to meet the varying needs of the WTO membership and to recognise that WTO members are at different stages of development.

  Without flexibility, new WTO agreements will be stuck at the lowest common denominator. This will lead to richer members making agreements amongst themselves outside the WTO and without consideration for the impacts on developing countries.

  The term special and differential treatment is used to describe special provisions for developing countries in existing WTO agreements1. Many developing countries complain that in the Uruguay Round the application of special and differential treatment and the treatment of different country circumstances were haphazard and that longer implementation deadlines for developing countries were decided arbitrarily.

  There needs to be a better application of flexibility in designing future WTO rules. Appropriate flexibility should be integrated systematically into WTO agreements, rather than added on as an afterthought.

  Special and differential treatment reforms will eventually link into the poverty reduction strategies. Thus the integration of trade policy reform is essential if poor people are to benefit from trade liberalisation. In addition to special and differential treatment, the UK has been supporting the Integrated Framework. The Integrated Framework has two aims: to identify trade capacity building and technical assistance needs in least developed countries to which the multilateral agencies and donors can then make a co-ordinated response; and to mainstream trade into least developed countries poverty reduction strategies, so that pro-poor trade policies are included in a consistent manner in a country's overall development strategy. The Integrated Framework is based on the principle of country ownership and partnership. It is now being implemented in 14 least developed countries and eventually will be extended to Low Income countries. Ultimately the Integrated Framework should cease to be necessary as rade becomes successfully integrated into poverty reduction strategies.

  749W
  1These are in the form of (1) provisions aimed at increasing trade opportunities, (2) provisions that call upon WTO members to safeguard the interest of developing countries, (3) flexibility of commitments, (4) transitional time periods, and (5) technical assistance.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate the United Nations has published in US dollar value of the international sales disadvantage effectively imposed on poor countries by world trade rules. [93731]

  Clare Short
  The world's poorest countries face tariffs that are on average more than twice as high as those facing developed countries. Recent research estimates that developing countries could gain approximately $150 billion a year in real income from a 50 per cent. reduction in tariff barriers and other forms of protection by both developed and developing countries. Similarly, it has also been estimated that a 40 per cent. reduction in agricultural tariffs and export subsidies could boost global real incomes by around $60 billion a year.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she is taking to put pressure on Zimbabwe to allow private imports of food to Zimbabwe. [93860]

  Clare Short
  The UN, with our strong support, have been pressurising Zimbabwe to import sufficient food for the non-destitute for many months. Zimbabwe has a state monopoly on cereal imports, and price controls that prevent effective private-sector participation in the food market. All donors have appealed to Zimbabwe to amend the current restrictions. The UN Special Envoy for the Southern Africa Humanitarian crisis, Mr. James Morris, has raised this issue with Mr. Mugabe six times, most recently obtaining agreement that a scheme first proposed in mid-2002 to facilitate private sector involvement, should be reconsidered for wheat imports for urban needs.

  Private sector participation would help make food available for those who do have the money to purchase it. But while the private sector as a whole remains excluded, many organisations have been able to obtain import licences for specific programmes of humanitarian assistance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many teachers are awaiting clearance from the Criminal Records Bureau, broken down by local education authority. [89312]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Neil Gerrard) on 20 January 2003,Official Report, column 194W.

  Average Sentences
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average sentence for(a) burglary and (b) robbery was in each year since 1972. [90151]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested, relating to average custodial sentence length for persons sentenced for burglary and robbery in England and Wales 1984 to 2001, is contained in the table. Data for earlier years are not available.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

  Average custodial sentence length imposed at all courts for

  persons convicted of offences of burglary and robbery and the

  number sentenced to life imprisonment England and Wales, 1984

  to 20011

  Burglary

  Robbery

  Average custodial sentence length (months)2

  Persons sentenced to life imprisonment3

  Average custodial sentence length (months)2

  Persons sentenced to life imprisonment3

  1984

  9.4

  —

  29.4

  —

  1985

  10

  2

  30.9

  1

  1986

  10.7

  —

  35.6

  3

  1987

  11.7

  2

  38.5

  1

  1988

  12.2

  1

  37.5

  1

  1989

  12.4

  —

  37

  1

  1990

  12

  —

  37.3

  2

  1991

  11.5

  —

  38.8

  4

  1992

  11.5

  —

  39

  1

  1993

  11.1

  —

  38.8

  6

  1994

  11.4

  —

  39.8

  —

  1995

  12

  1

  38.2

  2

  1996

  13.8

  —

  38.1

  8

  1997

  15.8

  —

  39.1

  4

  1998

  15.5

  1

  35.3

  16

  1999

  15.7

  —

  35.7

  37

  2000

  15.9

  —

  36.1

  31

  2001

  16.6

  3

  35.4

  23

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2Excludes those sentenced to a life sentence.

  3From 1984 to 1997 the numbers sentenced to life imprisonment exclude those who were sentenced under Sec 53(2) Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

  Community Sentences
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average number of hours of community service required by community sentences given by magistrates in England and Wales to(a) under 17-year-olds, (b) 17 to 21-year-olds and (c) over 21-year-olds in each year since 1995; [92149]

  (2) how many community sentences were given by magistrates in England and Wales to (a) under 17years-olds, (b) 17 to 21-year-olds and (c) over 21-yearolds in each year since 1995. [92148]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is contained in the table.
  751W

  Number of persons sentenced at magistrates courts to a

  community sentence, community punishment order or community

  punishment and rehabilitation order, and the average number of

  hours ordered to be served, England and Wales 1995 to 20011

  Year/age group

  Number sentenced to a community sentence

  Number sentenced to a CPO or CPRO2

  Average hours;3

  1995

  10 to 16 years

  15,096

  1,350

  90

  17 to 21 years

  31,055

  15,552

  98

  22 and over

  61,389

  32,553

  129

  All ages

  1,07,540

  49,455

  118

  1996

  10 to 16 years

  15,857

  15,61

  87

  17 to 21 years

  32,382

  16,076

  96

  22 and over

  64,566

  33,550

  107

  All ages

  112,805

  51,187

  103

  1997

  10 to 16 years

  16,502

  1,724

  86

  17 to 21 years

  32,725

  16,338

  96

  22 and over

  68,588

  35,186

  106

  All ages

  117,815

  53,248

  102

  1998

  10 to 16 years

  18,569

  1,847

  86

  17 to 21 years

  35,132

  17,966

  95

  22 and over

  73,333

  36,909

  105

  All ages

  127,034

  56,722

  101

  1999

  10 to 16 years

  19,649

  2,133

  84

  17 to 21 years

  37,589

  19,379

  95

  22 and over

  73,739

  39,908

  104

  All ages

  130,977

  58,420

  100

  2000

  10 to 16 years

  24,338

  2,214

  85

  17 to 21 years

  38,633

  19,581

  94

  22 and over

  72,961

  35,975

  104

  All ages

  135,932

  57,770

  100

  2001

  10 to 16 years

  30,027

  2,009

  87

  17 to 21 years

  40,227

  18,557

  95

  22 and over

  75,215

  34,384

  104

  All ages

  145,469

  54,950

  100

  10 to 16 years

  30,027

  2,009

  87

  17 to 21 years

  40,227

  18,557

  95

  22 and over

  75,215

  34,384

  104

  All ages

  145,469

  54,950

  100

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2CPO = community punishment order. CPRO = community punishment and rehabilitation order.

  3Average hours of community punishment order and community punishment order within community punishment and rehabilitation order to be served.

  Crime
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define total crime for the purposes of the allocation of drug and crime reduction funding for 2003–04 to police basic command units. [93353]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]The national recorded crime statistics for burglary, robbery and theft of and from vehicles, were used for determining the 30 Basic Command Units (BCUs) with the highest levels of acquisitive crime. Although recorded crime statistics do not differentiate between drug and non-drug related crime, these types of crimes are the ones mostly closely associated with drug use.

  Crime Reduction
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his written answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 624W, when he plans to place the findings of the exercise on crime and disorder reduction partnerships and their implications for nuisance and noise associated with fireworks in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [91856]

  Mr. Denham
  As I indicated to my hon. Friend on 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 624W, the monitoring exercise he refers to was set up to monitor incidents relating to the improper use of fireworks between 23 October and 15 January. We are currently gathering and analysing the responses received. Once this process has been completed a copy of our findings will be placed in the Library.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions have been overturned by the Court of Appeal following a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission since March 1997. [92309]

  Hilary Benn
  The Court of Appeal has quashed 60 convictions obtained in England and Wales following references by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases, where the conviction has been overturned by the Court of Appeal following a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, had previously been investigated by his Department prior to March 1997. [92310]

  Hilary Benn
  Departmental records indicate that 36 cases, where the Court of Appeal has quashed a conviction obtained in England and Wales following references by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, had previously been the subject of applications to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for a referral. I am unable to say how many of these 36 cases were investigated prior to their transfer to the Commission, as this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred to the Court of Appeal since March 1997. [92311]

  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred 173 cases to the Court of Appeal. (This figure includes referrals of convictions or sentences or both. but excludes referrals to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland or to Crown Courts.)

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission since March 1997. [92312]

  Hilary Benn
  There have been 5,520 applications from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. This figure includes
  753W
  requests for case reviews of both summary and indictable convictions and of sentence only. At least three quarters of the applications received prove to be ineligible for a case review (usually because of a failure to exhaust the normal appeals process).

  Drink-driving
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many custodial sentences

  Findings of guilt and immediate custodial entences at all courts for offences of driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs by

  police force area, 1998–2000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Police Force area

  Findings of guilt

  Immediate custody1

  Findings of guilt

  Immediate custody1

  Findings of guilt

  Immediate custody1

  Avon and Somerset

  2,566

  157

  2,728

  165

  2,462

  152

  Bedfordshire

  1,060

  96

  869

  87

  797

  89

  Cambridgeshire

  1,060

  62

  941

  43

  793

  41

  Cheshire

  1,903

  119

  1,827

  133

  1,652

  122

  Cleveland

  870

  63

  811

  57

  777

  56

  Cumbria

  856

  51

  871

  37

  806

  50

  Derbyshire

  1,547

  202

  1,463

  181

  1,417

  126

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,265

  127

  2,277

  112

  2,199

  104

  Dorset

  1,186

  88

  1,120

  96

  1,115

  84

  Durham

  1,035

  53

  1,137

  81

  1,124

  76

  Essex

  2,438

  233

  2,528

  261

  2,462

  237

  Gloucestershire

  985

  36

  889

  51

  804

  37

  Gt Manchester

  4,715

  453

  4,850

  464

  4,801

  428

  Hampshire

  3,597

  231

  3,725

  213

  3,472

  244

  Hertfordshire

  1,672

  91

  1,679

  90

  1,552

  98

  Humberside

  1,358

  87

  1,323

  97

  1,371

  128

  Kent

  2,627

  155

  2,633

  133

  2,592

  134

  Lancashire

  2,945

  178

  3,010

  184

  2,584

  163

  Leicestershire

  1,485

  140

  1,624

  188

  1,531

  152

  Lincolnshire

  979

  36

  941

  44

  816

  48

  London, City of

  301

  9

  236

  5

  162

  4

  Merseyside

  2,451

  326

  2,137

  296

  2,128

  286

  Met Police

  13,889

  1,050

  12,414

  838

  11,801

  891

  Norfolk

  1,118

  43

  1,010

  64

  935

  45

  Northamptonshire

  1062

  73

  1,058

  91

  782

  90

  Northumbria

  2,457

  194

  2,463

  229

  2,621

  215

  North Yorkshire

  1,205

  77

  1,124

  60

  1,073

  67

  Nottinghamshire

  1,804

  247

  1,802

  262

  1,722

  210

  South Yorkshire

  2,002

  178

  1,927

  149

  2,122

  170

  Staffordshire2

  1,955

  140

  1,711

  143

  3—

  3—

  Suffolk

  1,042

  60

  1,089

  71

  902

  74

  Surrey

  1,328

  58

  1,417

  47

  1,539

  61

  Sussex

  2,113

  113

  2,224

  120

  2,112

  136

  Thames Valley

  3,896

  195

  3,725

  216

  3,496

  212

  Warwickshire

  784

  53

  856

  38

  786

  42

  West Mercia

  1,794

  97

  1,747

  114

  1,631

  101

  West Midlands

  5,582

  532

  4,775

  532

  4,559

  451

  West Yorkshire

  3,669

  329

  3,597

  358

  3,375

  287

  Wiltshire

  1,108

  39

  1,009

  45

  930

  28

  Total England

  86,709

  6,471

  83,567

  6,395

  80,671

  6,076

  Dyfed Powys

  995

  38

  944

  48

  858

  45

  Gwent

  1,203

  84

  1,079

  78

  1,211

  99

  North Wales

  1,306

  95

  1,248

  94

  1,332

  92

  South Wales

  2,903

  239

  2,526

  282

  2,757

  255

  Total Wales

  6,407

  456

  5,797

  502

  6,158

  491

  Total England and Wales

  93,116

  6,927

  89,364

  6,897

  86,829

  6,567

  1Immediate custody includes sentences of Secure Training Order, Detention and Training Order Young Offenders Institution, and Unsuspended sentence of imprisonment.

  2 Staffordshire 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.

  3 Not available.

  754W
  were given for drink-driving offences in the last three years, broken down by police authority; [91567]

  (2) how many drink-driving convictions in England and Wales there have been in the last three years, broken down by police authority. [91569]

  Hilary Benn
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database on convictions and custodial sentences for drink-driving offences by police force area 1998 to 2000 is shown in the table. Data for 2001 will be available in February.

  Drug Dependency (Prisoners)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to improve the quality and coverage of prison-based drug treatment programmes. [92114]

  Hilary Benn
  A framework is already in place to address the wide-ranging needs of drug-misusing prisoners and includes:

  detoxification in all local and remand prisons;

  Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare (CARATs) in all prisons;

  60 intensive treatment programmes;

  voluntary drug testing available in all prisons.

  Delivery is supported by a range of quality standards:

  minimum standards for clinical services for substance misusers and for CARATs;

  independent accreditation of treatment programmes by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (formerly the Joint Accreditation Panel—with the aim of having all programmes accredited by March 2004;

  separate auditing is also conducted by the Standards Audit Unit, in accordance with PSO 0200—Performance Standards Manual.

  Additionally, the Service is working closely with the National Treatment Agency to ensure its models of care, treatment standards and standards for drug workers are, where appropriate, being applied to prison-based work.

  The Government's 2002 Spending Review made provision for significant, additional funding for action on drugs misuse. In particular, investment in aftercare and throughcare will help ensure the gains made whilst prisoners are in custody are not lost on their release. Provision has also been made to boost treatment in prisons.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of prisoners in the United Kingdom who would benefit from a programme of treatment for drugs dependency. [92118]

  Hilary Benn
  Records of the number of prisoners who would benefit from a programme of treatment are not kept centrally. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that around 80 per cent. of prisoners had used drugs at some point before coming into prison, with 54 per cent. reporting drug dependency in the year prior to custody.

  A framework is in place to address the wide-ranging needs of drug-misusing prisoners and includes:

  detoxification in all local and remand prisons;

  Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare (CARATs) in all prisons;

  60 intensive treatment programmes;

  voluntary drug testing available in all prisons.

  Delivery is supported by a range of quality standards:

  minimum standards for clinical services for substance misusers and for CARATs;

  independent accreditation of treatment programmes by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (formerly the Joint Accreditation Panel)—with the aim of having all programmes accredited by March 2004;

  756W

  separate auditing is also conducted by the Standards Audit Unit, in accordance with PSO 0200—Performance Standards Manual.

  Additionally, the Service is working closely with the National Treatment Agency to ensure its models of care, treatment standards and standards for drug workers are, where appropriate, being applied to prison-based work.

  The Government's 2002 Spending Review made provision for significant, additional funding for action on drugs misuse. In particular, investment in aftercare and throughcare will help ensure the gains made while prisoners are in custody are not lost on their release. Provision has also been made to boost treatment in prisons.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the routes by which drugs enter prisons; and what proportion enter through external visits. [92121]

  Hilary Benn
  By definition drug smuggling is a covert activity which is extremely difficult to quantify and will vary between prisons. The main identified routes by which attempts are made to smuggle drugs into prisons include:

  social visits;

  mail;

  perimeter breach; and

  reception

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places on drug treatment programmes are available to prisoners in(a) England and (b) Kent. [92101]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service has in place a comprehensive framework to address the needs of drug-misusing prisoners.

  Delivery targets are given in the table.

  Intervention

  All prisons' targets (by March 2004)

  Kent targets (2002-03)

  CARATs1

  25,000

  1,000

  Detoxification

  27,000

  210

  Rehabilitation programmes and TCs2

  5,700

  406

  VDT compacts3

  28,000

  2,234

  1 Counselling assessment referral advice through care.

  2 Therapeutic communities.

  3 Voluntary drug testing.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to ensure that arrestees who test positive for drugs are directed into treatment programmes. [92112]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In the areas in England and Wales where the provisions for drug testing persons in police detention are currently being implemented, it is part of the drug testing procedure that those who test positive for a specified Class A drug are given specific opportunity to see an arrest referral worker, with a view to assessment of their drug misuse and referral to appropriate treatment.
  757W
  Measures being introduced as part of the Government's new comprehensive programme of criminal justice interventions to get drug misusers into treatment include the enhancement of existing arrest referral schemes and the expansion and extension of the drug testing arrangements under which the police can test persons, after charge, for specified Class A drugs. We are also taking forward in the Criminal Justice Bill the proposal to pilot a presumption against bail for those who refuse to be assessed as to their dependency on, or propensity to misuse, specified Class A drugs, or who then refuse to undergo relevant follow-up action recommended.

  The programme will be backed up by improvements in treatment capacity and local delivery.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners in Kent tested positive for drugs in each of the past five years. [92113]

  Hilary Benn
  The proportion of prisoners who tested positive under random mandatory drug testing (MDT) in Kent prisons is given in the table.

  Percentage positive

  1997–98

  13.6

  1998–99

  11.9

  1999–2000

  9.8

  2000–01

  8.8

  2001–02

  9.4

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to address the availability of drugs in prisons. [92120]

  Hilary Benn
  A range of measures is in place to reduce the availability of drugs in prisons. Elements include:

  passive and active drug dogs;

  a range of fixed and low-level furniture in visits areas;

  closed circuit television in visits areas;

  measures to deal with visitors who smuggle drugs into prisons;

  mandatory drug testing; and

  agreed searching policies.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in the past year underwent treatment for drugs dependency in(a) England and (b) Kent. [92119]

  Hilary Benn
  The numbers of prisoners engaging in some form of drugs treatment during 2001–02 are given in the table.

  Intervention

  All prisons(England and Wales)

  Kent prisons

  CARATS'

  39,279 initial assessments

  1,697

  Detoxification

  40,865 entrants

  616

  Rehabilitation programmes and therapeutic communities

  4,691 entrants

  539

  Voluntary drug testing compacts

  27,041 compacts signed

  2,432

  1 Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare services.

  Gun Crime
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were convicted of offences involving airguns during 2001–02; what proportion of those convictions were for criminal damage; how many of those convicted of criminal damage were aged under 17 years; and what the ages were of all those convicted of offences more serious than criminal damage involving airguns; [90654]

  (2) what proportion of those convicted of firearms offences during 2001–02 (a) had no previous criminal convictions, (b) had served sentences in custody and (c) were in each age decile from age 10 upwards. [90655]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, 240 persons aged 10 and under 17 years were found guilty of offences in England and Wales during 2001 under the various Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997 (11 per cent. of all persons found guilty of firearms offences). The equivalent figures for those persons aged 17 and under 21 was 455 (21 per cent.); and 1,467 persons aged 21 and over (68 per cent.).

  Information for 2002 is due for publication in the late autumn of 2003.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of illegal gun possession crime were recorded in(a) Lancashire, (b) the north-west of England, (c) England, (d) Wales and (e) the UK in (i) 2002 and (ii) each of the preceding five years. [90749]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Numbers of illegal firearm possession offences are not collected separately. Offences of illegal possession of firearms are included in the recorded crime classifications of 'Possession of Weapons' and 'Firearms Acts Offences' (Home Office offence classifications 8B and 81 respectively), but other offences are also included under these classifications, for example, possession of knives and illegal trading in firearms. These offence classifications were used from 1 April 1998, and the figures for England and Wales since that date are given in the table. A breakdown of the offences included under these classifications is included on the Home Office website at: http:// www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/countrules.html

  Financial year

  Possession of weapons

  Firearms acts offences

  1998–99

  23,635

  3,325

  1999–2000

  23,792

  3,143

  2000–01

  24,552

  3,531

  2001–02

  28,740

  3,205

  Some police forces adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in advance of its national implementation on 1 April 2002, which will have the effect of increasing the number of crimes counted.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  HMP Garth and HMP Wymott
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce 24-hour health care at HMP Wymott; [92027]

  (2) what plans he has to build a prison hospital on the site of (a) HMP Garth and (b) HMP Wymott. [92023]

  Hilary Benn
  There are no plans to introduce full 24-hour health care at Wymott prison as there is already a 13-place in-patient facility with 24-hour nursing cover in the health care centre at Garth prison, which serves as a resource for other Prison Service establishments in the area, including Wymott prison.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision was taken to place two prisoners in single cells at HMP Wymott. [92020]

  Hilary Benn
  The decision to ask training establishments to locate two prisoners in selected single cells was taken centrally, as a result of the overwhelming population pressures faced by the prisons estate. The practice commenced at Wymott on 26 June 2002. Each single cell utilised in this way has been risk assessed for the purpose, and all prisoners are also individually risk assessed to determine their suitability for location with another prisoner.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to build(a) extensions to and (b) a new prison at (i) HMP Garth and (ii) HMP Wymott. [92022]

  Hilary Benn
  On 27 March 2002, the Prison Service was granted an extension in time of a further five years to the planning clearances already granted for additional single houseblocks for 120 prisoners at both Garth and Wymott prisons.

  Planning clearance has been applied for to increase the size of the proposed houseblock at Wymott to 180 places. The outcome of the application is expected on 21 January 2003. On 24 July 2002, planning clearance was granted for an 80 place modular temporary unit (MTU) at Wymott, which will be additional to the 180-place houseblock. Work is under way to construct the 80 place MTU and, subject to a successful planning application, work on the 180-place houseblock will begin in the near future.

  There are no immediate plans to build the houseblock at Garth although the position will be regularly reviewed and there are currently no plans to build a complete new prison at either site.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of bed watches taking place at HMP Wymott; and what the average number was in other prisons at the most recent available date. [92024]

  Hilary Benn
  Since July 2002, there have been 1,000 bedwatches for 60 prisoners at Wymott, averaging around 40 per week. No figures are centrally collected on the frequency of bedwatches and information on the average number in other prisons is therefore not available.
  760W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were taken to hospital from HMP Wymott on average in each of the last five years. [92025]

  Hilary Benn
  During the last five years, an average of 470 prisoners have been taken to hospital each year from Wymott prison.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners died in HMP Wymott in each of the last five years. [92026]

  Hilary Benn
  A total of 14 prisoners have died at HMP Wymott in the last five years: two in 1998, three in 1999, five in 2000, one in 2001 and three in 2002.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that the courts deal effectively with persistent juvenile offenders. [92019]

  Hilary Benn
  We have delivered the Youth Justice Pledge by halving the time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders, funded Youth Justice Board Intensive Supervision and Surveillance programmes for the most prolific offenders and introduced the detention and training order for persistent and more serious young offenders.

  We have also strengthened the secure remand powers and introduced bail tagging for 12 to 16-year-olds nationally, and 17-year-olds in the 10 street crime priority areas, who repeatedly offend.

  We have already reduced young offender reconvictions by 14.6 per cent., as measured by those dealt with in July 2000 just after national implementation of the main youth justice reforms.

  Police Authority Funding
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the standard police grant sought by each police authority in England and Wales was in each year since 1996–97; and what the final settlement was for each authority. [91104]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: Police grant is allocated by the police funding formula and not by police authority bids. The funding formula is largely based on an analysis of policing activity. Distribution between Police Authorities takes into account socio-demographic factors such as population.

  I have placed in the Library details of general policing grants since 1996–97. Figures for 2003–04 are provisional. I expect to announce details of the final settlement for next year on 5 February.

  Prison Staff Changes
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how quickly a risk assessment has to be carried out in prisons when changes in staffing levels take place. [92021]
  761W
  Hilary Benn
  Prison Governors are required to carry out risk assessments where a change in staffing level brings an increased level of risk to staff, prisoners and others.

  The risk assessment should be carried out on those jobs, which are affected by a change in working practice, and should be completed before the change in staffing levels is implemented, except where the operational demands of the Service prevent this.

  Replica Guns
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on possession of a replica gun in a public place. [93211]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  An imitation firearm can create the same fear as a real one. It is not acceptable that people going about their business should be put in fear in this way. We therefore propose to introduce a new offence of having an imitation firearm in a public place without reasonable excuse.

  This will mean that anyone seen in public with an imitation firearm can be challenged and if they do not have a reasonable explanation for having the gun, they can be arrested before any further offences can be committed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  BG Group
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the reports which were compiled by the secondee from BG Group to the British Embassy in Indonesia in 2001 on the strengthening of official organisations in that country. [89461]

  Country

  Post

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Syria

  Damascus

  8

  14

  17

  17

  17

  19

  18

  17

  17

  17

  17

  14

  14

  Lebanon

  Beirut

  6

  6

  7

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  8

  8

  9

  8

  Jordan

  Amman

  33

  34

  34

  33

  33

  34

  33

  32

  31

  31

  31

  26

  23

  Iraq

  Baghdad

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Saudi Arabia

  Riyadh

  38

  38

  38

  37

  36

  36

  36

  35

  34

  33

  33

  29

  25

  Yemen

  Sana'a

  8

  8

  8

  8

  9

  8

  7

  8

  9

  9

  9

  8

  8

  Oman

  Muscat

  20

  19

  18

  19

  19

  16

  16

  16

  17

  17

  17

  16

  15

  UAE

  Abu Dhabi

  19

  19

  18

  18

  17

  18

  18

  18

  18

  18

  18

  15

  13

  UAE

  Dubai

  26

  26

  25

  25

  22

  21

  22

  23

  23

  23

  23

  19

  15

  Qatar

  Doha

  10

  10

  9

  9

  9

  9

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  11

  11

  Kuwait

  Kuwait

  23

  23

  22

  22

  20

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  17

  16

  Bahrain

  Bahrain

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  12

  13

  Egypt

  Cairo

  39

  37

  37

  37

  36

  34

  32

  34

  34

  35

  32

  37

  32

  Energy Supplies (Security)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to bolster the security of energy supplies. [92176]
  762W
  Mr. Rammell
  I have today asked for this report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Brazil
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek an early meeting with the Government of President Lula of Brazil to discuss debt and environmental issues. [93116]

  Mr. Rammell
  During my visit to Brazil from 14–18 December I discussed various issues, including the economy and environment, with Ministers-designate of President Lula's future Government. We hope to build on these discussions through a series of senior bilateral exchanges early this year. We have invited President Lula to make an early visit to the UK.

  Cuba
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government has had with the Government of the USA on its policies on trade between UK companies and Cuba. [91680]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our Embassy in Washington and Ministers and officials in the FCO and the Department of Trade and Industry frequently discuss a range of trade issues with their US counterparts. These include from time to time, trade with Cuba in the context of the US Helms-Burton legislation. The UK and the EU oppose this legislation because of its extraterritorial effect.

  Diplomatic Staff
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the complement was of diplomatic staff in each of the Arabic-speaking capitals in the Middle East in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [92934]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The table shows the number of UK-based staff in our Middle East posts from 1990. The figures include all those staff whose salaries are paid by the FCO and other Government Departments.

  Mr. Rammell
  Energy security is a key element of energy policy, security of energy supplies is one of the issues being looked at in the forthcoming Energy White Paper.

  Government Payments
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payments
  763W
  have been made to (a) Turkey, (b) Syria and (c) Jordan by the Government in each of the last three years; for what purpose; and if he will make a statement. [87412]

  Mr. Straw
  Government funding for projects in the above countries for the last three years totals:

  £

  (a) Turkey

  6,972,416

  (b) Syria

  429,800

  (c) Jordan

  21,078,129

  We have made no direct financial payments to these Governments, rather we have provided services in the form of training, expertise and equipment. These figures are approximate and may not be exhaustive. A breakdown of expenditure is set out as follows:

  Breakdown of Expenditure

  (a) Turkey

  Funds: Purpose—to help Turkey meet the Copenhagen Political Criteria and to help Turkey address issues of importance to the UK. These include:

  EU Action Plan: past projects include funding the Ministry of the Interior's and Ministry of Education's participation in the British Council Seminar in the UK on 'Communicating Human Rights'.

  Human Rights Project Fund (HRPF): past projects include human rights training for

  the Jandarma in custody, detention and public order policing.

  Global Conflict Prevention Fund (GCPF): past projects include an anti-smuggling/customs course.

  Defence Assistance Fund (DAF): past projects include English language training for Turkish officers at the BMEC English Language School in Beaconsfield. The DAF may be used to defray the cost, in full or in part, of bilateral activities such as training activities which provide a direct defence benefit. The use of the fund is determined by the country priorities set out in the Defence Assistance Plan.

  Drugs and Crime Fund (DCF): past projects include customs training.

  (Other small funds include the Environmental programme budget and project fund)

  Turkey

  £

  EU Action Plan

  2000–01

  n/a

  2001–02

  149,454

  2002–03

  11150,000

  HRPF

  2000–01

  306,333

  2001–02

  311,409

  2002–03

  167,708

  DAF Allocation

  2000–01

  571,000

  2001–02

  608,000

  2002–03

  356,000

  GCPF

  2000–01

  n/a

  2001–02

  1156,640

  2002–03

  1169,700

  764W

  Turkey

  £

  DCF

  2000–01

  108,515

  2001–02

  672,690

  2002–03

  33261,967

  1Allocated

  2Spent

  3This does not include a UNDCP amount of £550,000 which may be allocated to Turkey projects.

  There is no Department for International Development (DfID) programme in Turkey however DfID did provide £1.5 million in humanitarian assistance in 1999–2000 following a major earthquake and £283,000 in 2000–01.

  (b) Syria

  Our Embassy in Damascus runs a DfID-funded Small Grants Scheme. The FCO runs small projects in Syria under the Global Conflict Prevention Fund. We also fund Chevening Scholarship and sponsored visits programmes.

  Syria

  £

  DfID

  1999–2000

  119,000

  2000–01

  75,000

  2001–02

  80,000

  GCPF (formerly ASSIST)

  1999–2000

  18,880

  2000–01

  50,000

  2001–02

  27,000

  Bilateral defence relations with Syria have improved. Over the past two years, the MOD has established a programme of assistance with the Syrians worth about £30,000 annually. This money is spent on funding Syrian candidates on courses such as English Language Training.

  (c) Jordan

  DfID's support to Jordan is set out in the table. This consists of debt relief, aid trade provision and technical assistance. The FCO funds small projects under the Global Conflict Prevention Fund. We also fund Chevening Scholarship, sponsored visits programmes and human rights projects.

  The MOD has an extensive bilateral programme of assistance with Jordan costing in the region of £400,000 annually These funds are spent on providing course places to the Jordanian Armed Forces and in-country training. Their largest project to date with the Jordanians was the gifting of Challenger I Tanks, a project that began in August 1999 and is ongoing. This was a gift from the UK Government to the Jordanian Government, not a direct payment.

  Jordan

  £

  DfID

  1999–2000

  6,310,000

  2000–01

  6,298,000

  200–02

  6,433,000

  765W

  Jordan

  £

  GCPF (formerly ASSIST)

  1999–2000

  190,031

  2000–01

  220,000

  200–02

  427,098

  I will write the right hon. Member with more details and place a copy in the Library.

  Heritage Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [92375]

  Mr. Rammell
  The FCO holds very few heritage assets. We do however own many antiques and other valuable items that are used as working, operational, assets. The only such items that we have sold since 1997 have been: one antique carpet, one tea table, three armchairs, one sofa, one lectern, one bookcase, one dining table. The total sales proceeds after commission was £21,424.

  Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Convention
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ratify protocol 13 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and if he will make a statement. [93151]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK Government plan to ratify protocol 13 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by June this year. The Lord Chancellor's Department handles the ratification process. The Protocol will come into force when 10 states have ratified it, at present there are only 5 ratifications.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is in respect of the 10 point agreement on cooperation on inspections agreed between Dr Blix on behalf of UNMOVIC and the Iraqi Government on 20 January. [94049]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The 10 points in the joint statement made during Dr. Blix's visit to Baghdad last week do not constitute an agreement. They are simply a statement of practical arrangements. They do not add to or alter Iraq's obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

  The Government have repeatedly stated that it is essential that Iraq co-operate fully and unconditionally with the inspectors as they are required to do under UNSCR 1441.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the 766W
  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. [92438]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Pakistan
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the role of Pakistan in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [93429]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Pakistan's continued development and testing of nuclear weapons and the means for their delivery is a matter of concern to the entire international community.

  Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme is a breach of the requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 1172. We regularly call upon Pakistan to abide by all the requirements of the Resolution, including cessation of the development of nuclear weapons, and accession—as a non-nuclear weapons state—to both the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

  We are aware of, and concerned by, reports that Pakistan has nuclear related dealings with other countries.

  Performance Report
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department's autumn performance report for 2002 will be published. [93152]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr Flight) on 21 January Official Report column 299W

  Radioactive Contamination
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received on radioactive contamination of floodwaters in Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan and the risks of such contamination within Afghanistan. [93095]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We received reports about flooding and landslides in the Maili Su area of Kyrgyzstan in May 2002. There was some concern at the time that Soviet era uranium dumps and deposits could be disturbed, leading to contamination of Kyrgyz rivers. Though this did not happen, there remains some risk that radioactive waste could be disturbed by future landslides and earthquakes. If waste was to enter the Maili Su river, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, through which the river also flows, would be affected. We are not aware of reports suggesting that Afghanistan would be affected, but will continue to monitor the situation.

  UN Resolution 1441
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government have had with the US Administration on US compliance with Paragraph 10 of UN Resolution 1441. [93322]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss with the US Administration all aspects of Iraq policy, including support for UNMOVIC/IAEA operations. Both the UK and the US are fully committed to supporting UN weapons inspections in Iraq.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the parameters by which the Government defines whether a weapon falls into the category of weapons of mass destruction. [93321]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no universally accepted definition of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction", but it is generally held to refer to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to secure international agreement for(a) a sporting boycott, (b) power sanctions and (c) wider economic sanctions against Zimbabwe; and what the value of imports from Zimbabwe to the United Kingdom was in the last 12 months. [91269]

  Mr. Rammell
  The EU has put in place targeted sanctions including an arms embargo, a travel ban and assets freeze, specifically targeted at 79 members of the Mugabe regime. We have also made clear our views that the British cricket team should not play in Zimbabwe at present. However we do not believe that a general sporting boycott, power sanctions, or wider economic sanctions would be right. Such measures would only serve to harm the Zimbabwean people, who are already suffering enough under Mugabe's leadership. The latest yearly figure for imports from Zimbabwe to the UK is for 2001, when imports amounted to £91 million.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Donaghadee Treatment Works
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the development of the North Down Waste Water Treatment Works at Donaghadee; and whether the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), has met the Donaghadee Planning Action Group in relation to this matter. [92302]

  Angela Smith
  The decision to locate the North Down Wastewater Treatment Works on the site adjacent to the Donaghadee Carpet Factory was taken in February 2002 by Peter Robinson MP MLA, the then Minister for Regional Development, following a detailed site search and appraisal process, and consideration and evaluation of all relevant factors.
  768W
  An application for Crown Development for the Works was made by Water Service on 14 May 2002. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement. Planning Service has consulted specialist advisers within Government and in the public sector on the application and the Environmental Statement. A number of responses are awaited. When these are received, Planning Service will assess the responses from consultees to ensure that they are satisfied with the content of the Environmental Statement. If further information is required, an addendum to the Environmental Statement will be necessary.

  The application and the Environmental Statement were advertised for public comment in accordance with the normal procedures. A substantial number of objections have been received, including the Donaghadee Planning Action Group. On completion of the consultation process associated with the planning application and the Environmental Statement, Planning Service will have to consider the further processing of the application, including the need for a public inquiry.

  In dealing with planning cases I have decided not to get involved in procedural and operational matters, and so have turned down meeting requests where applications are at these stages. However, I have met with members of the Donaghadee Sewerage Action Group to discuss issues relating to the selection process.

  In parallel with the planning issues, the Valuation and Lands Agency has been asked to commence initial land acquisition procedures for the site. The cost of the entire scheme has recently been assessed and is now estimated to be £42 million. The Works has been identified as one of seven major wastewater treatment projects that may be suitable for inclusion in a Public Private Partnership (PPP) programme of work. This programme is currently the subject of a detailed appraisal study that will take several months to complete.

  Larne to Whitehead Railway Line
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding the railway line between Larne and Whitehead will receive from the Regional Transport Strategy 2002–12; and what funding will be available for upgrading this stretch of line in the future. [82682]

  Angela Smith
  The Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS) for Northern Ireland 2002–2012 identifies a range of strategic transportation investment priorities including funding of just over £500 million in railways over the next 10 years. It does not specify amounts to be invested in individual railway lines. Commitments to proceed with any major capital scheme will be subject to the normal Budgetary process, economic appraisal and the consideration of any statutory procedures. Furthermore, decisions on the retention of rail services north of Whitehead; and north and north-west of Ballymena, will also be subject to successful results from the introduction of new trains and improved infrastructure on the rest of the network early in the implementation of the Strategy.

  Motorcycle Road Races
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in
  769W
  providing further funds for circuit safety work at the North West 200 circuit and the Ulster Grand Prix Motorcycle circuits; and what discussions have taken place to identify (a) a schedule and (b) the cost of safety works at North West 200 and Ulster Grand Prix circuits. [92939]

  Angela Smith
  There has been ongoing discussions regarding the need for safety works at the North West 200 and Ulster Grand Prix circuits. Schedules detailing the extent and the cost of the work required were submitted to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure on the 15 January and these are presently under consideration.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the proposal to permit motorcycle road racing clubs responsible for the North West 200 and the Ulster Grand Prix to access the Health and Safety funds created for sporting stadia in order to finance essential safety work at their respective circuits. [92940]

  Angela Smith
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland will be drawing up proposals for a new programme which will take account of health and safety needs at sporting venues in the province. The new scheme will be subject to consultation prior to its introduction in 2003–04. The total cost is circa £90,000.

  Museum of Sea and Sky
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are required to take forward the MAGNI proposal for a museum of sea and sky at Titanic Quarter. [92935]

  Angela Smith
  MAGNI has set out clear stages for taking forward its proposed heritage development at Titanic Quarter. In order, these are: the establishment of a project team; the appointment of consultants; the development of an outline lottery bid; the raising of support among other bodies; and the development of a full lottery bid. MAGNI are about to embark on the last two of these stages, and these will be taken forward simultaneously.

  Obviously the future progression of the project will be dependent on the necessary financial resources being available.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by MAGNI in providing a museum of sea and sky at Titanic Quarter. [92945]

  Angela Smith
  MAGNI has prepared a plan setting out how the organisation proposes to take forward a heritage development at Titanic Quarter. It will major on the themes of sea and sky, but it will also cover the wider social history of the city of Belfast and the people of Northern Ireland.

  To date MAGNI has appointed consultants to assist in the preparation of an outline bid for lottery funding. This outline bid is due to be submitted shortly, and it should be followed up by a more substantial document in due course. My officials will continue to work closely with MAGNI in taking this project forward.

  Soccer Strategy
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing the soccer strategy, with particular reference to obtaining agreement between the IFA and IFL on the section relating to governance. [92885]

  Angela Smith
  Encouraging progress has been towards the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Advisory Panel report "Creating a Soccer Strategy for Northern Ireland". It is understood that the Irish Football Association (IFA) agreed, at a meeting on 20 January, to merge with the Irish Football League to form a unified governing body for the sport as recommended by the Advisory Panel.

  The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is currently examining the Irish Football Association's development plan which sets out its proposals for the future governance of soccer in Northern Ireland, and for other aspects of the game.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the sum of £8 million set aside by the Northern Ireland Executive in its budget proposals to finance the soccer strategy proposals is available to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure for this purpose. [92886]

  Angela Smith
  Yes, but the allocation of funding to soccer is dependent upon the preparation of a development plan from the Irish Football Association that is acceptable to DCAL.

  Ulster Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) surgical and (b) medical procedures were postponed at the Ulster Hospital in the last 12 months. [92672]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on numbers of(a) surgical and (b) medical procedures postponed or cancelled at the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust, during the calendar year 2002 is detailed in the table:

  Cancellations/postponements

  (a) Surgical

  General Surgery

  1,237

  Paediatric Surgery

  30

  T&O

  40

  Maxillo-facial

  73

  Plastic Surgery

  347

  Gynaecology

  504

  ENT

  153

  Total

  2,384

  (b) Medical

  Care of the Elderly

  7

  Pain Management

  160

  Paediatric Medicine

  12

  General Medicine

  298

  Total

  477

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Third Reading Debates
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list, for each Bill passed by the House since June 1997, how many minutes were spent on third reading debate. [93953]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested is as follows:

  1997–98

  Hours/minutes at third reading

  Finance (No. 2) Bill

  3.30

  Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill

  3.30

  Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill

  3.27

  Education (Schools) Bill

  2.31

  Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill [Lords]

  2.25

  Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill

  2.22

  Scotland Bill

  2.05

  Lloyds TSB Bill [Lords]

  2.03

  Northern Ireland Bill

  1.30

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill

  1.27

  Public Interest Disclosure Bill [includes consideration]

  1.25

  Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

  1.19

  Finance Bill

  1.08

  Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]

  0.51

  Human Rights Bill [Lords]

  0.51

  Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit

  Approvals) Bill

  0.44

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

  0.43

  Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [Lords]

  0.38

  Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [Lords]

  0.37

  Local Government (Contracts) Bill

  0.36

  Education (Student Loans) Bill

  0.35

  National Lottery Bill [Lords]

  0.33

  Bank of England Bill

  0.29

  Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill

  0.23

  Data Protection Bill [Lords]

  0.19

  Nuclear Explosions (Prohibitions and Inspections) Bill

  [Lords]

  0.18

  Landmines Bill

  0.15

  Animal Health (Amendment) Bill

  0.14

  Competition Bill [Lords]

  0.14

  Registration of Political Parties

  0.14

  Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [Lords]

  0.13

  Supreme Court (Offices) Bill [Lords]

  0.12

  National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill [Lords]

  0.07

  Waste Minimisation Bill [includes consideration]

  0.03

  1998–99

  Hours/minutes at third reading

  House of Lords Bill

  4.25

  Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Bill [Lords]

  2.28

  Tax Credits Bill

  1.58

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

  1.41

  Finance Bill

  1.20

  Disability Rights Commission Bill

  1.18

  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill

  0.52

  Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill

  0.51

  Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce,

  etc.) Bill

  0.48

  Access to Justice Bill [Lords]

  0.47

  Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [Lords]

  0.45

  Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill

  0.45

  Northern Ireland Bill

  0.41

  Scottish Enterprise Bill

  0.37

  Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords]

  0.34

  Rating (Valuation) Bill

  0.29

  Protection of Children Bill

  0.24

  Employment Relations Bill

  0.23

  Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

  0.23

  Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill

  0.20

  772W

  1998–99

  Hours/minutes at third reading

  Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.)

  Bill

  0.19

  Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [Lords]

  0.09

  Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill

  0.06

  Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill

  0.06

  Water Industry Bill

  0.01

  1999–2000

  Hours/minutes at third reading

  Licensing (Young Persons) Bill

  3.02

  Disqualifications Bill

  2.03

  Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill

  1.20

  Government Resources and Accounts Bill

  1.17

  Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

  1.17

  Financial Services and Markets Bill

  1.15

  Football (Disorder) Bill

  1.14

  Northern Ireland Bill

  1.08

  Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

  1.05

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

  1.03

  Finance Bill

  1.01

  Sea Fishing (Grants) Charges Bill

  1.00

  Postal Services Bill

  0.58

  Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill

  0.52

  Carers and Disabled Children Bill

  0.47

  Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords]

  0.46

  London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

  0.41

  Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

  0.40

  Transport Bill

  0.38

  Local Government Bill [Lords]

  0.37

  Terrorism Bill

  0.36

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill

  0.33

  Trustee Bill [Lords]

  0.33

  Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [Lords]

  0.31

  Representation of the People Bill

  0.30

  Children (Leaving Care) Bill [Lords]

  0.29

  Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill

  0.27

  Utilities Bill

  0.19

  Freedom of Information Bill

  0.18

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill

  0.16

  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill

  0.15

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

  0.15

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill

  0.14

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums

  0.14

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

  0.13

  Nuclear Safeguards Bill

  0.12

  Electronic Communications Bill

  0.11

  Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill

  0.10

  Learning and Skills Bill [Lords]

  0.10

  Care Standards Bill [Lords]

  0.07

  2000–01

  Hours/minutes at third reading

  Capital Allowances Bill

  2.30

  House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualifications)

  Bill

  2.10

  Hunting Bill

  1.32

  Kent County Council Bill [including consideration];

  Medway Council Bill [including consideration]

  1.30

  Criminal Justice and Police Bill

  1.29

  Vehicles (Crime) Bill

  1.16

  Homes Bill

  0.58

  International Development Bill

  0.57

  Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]

  0.57

  Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords]

  0.55

  Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill

  0.48

  Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

  0.45

  Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

  0.36

  Health and Social Care Bill

  0.31

  773W

  2000–01

  Hours/minutes at third reading

  Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops)

  Bill

  0.21

  Social Security Fraud Bill

  0.12

  Election Publications Bill [Lords]

  0.11

  Bill

  0.06

  2001–02

  Hours/minutes at third reading

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill

  6.46

  Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill

  3.47

  Employee Share Schemes Bill

  2.57

  Industrial and Provident Societies Bill

  2.21

  Finance Bill

  2.02

  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords]

  1.50

  Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment)

  Bill

  1.47

  Adoption and Children Bill

  1.46

  Proceeds of Crime Bill

  1.30

  European Communities (Finance) Bill

  1.30

  International Development Bill [Lords]

  1.21

  Animal Health Bill

  1.13

  Enterprise Bill

  1.08

  Office of Communications Bill [Lords]

  1.08

  Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill

  1.02

  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

  1.01

  State Pensions Credit Bill [Lords]

  1.00

  Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill

  0.52

  Employment Bill

  0.58

  Immigrations. Nationality and Asylum Bill

  0.58

  Homelessness Bill

  0.50

  Police Reform Bill

  0.50

  Tax Credits Bill

  0.48

  Commonwealth Bill

  0.47

  Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill

  0.42

  British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords]

  0.42

  Copyright, Etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and

  Enforcement) Bill

  0.41

  Export Control Bill

  0.36

  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords]

  0.34

  Education Bill

  0.33

  Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill

  0.27

  Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

  0.27

  Land Registration Bill

  0.27

  Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords]

  0.24

  Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]

  0.23

  City of London (Ward Elections) Bill

  0.18

  Civil Defence (Grant) Bill

  0.15

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill

  National Health Service Reform and Health Care

  0.15

  Professions Bill

  0.12

  National Heritage Bill

  0.06

  Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill

  0.06

  2002–03

  Hours/minutes at third reading

  Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill

  0.57

  Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

  0.36

  Health (Wales) Bill

  0.23

PRIME MINISTER

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister how many cases of computer misuse there were in his office in each of the 774W
  last five years, broken down by each category of misuse; and how many of those cases resulted in disciplinary action. [93038]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office for today at column 722W.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice he has taken on the legal basis for an invasion of Iraq. [93902]

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the longstanding policy of successive Governments not to disclose internal policy advice, including legal advice, under Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. As I have repeatedly made clear, no decision has been made to take military action and military action is not inevitable.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the line of command for the use of UK nuclear weapons. [93110]

  The Prime Minister
  The use of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons may be ordered only by the Prime Minister.

  Spanish Visit
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the cost of his visit to Spain on 5 September 2002 for the wedding of the daughter of the Prime Minister of Spain was met by the taxpayer. [94104]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, as has already been made clear I was invited in my position as a Head of Government.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Allowance
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how he intends to consult stakeholders in housing allowance in pathfinder project areas; and if he will make a statement; [93315]

  (2) if he will publish the results of consultations carried out with stakeholders in housing allowance pathfinder project areas; [93316]

  (3) at what points during the housing allowance pathfinder projects stakeholders will be consulted. [93317]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We will be working closely with pathfinder authorities to introduce the standard local housing allowance scheme and will ensure that local stakeholders including landlords, letting agents, and statutory and voluntary sector advisers, are consulted and made fully aware of the changes.

  It will be an important part of our evaluation strategy to consider the views of all local stakeholders as well as those of tenants affected by the scheme. Details of how this will be done have not yet been decided but we

  775W
  recognise the importance of consulting the full range of stakeholders at regular stages during the pilot. As usual, the results of the evaluation will be published.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Government will respond to the Better Regulation Task Force on the recommendations in their report entitled 'Housing Benefit: a case study of lone parents' published in September 2001. [91972]

  Malcolm Wicks
  On 12 December 2001, we responded positively and in detail to the Better Regulation Task Force report "Housing Benefit: A Case Study of Lone Parents". A copy of our response is in the Library.

  On 17 October 2002, we announced a wide-ranging package of reforms for housing benefit (HB). The overall strategy for reforming HB is to improve administration, promote choice and responsibility, enhance work incentives and reduce levels of fraud and error in the system.

  Married Women's Half-Test
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps were taken to publicise the abolition of the married women's half-test under the Social Security Act 1975. [91305]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: Affected women were identified by a trawl of the NIRS database and invited to claim. In addition, there was a publicity campaign aimed at finding those women who did not receive an invitation to claim for whatever reason.

  Pension Credit
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether pensioners' earnings will be eligible for the pension credit; and if he will make a statement. [93737]

  Mr. McCartney
  Currently around half a million pensioners aged 65 or over work. The earnings of pensioners aged 65 or over will be rewardable in the savings credit. The existing earnings disregards of £5, £10 and £20 that apply in the Minimum Income Guarantee will also apply in Pension Credit. The remunerative work rule that excludes from Minimum Income Guarantee pensioners who work 16 hours a week or more (24 hours for couples) will be abolished for Pension Credit.

  For example, a pensioner receiving retirement pension of £77.45 and earning £35 per week would get nothing under the present MIG scheme. However, under Pension Credit, he would be £12.65 better off a week, or almost £658 per year.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Career Development Loans
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many career development loans have been allocated since 1998; how many applications have 776W
  been refused since 1998; what the total sum issued since 1998 has been; how much remains outstanding; how much has been recovered via debt agencies and court orders; how much has been defaulted; and if he will make a statement. [88837]

  Margaret Hodge
  Career Development Loans (CDLs) are deferred repayment commercial bank loans designed to help individuals, who may not otherwise be able to afford or have access to funds to pay for vocational education and learning. The DfES operates the programme in partnership with three high street banks and pays the interest on the loan for the period of training covered by the CDL. For the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002, 79,641 loans have been taken out with a value of £316 million. As at 31 December 2002, £94 million remained outstanding for payment of interest by the Department and this value will continue to reduce over time. The amount that has been defaulted is £24 million and £2.6 million has been recovered so far. This reflects a net default rate of 7 per cent. compared to the 15 per cent. maximum operating limit agreed with the banks to cover the higher level of risk they take in making these particular loans. The exact number of applications refused by the banks is not known. The refusal rate varies between the banks, but the overall rate is around 25 per cent. of applications received.

  Child Care
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether premiums will be available on education maintenance allowances to help single parents to access child care. [91840]

  Margaret Hodge
  The national Education Maintenance Allowance will be designed to cover the day-to-day expenses associated with participating in further education, such as the cost of books and equipment, and to help towards the cost of transport to and from a learning centre. Additional funding, via the Learner Support Fund, will be available for students facing particular needs or costs that threaten their access to, or completion of, further education courses. This will include help with the costs of child care.

  Under the Learner Support Fund, up to £4,000 per annum is available according to the costs of the child care and the young parent's financial circumstances. The maximum amount available will increase to £5,000 per annum from September 2003 to provide for the higher costs prevailing in some areas.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [93044]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The numbers of computer misuse incidents within the Department for Education and Skills is as follows.
  777W

  Year

  Number of cases

  Type of Misuse

  Action

  1998

  10

  Serious inappropriate internet access

  Disciplinary Action

  2

  Serious Email abuse

  Disciplinary Action

  1999

  45

  Serious inappropriate internet action

  Disciplinary Action

  6

  Inappropriate internet access

  Informal Warning

  2000

  42

  Serious inappropriate access

  Disciplinary Action

  14

  Inappropriate internet access

  Informal Action

  2001

  14

  Serious inappropriate internet access

  Disciplinary Action

  84

  Serious inappropriate internet action

  Informal Warning

  2002

  8

  Serious inappropriate internet access

  Disciplinary Action

  38

  Inappropriate internet access

  Informal Warning

  The Department for Education and Skills allows personal use of the Internet and email outside normal hours. Staff are warned that internet accesses may be monitored and misuse may lead to disciplinary action. Staff are reminded of the policy each time they log on to the Department network and must accept the policy before log in can be completed.

  Excellence in Cities
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have been de-designated from the excellence in cities programme since its inception; and how many schools remain in the programme. [93198]

  Mr. Miliband
  There is no de-designation process, although the number of schools varies as new schools are established and others are closed or amalgamated. Our latest figures show that there are 2,370 schools in excellence in cities of which 1,000 are secondary schools.

  Higher Education (Family Incomes)
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many UK students have qualified for(a) full exemption, (b) part exemption and (c) no exemption from tuition fees in (i) England, (ii) Wales and (iii) Northern Ireland in each academic year from 1998 onwards; [91636]

  (2) what reports he has received about the number of students who have qualified for (a) full exemption, (b) part exemption and (c) no exemption from tuition fees in Scotland in each academic year from 1998 until 2001. [91640]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 January 2003.]In England and Wales students on undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their tuition only if they can afford to do so.

  The number of students in academic years 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 (latest year for which data are available) who have been assessed to make a full, partial or nil contribution towards the cost of their tuition are:

  All students1

  Thousand

  Number of students

  Academic year

  England

  Wales

  1998/992

  Full student/parent/spouse/partner contributions5,6

  79.8

  4.5

  Partial student/parent/spouse/partner contribution

  45.5

  3.4

  Nil student/parent/spouse /partner contribution7

  101.3

  6.9

  778W

  All students1

  Thousand

  Number of students

  Academic year

  England

  Wales

  1999–20002

  Full student/parent/spouse/partner contributions5,6

  155.9

  10.8

  Partial student/parent/spouse/partner contribution

  87.9

  8.2

  Nil student/parent/spouse /partner contribution7

  201.7

  14.4

  2000–012,3

  Full student/parent/spouse/partner contributions 5,6

  253.4

  4n/a

  Partial student/parent/spouse/partner contribution

  121.3

  4n/a

  Nil student/parent/spouse /partner contribution

  267.5

  4n/a

  The devolved Administrations for Scotland and Northern Ireland are responsible for the administration of tuition fees in their countries.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence he has collated of software problems in the Learning and Skills Council's funding arrangements for colleges; and what action the Department and the council are taking to eliminate such problems. [91183]

  Margaret Hodge
  I am aware of the difficulties encountered by some colleges in accessing the Learning and Skills Council's learner information suite which have resulted in some colleges being unable to forecast accurately their expected income. I have expressed my concerns to John Harwood, the council's chief executive. The LSC are committed to providing a high quality service to colleges and we expect the council's systems to be corrected and fully functional at the end of this month.

  Learning Difficulties (School Sport)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of primary movement exercise programmes; [93587]

  (2) what the Government's policy is on the use of primary movement exercise programmes to alleviate learning difficulties. [93592]

  Mr. Miliband
  Physical Education (PE) remains a compulsory subject within the National Curriculum at all Key Stages. At Key Stages 1 and 2 its emphasis is on learning and developing basic movement skills and actions. The Ofsted Primary Subject Report on Physical Education—published in July 2002—indicated that at primary level"pupils' achievement is at least satisfactory in all but one school in 20 in both Key Stages 1 and 2".

  A joint Department for Education and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport public service agreement target, announced on 15 July 2002, seeks to enhance the take up of sporting opportunities by 5 to 16-year-olds by increasing the percentage of schoolchildren who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006. Spearheading action will be the significant expansion of the specialist sports college and school sport coordinator partnership programmes.
  779W
  The strategy has an inclusive ethos and is designed to be flexible enough to allow children with learning difficulties—whether in a mainstream school or other—to be taught through a variety of methods which could include a primary movement exercise programme if a school decided that was the most suitable option.

  London Institute
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public money has been given to the London Institute; and how the use of this money has been accounted for in each year since the foundation of the Institute. [92299]

  Margaret Hodge
  The following table shows the total income and the amount received from funding council grants for the London Institute each year since 1994–95.

  £million

  London Institute

  Total income

  Funding Council grant income1

  1994–95

  57,728

  38,020

  1995–96

  60,619

  38,159

  1996–97

  64,954

  37,439

  1997–98

  69,446

  38,389

  1998–99

  71,968

  42,041

  1999–2000

  78,075

  44,073

  2000–01

  83,474

  45,593

  1The funding council grant includes funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and from the funding bodies for further education in England.

  Source:

  Table 1, HESA annual publication "Resources of Higher Education Institutions".

  There is a financial memorandum between each institution and each of the funding councils from which they receive public funding. This sets out the responsibilities of each party including financial management and the arrangements for audit and monitoring.

  Post-16 Education
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by what percentage the pilot schemes suggest education maintenance allowances will improve progression rates into post sixteen education in deprived areas. [91837]

  Margaret Hodge
  The EMA pilot scheme has been subject to a rigorous and thorough evaluation study. The latest report was published on 3 July 2002.

  The evaluation of the pilot scheme includes 10 of the original EMA pilot LEAs which are among the most deprived in England. Evidence from the evaluation indicates that within the group of young people eligible for EMA, participation in education in Y12 has increased by 5.9 percentage points. For the cohort of young people in these LEAs as a whole, this is equivalent to a participation gain of 3.7 percentage points.

  In Year 13, due to an EMA induced improvement in retention, the gain in participation increases further to just over 7 percentage points among eligible young people which is equivalent to just over 4 percentage points for the cohort as a whole.
  780W
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government's policy is on diversity of supply in post-16 education. [91853]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are committed to ensuring that high quality post-16 education and training is available to meet the full range of learner, employer and community needs. In some areas this will require greater diversity in the supply of provision.

  Following the publication of our strategy for reforming further education and training—'Success for All' in November 2002, we have asked each provider to set out their unique educational mission focusing on what they do best. Our strategy also identifies the need, where appropriate, for more discrete provision to meet the distinctive needs of 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Alongside this, we have asked the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to undertake strategic area reviews to ensure the best mix of provision is supplied in each part of the country. These reviews will be undertaken locally in partnership with further education colleges and local education authorities and in consultation with a wide range of employer, learner, community and provider interests in each area.

  The combination of unique provider missions and strategic area reviews will lead to greater diversity in post-16 education and training, to ensure improved choice, opportunity and success for all.

  Schools (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were employed in schools in(a) Shropshire and (b) Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1997. [93019]

  Mr. Miliband
  The tables provide the full-time equivalent (FTE) number of teachers as at January of each year. Shropshire was affected by local government re-organisation in April 1998.

  (a) Teachers in Shropshire

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  All regular teachers FTE1

  Former Shropshire

  3,330

  3,350

  N/a

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Shropshire post April 1998

  N/a

  N/a

  1,940

  2,050

  2,110

  2,140

  Telford and Wrekin

  N/a

  N/a

  1,360

  1,340

  1,410

  1,420

  1 The information for Shropshire is taken from the Annual Survey of Teachers in Service, an LEA level survey. The figures cover all regular teachers employed in the maintained schools sector (nursery, primary, secondary, special and PRUs) by the local authority, including centrally employed teachers. Teachers on paid absence are included, together with any replacements on contracts of one month or more. Includes teachers with and without qualified teacher status.

  Note:

  N/a = not applicable

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  (b) Teachers in Shrewsbury and Atcham

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Teachers in schools FTE1

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  630

  630

  630

  640

  650

  660

  1 The information for Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency is from the Annual Schools' Census and includes the normal

  781W
  complement of teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary, special schools and PRUs. Includes teachers with and without qualified teacher status and foreign language assistants.

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list building improvement projects and their value in each school in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 2001. [93082]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not hold information in the form requested. Most capital funding available for building improvements in schools is allocated to local education authorities and schools by needs-related formulae. It is for local education authorities and schools to decide how their capital allocations are invested and prioritised between projects, in line with locally agreed asset management plans.

  Special Educational Needs
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what training Ofsted inspectors have received in respect of duties imposed on schools by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. [92995]

  Mr. Miliband
  The training undertaken by school inspectors is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector David Bell will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his letter will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Specialist Status Schools
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills of the schools that have lost specialist status since 1996, how many were(a) arts, (h) business and enterprise, (c) engineering, (d) languages, (e) maths and computing, (f) science, (g) sports and (h) technology. [93197]

  Mr. Miliband
  There have been 33 specialist schools which have lost their specialist status since 1996. Of these schools, 32 were technology colleges and one was a language college.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether bankruptcy discharges liability to repay student loans; and if he will make a statement. [91182]

  Margaret Hodge
  Bankruptcy discharges liability to repay student loans where the loan was taken out before the commencement of bankruptcy.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many UK students have qualified for the income-dependent element of student loans in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland in each academic year since 1998; [91637]

  (2) what reports he has received on the number of students in Scotland who have qualified for (a) the full amount, (b) a proportion and (c) no part of the income-dependent element of student loans in each academic year since 1998. [91823]
  782W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: For the first year of the new student support arrangements, academic year 1998–99, eligible new entrants domiciled in England and Wales received support for living costs through both grants and loans. Grants, which were assessed against family income, on average formed about a quarter of the support available. All students were entitled to a non income-assessed loan which comprised the remaining three quarters of support available.

  New entrants to higher education from 1999–2000, together with those who started in 1998–99, receive support for living costs through loans which are partly income assessed.

  The number of students in academic years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 (latest year for which data is available) who are eligible for the full income-assessed element of the loan and those who receive some of the income-assessed element of the loan are:

  All students1,2,3

  Thousand

  Academic year

  Students eligible for the full income assessed element of the loan

  Students eligible for part of the income assessed element of the loan

  1999–2000

  England

  295.1

  48.9

  Wales

  21.4

  3.9

  2000–014,5

  England

  348.3

  80.0

  Wales4

  4—

  4—

  1The amount of student loan available is assessed by local education authorities in England and Wales for students who are normally domiciled in their area and studying in the UK.

  2 Includes students in receipt of loans for extra weeks of study.

  3 Excludes students in receipt of the reduced rate of loan as these are not subject to income-assessment.

  4 In academic year 2000–01 data are not available separately for Wales due to a low response rate to the survey. Data are provisional.

  5 The apparent rise in student numbers over the two years is accounted for by the introduction of income-assessed student loans in 1999–2000 for those starting their courses that year or academic year 1998–99—so two cohorts were included in the first year but three in 2000–01.

  Source:

  F503G student support survey of LEAs in England and Wales

  The devolved Administrations for Scotland and Northern Ireland are responsible for their own administration of student loans.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what reports he has received about the number of students in Scotland who have qualified for(a) the full amount, (b) a proportion and (c) no part of the young students' bursary in each academic year since its introduction. [91639]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: My right hon. Friend does not hold information on Scottish issues. This is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many UK students in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and

  783W
  (d) Scotland qualified for (i) the full amount, (ii) a proportion and (iii) no part of student maintenance grants in each academic year from 1990 to 1998. [91753]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: The support arrangements under the mandatory awards scheme for eligible undergraduate students domiciled in England and Wales on courses which began before 1 September 1998 consisted of payment, usually in full, of their tuition fees, a grant towards their maintenance, depending on income, and a non-income assessed loan. New students in academic year 1998–99, were expected to contribute up to £1,000 a year towards the cost of their tuition depending on family income. In 1998–99, income-assessed grants on average only formed about a quarter of the support available and all students were

  Maintenance awards

  Status of student: academic years 1990–91 to 1998–99—England and Wales1

  Thousand

  Mandatory scheme students2

  1990–91

  1991–923

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  England

  Students with:

  Full maintenance grants

  165.8

  —

  257.8

  301.2

  324.0

  328.8

  321.9

  317.3

  Partial maintenance grants

  169.9

  —

  205.7

  224.2

  225.0

  218.6

  205.8

  203.4

  Nil maintenance grants4

  117.1

  —

  147.3

  154.8

  168.4

  179.2

  194.0

  205.6

  All students5

  452.8

  —

  610.8

  680.2

  717.4

  726.6

  721.7

  726.3

  Wales

  Students with:

  Full maintenance grants

  11.9

  —

  17.3

  19.4

  20.3

  20.8

  21.0

  20.2

  Partial maintenance grants

  12.9

  —

  15.1

  15.8

  16.3

  15.2

  14.1

  14.0

  Nil maintenance grants4

  5.2

  —

  6.4

  6.2

  7.1

  8.2

  8.2

  9.2

  All students5

  30.0

  —

  38.8

  41.4

  43.7

  44.2

  43.3

  43.4

  1998–994

  Mandatorly scheme students2

  Student support scheme students2,4

  All students

  England

  Students with:

  Full maintenance grants

  198.2

  118.9

  317.1

  Partial maintenance grants

  139.0

  43.0

  182.1

  Nil maintenance grants4

  150.0

  64.7

  214.7

  All students5

  487.2

  226.7

  713.9

  Wales

  Students with:

  Full maintenance grants

  12.7

  8.7

  21.4

  Partial maintenance grants

  9.3

  2.5

  11.8

  Nil maintenance grants4

  6.8

  3.6

  10.4

  All students5

  28.8

  14.8

  43.6

  1 The table shows awards made by local education authorities in England and Wales to students normally domiciled in their area. The table excludes placement year sandwich students who do not normally receive maintenance support in their placement year.

  2 Up to and including academic year 1998–99 eligible students in England and Wales received support through income-assessed grants and a non income-assessed student loan. For new students in 1998–99, the proportion of grant and loan was approximately 25 per cent. and 75 per cent.

  3 Separate data for academic year 1991–92 are not available; combined England and Wales totals show 212.1 thousand students with full maintenance grants, 199.1 thousand students with partial maintenance grants and, 135.2 thousand students with a nil maintenance grant. These figures do not include data in
  784W
  entitled to a non income-assessed loan which comprised the remaining three quarters of support available and which will be repayable on an income contingent basis.

  In addition to the basic maintenance grant disabled students, students with dependants and lone parent students could also apply for various supplementary grants and allowances, the majority of which were income-assessed.

  The number of students in academic years 1990–91 to 1998–99 who have been assessed for a full, partial or nil contribution to their maintenance are shown in the table.

  The devolved Administrations for Northern Ireland and Scotland are responsible for the administration of their own student support.

  respect of the London Residuary Body estimated to be 8,600 mandatory awards; an accurate breakdown of this figure is not available.

  4 Data in 1998–99 include an estimated 15,000 students support scheme students in England and Wales who, because they did not expect to receive a contribution to their support from public funds, did not make an application to their local authority.

  5 Totals may not add through due to roundings.

  Source:

  F503G survey of local education authorities on student support

  Technical Craft Skills
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to ensure that technical craft skills for trades are available to young people in south-east Essex. [92781]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) are wholly committed to Modern Apprenticeships (MA) as a quality work-based learning route to craft, supervisory and technician skills for young people in England. We have adopted a challenging Public Service Agreement (PSA) target for MA entrants by 2004–28 per cent. of young people to begin an MA by the age of 22. MA is one of the wide range of specialist pathways that will be available to young people under a transformed 14–19 phase of learning.

  The Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Chairman of the Learning and Skills Council have announced a new Modern Apprenticeship

  785W
  Task Force which will take a key role in promoting MA to employers and thereby contributing to increased take-up—in south-east Essex and elsewhere.

  All parties involved in the initiative are working together to increase the take-up of MA. The LSC in England works through its 47 local offices (one of which covers Essex) and with key partners to identify and meet local skills needs by promoting and funding the delivery of work-based learning programmes, including MA and college-based provision. Connexions Partnerships are delivering improved advice and guidance to young people on the opportunities available in their communities. New and developing Sector Skills Councils also play a key role by supporting promotion to employers in their sectors.

  In addition, the Government will be publishing a national skills strategy in June, setting out how we will further boost numbers of young people acquiring technical and craft skills across the economy.

  Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Learning and Skills Council spent on training allowances for young people in 2001–02. [90917]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the council's chief executive will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Libraries.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes were owned by the council in Coventry in each of the last five years. [93140]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities report their number of council homes as at 1 April on their annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns. Based on Coventry City Council's recent returns the reported numbers of council homes were:

  As at 1 April

  Number

  1998

  20,359

  1999

  20,175

  2000

  19,886

  The Council ceased to have any council housing in September 2000, following the transfer of the council stock under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Large Scale Voluntary Transfer Programme (LSVT) to new Registered Social Landlords—Whitefriars North and Whitefriars South, within the Whitefriars Housing Group.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the level of housing need has been in Coventry in each of the last five years. [93141]
  786W
  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 115W. Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their housing register (excluding tenants awaiting transfers) as at 1 April in their annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns. Based on Coventry City Council's recent returns the reported numbers in the last five years are:

  As at 1 April

  Number

  1998

  7,767

  1999

  8,915

  2000

  8,458

  2001

  6,295

  2002

  7,104

  Council Housing
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council dwellings were sold in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [91142]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information on total numbers of sales and transfers of local authority and New Town dwellings in England since 1992–93 is in the table.

  All owner/occupier sales (including right to buy)

  Transfers to registered social landlords/other

  1992–93

  42,289

  27,289

  1993–94

  50,510

  33,643

  1994–95

  46,236

  41,120

  1995–96

  33,165

  45,900

  1996–97

  35,206

  22,534

  1997–98

  42,078

  35,701

  1998–99

  41,087

  76,543

  1999–2000

  54,957

  96,755

  2000–01

  53,005

  132,462

  2001–021

  52,459

  35,687

  1Provisional

  Source:

  DOE/DETR/DTLR/ODPM Housing Activity return P1B/New Town returns

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council dwellings were built in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [91145]

  Mr. McNulty
  The numbers of local authority dwellings built in England in each of the last 10 years is in the following table. The numbers have declined as social housing has increasingly been delivered by Registered Social Landlords.

  Year

  Number of local authority dwellings built

  1992–93

  2,579

  1993–94

  1,451

  1994–95

  853

  1995–96

  757

  1996–97

  451

  1997–98

  323

  1998–99

  194

  1999–2000

  102

  2000–01

  389

  2001–02

  105

  Crossrail
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will announce his decision on the revision of Crossrail safeguarding directions to prevent inappropriate development; and if he will make a statement. [93142]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Cross London Rail Links Limited have been asked to put to Ministers in February advice on route options and a worked-up business case for Crossrail. Current safeguarding directions will be reviewed as and when a route may be determined.

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will announce the level of funding to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council for nursery school places for the next financial year. [93847]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Funding for nursery school places will be within local government formula grant from 2003–04. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will announce our final proposals for the 2003–04 local government finance settlement on Monday 3 February; the House will have the chance to debate these on Wednesday 5 February. It will, of course, be for the authority to decide what allocation to make to specific services.

  Average re-let times for local authority dwellings (days)

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1993–94

  North East

  All LAs

  60

  50

  54

  40

  32

  30

  26

  29

  33

  Rural LAs

  67

  62

  41

  35

  40

  33

  32

  31

  33

  North West

  All LAs

  54

  49

  46

  40

  41

  39

  38

  35

  34

  Rural LAs

  48

  51

  45

  40

  40

  39

  36

  33

  29

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  All LAs

  65

  58

  51

  43

  38

  39

  36

  35

  37

  Rural LAs

  54

  52

  53

  47

  39

  28

  20

  19

  31

  East Midlands

  All LAs

  45

  41

  40

  38

  38

  34

  36

  35

  38

  Rural LAs

  34

  31

  36

  37

  38

  33

  29

  27

  27

  West Midlands

  All LAs

  49

  55

  51

  49

  43

  35

  37

  35

  36

  Rural LAs

  33

  12

  39

  32

  33

  23

  26

  23

  25

  East of England

  All LAs

  36

  38

  40

  36

  37

  38

  37

  33

  36

  Rural LAs

  38

  28

  34

  25

  29

  31

  27

  27

  25

  London

  All LAs

  44

  47

  51

  55

  55

  71

  70

  68

  72

  Rural LAs

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South East

  All LAs

  39

  36

  37

  34

  36

  38

  36

  32

  32

  Rural LAs

  37

  37

  32

  33

  37

  35

  35

  33

  31

  Green Belt Land
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce measures to prevent the speculative purchase of agricultural land in designated green belt, its sub-division into building plots and sale on the basis of an anticipated relaxation of planning controls. [92832]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government reaffirmed their commitment to the protection and enhancement of the Green Belt in my righ. hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister's statement on Sustainable Communities, Housing and Planning in the House of Commons on 18 July 2002,Official Report, column 438 Since 1997 over 30,000 hectares have been added to the Green Belt, or earmarked for addition.

  However, it is not generally the role of the planning system to place control on land ownership.

  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average turnaround time was for unused housing stock in(a) England and (b) local authorities, defined as rural, by region, in each year since 1978. [90833]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities in England have been asked to provide estimates of the average time taken to re-let their housing stock on their annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns since 1994. Because of variations in the way local authorities maintain lettings records and compile these estimates, the figures quoted, and any comparisons between authorities, should be treated with caution. Comparable information in respect of re-lettings by registered social landlords is only available from 1996–97.
  789W

  Average re-let times for local authority dwellings (days)

  2001–02

  2000–1

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1993–94

  South West

  All LAs

  36

  29

  28

  20

  23

  28

  26

  25

  30

  Rural LAs

  25

  22

  22

  19

  24

  24

  22

  22

  21

  England

  All LAs

  50

  47

  45

  41

  40

  41

  40

  39

  41

  Rural LAs

  44

  39

  40

  33

  35

  31

  29

  28

  27

  n/a = not applicable, figures to the nearest day.

  Source:

  DOE/DETR/DTLR/ODPM annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns.

  Average re-let times for registered social landlord dwellings (days)

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  North East

  All LAs

  33

  41

  41

  40

  40

  33

  Rural LAs

  33

  41

  45

  39

  35

  29

  North West

  All LAs

  52

  53

  41

  36

  34

  30

  Rural LAs

  44

  41

  38

  29

  27

  22

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  All LAs

  34

  37

  37

  38

  35

  26

  Rural LAs

  22

  22

  22

  27

  19

  14

  East Midlands

  All LAs

  39

  43

  39

  36

  33

  29

  Rural LAs

  38

  40

  33

  29

  24

  20

  West Midlands

  All LAs

  30

  37

  31

  31

  31

  27

  Rural LAs

  30

  32

  25

  26

  25

  20

  East of England

  All LAs

  26

  28

  29

  26

  28

  24

  Rural LAs

  21

  24

  23

  21

  21

  21

  London

  All LAs

  36

  37

  40

  40

  40

  41

  Rural LAs

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South East

  All LAs

  27

  29

  29

  29

  31

  28

  Rural LAs

  24

  27

  27

  27

  28

  26

  South West

  All LAs

  29

  32

  32

  27

  24

  21

  Rural LAs

  23

  24

  27

  24

  21

  16

  England

  All LAs

  36

  38

  35

  33

  33

  29

  Rural LAs

  29

  30

  29

  26

  24

  21

  n/a = not applicable, figures to the nearest day.

  Source:

  Housing Corporation's continuous CORE survey data.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people were on housing waiting lists in each London borough at the latest date for which figures are available. [92132]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their housing register (excluding tenants awaiting a transfer) as at 1 April in their annual Housing Investment Programme returns. The latest reported information, for 2002, is as follows:
  790W

  Households on the housing register of London boroughs as at

  1 April 2002

  London Borough

  Number

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,668

  Barnet

  7,030

  Bexley

  3,487

  Brent

  14,746

  Bromley

  3,592

  Camden

  8,147

  City of London

  623

  Croydon

  6,890

  Ealing

  8,289

  Enfield

  7,264

  791W

  Households on the housing register of London boroughs as at

  1 April 2002

  London Borough

  Number

  Greenwich

  6,876

  Hackney

  8,930

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6,044

  Haringey

  12,585

  Harrow

  3,992

  Havering

  1,888

  Hillingdon

  6,041

  Hounslow

  6,369

  Islington

  8,161

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8,294

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,971

  Lambeth

  14,228

  Lewisham

  15,368

  Merton

  4,361

  Newham

  13,942

  Redbridge

  5,671

  Richmond upon Thames

  3,763

  Southwark

  6,164

  Sutton

  1,653

  Tower Hamlets

  7,837

  Waltham Forest

  10,283

  Wandsworth

  3,923

  Westminster

  3,709

  Note:

  Local authorities have different practices for compiling and managing housing register/waiting lists, which means that direct comparisons between authorities can be misleading.

  Source:

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Housing Investment Programme (HIP) annual returns.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what the average percentage rise in the government grant to police authorities is for the forthcoming financial year; and what the percentage increase was for the Essex police force. [91397]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 20 January 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  The average percentage increase in general policing grants to police authorities in England and Wales for 2003–04 is 4.3 per cent.

  Essex police authority will receive a 3 per cent. increase in general grants. The authority will also receive £0.5 million from the Rural Policing Fund and £5.79 million from the Crime Fighting Fund, taking the overall increase to 3.5 per cent. Essex will also receive £2.33 million for the Airwave communication system.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make allowance for inaccuracies in the 2001 census count when considering the grant allocation for 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [92495]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is the policy of the Deputy Prime Minister to use consistent data for all authorities in the calculation of formula grant. For population estimates, this means the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be using the Registrar General's mid-year population estimates, as derived from the 2001 census and published by the Office for National Statistics. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) are confident that the approach taken for the 2001 census provides the most accurate estimates of the population both nationally and for each of the 376 local authorities in 792W
  England and Wales. ONS are not anticipating making changes to their figures, but if this should occur the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consider what impact these may have on the Local Government Finance Settlement. The floors provided for under the Local Government Settlement ensure that no authority receives an increase in grant less than inflation in 2003–04 irrespective of reductions in the estimated resident population of that authority in the 2001 census.

  Local Government Finance (Westminster)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to use alternative data sources to the 2001 census to calculate Westminster City Council's(a) grant settlement for 2003–04 and (b) future grant settlements; and if he will make a statement. [92494]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is the policy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to use consistent data for all authorities in the calculation of formula grant; consequently the same data source will be used for Westminster as for all authorities. For population estimates, this means the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be using the Registrar General's mid-year population estimates (as published by the Office for National Statistics). For the 2003–04 Local Government Finance Settlement these will be the 2001 estimates that are based on the 2001 census. For future years the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to use the latest available mid-year estimates.

  Occupational Stress
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the(a) prevalence and (b) causes of occupational stress among local government officers. [93691]

  Mr. Leslie
  Decisions on specific health issues like occupational stress are a matter for individual local authority employers and detailed information about causes and prevalence is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, as part of the Review of Ill-Health Retirement in the Public Sector, there continues to be close collaboration with the Employers' Organisation for Local Government and the Association of Local Authority Medical Advisers in the preparation of a Management of Ill-Health Retirement handbook published in September 2002. This includes a chapter on the causes of stress, recognising the symptoms and the implications for local authority managers and those working in the occupational health sector.

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which development documents a unitary authority will have to complete as a result of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. [93602]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, a unitary authority will have to prepare those local development documents that are specified in its local development scheme. These must include the authority's statement of community involvement and documents prescribed under clause 16(l) (a) of the Bill. It is intended that these prescribed documents should be

  793W
  a core strategy containing the core spatial planning policies for the authority's area and site specific policies, including a proposals map.

  Property Prices
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a list of lower quartile prices of properties sold in each local authority area in each quarter of 2002. [94045]

  Mr. McNulty
  A table showing lower quartile property prices in each local authority area will be available in the Library from Wednesday 29 January. Figures will be provided for all four quarters of 2001 and for the first three quarters of 2002.

  The figures are derived from the Land Registry dataset covering all residential property transactions—but excluding properties sold for less than £1,000 or more than £20 million.

  Note that the figures for Q3 2002 are provisional only. Revised and final figures for Q3 2002 will be made available by end-February, which is when provisional figures for Q4 2002 will also be available.

  Regional Planning
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance the Government will issue for regional housebuilding targets during the process of establishing Regional Strategic Procedure. [93603]

  Mr. McNulty
  This Government do not set regional housebuilding targets. Annual rates of housing provision are kept under regular review and are established through regional planning guidance and the spatial strategy it should set out. Guidance on this is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 on 'Regional Planning' and Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on 'Housing'. These arrangements will continue when regional spatial strategies replace regional planning guidance as provided for in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.

  Right to Buy (Christchurch)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many additional social housing units he estimates will be available to let in each of the next five years in Christchurch if the right to buy maximum discounts scheme is introduced. [94044]

  Mr. McNulty
  The effect of lower maximum Right to Buy discounts on the supply of affordable housing in any area will depend upon a number of factors. It is likely to be limited initially, but to grow over time, reducing the upward pressure of Right to Buy sales and subsequent resales on local rents and housing prices.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether the Right to Buy scheme reduction in maximum discounts will apply to social housing within Christchurch borough owned by New Forest district council; [94047]

  (2) whether the Right to Buy scheme reduction in maximum discounts applies to local housing in Christchurch in respect of which housing authorities outside Christchurch have the nomination right. [94046]
  794W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is minded to reduce the maximum Right to Buy discount available to tenants to £16,000 in Christchurch and 41 other areas which are under the greatest housing market pressure, as evidenced by a high local incidence of homelessness and high house prices. The reduction will apply to all social housing available under the Right to Buy scheme in those areas. We have written to the local housing authorities giving them the opportunity to provide reasons why the change should not be made in their area. We will consider carefully all representations received.

  Right to Buy (Reduced Discount Scheme)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the number of lets to new council tenants and nominations by landlords to registered social landlords less the number of homes let to homeless households is reduced by 20 per cent. for the purpose of calculating available lets under the reduced discount scheme for right to buy. [94040]

  Mr. McNulty
  In the initial assessment of 'available lets', a reduction of 20 per cent. was made to allow for dwellings unsuitable for the homeless (such as sheltered housing) and for other inescapable demand (such as urgent medical priority cases). This adjustment was made consistently in respect of all local authorities, so it did not affect their final ranking on the basis of the objective indicator of demand pressure.

  Social Housing
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many dwellings were constructed by registered social housing landlords, excluding local authorities, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how many are planned to be built in the next financial year. [91143]

  Mr. McNulty
  The numbers of new dwellings constructed by Registered Social Landlords in each of the last 10 years are shown in the following table. Information from local authority housing strategies shows, for 2003–04, a projected 31,000 total of new dwellings constructed and existing stock acquired by Registered Social Landlords.

  Year

  Number of new dwellings constructed by Registered Social Landlords

  1992–93

  23,969

  1993–94

  30,213

  1994–95

  31,375

  1995–96

  30,226

  1996–97

  24,630

  1998–99

  21,397

  1999–2000

  18,920

  2000–01

  17,363

  2001–02

  16,610

  2002–03

  14,367

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the number of social houses(a) completed and (b) started in each reporting period in each year from 1982–83 to 2002–03, broken down by (i) English region and (ii) English local authority; and if he will make a statement. [93134]
  795W
  Mr. McNulty
  The total numbers of houses started and completed by registered social landlords and local authorities in each region are shown in the table. The years shown are those which are readily available. I will write further to provide information for each local authority.

  Numbers of dwellings

  Starts

  Completions

  North East

  1991–92

  1588

  1263

  1992–93

  1444

  1532

  1993–94

  1525

  1548

  1994–95

  1017

  1370

  1995–96

  1063

  1115

  1996–97

  1043

  1074

  1997–98

  662

  909

  1998–99

  650

  674

  1999–2000

  571

  807

  2000–01

  669

  636

  2001–02

  167

  493

  North West

  1991–92

  3928

  3113

  1992–93

  4327

  4002

  1993–94

  5017

  4802

  1994–95

  4209

  4513

  1995–96

  3975

  4838

  1996–97

  2656

  3596

  1997–98

  2308

  2661

  1998–99

  2402

  2284

  1999–2000

  1993

  2884

  2000–01

  1439

  1926

  2001–02

  1353

  1673

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  1991–92

  2478

  2283

  1992–93

  3108

  2466

  1993–94

  3134

  3269

  1994–95

  3084

  2884

  1995–96

  2638

  3273

  1996–97

  1789

  2732

  1997–98

  1482

  1556

  1998–99

  1233

  1587

  1999–2000

  1040

  1198

  2000–01

  765

  928

  2001–02

  635

  885

  East Midlands

  1991–92

  1192

  1698

  1992–93

  2008

  1454

  1993–94

  2468

  2076

  1994–95

  2551

  2733

  1995–96

  1769

  2395

  1996–97

  1293

  1346

  1997–98

  1368

  1464

  1998–99

  1093

  1374

  1999–2000

  1034

  1179

  2000–01

  454

  906

  2001–02

  442

  649

  West Midlands

  1991/92

  2446

  2511

  1992/93

  2901

  3101

  1993/94

  3380

  2668

  1994/95

  3151

  3874

  1995/96

  2071

  2563

  1996/97

  2311

  2217

  1997/98

  1973

  1873

  1998/99

  1999

  2152

  1999/2000

  2091

  2216

  2000/01

  1325

  1954

  2001/02

  1143

  1198

  796W

  Number of dwellings

  Starts

  Completions

  East

  1991–92

  2106

  2116

  1992–93

  3335

  2733

  1993–94

  3833

  3726

  1994–95

  3649

  3319

  1995–96

  3064

  3404

  1996–97

  2581

  2991

  1997–98

  2415

  2472

  1998–99

  1946

  2486

  1999–2000

  1401

  1718

  2000–01

  1577

  1678

  2001–02

  1296

  1512

  London

  1991–92

  3641

  3720

  1992–93

  5872

  4606

  1993–94

  6788

  5743

  1994–95

  5907

  5660

  1995–96

  3632

  5052

  1996–97

  4270

  4934

  1997–98

  4133

  4381

  1998–99

  3536

  3233

  1999–2000

  2799

  2934

  2000–01

  3038

  4320

  2001–02

  2606

  3846

  South East

  1991–92

  3217

  4183

  1992–93

  6437

  4579

  1993–94

  5375

  5276

  1994–95

  4650

  4931

  1995–96

  4183

  5272

  1996–97

  4796

  3656

  1997–98

  3335

  4099

  1998–99

  2525

  3672

  1999–2000

  3106

  2914

  2000–01

  2228

  2828

  2001–02

  2315

  2850

  South West

  1991–92

  1801

  2200

  1992–93

  2551

  2075

  1993–94

  2624

  2556

  1994–95

  3525

  2944

  1995–96

  2440

  3071

  1996–97

  2556

  2535

  1997–98

  2212

  2305

  1998–99

  2380

  1652

  1999–2000

  2184

  1615

  2000–01

  1528

  1823

  2001–02

  1416

  1444

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [93043]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There have been 43 cases of computer misuse in the Department over the last five years. These cases are broken down as follows.
  797W

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Category

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Personal use

  0

  1

  1

  2

  8

  Unofficial Business Use1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Other

  3

  4

  4

  8

  5

  Total

  5

  7

  5

  11

  15

  1This covers receipt of unsolicited business e-mails, either directly from the business site, or forwarded from internal users

  In each case disciplinary action has been taken where appropriate in line with Departmental disciplinary procedures, which accord with the central framework set out in paragraph 4.5 of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Legal Services Commission
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what checks are undertaken by the Legal Services Commission on the competence of solicitors who claim to specialise in(a) divorce, (b) probate, (c) asylum, (d) family law, (e) property and (f) medical negligence. [93090]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Generally probate cases will not be publicly funded but cases in the other categories may well be.

  Since 1 April 2001, all publicly funded legal service suppliers, whether solicitor firms or not for profit agencies, have had to hold a quality mark before being awarded a Legal Services Commission (LSC) contract. All solicitor suppliers for specialist legal services must hold the Specialist Quality Mark (SQM). The SQM focuses, in respect of individual competence, on supervision, training, and file review processes, and requires supervisor solicitors to be accredited to category specific qualifying panels as evidence of competence. The LSC conducts regular quality mark audits to ensure suppliers meet the required standard. The LSC also conducts cost compliance audits to check that public funds claimed by a supplier are being used appropriately.

  These audits enable the LSC to take appropriate measures to deal with poor quality work, including cost reductions and, in extreme cases, removal of the contract.

  Public Record Office (Documents Release)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if her Department will arrange for an early release of documents held by the Public Record Office, originated by the then Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry, relating to the Lowermoor Water Poisoning Incident of July 1988. [90032]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  A report of the incident was produced in August 1988 and put into the public domain and two reports into the health of the people in the area were published in 1989 and 1991. Copies of these last two reports are in the Library of the House. Other health studies into the incident have been published in scientific literature. The report of the sub group of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, which is considering the continuing
  798W
  health concerns expressed by those affected by the incident, will be published by the Department of Health later this year. We are looking at our files to see if they contain any further environmental information on the incident that can be released and put on the Department's website.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many statutory instruments have been issued by her Department in each calendar year since 1979. [89845]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The figures in the following table show the number of Statutory Instruments, Orders in Council and Northern Ireland Statutory Rules issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department from 1998 to 2002.

  Figures for previous years are unavailable.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Statutory Instrument

  57

  106

  110

  137

  64

  Order in Council

  2

  4

  2

  10

  14

  Northern Ireland Statutory Rule

  26

  16

  21

  15

  26

  Total

  35

  126

  133

  162

  104

HEALTH

  Acute Hospital Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has conducted into the reasons for different categories of acute hospital staff choosing to leave their professions. [91476]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has commissioned over many years and continues to fund a series of cohort studies of doctors' careers by the United Kingdom medical careers research group at the University of Oxford.

  This research covers all doctors, not just those employed in acute hospitals. The objectives are:
  to determine the career choices of UK doctors at regular intervals after qualification and to study the factors that influence them;
  to study career progression at regular intervals, to compare it with earlier career choices and to determine factors that have influenced any change;
  to study and estimate the movement of doctors to work outside the national health service, to work in medicine outside the UK, or to leave medicine, and to identify factors associated with them;
  to ascertain the views of doctors about their work, training, career, working environment, and morale, and to compare these between specialties, grades, etc.;
  to use study findings to model and forecast future workforce supply;
  to consider the findings, to make recommendations about their interpretation and policy relevance, and to inform medical workforce planners and decision-makers about factors that have an important influence on medical careers and medical work.
  799W
  These studies, which are questionnaire surveys of all UK medical graduates, have been published most recently in the British Medical Journal on 28 September 2002.

  The Department also funds the nursing research unit at King's College London to do similar work on nurses' careers.

  Aids and Adaptations
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish his consultation document on the provision of aids and adaptations; and whether the document will include an assessment of the adequacy of staffing and financial resources in the provision of adaptations for elderly and disabled people. [92606]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, jointly with the Department of Health, will very shortly be publishing guidance on delivering an effective housing adaptations service. This guidance deals primarily with how such a service should be organised by the relevant housing and social service departments of local authorities and is based on detailed field research about existing best practice. In relation to the adequacy of resources available for this programme the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly publish a long-term programme of action to deliver sustainable communities in all regions. This will set out the allocation of spending review resources on housing and planning including the funding available for Disabled Facilities Grants over the next three years.

  Ambulance Equipment (Chemical Incidents)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) NHS acute trusts and (b) NHS ambulance trusts received a letter dated 22 October from the chief scientist because they had yet to order mobile decontamination units and personal protective equipment for chemical incidents. [84036]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health chief scientist wrote to the national health service on 22 October to remind all NHS trust chief executives of current policy on this issue.

  Biological Warfare
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisation will be responsible for the(a) assessment of and (b) response to the health dimension of the threats of biological warfare. [86030]

  Mr. Hutton
  Assessment of the threats of biological warfare is undertaken in the context of the overall monitoring and assessment of potential terrorist threats to the United Kingdom done by the security and intelligence agencies, the police, scientific and other specialist advisors including the scientific resources of DSTL Porton Down. The Home Office is the lead Department for terrorist threats or incidents.

  The Department of Health is the lead Department for dealing with infectious diseases in England. It is assisted in this role by the Public Health Laboratory Service.
  800W
  Assessment of the health dimensions and the operational responses needed to deal with the threat of biological warfare is undertaken by the Department of Health in concert with other Government Departments and agencies involved in the wider threat assessments.

  Body Piercing
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has considered on the risks of body piercing to people with congenital heart disease. [92519]

  Ms Blears
  We are not aware of any research into the risks of body piercing for individuals with congenital heart disease, although there have been a small number of published case reports from abroad of endocarditis in individuals with congenital heart disease following skin piercing.

  There has been a small study in the United States, which investigated ear piercing and tattooing in patients with congenital heart disease'. In this study, no patients experienced serious infections following ear-piercing or tattooing, although about a quarter of patients experienced minor local skin infections following ear piercing.
  1 Cetta F., Graham L. C., Lichtenberg R. C., Warnes C. A. Piercing and tattooing in patients with congenital heart disease: patient and physician perspectives. Journal of Adolescent Health 1999: 24: 160–162.

  Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health
  (1) what plans he has to ensure a smooth handover from the boards and management of the Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust and the South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust to the new Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust from 1 April; [92806]

  (2) when he will announce the names of (a) the Chief Executive designate and (b) the Directors-designate of the Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust. [92807]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answers 23 January 2003]A comprehensive project plan for the development of the new Buckinghamshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust and for the transfer of the functions and responsibilities of the Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust and South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust has been in place for some time.

  The plan covers, among many other things, the appointment of the chair and chief executive, the transfer arrangements for staff and legal aspects of property and finance.

  Interviews will take place shortly for the post of chief executive and an announcement will be made as soon as possible. The appointment of executive directors will follow this.

  Cancelled Operations
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients whose operation was cancelled on the day of surgery did not receive a new binding date for an operation within 28 days in each
  801W
  quarter of the last year; and what arrangements were put in place to provide these patients with treatment at a time and hospital of their choosing. [85302]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee came into force on 1 April 2002. Under the NHS Plan, if a patient's operation is cancelled by the hospital on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, the hospital will have to offer another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days or fund the patient's treatment at the time and hospital of the patient's choice.

  Data on the number of operations cancelled on the day of surgery and on the number of patients who were still waiting for treatment after 28 days of their original cancelled operation date were collected from Quarter 1, 2002-03. The latest available for Quarter 2, 2002-03 have been placed in the Library and are available at national health service trust level on a quarterly basis at http://www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/data requests/ cancelled operations.htm

  NHS trusts are performance managed on their performance against the NHS Plan guarantee by strategic health authorities. In doing this StHA will ensure that they have mechanisms in place which will provide them with the necessary evidence that patients whose operations have been cancelled on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, subsequently receive treatment at the time and hospital of their choosing, in line with the guarantee.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on profiling of individuals in assessing the basis of unsubstantiated allegations in relation to child protection. [92290]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has no policy on the profiling of individuals in assessing the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse.

  Not all allegations of child abuse are substantiated. However, it is essential that all reports of child welfare concerns, whether made by professionals or the general public, are taken seriously and responded to promptly. The response should take into account any concerns that may previously have been received and focus on assessing the needs of the referred child.

  Children's Services (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Graham Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in establishing a supervisory board for children's services within Greater Manchester for primary, secondary and tertiary paediatric services. [84571]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]I am aware that senior representatives of the strategic health authority and the Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust recently met local hon. Members to inform them of progress.
  802W
  I understand that the Greater Manchester strategic health authority recently circulated proposals to establish a children's network supervisory board. Comments have been requested by the end of January.

  Cleft Lip and Palate Services
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reply to the letters of the Chairman of East Dorset Community Health Council of 27 September and 29 October, regarding cleft lip and palate services. [85474]

  Ms Blears
  This concerns an appeal to the Secretary of State by East Dorset Community Health Council regarding recommendations for the reconfiguration of the cleft lip and palate service. I will be writing to Mr. McCarthy as the Chair of the CHC, shortly.

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define the term "traditionally marginalised groups" used in his Department's press release of 31 December 2002, New Era in Patient and Public Involvement in NHS. [92595]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not hold a definitive list of marginalised groups as it is for local health communities to determine which are the relevant groups in their area who do not generally have an opportunity to he involved in decisions about matters affecting their health.

  Paragraph 13.2 of the NHS Plan talks about
  "tackling disadvantage in all its forms—poverty, lack of educational attainment, unemployment, discrimination and social exclusion"
  and recognises that inequity in access to services is not restricted to social class and geography and that people with disabilities and minority ethnic communities have specific needs.

  Community Care
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the proposed fee increases from the Department of Health to be administered by local authorities for the provision of community care. [92872]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not set or recommend the rates at which councils contract with residential care and nursing homes. The detail of contracting arrangements between councils and independent sector providers of care is a matter for local decision.

  The Government are providing records levels of funding for social services. Resources have increased nationally by 20 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03, an average real terms increase of 3 per cent. per annum.

  In addition, as announced on 17 April, we are increasing the resources for personal social services by an annual average of 6 per cent. in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06. Local councils will be able to use the extra resources to stabilise the care home market and provide more care home places.
  803W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definitions he uses of(a) continuing care and (b) nursing care in a person's own home; and if he will make a statement. [92989]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance to the national health service and councils on eligibility for continuing care is contained in HSC 2001/015: LAC (2001) 18, published in June 2001.

  The guidance makes it clear that fully funded NHS continuing health care can be provided in a person's own home, if the individual meets the criteria and it is possible to provide the care they need in their own home. In addition, the NHS routinely provides or arranges care from registered nurses and other staff in people's own homes.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of community health councils. [93963]

  Mr. Lammy
  An announcement on the future of community health councils will be made shortly.

  Delayed Discharge
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the delayed discharge figures; and what audit mechanisms are in place to ensure the figures are accurately collected and collated. [92992]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS Plan set out the Government's commitment to reduce substantially the number of people waiting to be discharged from hospital when they are fit to do so. Good progress has been made so far, with over 1,500 fewer people waiting to be discharged on any one day between September 2001 and September 2002. The Department is concerned to ensure that all data are as accurate as possible. Since April 2002, primary care trusts are responsible for submitting quarterly data to the Department. The Department can, and does, query data via the relevant strategic health authority on a regular basis.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharge patients there were in hospital in(a) the latest month for which figures are available and (b) May 2002, broken down by local authority area in England. [89694]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 14 January 2002]The information requested is not available in the form requested. Delayed discharge data for England from September 2001 to September 2002 are shown in the table. These data are not available by council areas. Delayed discharges are a joint health and social services indicator and data are submitted to the Department on the basis of national health service organisations, the data having been agreed with their social services partners.

  Since April 2002, this has been broken down by primary care trust areas and prior to that; by health authority. The detailed breakdowns by health authority and primary care trust have been placed in the Library.
  804W

  England: Numbers of delayed discharges of patients of all ages by

  primary care trust1

  Delayed discharges

  September 2002

  5,385

  June 2002

  5,489

  March 2002

  5,473

  December 2001

  6,419

  September 2001

  7,065

  1March 2002, December 2001 and September 2001 figures were collected by health authorities

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent levels of delayed discharges in(a) North Yorkshire and (b) England. [93015]

  Jacqui Smith
  There has been a continued reduction in delayed discharges in England, the latest figures for September 2002 show 5,385 delays compared to 7,065 in September 2001. Delayed discharges are a joint health and social services indicator and data are submitted to the Department on the basis of national health service organisations, the data having been agreed with their social services partners. Since April 2002, this has been broken down by primary care trust (PCT). The detailed breakdowns by PCT for June 2002 and September 2002 have been placed in the Library.

  Dentists (Fareham)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the dental practices that accept NHS patients in Fareham. [93201]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]There are five dental practices with addresses in Fareham who have national health service patients on their books. They are listed as follows:

  (i) 16 Park lane

  Fareham

  P016 7JX

  (ii) 4 Grove Road

  Fareham

  P016 ONX

  (iii) 8 Kings Road

  Fareham

  P016 ONX

  (iv) 98 Highlands Road

  Fareham

  P015 6JF

  (v) 12 South Street

  Titchfield

  Fareham

  P014 4DJ

  Performance Report
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department's autumn performance report for 2002 will be published. [93153]

  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.
  805W
  This report sets out clearly how the increased resources within the NHS are being used to improve performance by providing more care for patients, improving quality and providing investment for the future.

  Doctor: Patient Ratios
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to improve doctor-patient ratios within Havering Primary Care Trust; and if he will make a statement. [85078]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to expanding the primary care workforce both through national and local initiatives. The London Workforce Development Confederation has introduced a number of specific programmes to expand the general practitioner workforce in London by 225 GPs. These include:The London Deanery's successful expansion of the number of training places in GP practices for GP registrars. This year there are an additional 51 training places for GPs in London. Primary care trusts will be able to build on this success by setting up new and more flexible contracts for newly qualified GPs.
  More flexible career opportunities, particularly those designed to retain GPs close to retirement age, are also being put into place by London PCTs including a Flexible Career Scheme which will commence shortly, designed to attract GPs back into practice for part-time working.

  Havering PCT is supporting nine applications for personal medical service status which includes seven salaried GP posts. The PCT is also working to make Havering a more attractive proposition for GPs to retain and further recruit doctors in the area. Some of the areas being progressed are the development of specialist GPs and a means of retaining registrars after they qualify. Developing the primary care infrastructure is also a key element of the PCT's strategy and its involvement in the local improvement finance trust process should further enhance its ability to retain GPs by making improved facilities available to them.

  Free Eye Tests (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many free eye tests to pensioners there were in each year since 1997 in(a) Shropshire and (b) Shrewsbury and Atcham. [93020]

  Mr. Lammy
  The table shows the number of national health service sight tests paid for in Shropshire health authority (HA) for 1997–98 to 2001–02. Figures for the number of sight tests by constituency and age are not collected centrally, the nearest eligibility category for pensioners is those aged 60 and over.

  Eligibility to NHS sight tests was extended to those aged 60 and over from 1 April 1999. There was an increase of 24,660 sight tests between 1998–99 and 1999–2000. It is fair to assume that the vast majority of this increase was due to newly eligible people aged 60 or over obtaining NHS sight tests.
  806W

  General Ophthalmic Services: Number of sight tests paid for in

  Shropshire HA for the years 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Year

  Total number of sight tests

  Total number of sight tests for aged 60 and over

  1997–98

  61,460

  —

  1998–99

  64,350

  —

  1999–2000

  89,010

  33,460

  2000–01

  91,160

  38,230

  2001–02

  94,880

  24,210

  Frictional Discharge
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 965W, on frictional discharge, what percentage and how many people classify as minimal numbers of delayed transfers in England. [92165]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]As Government investment and the Community Care (Delayed Discharges, etc) Bill takes full effect, nobody should need to remain in hospital unnecessarily when they are fit to be discharged.

  GP Recruitment
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the recruitment of general practitioners has changed in(a) Shropshire and (h) the UK, in the last five years. [84493]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]Information relating to general practitioner recruitment in the Shropshire health authority area over the last five years is shown in the table. We do not collect this information on a UK basis.

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1 : Numbers from

  annual census 1996–2002—Shropshire health authority

  Year

  Numbers (headcount)

  1996

  239

  1997

  239

  1998

  241

  1999

  250

  2000

  243

  2001

  243

  2002

  245

  1 UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  UPEs: joiners and leavers in Shropshire HA between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Joiners

  Of which: New joiners

  Re-joiners

  October 1996–October 1997

  14

  10

  4

  October 1997–October 1998

  9

  9

  0

  October 1998–October 1999

  9

  5

  4

  October 1999–October 2000

  8

  8

  0

  September 2000–September 2001

  10

  8

  2

  September 2001–March 20021

  8

  7

  1

  1This relates to a six month comparison and may not show seasonal variations.

  Notes:

  Numbers of UPEs as at I October 1996 to 1999, 30 September 2000–01 and 31 March 2002.

  Other rows relate to changes between successive censuses.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics
  807W
  Mr. Owen Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trainee GPs failed to complete their training in each year since 1977. [84494]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]Summative assessment of general practice registrars was introduced throughout the United Kingdom in 1996. A review of the five year period to 30 September 2001 shows that 7,643 candidates undertook the test with 7,370 being successful and 273, 3.6 per cent, unsuccessful: A breakdown of this is set out in the following table. However, this does not include those doctors undertaking GP training who may have dropped out prior to being summatively assessed for which no figures are held.

  Total GRPs

  Failed to complete

  Percentage

  September 1996–August 1997

  1,218

  36

  3.00

  September 1997–August 1998

  1,469

  53

  3.60

  September 1998–August 1999

  1,607

  64

  4.00

  September 1999–August 2000

  1,688

  67

  4.00

  September 2000–August 2001

  1,661

  53

  3.20

  7,643

  273

  3.6

  A recent investigation showed that out of the 273 unsuccessful GP registrars
  183 have now successfully completed the summative assessment process 67 per cent. after a further period of training.
  eight are still in training 3 per cent.
  82 did not complete their training, however these doctors may return to GP registrar training at a later date 30 per cent.

  There are no centrally held figures in respect of doctors completing or not completing GP training prior to 1996.

  Health Protection Agency
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has held with representatives from the Public Health Laboratory Service in relation to the creation of a Health Protection Agency. [84250]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Health Laboratory Service board and management have been closely involved at each stage of the process and are represented on the steering group, the project group and all of the working groups associated with creating the Health Protection Agency and transferring to the national health service those laboratories that are to be transferred in preparation for its creation.

  In addition, the staff representative organisations have been involved in regular trade union liaison group meetings which were established at the outset to oversee the implementation of the HPA. I met with staff side representatives on 13 January 2003 to review progress.

  Health Workers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the freedom to work provisions in the Treaty of Rome apply to all health workers. [93634]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Treaty confers the right of freedom of movement for workers, without specifying the kind of work done.

  Healthcare Acquired Infection
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work Strategic Health Authorities are undertaking to assess healthcare acquired infection data from local trusts; and if he will make a statement. [91466]

  Ms Blears
  The Commission for Health Improvement has recently announced two performance indicators for acute and specialist trusts for 2003, which relate to healthcare associated infections.

  One performance indicator concerns infection control procedures and the other is an improvement score for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Both indicators are based on healthcare associated infection data provided by acute national health service hospital trusts. Strategic health authorities will be using these indicators to manage the performance of their trusts in the future.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring his Department has undertaken on the availability of sufficient hand basins for effective infection control procedures in NHS hospitals. [91126]

  Ms Blears
  The design of new facilities is monitored by NHS Estates via the business case approvals process to ensure that proposals conform to design guidance issued by NHS Estates. This includes recommendations on the number of wash-hand basins for specific situations

  Trust chief executives are responsible for ensuring that there are effective arrangements in place for infection control. Monitoring of facilities for infection control, including provision of wash-hand basins within existing buildings, is undertaken by their infection control team.

  Hospital Shift Patterns
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of shift patterns of working in acute hospitals on(a) continuity of patient care and (b) overall quality of patient care. [92108]

  Mr. Hutton
  The majority of health professionals have always worked on shift patterns. The main exception has been the provision of resident out of hours medical cover, which has been largely provided by doctors in training. The most common arrangement is for these doctors to work a 'resident on call' where the doctor is resident on hospital premises for the full 24 hour period but only deemed to be working when actually called.

  With the extension of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) to doctors in training from August 2004, current resident on call working patterns are unlikely to represent the best use of available resources. Doctors providing out of hours cover will generally have to either move on to some form of shift pattern or provide cover through non-resident on call working.

  The Department recognises the need to introduce these changes to working patterns in a way that maintains or improves the continuity and quality of patient care. To this end guidance on the implementation of EWTD for Doctors in Training has

  809W
  been issued (HSC 2003–001) and the Department is funding a programme of pilot projects to test a range of solutions. These pilots will be rigorously evaluated to ensure that standards of patient care have been maintained or improved. The key to continuity of care is the implementation of effective shift hand-over arrangements and good record keeping and this will also be evaluated in the pilot programme.

  Hyperactivity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is provided within the health and social services system on attention deficit hyperactivity for workers with personal contact with sufferers. [93163]

  Jacqui Smith
  In recent years, the Department has supported a number of initiatives taken by professional bodies and other agencies to raise awareness of attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and to facilitate accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment. These include an evidence-based briefing for clinicians on the use of stimulant medication (1999) and fact-sheets for parents, teachers and young people on attention deficit problems and hyperactivity, both produced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

  We have also collaborated with the Department for Education and Skills in issuing guidance for teachers on promoting children's mental health, including attention deficit/hyperactivity, within early years and school settings, in 2001. The Department has also grant-aided the ADHD UK Alliance, an organisation which helps to co-ordinate voluntary sector activity and development work in this field.

  In general the content of professional training is a matter for the relevant professional bodies. However the Department's requirements for social work training from September 2003 will include elements covering child development and mental health and communication skills with children.

  Irwell Mill, Bacup
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is of the proposed development by the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust on the site of Irwell Mill, Rochdale Road, Bacup; who will be responsible for the demolition and at what cost; and what payments in connection with the purchase of this site will be made to Stylegleam Ltd. [91935]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust will be the owners of Irwell Mill in the very near future. The site was purchased at an auction, at an overall purchase price of £36,500. £14,500 was paid to the part owners, who are not Stylegleam Ltd., but may be associated with them. The purchases have been agreed by the district valuer.

  Most of the mill will be demolished, with the Burnley borough council acting as the agents. The Regional Development Agency is funding the demolition work as part of its contribution to the regeneration of the town. A grant of £292,880 has been made available for this purpose.
  810W
  From September 2003, the site will be transferred into a new public/private company. The primary care trust will have to repay any betterment value to the Regional Development Agency. This is likely to be in the region of £60,000. Any payments to the Regional Development Agency will be paid out of enabling monies, which have been made available to the East Lancashire local investment finance trust project. Thus, the cost of the acquisition and demolition to the primary care trust will be nil.

  Once the site has been transferred into the public/ private company, the latter will construct a new health centre on the site, estimated at £4.087 million including equipment, to provide health care facilities to national standards.

  Kava-kava
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health
  (1) what health risks have led to the decision to ban Kava-kava; and how many incidences of health-related problems arising from such risks there have been in each of the past 10 years; [91484]

  (2) how many deaths in the past 10 years in the UK have been attributed to consumption of Kavakava: [91482]

  (3) how many medical products containing Kavakava are licensed; [91481]

  (4) how the Medicines Control Agency determines what is an acceptable level of risk for the voluntary consumption of a medical product; [91470]

  (5) what recent discussions he has had with other countries about safety issues related to Kava-kava; and how many have also banned products containing Kavakava. [91483]

  Ms Blears
  In the United Kingdom, there are three licensed products containing the herbal ingredient Kava-kava (Piper methysticum). The majority of medicinal products containing Kava-kava sold in the UK are unlicensed and are exempt from licensing under section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Evidence has emerged that consumption of medicinal products containing Kava-kava may be associated with liver toxicity in rare cases. To date, 70 cases of liver damage, suspected to be associated with the consumption of Kava-kava, have been reported worldwide. The case reports originate from Switzerland, Germany, Australia, Canada, France, the United States and four from the UK.

  The severity of the liver damage suffered varies widely. Suspected adverse reactions include abnormal liver enzyme activity, jaundice, hepatitis and liver failure. In seven cases the patients suffered irreversible liver failure and received liver transplants. Four patients have died, including two of the patients who received liver transplants. None of the UK cases were associated with a fatal outcome.

  The following table provides a breakdown of the number of cases of suspected liver damage associated with Kava-kava submitted to regulatory authorities in the last 10 years.
  811W

  Year reaction reported

  Number of cases of hepatotoxicity

  1992

  1

  1993

  1

  1994

  2

  1995

  0

  1996

  0

  1997

  1

  1998

  4

  1999

  4

  2000

  10

  2001

  22

  2002

  11

  In addition the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) received 13 case reports of hepatotoxicity associated with Kava-kava in 2002 from regulatory authorities world wide, where the date of the adverse reaction or received date were not specified.

  A report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the herbal medicine. The number of reports received cannot 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 herbal medicine is known. Herbal medicines are often supplied without prescription and are taken without advice from doctors or pharmacists. It is generally recognised that the reporting rate for medicines supplied over the counter is lower than that of suspected adverse reactions associated with prescription medicines. Therefore, data obtained on suspected adverse reactions associated with herbal medicines through the Yellow Card Scheme cannot be directly compared to reporting for licensed pharmaceutical medicines.

  The acceptable level of risk for a medicine will depend on the seriousness of the disease it is being used to treat and its efficacy in treating that disease as well as the availability of alternatives. A risk of an adverse effect that would be acceptable for a life saving treatment such as an anti-cancer medicine would not necessarily be acceptable in a treatment for a non-serious or self-limiting condition.

  Each safety issue is considered on a case by case basis. In the case of Kava-kava the limited evidence of efficacy, the unpredictable and serious nature of the adverse reactions, the difficulty in regularly monitoring liver function without medical supervision and the lack of regulatory powers to require label warnings for unlicensed medicines were taken in to account.

  The safety of Kava-kava has been discussed with European member states via the pharmacovigilance working party of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. The MCA has in addition communicated with the regulatory authorities of the USA, Australia and Canada. Other European member states have revoked or suspended the licences and Australia and Canada have initiated recalls of all products containing Kava-kava.

  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) volume and (b) type of NHS work was
  812W
  undertaken by King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst, in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement on its future. [92039]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Ministers and departmental officials have received a number of representations regarding the situation at the hospital. Discussions with the liquidator are currently ongoing. In view of that, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to comment further, although these discussions will of course focus on the continuing provision of appropriate care for national health service patients.

  Maintenance Work
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of outstanding maintenance work necessary to achieve estate code condition B in the NHS in 2001–02, broken down into(a) fire safety and (b) health and safety costs in (i) England and (ii) each NHS region. [92790]

  Mr. Lammy
  The cost of outstanding repair and maintenance work necessary to achieve estate code condition B standards in England is commonly termed backlog maintenance costs and are generally broken down into fire safety, health and safety and physical condition elements.

  For the year 2001–02 these costs, broken down by the former eight regions and current four Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) regions are shown in the tables.

  By former region 2001–02

  £000

  Region

  Cost to achieve Physical Condition B

  Cost to achieve Statutory Health and Safety Compliance Standard B

  Cost to achieve Fire Safety Compliance Standard B

  Total backlog

  Eastern

  269,018

  17,779

  21,607

  308,404

  London

  687,774

  97,676

  62,937

  848,387

  North West

  311,394

  38,105

  23,130

  372,629

  Northern and Yorkshire

  408,689

  27,279

  22,540

  458,507

  South East

  375,483

  56,954

  25,113

  457,551

  South West

  212,008

  26,285

  10,270

  248,564

  Trent

  199,643

  43,496

  51,315

  294,454

  West Midlands

  401,518

  33,834

  23,632

  458,983

  Total for England

  2,865,526

  341,409

  240,544

  3,447,479

  By former region 2001–02

  £000

  DHSC region

  Cost to achieve Physical Condition B

  Cost to achieve Statutory Health and Safety Compliance Standard B

  Cost to achieve Fire Safety Compliance Standard B

  Total backlog

  London

  687,774

  97,676

  62,937

  848,387

  Midlands and Eastern

  857,720

  90,084

  90,311

  1,038,115

  North

  796,643

  72,759

  53,144

  922,547

  South

  523,388

  80,890

  34,151

  638,429

  Total for England

  2,865,526

  341,409

  240,544

  3,447,479

  813W
  National targets on backlog maintenance set in the NHS Plan are incorporated into the Department of Health priority and planning framework document 2003–06.

  Meat (Safety)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Food Standards Agency will issue advice on the safety of eating meat from animals which have been vaccinated against foot and mouth. [92881]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the agency issued advice in April 2001 that eating meat, milk or other produce from animals that have been treated with authorised foot and mouth disease vaccines would not have any implications for food safety.

  Medical Staff
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what right he will have to veto European proposals to introduce the 16 week provision relating to medical staff in the United Kingdom. [93633]

  Mr. Hutton
  The proposed provision forms part of a draft directive, which is the subject of continuing negotiation. In publishing it, the European Commission stated that its adoption would be by qualified majority insofar as its implementation did not require changes in the law of any member state governing the professions regarding training and conditions of access by natural persons. If that presumption failed, adoption would require unanimity.

  Net ingredient cost (£000) of dementia drugs dispensed in the community in England

  Prescribed in GP practices1

  Prescribed in hospitals2

  Total NIC 3

  Percentage of NIC of drugs dispensed in the community which were prescribed in hospitals

  Aricept (Donepezil Hydrochloride)

  October-December 2001

  1818.3

  1137.3

  2956

  38

  January-March 2002

  2046.7

  1170.8

  3217.6

  36

  April-June 2002

  2476.7

  1263.3

  3740

  34

  July-September 2002

  2865

  1405.6

  4271.7

  33

  12 months ending September 2002

  9206.8

  4977

  14185.3

  35

  Reminyl (Galantamine)

  October-December 2001

  185.5

  196.8

  382.5

  51

  January-March 2002

  240.6

  215.8

  456.4

  47

  April-June 2002

  327.3

  242.5

  570.1

  43

  July-September 2002

  410.3

  263.5

  673.9

  39

  12 months ending September 2002

  1163.7

  918.6

  2083

  44

  Exelon (Rivastigmine)

  October-December 2001

  264.7

  126.8

  391.4

  32

  January-March 2002

  287.5

  131

  418.5

  31

  April-June 2002

  325.7

  138.5

  464

  30

  July-September 2002

  362.9

  154.8

  517.7

  30

  12 months ending September 2002

  1240.8

  551.1

  1791.6

  31

  1Prescribed in GP practices in England, and dispensed in the community (this can include prescriptions written in England dispensed outside England).

  2 Prescribed in hospitals, and dispensed in the community in England (Also included are prescription written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England).

  3 NIC of all prescription items dispensed in the community in England.

  Notes:

  Total items may not necessarily equal the sum of 1 and 2, because of the slight difference in geographical cover.

  Information about drugs prescribed and dispensed in hospitals is not available.

  Mental Health 'Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to primary care trusts for the prescription of Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl for patients with mental health problems. [92527]

  Jacqui Smith
  In January 2001 the National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued guidance to the national health service on the use of Aricept (donepezil), Exelon (rivastigmine) and Reminyl (galantamine) for the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trusts prescribe(a) Aricept, (b) Exelon and (c) Reminyl. [92528]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about the number of primary care trusts in England where these drugs are prescribed is shown in the table.

  Number of primary care trusts where dementia drugs were

  prescribed in GP practices and were dispensed in the community:

  England

  April–November 2002

  Number

  Percentage

  Aricept (Donepezil Hydrochloride)

  304

  100

  Reminyl (Galantamine)

  273

  90

  Exelon (Rivastigmine)

  285

  94

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current cost to the NHS is of prescribing(a) Aricept, (b) Exelon and (c) Reminyl. [92533]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information showing the net ingredient cost of prescribing(a) Aricept, (b) Exelon and (c) Reminyl in England is shown in the table.
  815W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are currently prescribed(a) Aricept, (b) Exelon and (c) Reminyl on the NHS. [92550]

  Number of items (thousand) of dementia drugs dispensed in the community in England

  Prescribed in GP practices 1

  Prescribed in hospitals 2

  Total items 3

  Percentage of items dispensed in the community which were prescribed in hospitals

  Aricept (Donepezil Hydrochloride)

  October-December 2001

  22.2

  8.2

  30.5

  27

  January-March 2002

  25

  8.4

  33.4

  25

  April-June 2002

  30.2

  9.3

  39.4

  24

  July-September 2002

  35.2

  9.9

  45.2

  22

  12 months ending September 2002

  112.6

  35.8

  148.4

  24

  Reminyl (Galantamine)

  October-December 2001

  2.9

  2

  4.8

  41

  January-March 2002

  3.7

  1.8

  5.6

  33

  April-June 2002

  4.9

  2.2

  7.2

  31

  July-September 2002

  6.2

  2.3

  8.5

  27

  12 months ending September 2002

  17.7

  8.3

  26.1

  32

  Exelon (Rivastigmine)

  October-December 2001

  4.4

  1.8

  5.9

  29

  January-March 2002

  4.8

  1.8

  6.3

  27

  April-June 2002

  5.5

  1.7

  7.1

  24

  July-September 2002

  6.2

  1.8

  7.9

  23

  12 months ending September 2002

  20.9

  7.1

  27.3

  25

  1Prescribed in GP practices in England, and dispensed in the community (this can include prescriptions written in England dispensed outside England).

  2 Prescribed in hospitals, and dispensed in the community in England (Also included are prescription written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England).

  3 All prescription items dispensed in the community in England.

  Notes:

  Total items may not necessarily equal the sum of 1 and 2, because of the slight difference in geographical cover.

  Information about drugs prescribed and dispensed in hospitals is not available.

  Mental Health Wards
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available in secure mental health wards in each of the last five years. [93305]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the tables. The long-term secure bed numbers are included in these figures, but not separately identified in routine data collection.

  Year

  Number of high secure beds

  1997

  1,374

  1998

  1,366

  1999

  1,320

  2000

  1,290

  2001

  1,263

  2002

  1,244

  Secure beds

  Year

  Medium

  Other

  1997–98

  1,493

  986

  1998–99

  1,642

  1,032

  1999–2000

  1,994

  1,191

  2000–01

  2,231

  1,353

  2001–02

  1—

  1—

  1Figures currently not available.

  816W
  Jacqui Smith
  We do not hold information in the form requested. However, information on the number of prescriptions for dementia drugs dispensed in the community in England is shown in the table.
  Note:Bed numbers are calculated from health authority returns of occupied bed days and assuming a 95 per cent. occupancy rate.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many engagements were undertaken outside London(a) by him or his predecessor and (b) by Ministers in his Department in January (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [87354]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 16 December 2002]In January 2000 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, undertook no visits outside London and made one visit in January 2001 and one visit in January 2002.

  Members of the ministerial team made a total of 11 visits in January 2000, 16 visits in January 2001 and six visits in 2002 to venues outside London.

  NHS Dentistry (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health
  (1) how many patients were registered with an NHS dentist in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since 1997; [93022]

  (2) what the average waiting time for an appointment was for the dental access centre in Shrewsbury in each month since its inception; [93024]
  817W
  (3) how many patients were waiting for treatment at the dental access centre in Shrewsbury in each month since it opened. [93025]

  Mr. Lammy
  The table shows the number of registrations in Shropshire health authority at 30 September in each of the years 1997 to 2002.

  Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentists within 15 months. Registrations will exclude patients who have not been to their general dental service (CDS) dentist within the past 15 months and patients who receive dental treatment from other national health service dental services.

  During the period 1997 to 2002, the registration numbers are affected by the change in the registration periods for adults and children. Also, the figures do not include patients attending the dental access centres which opened during the period and whose patients are not registered.

  Patients wishing to register with a GDS dentist can obtain details of dentists accepting new patients by contacting NHS Direct.

  Monthly waiting list information for the Shrewsbury dental access centre is not collected.

  General Dental Service: Number of registrations in Shropshire

  Health Authority area at 30 September 1997 to 2002

  At 30 September

  Number of patients registered1

  1997

  217,700

  1998

  191,000

  1999

  187,000

  2000

  186,000

  2001

  179,800

  2002

  182,300

  1The registration number for September 1997 is not comparable with the later figures because of the change in the registration periods.

  NHS Posts (Salaries)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will which NHS posts in Kent are paid a salary in excess of £100,000. [92085]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 23 January 2003]For reasons of data protection I am unable to provide a list, but there were 34 employees, excluding board members, in national health service trusts in Kent who received remuneration in excess of £100,000 in 2001–02. The remuneration includes gross salaries and wages, allowances for expenses and monetary value of benefits in kind.

  The Government are committed to fair pay for all NHS staff. It recognises that the NHS needs good managers. Consequently guidance on managerial pay increases has been issued to the NHS in each of the past five years. This has taken into account increases in pay for other NHS staff as well as other relevant factors such as recruitment and retention. Local NHS employers have been advised to interpret the guidance appropriately and be able to justify decisions.

  NHS Staff Assaults
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sick days were taken by NHS staff last year as a result of being assaulted by patients. [92601]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on levels of sickness absence resulting from work-related injuries or violence at work is not collected centrally, but may be held at a local level by individual national health service employers.

  NHS Trusts (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget overspend was in each year since 1997 in each Shropshire NHS trust. [93021]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Underspends/overspends for Shropshire trusts: 1997–98 to

  2001–02

  £000

  Cumulative

  Robert Jones & Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  1997–98

  -3

  -3

  1998–99

  3

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  2001–02

  9

  9

  Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  1997–98

  153

  153

  1998–99

  30

  183

  1999–2000

  -826

  -643

  2000–01

  260

  -383

  2001–02

  -545

  -928

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  1997–98

  21

  21

  1998–99

  24

  45

  1999–20001

  -646

  -502

  2000–01

  607

  105

  2001–02

  -494

  -389

  1For 1999–2000 the cumulative position was amended due to a technical adjustment Note:

  A minus figure represents an overspend

  NHS Trusts (Surrey)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allocation of strategic capital Surrey NHS trusts have received in the current financial year. [91467]

  Ms Blears
  Total strategic capital earmarked for Surrey trusts in 2002–03 was £8.8 million.

  Of this, Ashford & St. Peters National Health Service Trust received £2.5 million, Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust £2 million and Surrey and Sussex Healthcare £4.3 million.

  Nicotine Replacement Therapies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the likely(a) fatal and (b) nonfatal side effects of Zyban if used for six months. [92605]

  Ms Blears
  Zyban (bupropion hydrochloride) was licensed in June 2000 as an aid to smoking cessation in combination with motivational support in nicotine-dependent patients. The maximum treatment course
  819W
  authorised in the United Kingdom is seven to nine weeks. Zyban should not be used for six months and therefore it is not possible to give an estimate of the likely fatal and non-fatal side effects of Zyban if used for this period of time.

  Zyban is an effective aid to smoking cessation, and like all effective medicines is not without side effects. Since its launch in the United Kingdom, full guidance on prescribing and use, including possible side effects, have been present in the summary of product characteristics for health professionals and patient information leaflet for patients.

  The side effects that are recognised to occur more commonly, ie, could happen to more than one in 100 people, in association with Zyban are non-serious including insomnia, urticaria, rash, headache, dizziness and nausea. Serious side effects do occur in association with Zyban, albeit rarely. These include seizures (fits or convulsions) which occur with an incidence of approximately 0.1 per cent., (one in 1,000) and hypertension and severe hypersensitivity reactions (which may occur in between one in 1,000 and one in 10,000 people taking Zyban). Of these, seizures and severe hypersensitivity reactions are potentially life threatening.

  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 136W, regarding ethical foreign nurse recruitment, how he plans to inform (a) NHS organisations, (b) overseas Governments, (c) overseas nurses and (d) other interested parties, of agencies that have been reported by the Workforce Development, Confederation for failure to adhere to the code of practice. [84772]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Where reported breaches of the code of practice are substantiated the agency will be removed from the list of agencies who are compliant with the code of practice that the Department of Health publicises.

  Nursing and Residential Homes (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places there were in(a) nursing and (b) residential homes for pensioners in each year since 1997 in (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (ii) Shropshire. [93085]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of places in nursing and residential homes in Shrewsbury and Atcham is not available.

  Information on the number of places for adults aged 65 and over in Shropshire at 31 March each year from 1997 to 2001 is shown in the table. Data for 2002 are not yet available.
  820W

  Residential and nursing care home places for older people1 in

  Shropshire2, 1997–2001

  Number of places

  Residential care

  As at 31 March

  Nursing care

  Shropshire including Telford and Wrekin

  Telford and Wrekin

  Shropshire excluding Telford and Wrekin

  1997

  3—

  2,200

  3—

  3—

  1998

  1,710

  3,190

  3—

  3—

  1999

  1,710

  2,590

  460

  2,130

  2000

  1,740

  2,460

  420

  2,040

  2001

  1,640

  2,440

  460

  1,970

  1 People aged 65 or more.

  2 Residential data refers to Shropshire County for 1997 and 1998. Data for 1999 onwards are presented separately and combined for Shropshire County Council and Telford and Wrekin Unitary Authority.

  Nursing data refer to Shropshire Health Authority.

  3 Data not available.

  Note:

  Nursing care places includes beds in private hospitals and clinics.

  Nutrition
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he is planning to spend on the promotion of nutritional issues in the next 12 months and how much he spent in each of the last five years. [88181]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health's spending plans for 2003–04 for programmes that aim to improve nutrition, including provision and promotion, have not yet been finalised. The Department plans to have spent £130 million in 2002–03, and spent £106 million in 2001–02, £108 million in 2000–01, £114 million in 1999–2000, and £118 million in 1998–99. This comprises the Welfare Foods programme, which is the largest single element; contributions to the Five-a-day programme and the National School Fruit Scheme, the main costs of both of which are at present met by the New Opportunities Fund; the Food in Schools programme; grants to charities promoting nutrition; and support for infant feeding. In addition, initiatives to promote nutrition have been funded by health action zones, sure start, healthy living centres, and through general funding allocations to the national health service.

  Osteoporosis (Hull and East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of fracture patients aged over 50 received an osteoporosis risk assessment in(a) Hull and the East Riding and (b) England and Wales, in the last two quarters for which figures are available. [92909]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about identifying those at risk of osteoporosis was included in the Department's "Strategy to prevent fractures caused by osteoporosis", which was issued to all health authorities in 1998. This was based on the Royal College of Physicians' clinical guidelines for strategies to prevent and treat osteoporosis.

  Osteoporosis, a condition characterised by a reduction in bone mass and density increases the risk of fracture when an older person falls. The development and implementation of integrated falls services, incorporating the identification of osteoporosis are

  821W
  covered in the national service framework for older people. This, when set in the context of the national priorities guidance establishes it as a high priority for local action and delivery. It provides the basis for a service model that will deliver the improvements in prevention, care, treatment and rehabilitation of those at risk of injury from falls.

  Information on the percentage of fracture patients over 50 years of age who have received an osteoporosis risk assessment is not available centrally.

  Three month vacancy rate (percentage)

  Three month vacancy (number)

  Staff in post (whole time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  England

  5.2

  7

  118

  152

  North West region

  7.7

  1

  12

  16

  Former North East Lancashire Health Authority

  1—

  0

  2—

  2—

  Former North West Lancashire Health Authority

  3—

  0

  0

  0

  Former South Lancashire Health Authority

  3—

  0

  0

  0

  1 Figures where sum of staff in post vacancies is less than 10.

  2 Number is greater then 0 and less than five to prevent breaches of the data protection act.

  3 Figures where sum of staff in post and vacancies is zero.

  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 Consultant Census, March 2002.

  5. Staff in post data are from Mini Consultant Census, March 2002.

  6. Staff in post data exclude staff employed by health authorities, as vacancy information was only collected from Trusts, PCTs and Special Health Authorities.

  7. Medical and dental figures exclude staff in training.

  8. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  9. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  Other notes:

  10. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component part.

  11. Due to the rounding, calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  12. HA figures are based on Trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical.

  Sources:

  Vacancy numbers and rates:

  1. Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2002.

  2. Department of Health Consultant Census March 2002.
  Medical and Dental staff in post:

  3. Department of Health Consultant Census March 2002.

  PCTs
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account is taken of the age profile of the population in fixing financial allocations to PCTs. [93115]

  Mr. Hutton
  We allocate funding to primary care trusts on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each primary care trust's target share of available resources, which then inform allocations.

  The age profile of the population is taken into account through age weightings within the formula. The age weightings reflect the variations in the need for healthcare arising from the age structure of the local population.

  Performance Ratings
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the criteria for the annual performance rating for hospitals. [82992]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The criteria for the 2002–03 performance ratings will be reviewed by the Commission for Health Improvement

  Palliative Care
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for palliative care consultants in(a) Lancashire, (b) the North West of England and (c) England. [93268]

  Jacqui Smith
  The figures for palliative care consultant vacancies are shown in the table.

  (CHI) which will be responsible for future publications of national health service performance ratings. CHI will recommend suitable sets of indicators to criteria agreed by Ministers, in line with priorities and targets that have been set by Government for the health service.

  Prescription Charges
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely cost impact on prescribing conventional medicines following the changes to the range of traditional herbal medicines available in the UK. [91586]

  Ms Blears
  We anticipate that, if agreed, the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would lead to a substantial expansion in the availability of herbal remedies made to assured standards of safety and quality and accompanied by systematic information about safe use of the product. This would extend the options available for members of the public wishing to take responsibility for their own health and in particular would help the public to make an informed choice of a remedy appropriate to their needs.
  823W
  We also agree with the views expressed by many in the herbal sector that the proposed directive could lead to increased public confidence in traditional herbal remedies, which could lead to a beneficial effect on the market.

  Given an extension of products made to assured standards, we would expect a reduction in the risk of members of the public requiring medical treatment, including prescribed orthodox medicines, as a direct result of taking poorly labelled unlicensed herbal remedies inappropriate to their needs or containing dangerous or illegal ingredients.

  Overall, there are likely to be many factors affecting the usage of traditional herbal remedies and there will also continue to be many other factors affecting expenditure on prescribed orthodox medicines.

  Primary Care
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account was taken of inherited deficit in fixing future financial allocations for primary care trusts. [93408]

  Mr. Hutton
  We allocate resources to primary care trusts on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each primary care trust's target share of available resources.

  Public Services (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his statement of 14 January,Official Report, column 662, on public services on the Isle of Wight, if he will make a further statement on issues related to the King Edward VII Hospital that the honourable Member for Tottenham was discussing when the House adjourned. [92295]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]: My hon. Friend's speech would have concluded with the words:

  "There remains no lack of commitment on behalf of the National Health Service, who will continue to work with all parties to ensure the continuity of care for NHS patients. The NHS remains prepared to continue with its current commitment to the hospital, which is in excess of £3.4 million per annum."

  Runaway Children (Counselling)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidelines on standards of counselling for children who run away from home. [93112]

  Jacqui Smith
  The recent Department of Health guidance, "Children Missing from Care and from Home—a guide to good practice" (November 2002), provides recommendations that a young person or child who goes missing from home may be a child in need and, where appropriate, should have access to an initial assessment provided by the local authority.

  This assessment must conform to the requirements of the framework for the assessment of children in need and their families. It should evaluate the risks if a young
  824W
  person were to go missing again and whether or not they and their families might be appropriately offered local support services—such as mediation or counselling.

  Social Services, Battersea
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adults resident in Battersea pay for non-residential social services; and how many will no longer have to pay after April 2003. [92131]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  The Department issued statutory guidance to local councils for home care charges in November 2001. This guidance does not seek to change councils' power to charge or not, but seeks to ensure that, where councils do charge, this will be based on fairer well designed charging policies. An important principle of the guidance is that people whose incomes fall below basic levels of income support plus a 25 per cent. buffer will not be charged for their home care services.

  Specialised Services Commissioning
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress primary care trusts in England are making with preparations for the commissioning of specialised services, with particular reference to those for(a) genitourinary medicine and (b) haemophilia. [87725]

  Ms Blears
  Since April 2002 primary care trusts have been responsible for securing health services for their local populations, including the commissioning of specialised services. Regional specialised commissioning groups, whose former health authority members have now been replaced by PCT members, are continuing to exist during 2002–03, to ensure stability and continuity, as are existing consortia arrangements including previously agreed financial commitments and programmes of service reviews.

  Responses to the ministerial review on specialised services are now being considered and guidance will be issued shortly on commissioning arrangements for 2003–04 onwards. Haemophilia and HIV treatment and care services will be covered by these arrangements. Genito-urinary medicine (GUM) services are not covered by regional specialist commissioning groups as they are not specialised services. However we have recently issued a Sexual Health and HIV Commissioning Toolkit to support those commissioning and providing sexual health and HIV services including GUM.

  Stroke Care
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a definition of what constitutes a specialist stroke unit; which acute hospitals(a) have such a unit and (b) are without such a unit; and which hospitals have plans approved and fully funded to open such a unit before the end of 2004. [91822]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 January 2003]: The term "specialist stroke unit" is used to describe hospital based acute care and rehabilitation services designed specifically for people who have had a stroke. A range of elements are associated with such units, in particular a

  825W
  complex multidisciplinary process of assessment, early management and ongoing rehabilitation. We do not routinely collect information about acute hospitals with and without such units.

  The Sentinel Audit, carried out by the clinical effectiveness and evaluation unit of the Royal College of Physicians and led by the intercollegiate working party for stroke does collect this information but it is anonymous and cannot be used to identify particular hospitals.

  The priorities and planning framework for 2003–6 requires all hospitals who care for people who have had a stroke to have specialist stroke services, which include specialist hospital based services, by April 2004. From monitoring against the April 2002 milestones for the national service framework, we know that well over 80 per cent, of such hospitals plan to have a specialist stroke service in place by April 2004.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to improve(a) diagnosis, (b) treatment and (c) post-discharge support for stroke victims suffering from depression; [93372]

  (2) what plans are in place to enable health service staff to receive training enabling them to screen stroke victims for depression. [93373]

  Jacqui Smith
  In March 2001 the Department published the national service framework (NSF) for older people. This includes a standard on stroke. It sets out a comprehensive strategy to ensure fair, high quality integrated health and social care and reduce variations in services.

  The priorities and planning framework for 2003–06 requires all hospitals who care for people who have had a stroke to have specialist stroke services, which include specialist hospital based services, by April 2004. From monitoring against the April 2002 milestones for the NSF, we know that well over 80 per cent. of such hospitals plan to have a specialist stroke service in place by April 2004.

  By April this year every hospital which cares for older people with stroke will have established clinical audit systems to ensure delivery of the Royal College of Physician's clinical guidelines for stroke. These guidelines include the assessing and treatment of depression.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure made by his Department(a) came into force and (b) were considered by a delegated legislation committee in each of the last three sessions. [88031]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of Statutory Instruments that came into force for each session

  Number of Statutory Instruments that were considered by a designated legislation committee

  1999–2000

  224

  1999–2000

  3

  2000–01

  274

  2000–01

  1

  2001–02

  503

  2001–02

  5

  Surgical Equipment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total amount of surgical equipment disposed of each year; and what steps are being taken to recycle this equipment. [91465]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not hold central figures on the amount of surgical equipment disposed of each year.

  Each national health service trust decides how to dispose of its surgical equipment. The NHS takes into account health and safety issues, such as risk of cross-infection when recycling or reselling surgical equipment. These issues include the possibility of the transfer of infections such as vCJD, HIV. hepatitis and the need for ensuring that staff using the equipment are properly trained.

  The risks associated with the re-selling of surgical instruments could well outweigh any potential cost savings.

  The Medical Devices Agency has issued guidelines entitled "DB9801 Supplement 2 Guidance on the sale, transfer of ownership and disposal of used medical devices". The key points addressed in the guidance are:

  Transfer of ownership (sale or donation).

  Decommissioning.

  Disposal as waste.

  Transitional Care Beds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many transitional care beds have been created in each of the last three years in(a) each trust and (b) England; [92991]

  (2) if he will set out his definition of transitional care beds. [92990]

  Jacqui Smith
  In previous years, a number of health and social care partnerships have used additional winter funding to create extra capacity in so-called transitional care. Essentially, this is short-term, temporary or "step down" care where people are cared for before they move on to the setting where they will receive any long-term care they need. The Department does not collect data on the number of transitional care beds.

  Waiting Times
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest available waiting times are to receive a first consultant appointment following referral by a GP in each Trust area. [88163]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of outpatients waiting, following a general practitioner written referral who have yet to be seen at national health service trusts in England as at 30 September 2002, has been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the suppliers of(a) paper and (b) paper products used by his Department. [91827]
  827W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence uses a wide range of paper and paper products. Our current principal suppliers are:

  Astron Document Services Ltd

  Astron Group Ltd

  Banner Business Supplies Ltd

  WH BradyCoLtd

  Canon (UK) Ltd

  Duni Ltd

  Hutamaki (UK) Ltd

  Kimberley Clark Ltd

  NRG Group Ltd

  Oce Ltd

  Pitney Bowes Management Services Ltd

  Plastico Ltd

  Norprint Labelling Systems Ltd

  SCA Packaging Ltd

  Supplies Team Ltd

  United Tools Distributors Ltd

  Vemacare Ltd

  Afghanistan (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength is of British armed forces in Afghanistan. [93146]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom contributes around 300 United Kingdom Service personnel to the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul.

  Year

  Primary purpose

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Fundamental biological research

  6,052

  6,702

  7,265

  7,193

  7,074

  Applied studies—human medicine

  4,763

  4,199

  4,147

  4,641

  5,674

  Protection of man, animals or environment by toxicological

  or other safety or environmental evaluation1

  0

  0

  9

  0

  108

  Education

  2

  3

  7

  3

  0

  Training

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Direct diagnosis

  137

  187

  73

  146

  99

  Total

  10,956

  11,091

  11,501

  11,985

  12,955

  1Excluding medical or veterinary products or appliances

  In the years 1997 to 2001 the annual returns to the Home Office, broken down by species are detailed below:

  Species

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Guinea pig

  1,109

  1,039

  636

  636

  727

  Ferret

  0

  30

  0

  0

  0

  Hamster

  396

  222

  144

  24

  0

  Mouse

  8,569

  7,477

  10,144

  10,856

  11,944

  Pig

  85

  96

  84

  106

  23

  Rabbit

  31

  48

  10

  19

  23

  Rat

  717

  1,999

  410

  350

  125

  Goat

  2

  22

  0

  0

  0

  Sheep

  17

  30

  13

  9

  45

  Primate

  30

  128

  60

  34

  68

  Total

  10,956

  11,091

  11,501

  11,985

  12,955

  The figures for 2002 are expected to be available in late February.

  Aircraft Crash (Mehamn)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the opening by the Norwegian Government of a new inquiry into allegations that an RAF Harrier was involved in the crash of a civilian Twin Otter aircraft near Mehamn in Norway in 1982. [93836]

  Dr. Moonie
  Earlier inquiries in 1982 and 1987 into this civil air accident were both satisfied that no fighter aircraft were in the vicinity at the time of the accident. We will offer every assistance to the new inquiry set up by the Norwegian Government if requested to do so. No terms of reference for the inquiry have yet been announced.

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animal experiments, broken down by(a) recorded category and (b) species, were carried out at Porton Down in each year since 1997. [93290]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]: Dstl Porton Down submits annual returns to the Home Office detailing the number of procedures undertaken which involve the use of animals as defined in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  For the years 1997 to 2001 the returns broken down by the recorded category of primary purpose, as defined by the Home Office are detailed in the table:

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [90879]

  Dr. Moonie
  Production of the Ministry of Defence's annual Performance Report 2001–02 (Cm 5661) drew on performance management information collected within the Department for a variety of purposes. Its production involved a large number of people across the Department, and it is not therefore possible to calculate the cost without incurring disproportionate expense.

  Decisions on print runs are a commercial matter for The Stationery Office Limited (TSO), who handle publication of the Report and who meet the costs of printing and publication.
  829W
  The Ministry of Defence bought 650 copies and an electronic version from TSO at a cost of £8,536.25. All of the MOD's copies are distributed free of charge, the majority within the Department, but about 175 to other Government Departments, other nations, Parliament or the Press. ISO inform me that, as at 21 January 2003, they had sold a further 234 copies. The Report is also available on the MOD website (www.mod.uk).

  Armed Forces (Deployments)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the 10 largest current deployments of British armed forces broken down by country. [93148]

  Mr. Ingram
  The 10 largest deployments of the British armed forces on operations or involved in military tasks outside the United Kingdom are currently in (largest first) Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia, Falkland Islands, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Gibraltar and Turkey. There are also sizeable numbers of British Army personnel permanently based in Germany and deployed on operations in Northern Ireland.

  Asset Tracking
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements have been made to(a) his Department's asset tracking capabilities since April 2002 and (b) its ability to measure the re-supply targets for orders placed by units. [92667]

  Satisfied

  Neutral

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Officers

  252

  70

  57

  15

  53

  15

  Soldiers

  674

  46

  267

  18

  531

  36

  The CAS contained no question asking for specific comments about Combat 95 clothing.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many
  cases of computer misuse there were in his

  Unauthorised access to computer material

  Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences

  Unauthorised modification of computer material

  Incidents

  Disciplined

  Incidents

  Disciplined

  Incidents

  Disciplined

  1998

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1999

  4

  2

  5

  0

  3

  0

  2000

  6

  1

  1

  1

  3

  1

  2001

  10

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2002

  5

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  The totals for disciplinary action are only those recorded at the time of the incident; there may have been subsequent action, but such numbers are not readily available under current reporting arrangements, and such additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A new system of reporting is being introduced with effect from 1 April 2003. This will enable detailed data to be retrieved more readily in future years.
  830W
  Mr. Ingram
  Since April 2002, the Department has taken a number of steps to improve both the ability to track consignments and to measure the performance of our re-supply systems including the procurement of an interim system which will improve our consignment tracking capability and ability to measure the achievement of delivery targets, and facilitate better operations with coalition partners. In the longer term we are developing a programme which will consolidate the information from individual systems through the Department and further improve consignment tracking within the supply chain.

  Combat 95 Clothing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces indicated when last questioned that they were satisfied with their Combat 95 clothing; what percentage of respondents this represents; and if he will make a statement. [85013]

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers indicated when last questioned that they were(a) satisfied and (b) unsatisfied with Combat 95 clothing; what percentage of respondents this represents; what comments were made about the clothing; and if he will make a statement. [92145]

  Dr. Moonie
  The numbers of Army personnel indicating in their answers to the Continuous Attitude Survey (CAS) published in August 2002 that they were either satisfied or dissatisfied with their Combat 95 clothing was as follows:

  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. [93050]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the last five years, the following instances of computer misuse were recorded across Defence:

  Departmental Houses
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's houses were sold last year in the United Kingdom. [93308]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the period January to December 2002, sales were completed for a total of 477 residential properties.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [90715]

  Dr. Moonie
  The running costs of the Ministry of Defence as a whole were £14,770 million in 1997–98. This figure is the net expenditure included in the Appropriation Account for that year, excluding systems procurement expenditure in the Procurement Executive (now the Defence Procurement Agency). It is cash based and includes expenditure on military and civilian personnel costs, movements, stores and spares, research and works services.

  In accordance with the Government Resource Accounting Act 2000, the Department's financial performance is now reported to Parliament in the Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts.

  The net operating cost of the MOD as a whole, as reported in the 2001–02 Departmental Resource Account, was £32,239 million. This figure is on a resource basis and includes military and civilian personnel costs, property management and equipment support costs, stock consumption, depreciation, impairment on fixed assets and cost of capital charges.

  Information on agencies' expenditure is contained in the Annual Report and Accounts of each agency, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in(a) the Department and (b) each of the agencies it sponsors; and what the figures were for 1997. [90677]

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Target

  Actual

  Target

  Actual

  Target

  Actual

  Target

  Actual

  Target

  Actual

  officers

  Pilots

  45

  42

  36

  36

  40

  36

  48

  48

  45

  50

  Observers

  37

  34

  30

  29

  24

  23

  30

  27

  34

  34

  ATC

  12

  7

  11

  7

  7

  7

  6

  6

  6

  5

  Ratings

  AEM

  282

  287

  312

  312

  188

  181

  232

  235

  298

  310

  NA(AH)

  43

  42

  39

  37

  11

  11

  38

  39

  51

  55

  NA(SE)

  29

  29

  20

  22

  18

  18

  18

  15

  19

  20

  NA(Met)

  5

  5

  5

  5

  6

  6

  14

  14

  9

  9

  ATC—Air Traffic Controllers

  AEM—Air Engineering Mechanics

  NA(AH)—Naval Airman (Aircraft Handler)

  NA(SE)—Naval Airman (Survival Equipment)

  NA(Met)—Naval Airman (Meteorological)

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1997–98 not available at level of detail.

  2.1998–99 Fleet Air Arm officer Sub-branch figures estimated—total officer figure correct.

  3. Artificers have not been included as they are not streamed until further into their training.
  832W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 16 January 2003,Official Report, column 697W, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

  Desert Equipment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Desert Equipment has been issued; and to which elements of British armed forces. [91046]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have been taking a range of preparatory measures to ensure that our Armed Forces have all the equipment they need to do any tasks required of them.

  I am withholding information on equipment numbers and the units to which they are being issued in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Exercise Saif Sareea
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the(a) cost of recovery and (b) amount written off as a result of the return, inspection and recovery of tents issued to Oman during Exercise Saif Sareea II. [92666]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of recovering the tentage from Exercise Saif Sareea II was £512,000. Tent writes-off amounted to £103,000. The refurbishment of tentage cost some £1.9 million. Had we decided to leave the tentage in theatre and replace it, the cost would have been around £9.5 million. The decision to return and refurbish represented good value for money.

  Fleet Air Arm
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) target and (b) actual recruitment figures have been for Fleet Air Arm (i) pilots and (ii) other personnel in each of the past five years. [92963]

  Dr. Moonie
  The target and actual recruitment figures for the Fleet Air Arm broken down by pilot and other personnel is each of the past five years is as follows:

  Ground Proximity Warning Systems
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF aircraft have been fitted with ground proximity warning systems,(a) in total and (b) by aircraft type; and if he plans that the successor to Hawk trainers will be fitted with GPWS. [92507]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of RAF aircraft that were fitted with Ground Proximity Warning Systems as at 20 January:

  Aircraft type

  Number of aircraft fitted ground protection warning system

  BAe 146 Mk 2

  2

  C-17

  4

  Harrier GR7

  28

  Hercules C130J

  25

  Hercules C130K

  1

  Jaguar GR3/3a

  45

  Jaguar T4

  12

  Tornado F3

  24

  Tornado GR4

  130

  Tristar

  9

  Total

  268

  The Advanced Jet Trainer for the Military Flying Training System, to which I assume the hon Member is referring, is intended to be fitted with a Ground Protection Warning System.

  Health and Safety
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [89514]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has since 1999–2000 published an annual report by the Chief Environment and Safety Officer Ministry of Defence (CESO(MOD)) indicating the progress made on health and safety issues, including performance and forthcoming initiatives in the Department. This includes all agencies in the Ministry of Defence, as CESO(MOD) has a remit from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to monitor their activities. The report is reviewed by the Defence Environment and Safety Board (DESB), which I chair, and when accepted by the DESB, it is published on the world wide web for public information.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [89515]

  Dr. Moonie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is the responsible person for health and safety in the Ministry of Defence. This is identified in the Ministry of Defence Policy Statement (July 2000) for the Management of Safety and Environmental Protection. Within the policy, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appoints the Second Permanent Under-Secretary as the Senior Manager for the Defence Council to be responsible for MOD policy, standards,834W
  and where appropriate, regulations. As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, I am appointed to act as Green Minister and Chair the Defence Environment and Safety Board. This role provides direction, sets objectives and monitors the Department's performance on environment and safety matters

  The tasks required to discharge the Secretary of State's responsibilities are delegated to members of the Defence Council and to Chief Executives of Defence Trading Fund Agencies. They are required to produce their own Organisation and Arrangements Statement for health and safety, linked to the Secretary of State policy. The separate statements identify a Management Board member from their organisation who has a health and safety role. The Heads of the organisation will have ultimate accountability for health and safety in their organisation. The names of the persons with specific health and safety duties are identified in each of the Organisational Statements produced. These persons are identified by post rather than an individual's name.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [89516]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence accepted the checklist circulated by Sir Richard Mottram under Action Point 12 of the initiative of Revitalising Health and Safety. The checklist was assessed against the Ministry of Defence safety management system, and as a result, policy changes were made and the objectives contained in the checklist were integrated into the MOD's Safety Environment and Fire Audit Methodology. The MOD had already adopted the Health and Safety Executive guidance, Successful Heath and Safety Management (HSG 65), into its safety management system and the impact of the checklist was minimal.

  The checklist was circulated to each of the Service and Trading Fund Agency safety focus, to review their own arrangements.

  Health Care
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers when last questioned indicated that they were(a) unsatisfied and (b) satisfied with (i) military health care, (ii) waiting lists, (iii) remedial treatment and (iv) health care for their family; what percentage of respondents this represents; and if he will make a statement. [92146]

  Dr. Moonie
  Continuous Attitude Surveys (CAS) do not ask how satisfied or dissatisfied soldiers are with Military Healthcare per se. Instead, more specific questions are asked eg relating to waiting lists, remedial treatment and healthcare for the family. Responses given in the CAS published in August 2002 were as follows.
  835W

  Satisfied

  Neutral

  Dissatisfied

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Waiting lists

  Officers

  152

  43

  79

  23

  119

  34

  Soldiers

  720

  50

  419

  29

  297

  21

  Remedial treatment

  Officers

  162

  47

  71

  21

  112

  32

  Soldiers

  703

  50

  433

  31

  273

  19

  Healthcare for family

  Officers

  49

  19

  86

  34

  118

  47

  Soldiers

  315

  30

  430

  42

  290

  28

  Housing Stock
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much investment was made by his Department in housing stock in 2002 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other countries, broken down by country. [93309]

  Dr. Moonie
  The investment made in housing stock has been interpreted to mean expenditure on service family accommodation upgrades and new build, falling within the capital departmental expenditure limit (DEL), which for financial year 2001–02 outturn was as follows:

  Country

  Outturn for FY 2001–02 (£ million)

  United Kingdom

  27.162

  Germany

  0.481

  Gibraltar

  1.497

  Cyprus

  10.771

  The figure for the UK excludes some £54 million, which falls within the resource DEL, which was spent by the Defence Housing Executive on its upgrade programme. Details of expenditure in financial year 2002–03 are not currently available.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [92916]

  Dr. Moonie
  On 1 April 1998 the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) had 13,235 vacant properties. By 1 April 2002 the numbers of voids had reduced to 8,852. A breakdown, by DHE region, follows:

  1998

  2002

  Eastern

  2,920

  1,762

  Western

  1,421

  1,176

  South East Central

  1,492

  1,312

  South East North

  2,094

  743

  South East South

  1,605

  1,369

  South West

  2,480

  1,785

  Scotland

  1,223

  705

  Total

  13,235

  8,852

  836W
  To provide timely accommodation for service personnel and to allow for the high mobility of service life, DHE's long-term strategy is to operate with a management margin of no more than 10 per cent. of vacant properties. The welfare of military personnel and their families is paramount: requiring families to move mid-tour to facilitate property disposals is unpopular and could ultimately affect morale and retention. Maintaining a reasonable management margin allows DHE to keep these moves to a minimum. Unlike the situation with many other housing providers, turnover of occupants is generally high, and it would be inappropriate to keep void rates very low by using waiting lists and temporary accommodation such as bed and breakfast.

  One of the key targets set for DHE is to reduce the management margin progressively towards 10 per cent. by November 2005. A policy of continuous review of all quarters has secured the disposal of nearly 11,000 properties in the last three years. In accordance with wider Government policy, properties that are temporarily surplus but held for known future deployments are offered to registered social landlords, local authorities, and more recently to key workers from the fire, police, prison, NHS, and education services.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the UK's ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court on UK forces' scope for action in the event of any military intervention in Iraq. [92891]

  Mr. Ingram
  The offences contained in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reflect international law provisions that were already applicable to the conduct of United Kingdom forces in any theatre of engagement. The ICC Statute does not therefore impose new conditions.

  The consequences for our forces of UK ratification of the ICC Statute were carefully examined in preparation for the ICC Act 2001. Under the Statute, investigation and, if necessary prosecution of any allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide by a UK national would be carried out by the UK. The Court would intervene only if it determined that a state was unwilling or unable to pursue a particular case, but it is inconceivable that the UK would ever be unable or unwilling to investigate or take appropriate action.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the number of Iraqi civilian casualties that could arise from a war against Iraq. [91967]

  Mr. Ingram
  No decision on military action in Iraq has been taken. In any military action it is our policy, consistent with international law, to avoid civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure wherever possible, and to minimise them where they cannot be avoided.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) France and (b) Germany on (i) co-operation in military action against Iraq and (ii) a European Union military force against Iraq. [92926]

  Mr. Hoon
  There has been no decision to take military action against Iraq. I have not discussed with my French or German colleagues bilateral co-operation, or any European Security and Defence Policy operation, in that context. Military action in Iraq is neither imminent nor inevitable.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British troops have been given orders in relation to protection of oil fields in Iraq. [93105]

  Mr. Hoon
  No decision has been taken to commit British forces to military action against Iraq. It would not be appropriate to comment on any tasks that might be undertaken by our forces in the event of military operations.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence police officers will be surplus to requirement at(a) Salisbury Plain Army Training Estate, (b)Boscombe Down and (c) DSTL Porton Down when Landmarc Support Services commence their strategic partnership; and if he will make a statement. [93483]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ministry of Defence police (MDP) numbers are kept under constant review. However, there will be no reduction of MDP personnel in the Salisbury Plain area when Landmarc Support Services undertake the contract to provide assistance with the upkeep of the Army Training Estate.

  Naval Helicopters
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the current and (b) the future projected roles of the Royal Navy's (i) Merlin, (ii) Sea King and (iii) Lynx helicopters. [92898]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy's Merlin Mark 1 helicopters provide an advanced anti-submarine search and attack capability, as well as wider utility in surface surveillance, Search and Rescue (SAR) and support 838W
  roles. Merlin achieved its Initial Operating Capability deployed in HMS Ark Royal in June 2002, and has completed a successful embarkation in the Type 23 Frigate, HMS Lancaster. It will provide a crucial component of both open ocean and littoral operations for the foreseeable future.

  The Sea King has provided the backbone of the Royal Navy's anti-submarine capability over the last three decades, but is being progressively withdrawn from service as Merlin becomes operational. The Sea King Airborne Early Warning Mark 2 has been upgraded to Mark 7 to provide enhanced airborne surveillance and control for air defence into the next decade. The Sea King Mark 4, supplemented by the conversion of some Mark 6 aircraft, will continue to provide a support helicopter capability, primarily for three Commando Brigade Royal Marines, until the turn of the decade. The Sea King Mark 5 will provide a SAR capability well into the next decade.

  Lynx Mark 3 and Mark 8 aircraft provide surveillance and attack capability from assigned frigates and destroyers. This includes surface surveillance and targeting, anti-surface and anti-submarine weapon delivery, and battle damage assessment, as well as key elements of frigates' and destroyers' SAR, humanitarian support and constabulary capabilities. The Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft (SCMR) will be phased into service during the second half of the decade to succeed and enhance the capability currently provided by the Lynx Mark 3 and Mark 8 helicopters.

  Oil and Pipelines Agency
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place the latest report of the Oil and Pipelines Agency in the Library. [93715]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest report of the Oil and Pipelines Agency was placed in the Library on 19 November 2002.

  Pay Settlement
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the four year pay settlement reached with MOD employees. [93469]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has negotiated a four year pay settlement which includes significant reform in line with the Modernising Government agenda, introducing automatic pay progression and focusing performance related pay on bonuses. Similar agreements were negotiated with both industrial and non-industrial staff.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [92463]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of press releases issued by the Ministry of Defence's central Press Office has been
  839W
  recorded by calendar year only for years 1995–96. Figures for the dates in question are:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  149

  1996

  176

  19971

  160

  1998

  238

  1999

  282

  2000

  224

  2001

  159

  2002

  151

  1Data only available from 1 May onwards

  The number of press releases issued in each quarter from 1997 to 2002 is in the following table:

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Total

  1997

  n/a

  25

  44

  91

  160

  1998

  72

  67

  56

  43

  238

  1999

  75

  67

  56

  84

  282

  2000

  44

  48

  69

  63

  224

  2001

  53

  29

  38

  39

  159

  2002

  40

  31

  39

  41

  151

  Note:

  Figures by quarter for years before May 1997 are no longer available.

  In addition to the figures, the single services, the regional defence press offices and defence agencies issue their own press releases. They also re-issue some central press releases for local distribution. Accurate figures on these, which take account of any "duplicate releases", could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what major(a)variations and (b) delays there have been to the Private Finance Initiative contract for the (i) Central Scotland Family Quarters, (ii) NRTA Fire Training, (iii) Army Foundation College, (iv) RAF Mail, (v) RAF Cosford/Shawbay Family Quarters, (vi) RAF Lossiemouth Family Quarters, (vii) Attack Helicopter Training and (viii) Light Aircraft Flying (LAFT) (Bulldog) since they were signed; what their cost has been; whether the partners in the PFI were required to meet these costs; and if he will make a statement. [90168]

  Mr. Ingram
  Of the specified PFI contracts, only two of the projects have experienced significant changes as follows:

  Army Foundation College

  The capping of contaminated mounds on site has led to programme delays and increased construction costs. The Ministry of Defence granted a four-month extension to the contractor, the cost of which is not yet known as it is subject to on-going detailed negotiations. As the site owner, MOD will fund the costs. There were no delays to service provision, which has been provided throughout the construction phase.

  Attack Helicopter Training

  Information relating to the software integration delays and costs for the Full Mission Simulator training service can be found in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, "Building an Air Manoeuvre
  840W
  Capability: The Introduction of the Apache Helicopter", published on 31 October 2002 [HC1246, Session 2001-2002].

  Reservists
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists served in(a)the Gulf War, (b)Kosovo and (c)Afghanistan; and what percentage of those fit for active duty this represented at the time. [92137]

  Dr. Moonie
  As of 22 January, 588 reservists have served in support of operations in Afghanistan. This figure excludes a small number of RAF reservists who served in Afghanistan between 1 July 2002 and 22 January 2003 for which figures are currently unavailable. It is not possible to state what percentage of those reservists fit for active duty this represented as the state of health for members of the reserve forces changes from day to day. A reservist's fitness for active duty only becomes apparent either when they report for service or if they make an application for revocation, exemption or deferral of call-out based on their health.

  In the time available it has not been possible to collate information regarding the number of reservists who served in Kosovo or during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict as this is not held centrally.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a)reservists and (b)medical reservists have responded to call-up notices; and if he will make a statement. [92665]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 21 January 180 reservists called-out to support Operation TELIC had reported for mobilisation of which 98 were accepted for service. None of these individuals were medical reservists.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal protection to return to their existing jobs is afforded to reservists called up by the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [93320]

  Dr. Moonie
  Reservists who are called out into permanent service benefit from employment protection under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985.Under Section 1 of that Act an employer must take into his or her employment, at the same conditions of service as they were previously serving, former employees who make a written application at the end of a period of called-out service. If this is not reasonable and practical, the Reservist must be reinstated on the most favourable terms of service available.

  Should an employer fail to reinstate a Reservist in accordance with the provisions of that Act, the Reservist may apply to a Reinstatement Committee to hear his case. The Reinstatement Committee can order the employer to reinstate the Reservist, or to pay compensation to him/her, or both. Failure to comply with an order of a Reinstatement Committee is a criminal offence, and an employer may be fined on summary conviction. Appeals by either the employer or the Reservist against the determination of the Reinstatement Committee may be made to an Umpire appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Royal Marines
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) target and (b) actual recruitment figures have been for the Royal Marines in each of the past five years. [92964]

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Target

  Actual

  Target

  Actual

  Target

  Actual

  Target

  Actual

  Target

  Actual

  Officers

  36

  35

  36

  39

  44

  45

  61

  61

  52

  54

  RMOR

  1,155

  1,048

  1,155

  1,148

  1,155

  1,117

  1,155

  1,159

  1,155

  1,175

  RMBS

  24

  21

  31

  26

  31

  25

  27

  25

  29

  29

  Note:

  RMOR—Royal Marines other Ranks

  RMBS—Royal Marines Band Service

  Royal Naval Reserve
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) target and (b) actual figures have been for recruitment into (a) the Royal Naval Reserve and (b) the Royal Marines Reserve in each of the past five years. [92965]

  Dr. Moonie
  The target and actual figures for recruitment into the Royal Naval Reserve are recorded by financial year. The figures for the most recent five financial years are as follows:

  Target

  Actual

  1998–99

  650

  445

  1999–2000

  650

  604

  2000–01

  650

  562

  2001–02

  650

  676

  2002–03

  480

  1410

  1As at 31 December 2002

  The target and actual figures for recruitment into the Royal Marines Reserve are recorded by calendar year. The RMR figures for each of the last five years are as follows:

  Target

  Actual

  1998–99

  300

  285

  1999–2000

  300

  328

  2000–01

  300

  260

  2001–02

  300

  288

  2002–03

  300

  225

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the role and structure of the Royal Naval Reserve; [92969]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the changed roles of (a) the RNR and (b) the RMR since 11 September 2001. [92966]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Royal Naval Reserve (RNR) exists to provide a corps of readily available, highly trained personnel to enable the Royal Navy to meet its operational commitments in times of stretch, crisis, tension and war—including peacekeeping and humanitarian operations and disaster relief.

  The RNR is based upon 13 general-purpose Reserve Training Centres located throughout the United Kingdom. The majority of RNR Branches and Specialisations provide unique skill sets, which are not
  842W
  Dr. Moonie
  The target and actual recruitment figures for the the Royal Marines in each of the past five years as follows:

  generally required in peacetime, but are used to augment the Fleet in times of crisis. The operational structure of the RNR has recently been updated to ensure that these requirements can be met. The structure comprises six branches, some of which cover a number of specialisations.

  Following the events of 11 September, my hon Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that the Ministry of Defence would look again at its defence posture to ensure that we have the right concepts, the right forces and the right capabilities to meet the additional challenges we face from international terrorism and asymmetric threat. He described this work as a New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review published in 1998. This was presented to Parliament by my hon Friend the Secretary of State for Defence by Command of Her Majesty in July 2002.

  Following this review, there are no changes to the role of the Royal Naval Reserve. Neither have there been changes to the role of the RMR, which remains to reinforce the Royal Marines and other services as and when required with individuals and sub-units worldwide.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) professional and (b) voluntary personnel are in the Royal Naval Reserve. [92970]

  Dr. Moonie
  All members of the Royal Naval Reserve are volunteers. There were 3,222 volunteers as at 31 December 2002. There are 103 serving—i.e. regular armed forces—personnel and 13 Retired Officers employed in managing the RNR and training the volunteers.

  Royal Navy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Navy resources are allocated to meet commitments in(a) the Balkans, (b) Cyprus and (c) Sierra Leone. [92893]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently fifty Royal Navy personnel in the Balkans. Two patrol craft, one rigid raiding craft and fifty RN or Royal Marine personnel are currently allocated to British Forces Cyprus. In Sierra Leone, three RN personnel are assigned to UNAMSIL and two RN personnel to the International Military Assistance and Training Team.
  843W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Navy resources are allocated to combating(a)piracy and (b)drug-trafficking; and in which theatres. [92896]

  Mr. Ingram
  No Royal Navy assets are specifically allocated to combating piracy. International Maritime Law does however, place an obligation on any seafarer to assist others in distress if they are in a position to do so. RN ships would offer such assistance if appropriate. In areas where there is a known risk of piracy, RN warships would take this into consideration and adjust their own level of readiness accordingly. Again, there are no RN assets dedicated specifically to counter narcotics activities. Military Forces are, however, made available upon request, when operational commitments and resources allow, to support the counter drugs activities of the law enforcement agencies. In recent years, such assistance has been provided in the Caribbean, United Kingdom waters, Atlantic and the Arabian Sea.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Navy resources are allocated to training former Eastern Bloc countries' armed forces. [92897]

  Dr. Moonie
  The United Kingdom has pursued for several years an active programme of defence assistance to countries of the former Eastern Bloc, as an integral part of our policy to build stability and security in the region. For geographical and historical reasons, defence assistance is focused principally on land forces but, where practical, the Royal Navy contributes to the overall programme. In particular, students from the former Eastern Bloc attend Royal Naval Initial Officer Training and Tactical and Staff Training at the Naval module of intermediate staff training courses in the United Kingdom. In addition, the Royal Navy also undertakes joint mine warfare training in the Baltic with Allies and the Baltic states; and is supporting the operational sea training of the Polish frigate Pulaski to bring her into NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic for 2004. There is also a well established programme of naval co-operation with Russia which includes some limited elements of training.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the specialist(a)anti-aircraft, (b)anti-ship and (c)anti-submarine capabilities of each class of (i) frigate and (ii) destroyer (A) being built and (B) already deployed by the Royal Navy. [92900]

  Mr. Ingram
  The in-service Type 22 (Broadsword Class) and Type 23 (Duke Class) Frigates have been designed primarily for the Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) role. To fulfil this, they have torpedo tubes fitted and Lynx or Merlin ASW helicopters embarked. Their anti-aircraft capability is provided by Sea Wolf missiles, and their anti-surface ship capability by Sea Skua missiles carried on Lynx helicopters, close-range guns and long-range Harpoon anti-surface missiles.

  The primary role of the in-service Type 42 Destroyer is to provide air defence for task group operations. For this, it is equipped with Sea Dart anti-aircraft missiles, which also have a secondary anti-surface ship capability. As with the Frigates, Type 42 Destroyers
  844W
  also have torpedo tubes and Lynx ASW aircraft for anti-submarine warfare, with anti-surface capability provided by Sea Skua missiles on Lynx aircraft.

  Equipped with the Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS), the prime role of the future Type 45 Destroyers will be anti-air Warfare. The Sea Skua missile, fitted to the Lynx helicopter, together with the ship's medium range gunnery system, will provide the anti-surface ship capability. Anti-submarine warfare capability will primarily be provided by the Lynx helicopter, equipped with Stingray anti-submarine torpedoes. The systems delivering these capabilities will be considered for progressive updates during the in-service life of the Type 45, which is designed with significant space and weight margins to meet emerging requirements.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a)Royal Naval and (b)Royal Marines shore establishments which have been (i) taken out of and (ii) brought into service since May 1997. [92960]

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

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on multi-national training programmes with allied forces for(a) the Royal Navy and (b)the Royal Marines. [92971]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and the other services, take part in a wide range of multinational and bilateral training exercises to prepare for operations and enhance interoperability with NATO and coalition partners. In addition, United Kingdom operational sea training and joint maritime courses (JMCs) are carried out with participants from a wide range of European navies, USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, with the aim of preparing units to operate together.

  The Royal Navy and Royal Marines maintain personnel exchange programmes with allies. In addition to core exercise activity, exercises are carried out with other nations in support of defence diplomacy initiatives, including Partnership for Peace countries. The Royal Navy and Royal Marines are also committed to the United Kingdom Netherlands Amphibious Force (UKNLAF), which has proved a model for amphibious co-operation for other nations in Europe. This standing force celebrates its 30th anniversary in 2003 and the capability has been maintained through regular shared training opportunities.

  Examples of major Royal Navy and Royal Marines' multinational and bilateral exercises in 2002 included an integrated air defence exercise with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia (five powers defence arrangements), exercise Destined Glory with other NATO members and exercise Blackhorse with the USA. Major elements of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines also participated in exercise Saif Sareea in late 2001, alongside the Omani armed forces.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Navy resources are allocated to duties in respect of Northern Ireland. [92972]
  845W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy (RN) has a squadron of three Hunt Class patrol craft based in Faslane, which support naval operations in Northern Ireland. One patrol craft, with 35 personnel onboard, is routinely deployed to patrol Northern Ireland territorial waters every day of the year. This ship is supported by a team of eight Royal Marines (RM) with four rigid inflatable boats to conduct the boarding of vessels entering or leaving NI ports. There are also 20 RN/RM personnel based in the Province who provide operational support to the patrol vessel.

  In addition, the Royal Navy have an Armed Forces Career Office in Palace Barracks, Holywood, consisting of one RN officer and four senior ratings. There is a staff of two officers and eight senior/junior ratings on HMS

  January 1997

  January 1998

  January 1999

  January 2000

  January 2001

  January 2002

  December 2002

  RN officer

  Male

  6800

  6640

  6540

  6450

  6460

  6440

  6440

  Female

  430

  450

  460

  500

  540

  570

  600

  RM officer

  Male

  700

  690

  690

  680

  680

  720

  750

  Female

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  RN other ranks

  Male

  28780

  27830

  27200

  26370

  25640

  24790

  24200

  Female

  2760

  2740

  2810

  2830

  2840

  2880

  2970

  RM other ranks

  Male

  6000

  6070

  5990

  5990

  6160

  6220

  6340

  Female

  30

  40

  50

  50

  60

  60

  80

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10, and include untrained strengths.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Afro-Caribbean and (b) Asian ethnic minority personnel there have been in (i) the Royal Navy and (ii) the Royal Marines in each year since 1997, broken down into (A) officers and (B) other ranks. [92974]

  Royal Navy1

  April 1997

  April 1998

  April 1999

  April 2000

  April 2001

  21 October 2001

  Officers

  Asian

  15

  10

  15

  15

  20

  20

  Black Caribbean

  10

  10

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Other Ranks

  Asian

  20

  20

  25

  25

  30

  30

  Black Caribbean

  55

  50

  50

  50

  45

  45

  Royal Marines

  Officers

  Asian

  —

  —

  ≈

  —

  —

  —

  Black Caribbean

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other Ranks

  Asian

  ≈

  ≈

  ≈

  5

  5

  ≈

  Black Caribbean

  15

  15

  20

  15

  15

  15

  1Royal Navy figures include QARNNS.

  2A re-survey of the ethnic origin of Armed Forces personnel is currently being undertaken using the categories contained in the Population Census of 2001. The last available figures using the previous ethnic categories are those of 1 October 2001.

  Notes:

  Figures shown are for UK Regular forces (including both trained and untrained), and therefore exclude Full Time Reserve Service personnel and Naval Activated Reservists.

  Asian consists of those classified as Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

  All figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  ≈denotes fewer than five

  —denotes zero
  846W
  Caroline (reserve training ship). The Joint Helicopter Force (Northern Ireland) has one RN officer on its staff, and there is one officer in the post of Assistant Naval Regional Officer (Northern Ireland) also based at HMS Caroline.

  A Sea King Helicopter Detachment (consisting of three helicopters and up to 40 personnel) deploys to the Province as operational requirements demand.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) male and (b)female personnel there have been in (i) the Royal Navy and (ii) the Royal Marines in each year since 1997, broken down into (A) officers and (B) other ranks. [92973]

  Dr. Moonie
  Royal Navy and Royal Marine strengths by gender 1997–2002 are shown in the table:

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of Asian and Black Caribbean personnel serving in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines are shown in the tables:
  847W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on educational opportunities for(a) officers and (b) other ranks in (i) the Royal Navy and (ii) the Royal Marines. [92975]

  Dr. Moonie
  Both the Royal Navy and Royal Marines offer a wide variety of educational opportunities for personnel as part of training, personal development or lifelong learning.

  There are a number of educational opportunities that are available to all, regardless of rank. These consist of a university short course programme, a variety of short courses available to personnel at no cost to the individual, an HM Forces scheme administered under the University of Cambridge Local Education Syndicate which provides world-wide access to IGCSE/GCE programmes and a forces distance learning scheme.

  For officers there is the opportunity to achieve accreditation for many Royal Navy and Royal Marines courses, examples include, supply officers, legal training for barristers and flying start degree scheme, for non graduate aircrew, plus sponsored post graduate study for selected officers and language training.

  Other ranks of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines undertake national vocational qualifications, and accreditation for many training courses with national bodies such as higher national diplomas. Training for Royal Marine musicians has also achieved accreditation to BA Music. In addition, a high percentage of Royal Navy personnel are corporately sponsored through foundation for modern apprenticeship programmes, including NVQs, key skills and technical certificates.

  Rough Terrain Fleet
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fully trained(a) operators and (b) maintenance engineers with operational experience of container handling rough terrain there are in his Department; and how many are fit for active service. [92663]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has sufficient trained and fit operators and engineers to run the Container Handling Rough Terrain fleet.

  Sea Cadet Corps
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role and structure of the Sea Cadet Corps. [92967]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Sea Cadet movement is a national youth charity based on the customs and traditions of the Royal Navy. It provides young people from 10 to 18-years-old with life skills of teamwork, self-respect and social responsibility. It has a training programme ranging from seamanship and maritime skills to music, cookery and computing, and aims to provide teenagers with a serious, but fun, alternative to the youth leisure industry at the heart of the local community.

  The Sea Cadet Corps has approximately 400 units. Each unit is a registered charity in its own right run by a management committee and supported by the Sea Cadet Association (SCA) which has branches around the country. The SCA is a fundraising charity which, along with the Ministry of Defence, provides essential
  848W
  resources for the corps. The MOD provides financial support for the running of the SCA HQ and a national training organisation.

  Each Sea Cadet Unit becomes a member of the corps by act of affiliation with the SCA. It then becomes eligible for the umbrella support provided by MOD and the SCA, including management through six area offices.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a)professional and (b)voluntary personnel there are in the Sea Cadet Corps. [92968]

  Mr. Ingram
  The professional personnel associated with the Sea Cadet Corps are the Royal Navy and Civil Service personnel employed nationally in support of the Corps, and employees of the Sea Cadet Association (SCA) which is the fund raising charity to which each Sea Cadet Unit is affiliated. There are 21 RN and Civil Service personnel and 204 full and part-time employees of the SCA.

  The voluntary personnel associated with the Corps are the uniformed and civilian instructors that provide the training at the individual Sea Cadet Units. There are 3,247 uniformed instructors and 1,562 civilian instructors.

  Sennybridge Range
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers from what regiments have been(a)killed and (b)injured at the Sennybridge Range in each year since 1990; what safety recommendations were made by the Special Investigation Branch and the Health and Safety Executive on each occasion; and what steps he has taken to ensure these were acted upon. [92783]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of soldiers killed at the Sennybridge Range since 1990 and their regiments is as follows:

  Regiment

  Year

  Number of deaths

  Royal Regiment of Wales

  1991

  1

  Cheshire Regiment

  1992

  1

  Royal Green Jackets

  1993

  1

  Queen's Gurkha Engineers

  1995

  1

  Grenadier Guards

  1998

  1

  A number of agencies may be involved in the investigation of range incidents resulting in death or injury including the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch (RMP SIB) and Land Accident Investigation Team (LAIT), who are responsible for liaising with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as required. Further work is required to identify the number of injuries and any resulting safety recommendations, and I will write to my hon. Friend on these points and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Although the RMP SIB would normally attend the scene of a range incident resulting in death or serious injury, they would only carry out an investigation if a criminal offence or negligence is suspected and, in the case of a death, if responsibility for the investigation was

  849W
  ceded by the civilian police. It is not, however, within the remit of RMP SIB to make recommendations about matters of range safety.

  Service Chaplains
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of the chaplaincy was in each of the three services in the last 12 months, broken down by(a)uniformed and (b)civilian chaplains. [92676]

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

  Suez Medal
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the sub-committee chaired by General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank to report regarding the issue of a Suez Canal Zone medal; and if he will make a statement. [93632]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 13 January 2003,Official Report, column 404W to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke).

  Warships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his(a) current and (b) expected warship orders are for the Royal Navy by 2015; and what their scheduled completion dates are. [92894]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom has the largest programme of new warship building for decades.

  Current warship orders are for:
  Type 45
  We have ordered six Type 45 Anti-Air Warfare Destroyers within a planned class size of up to 12. The ships are due to enter service between late 2007 and the middle of the next decade.
  Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary)
  Four Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliaries) are under construction. The first vessel is expected in service in 2004, with the last entering service in late 2005.
  850W
  Landing Platform Dock Replacement (LPDR)
  Two LPDRs are on order. The first is planned to enter service by July of this year. The programme for the second is still under discussion with the contractor, but the current expectation is that she will enter service by the end of next year.
  Hydrographic and Oceanographic Survey Vessels
  The first Echo Class Survey Vessel is expected to be in service in May 2003. The second vessel is expected to be in service in December 2003.
  Auxiliary Oilers
  The two Auxiliary Oilers were accepted off contract in October 2002 and are due to enter service this spring.
  Astute
  A first buy of Astute submarines is currently on contract. The in service date is not now expected to be before late 2006, subject to confirmation by the contractor.
  Offshore Patrol Vessels
  MOD has contracted with Vosper Thornycroft to provide three Offshore Patrol Vessels. VT will own and support the vessels and lease them to MOD. They are due to be become progressively available to the RN between February and December this year.

  Detailed ordering plans for the period up to 2015 remain subject to review in the normal way. However, future planned orders include:
  Future Aircraft Carrier
  Two vessels are planned, with in service dates of 2012 and 2015. It is expected that a contract award will be made in spring 2004.
  Astute
  On current plans, we intend to place orders for further Astute Submarines which we expect to enter service from the next decade onwards.
  Primary Casualty Receiving Ship
  A contract is expected to be placed around the middle of the present decade and the vessel is expected to enter service in the latter part of the decade.
  Future Surface Combatant (FSC)
  Our present planning assumption is that the first of class will be in service around the middle of the next decade.
  Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS)
  We plan to introduce a MARS capability around the turn of the decade. The characteristics of the relevant platform(s) have yet to be determined.

  A formal announcement of the placing of these orders will be made at the appropriate time.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud Inspection (Telford and Wrekin Council)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Telford and Wrekin Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The BFI undertook its first inspection of Telford and Wrekin Council's housing benefits administration and counter-fraud activity during October and December 1998. BFI reported that the authority needed to develop a more secure and accurate benefits administration system and improve the overall quality of its benefits service.

  This follow-up inspection considered the progress made by the authority since the first inspection and in particular its implementation of recommendations. BFI commends the progress made by the council in undertaking a major restructuring exercise to bring together the management of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. This had resulted in clear focus on customer service and processing, replacing IT systems and introducing a system for document image processing.

  Recovery of overpayments was identified in the first inspection as the council's weakest area. This follow-up report finds that improvement in identification, classification and recording of overpayments are still needed.

  In the first inspection, BFI found problems in the way claimants' residency and identity was verified. This follow-up report finds that the council has made significant improvements in verification, and considers that the council is well placed to implement the Verification Framework.

  This report finds that positive steps have been taken to address previous concerns in the areas of IT, post opening and cheque dispatch. In particular, a quality control team has been created to ensure that accuracy checks are made.

  This report also finds that counter-fraud efforts have increased significantly since the first inspection with more proactive investigation work. More staff have been deployed and staff training has improved. In addition, the council has introduced a case management system.

  In 2000–01, Telford and Wrekin Council administered approximately £38.7 million in housing benefits. This is approximately 21 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.
  34WS
  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Benefit Fraud Inspection (Fife Council)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Fife Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  This report finds that the council has responded to the challenges of re-organisation. However, there is considerable scope for further improvement particularly in verifying claims. BFI found significant weaknesses in verifying identity and residence as well as income and capital.

  Following BFI inspection, the council reported working towards implementing two modules of the Verification Framework by April 2003. To do this effectively, the council needs to draw up a detailed implementation plan, showing key milestone dates and clear roles and responsibilities for those involved.

  The report finds that the council's claim form is broadly effective in gathering the right information and is reasonably straightforward to understand and complete. However, there is room for further improvement.

  The council plans to make more use of prosecution and administrative penalties against fraudsters, and to support this crucial change the council is creating a dedicated prosecution team.

  The report finds that the council needs to improve the recovery of overpayments, including those incurred through fraud, from rent rebate claimants.

  In 2000–01, Fife Council administered approximately £81 million in housing benefits.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

CABINET OFFICE

  Delegations/Authorisations made in 2002 under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  No such delegations or authorisations were made during 2002.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  English Fisheries Package
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  At the meeting of the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers in December a number of important decisions were taken on fisheries measures to help restore depleted stocks. Necessarily they include real new constraints on fishing and the Government recognises that they may impact on some coastal fisheries communities. We have already promised to respond with financial assistance which will address the needs, and promote sustainability, both in the fishing industry and local communities, and I am now able to set this out in more detail.

  We propose to provide grants to help vessel owners who wish to do so, to leave the industry by decommissioning their boats. An SI will be laid before Parliament for approval. The intention is to remove 15–20 per cent. of the English fleet's fishing effort on cod in the North Sea and West of Scotland, in order to bring the fleet capacity better into line with fishing opportunities. Similar schemes are proposed by the Scottish Executive and in Northern Ireland. Decommissioning of this scale in the UK fleet will secure the 15 day per month allowance for fishing in the new interim EU scheme for limiting time at sea. Detailed rules for targeting the scheme and for assessing applications for grant will be developed in discussion with the English catching industry shortly. A tendering process is expected to apply and the cost in England is likely to reach £5 million.

  The EU decided in December that to improve control of fisheries the requirement to install satellite tracking equipment on vessels should be extended to 15–24 metre boats. To help fishermen Defra will provide £400,000 over two years to allow 40 per cent. grant to be paid towards the cost of the terminals and their installation.

  There will also be help for fishing-dependent communities. Regional Development Agencies, which have responsibility for economic development and regeneration in England, are already engaged, in strong local partnerships, targeted on the economic development of coastal communities.

  It is important that fishermen have access to the help that is provided by local Business Links, Learning and Skills Councils and JobCentre Plus. I have therefore asked the RDAs, working with and coordinating the activity of these partnerships, to urgently ensure that arrangements are in place to ensure the effective delivery of assistance and guidance for local fishing communities particularly affected, taking full account of the recent decisions and their impact on those communities.

  RDAs and other agencies have substantial resources to address their economic and social responsibilities. However, where necessary, Defra will provide additional resources for facilitation to ensure that the services which are most needed are identified in those fishing communities which are dependent on the fish stocks of the North Sea and West of Scotland.

  The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has emphasised the importance of strengthening the involvement of the fishing industry in
  36WS
  the assessment of stocks, in close partnership with our scientists. We warmly welcome their approach, which will help to ensure a fuller appreciation of the state of and prospects for fish stocks. We will provide additional funds for this purpose and will consult them on how this initiative might best be taken forward.

  An additional £lmillion will be provided to finance both the facilitation arrangements described above and industry involvement with the scientists, as well as providing the potential for other priority initiatives in recognition of the English industry's transitional problems.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Elections Review
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  We are looking at all sorts of ways to encourage more people to use their vote, including using modern technology such as mobile phones and the internet. I believe the electorate of the 21st Century expect a cycle of local elections that is clear and readily understood, so we have asked the Electoral Commission to look at options for simplifying the current arrangements.

  This follows the commitment in the Local Government White Paper—"Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services"—to invite the Electoral Commission to propose options to simplify the current cycle of local elections. I have today asked the Electoral Commission to undertake a review under Section 6(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

  The Electoral Commission will consult widely during the review and will identify options for change in a report to be submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by the end of January next year. The options may include proposals for changes in councillors' terms of office and local authorities' electoral arrangements. The Commission's report will include an assessment of the desirability and practicality of the options identified. It will also recommend how the proposed options might be implemented.

  As part of the review the Electoral Commission will consider the relationship between local government elections and other elections such as elections to this House and to the European Parliament. The Commission will also look at cases where elections currently fall in close proximity of time to each other, and the combination (or otherwise) of local government elections with other elections. The views of the Electoral Commission have been sought separately on the proposal to combine the European and local government elections in 2004.

  The Terms of Reference ask that the Electoral Commission have regard to the extent to which an option for change:
  would improve councils' democratic legitimacy and local accountability;
  would enable the electorate and public generally to easily understand when elections are to be held and their purpose;

  37WS
  would be likely to improve participation of the local electorate in the electoral process, including participation of specific groups—such as young people and ethnic minorities—where participation in the process is particularly low;
  would be likely to facilitate the effective management of local authorities and particularly performance improvements in the case of local authorities categorised as "poor performers" in the Comprehensive Performance Assessments; and
  might be facilitated by possible new ways of polling, including increased postal voting, electronic counting and multi channel e-voting.

DEFENCE

  Defence Sixth Form College
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  Our intention to develop a Defence Sixth Form College was initially announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on 27 March 2001,Official Report, columns 547–48W, on the outcome of the Defence Training Review. On 24 January 2002, Official Report, column 994W, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave the House an update on the project, at which time no decisions had been taken on where the College would be built, or how it would be procured.

  I am now able to inform the House that we have concluded that a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) offers best value for money for provision of the facilities and services required by the College. We have selected the Minerva consortium, which comprises Interserve plc, HSBC and TQ Education and Training Ltd, as the Preferred Bidder, and are now engaged in negotiations to conclude a contract.

  This being the site selected by the Preferred Bidder, the Defence Sixth Form College will be built on the site of the disused barracks outside Woodhouse, near Loughborough. It will open in September 2005, at which time the present Army Sixth Form College at Welbeck Abbey will close.

HEALTH

  Fertilisation and Embryology (Donor Information)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)
  Following a consultation exercise carried out between December 2001 and July 2002, we propose to lay regulations before Parliament, so that people conceived as a result of sperm, egg or embryo donation will be able to obtain more information about their donors in the future. The information will not identify the donors. We hope that donor-conceived people are all part of loving families but we also understand that at some point in their lives they may decide they want to know more about their genetic origins and we think it is right that they should be able to ask for non-identifying information.
  38WS
  We propose that the regulations enable the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to provide non-identifying information about donors to donor-conceived people aged 18 or over who request that information and who were born after the HFEA's register came into effect in 1991. In practice the information would be available from 2010 (eighteen years after the register came into operation).

  To enable standardised information to be available in the future, we will seek approval for the regulations to require the HFEA to collect standardised non-identifying information with immediate effect.

  We will also explore the possibility of setting up a pilot scheme for a voluntary contact register for donor-conceived people aged 18 and over.

  The summary of responses to the consultation exercise is on the Department of Health's website at www.gov.uk/consultations.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Water
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short)
  The UN has designated 2003 as the International Year of Freshwater, acknowledging that global water issues need to be placed high on the international agenda. They will be discussed at the Global Water Conference in Kyoto in March and we expect that there will also be discussion at the G8 Summit in Evian in June. This statement sets out briefly the Government's view of the key issues and our approach to addressing them.

  The provision, use and management of water are central to both sustainable development and poverty reduction. Nearly two thirds of the world's population will be living in countries of significant water stress by the year 2025. 1.2 billion people lack access to safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. Environmental needs for water are vital. Some 1.3 billion people continue to earn less than US$1/day and 800 million of them regularly go hungry. Hunger and poverty are closely linked. Agricultural water management can and does play a significant role in reducing hunger and poverty in the developing world.

  Meeting the water supply and sanitation targets within the Millennium Development Goals is estimated to require an additional US$9 billion to US$30 billion per year. Meeting funding needs for water resources and integrated water resources management would increases this amount to around $180 billion per year. The largest share of investment will need to be met from public and private resources in each country. Development assistance has a role to play through direct or indirect support of Government and civil society programmes, through helping to build the capacity of national institutions, and, in poorer countries, through providing a lever for other forms of finance, thus helping bridge the funding gap.

  Our overall strategy, set out in the DFID Target Strategy Paper on Water published in 2001, is to seek to focus international policy making in water resources, irrigation, water supply and sanitation on the reduction

  39WS
  of poverty. We have concentrated our efforts in improving the management and allocation of water resources and in increasing access to water and sanitation to achieve improved health and sustainable livelihoods for the poor. The UK played a leading role at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in the agreement of a new target on sanitation as one of the Millennium Development Goals. We are equally committed to supporting implementation of this and the existing MDG on access to safe water, and to the commitments made at WSSD for better management of water resources.

  Our emphasis in addressing issues in the water sector has changed over the years. More effective use of development assistance means moving away from funding a proliferation of isolated and uncoordinated donor-led projects to providing support to build sustainable improvements in local capacity in a way that is consistent with poverty reduction strategies drawn up by developing countries themselves. We have moved from bilateral assistance towards providing greater input into global efforts at addressing these issues. In the last three years this process has accelerated.

  In March 2000 at the World Water Forum in The Hague I announced that we planned to double our bilateral contribution to the sector over the next three years. At that time we estimated our expenditure in the sector (based on 1998–99 figures, which were the latest available) at £50 million a year. Our expenditure bilaterally on water and related activities is estimated at £82 million in 1999–00, £91 million in 2000–01 and £87 million in 2001–02. Our new commitments to the water sector totalled £86 million in 2001–02. Some of our spending, for example, direct budget support, is not easily attributable to particular sectors but will
  40WS
  nevertheless contribute to sectoral goals. A small proportion of our budget support is likely to help finance activities in the water sector.

  In our work in the water sector we aim to strengthen governance, build institutional capacity, raise awareness and promote sharing of knowledge.

  We are therefore supporting global programmes and processes that reach down to the poorest through international agencies, through new forms of partnerships between the public sector, civil society and the private sector, such as the EU Water Initiative and Partners for Water & Sanitation. We continue to be open to good opportunities to invest in the water sector, consistent with our broader approach of supporting country-owned poverty reduction strategies through which developing countries establish their own priorities. Multilateral institutions which we support, such as the World Bank, the Regional Development Banks, UNICEF and the European Community, also make very significant investments in water-related projects and programmes.

  We are seeking more effective ways of mobilising financing at a global level that are linked to the development of effective water sector strategies and policies. We work with other donors to develop new financing facilities, to address the complex of market and government failures that deter private financing in water infrastructure.

  We are supporting global resource centres for water resource management and for environmental health, which, for the first time, bring together a network of developed and developing country based technical and social institutions. These resource centres seek to develop best practice and to share international expertise so as to ensure that the best knowledge finds its way down to national and local levels.

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.

Cannabis and Mental Health
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the light of new evidence published in the British Medical Journal dated 23rd November 2002 they believe that the use of cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government accept that there is a relationship between heavy cannabis use and the risk of experiencing a number of mental health problems, although these are mostly short lived. The British Medical Journal papers strengthen the evidence for its potential role in schizophrenia. The editorial points out that cannabis as a cause of schizophrenia remains unproven. The Government will continue to update policy and guidance informed by carefully considered expert analysis of the evidence.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. The article to which I refer in my Question bears the subheading,
"More evidence establishes clear link between use of cannabis and psychiatric illness".
Does that not show clearly that cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia and not only for those who already have mental health problems?
In the light of that evidence, is it not horrifying that cannabis use is soaring; and should not the Government in its publicity make plain that cannabis, far from being relatively harmless, is a cause of mental illness as well as being five times more likely than tobacco to cause lung cancer?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the BMJ article is an interesting article. It reports the association between the level of cannabis use and the risk of development of depression and anxiety. It shows evidence that prior cannabis use is significantly associated with an increased risk of subsequently developing schizophrenia. What has not yet been shown beyond doubt is whether there is a causal relationship. But, in relation to the general point made by the noble Lord, I am concerned at the instance of cannabis use in this country, as I am concerned about the use of other harmful drugs in this country. We shall endeavour in our preventive and educational programmes to make the point the noble Lord raised.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that heavy and continuous consumption
1000
of cannabis in itself may give rise to delusions and hallucinations, which are symptoms that closely resemble those of schizophrenia? Does he also accept, as is implied by the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and his reply that there is nevertheless growing evidence to suggest that schizophrenia may be precipitated by its use, in particular in genetically disposed individuals? Is it not therefore the Government's duty to publicise the nature of this risk?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that we need to publicise the risk of using cannabis as part of our educational and preventive programmes. Clearly, the current state of research and evidence points to the physical and mental health risks. What has not been proven is the direct causal relationship between the use of cannabis and schizophrenia. But the general points raised by the noble Lord are apposite.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I think that the Minister is agreeing that there is an increased risk of mental health problems and certainly physical health problems due to the carcinogenic effect of cannabis. Can he therefore explain the Department of Health's deafening silence on the Home Office's reckless policy of abandonment of protection through the criminal law?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not think that that is a very accurate reading of the situation. The Home Office has taken advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The Government have made absolutely clear that use of all controlled drugs, including cannabis, is harmful. But drug laws must accurately reflect the relative harm of drugs if a credible message is to be put out to the public, including young people. That is why the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised that, although cannabis is harmful, it is not as harmful as other drugs currently classified in class B and therefore recommended that it should be reclassified as a class C drug. But its use will still be illegal. There will still be severe penalties for trafficking. The police will retain the power to arrest for possession linked to aggravated public order. That is proportionate advice from an expert advisory committee.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have plenty of time. Perhaps we may start with my noble friend Lord Mackenzie and then the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, bearing in mind the dangers of driving while under the influence of cannabis, can my noble friend say whether there has been any progress on the development of a roadside testing device that detects cannabis in blood?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend that, although I am happy to write to him about the matter.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister is correct to separate the criminal law and its treatment of cannabis from the health and educational aspects relating to cannabis as done by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Runciman report. Should not the health education unit be given more resources, so that it can credibly put across to young people the health problems associated with the use of cannabis?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to the need to emphasise and develop health prevention programmes, including getting the right messages across to young people. We have a local drug education and prevention budget of around £13 million in 2002–03. A great deal of work is being undertaken and co-operation between the NHS, local education authorities, schools and the police is of a high order. Of course we encourage them to work together in this area.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is considerable potential value in the use of cannabis as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of certain diseases, such as disseminated sclerosis?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the point that my noble friend makes. Research is currently being undertaken into some of the medical benefits of certain derivatives of cannabis. The results from those studies will be considered in due course—we believe that some results will be available later in the year. If any of the trials are successful, application can then be made to the Medicines Control Agency for a licence.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that cannabis can be used in several different strengths? Will liquid cannabis still be a class A drug?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, so far as I am aware, there are issues concerning the strength of the cannabis being used. However, the recommendation of the advisory council to reclassify cannabis applies to all cannabis preparations.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one problem is that cannabis is now supplied by illegal providers and, as a result, the strength and quality of the drug is unknown and it comes with no health warning? Does my noble friend even remotely accept that, if it were available through controlled legal outlets, it could be of known potency and could even carry an accompanying health warning, giving advice such as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Walton?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the implication of my noble friend's question is that
1002
the use of cannabis and, indeed, other drugs should be decriminalised. The Government believe that it would be wrong to do so and that it would give all the wrong signals. A MORI poll carried out for the Police Foundation in March 2000 found that 30 per cent of adults cited illegality as a reason for not taking drugs.

Child Protection
2.44 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: 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 a patron of the child's charity, Kidscape.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what priority is given to child protection by the police.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, child protection needs to be a priority. The National Policing Plan makes that clear. It stipulates that chief officers should review their local policing plans to ensure that child protection is given the appropriate priority. The Victoria Climbié inquiry report, published earlier today, highlights the urgency with which we must address that issue.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Does he agree that, while the NSPCC has welcomed many of the proposals in the forthcoming Sexual Offences Bill to improve the protection of children, it is right to be concerned that, if the police are not able to dedicate appropriate resources, little impact will be made? Will be therefore confirm that child protection will be made a national priority for the police and the probation services, as recommended in the joint report of the chief inspectors in October, and that it will receive a high priority in the National Policing Plan?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can confirm that it is a national priority. The National Policing Plan requires chief officers to reflect the fact that it is a national priority in their local policing plans by including child protection strategies from 1st April. More detailed recommendations are contained in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, published today, on which my noble friend Lord Hunt will make a Statement immediately after Questions. The report focuses on precisely what needs to be done. The issue is incredibly important and the Victoria Climbié inquiry indicates its urgency.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm today's report from the Met that large numbers of police from the Child Protection Unit are being removed in order to deal with more than 1,200 cases of people identified on the Internet as paedophiles? Effectively, does that mean that there is less protection for children now? Will he enter into discussions with

1003
the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to see how far it is possible to offer children all the protection that is necessary?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the National Policing Plan makes it clear that child protection must be a priority. The Laming report, which my noble friend will deal with later this afternoon, specifies what that means in practice. The Metropolitan Police have reorganised their child protection arrangements in advance of the publication of the Laming report. Individual police forces must determine where the priorities lie as between operation and individual cases of child protection. But we all agree the importance that must be attached to the protection of children in individual cases.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has just said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, does he further agree that the leaking of a list, apparently from police sources, to the Sunday Times is very serious? Can he assure the House that steps will be taken to investigate the source of that leak?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the details of any leak and I should need to make inquiries about it. Plainly, it is inappropriate to leak that type of information to the press. Such steps as need to be taken will be taken. The focus of this Question relates to child protection, which I believe has more to do with the issues raised by the Laming report than with the kind of issue raised by the noble Viscount.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister say what correlation he believes exists between the downloading of child pornography from the Internet and active involvement in child abuse?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe there is a link in the sense that people who download child pornography may well be connected in some way with activities which are worse than simply downloading pornography. I believe that there are differing views as to the scientific link, but plainly there is a link.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I also declare an interest as president of the Welsh Trust for the Prevention of Abuse. The work of the trust follows a slightly different tack but I believe that it is significant in the question of child protection. Does my noble friend agree that it is important to ensure awareness among children of the many difficulties or potential dangers that they face? In that respect, is he aware of the much acclaimed video produced by the trust that I mentioned? The video will go into all schools in Wales to make children aware of the potential dangers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is important to make children aware of the dangers. I do not know of the video to which my noble friend refers and I would welcome the opportunity to view it.

Retailers: First Aid Awareness
2.50 p.m.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that large retailers are aware of the medical procedures in the event of customers or staff collapsing due for instance to epilepsy or diabetes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we have no specific information about large retailers' awareness towards customers in this matter as there is no legal requirement to provide such assistance. The Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 set out employers' responsibilities. Employers must provide adequate and appropriate first aid facilities and equipment for employees who are injured or who become ill at work. The regulations do not require first aid provision for members of the public. However, research has found that on the whole employers, including retailers, are aware of their responsibilities.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords. I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. I know that she has had some difficulty with the way in which I have phrased my Question. I thank her for dealing with the issue in relation to staff.
I was concerned about a report that I received from a member of the staff of this House. Over a week ago he was in a supermarket and suffered a hypoglycaemic episode, which describes a dangerously low blood-sugar level, from which he subsequently collapsed. He woke up in hospital and later discovered that he had been put into an alleyway outside the premises by the staff of the supermarket. Thanks to an observant member of the public, an ambulance was called and after treatment he recovered. Does the Minister agree that that demonstrates a need for further education for the staff and management of businesses such as supermarkets? I know that this matter is somewhat outside her scope, but can she offer some encouragement and guidance on it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Viscount, gives the House an appalling and horrifying story that could happen to any of us who suffered a cardiac arrest or a similar problem when staff were not in a position to recognise the cause. Staff may assume that one's condition is due to something other than a medical condition and as a result bypass it. I can give the noble Viscount some help.
Although under health and safety legislation employers have a responsibility only towards their employees, this autumn the Health and Safety Executive will publish a discussion document on the provision of first aid in the work place. Together with my colleagues at the Department of Health— my noble friend Lord Hunt is listening to what I say—I shall ensure that a copy of that discussion document is sent

1005
to all major retailers. I shall also ensure that it includes questions, thus seeking their views as to what provision they can make for members of the public who may be in such a horrifying position as described by the noble Viscount.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recollect that a year ago I was smitten by a similar event and was carried unconscious from the palace where I was picked up by an ambulance? Senior staff of the Law Lords department appeared to know exactly what to do and happily I am here today.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are all the richer for the presence of the noble Lord. It struck me that your Lordships may be interested in the situation in the Palace of Westminster. To allay the fears of noble Lords, there are 18 trained first-aiders in the House of Lords and an additional 71 trained first-aiders in the House of Commons who are available to both Houses. I am delighted to report that there are also 42 people trained to use defibrillators, so I am confident that if any of us experiences a sudden cardiac arrest, a hypoglycaemic attack or a collapse we shall have the best possible support and service. That support and service is also offered to members of the public.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former trustee of Diabetes UK and as someone who has type II diabetes. Is my noble friend aware that although the health and safety first-aid regulations cover employees, the Health and Safety Executive has issued guidance to undertakings that provide a service to the public, such as places of entertainment and shops? Will she encourage the Health and Safety Executive to make that more widely understood and available particularly to large retailers?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, I had picked up that point. I understand that local authority licences require that there is adequate first aid provision for members of the public in places of public entertainment, such as cinemas, sports halls or the like. As the noble Lord has rightly identified, the problem is that health and safety at work applies to employees and there is no clear legal responsibility for members of the public who may collapse in a shop or on the street. There is a duty of care for ambulances to respond to a call for help, but there is no duty on any of us to summon that ambulance.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, while I welcome the proposed discussion document, can the noble Baroness say whether it will consider not only the provision of equipment and training but also the provision of suitable notices for anyone who may happen to be on the spot when such an incident occurs?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall do my best to ensure that that is included.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I declare an interest in Epilepsy Action. Is the Minister aware that the generic first aid courses undertaken by the staff of such stores do not include how to deal with epileptic seizures or diabetic comas? Perhaps it would be helpful if guidance were issued stating that at least one member of staff in such large buildings should have that special training. Does the Minister agree that people who suffer such illnesses should helpfully wear clearly visible Medic Alert bracelets or necklaces so that staff can identify them?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the second point, clearly it is not appropriate to have an information leaflet inside one's wallet; it needs to be obviously available to staff so that they know that there is a medical cause for the collapse. On the training in epileptic seizures, the point of the discussion document is that the current first aid provisions are based on regulations drawn up in 1981. At the moment that provides for extensive training initially—four days—which can be costly to small employers, but there is then a problem with skill fade. Issues about how to keep training up to date, whether we can extend it to the use of defibrillators, the use of medicines, Epipens and the like as well as the treatment of epilepsy, are precisely the points that we hope to explore in the discussion document.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, would it be a good idea if more first aid training, including training in diabetes and epilepsy, were undertaken in schools and colleges so that a wider proportion of the populace had such expertise? Is it true that often when people pass out, other people believe that they are drunk, leading to someone being placed in an alley?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I spoke more euphemistically about the matter, but I am sure that your Lordships understood what I was saying. Many schools offer some first aid training, but there are something like 1,500 first aid training providers led by St John Ambulance which trains 500,000 volunteers a year, and the British Red Cross which trains another 200,000 a year. It is found that those who volunteer to undertake first aid training as employees often do so because it is of value to their family circumstances. We need to find the most effective way to keep such skills up to date. That is one reason why we shall be seeking views in the discussion document.

Electricity Transmission
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ezra: 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 Micropower, which promotes the small-scale generation of electricity.

1007
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to reduce losses in the transmission of electricity, estimated at £600 million a year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, on 17th January Ofgem announced that it had approved a modification to the Balancing and Settlement Code to implement zonal transmission losses on an average and ex ante basis throughout England and Wales by April 2004. The authority believes that short-term benefits would accrue of approximately £200,000 to £1.5 million on annual transmission losses of £90.8 million, by incentivising companies into making more efficient decisions on the siting of demand and generation in the future. My honourable colleague the Minister for Energy and Construction announced last Thursday that the DTI would be undertaking a consultation on the applicability of zonal transmission losses on a GB basis.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am pleased to hear of those initiatives. Is the noble Lord aware that transmission losses at the present level add £12 to the average electricity bill and account for 5 million tonnes of carbon emissions? The Government's target is a reduction in emissions of 30 million tonnes, but those losses contribute substantially to the problem.
Will the noble Lord accept that, in addition to improvements in the distribution networks, more effort should be made to site generating plant near consumers, including siting on consumers' premises, which would eliminate transmission losses?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question of transmission losses is a difficult one. The figure of £90 million, to which I referred, is the figure for transmission losses on the main transmission system. Obviously, there are additional losses on the local distribution system, but it is difficult to do anything about those by resiting generators.
There are some gains to be made, although they do not look so great, due to the resiting of generators. The figures that I gave—from £200,000 to £1.5 million, with an upside figure of £5 million—are, in one sense, quite large. However, compared to the £60 billion cost of electricity, they are not a major issue.
Although the proposal is of benefit to embedded generators because it saves the transmission, we must also take into account the fact that it could be unfavourable to the location of renewable sources of energy, particularly offshore wind, or the generation of energy in distant places. There are benefits in both directions.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, does not the Minister's reply suggest that the time has come to review the workings of the new electricity trading arrangements, the principal effect of which seems to have been to make previously profitable undertakings unprofitable
1008
and vice versa? Does the Minister understand that the loss of power to individuals and regions would subject the citizens of this country to serious problems that would be unwelcome to Her Majesty's Government at this time?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, NETA has removed the distortions of the old pool and prices problem. It has led not to chaos but to a fall in prices. That is appropriate in circumstances in which there is too much capacity. We propose to bring in the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements for the whole of GB, and we hope that that will also lead to a fall in prices in Scotland.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the proposals for reducing expenditure that the Minister has just referred to based on improvements to transformer systems or on more use of overhead lines, although there must be restrictions on the siting of pylons?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the answer is "Neither". It is a supposition that the generators will either resite the generating plants in clue course or will realign them so that there is less loss on existing lines between the point at which the electricity comes on the line and the point at which it goes off to the supplier.

British National Party
3.3 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
What lessons should be learnt from the British National Party victory in Halifax last Thursday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the British National Party won the support of only one in 10 eligible voters, and the party holds only five council seats out of around 20,000 in England and Wales. However, the result in Halifax is a matter of concern. Even limited successes for far-Right parties show that we cannot be complacent about community cohesion and race relations in Britain. We must persuade people that solutions do not reside in the dangerous ideas put forward by far-Right groups.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, particularly the comments at the end. The BNP win in Halifax last Thursday is the latest in a small number of disturbing successes for that fascist party that appear, at least in part, to be the result of the present national climate of completely unjustified fear and hysteria about refugees, whipped up by the tabloid media and fanned by some politicians. Have the Government considered whether some of the provocative, racist lies that have appeared in parts of the press should be referred to the Press Complaints Commission or made the subject of prosecutions for racial incitement? Is the frightening situation helped by some new Labour politicians, who have wrongly referred to schools being "swamped" by asylum

1009
seekers and now threaten to scrap this country's obligations under international human rights legislation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that was a long supplementary question that, step-by-step, turned to other areas. I shall try to respond to some of the issues raised.
The public have the right to make complaints to the Press Complaints Commission, if they think that some media reporting is extreme and offends against the PCC's code. The Times described some recent media coverage as hyperbolic. That is an accurate description of the equation that is made between asylum seekers and terrorists. It is a dangerously overlapped equation. I know that the Commission for Racial Equality is concerned about the situation and is monitoring it.
Oblique reference was made to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He has been absolutely right in signalling that, as a nation, we had to make two issues clear: we are committed to providing protection to refugees from oppression and torture, while being realistic, clear and tough in stamping out abuse and making it harder for illegal immigrants to come into the country.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a contributing factor to the relative success of neo-fascist parties in places such as Burnley, Blackburn and Halifax is the misleading and deliberate distortion of facts in those areas? Does he also agree that the Government's initiatives—urban regeneration, neighbourhood renewal, local strategic partnerships—offer a way for the nation to combat such wicked and evil people? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will do their best to get the truth out in areas that, unfortunately, have been neglected for decades?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, ensuring that conditions are in place that will allow all in our society to prosper is, undoubtedly, a part of any proper strategy for stopping the growth of racism, xenophobia or Islamophobia. I include poor white communities in that, as much as others. Such conditions are crucial, which is why the neighbourhood renewal, social exclusion and community cohesion work that is being done throughout government to strengthen capacity in such areas and promote dialogue and understanding is vital.
I also mark the importance of local leadership in that context. Without going into detail, I will say that particular local issues will always contribute to the results of such elections. That is not to take away from the responsibility of the Government and each of the major national political parties to consider again whether they give people confidence that mainstream politics can address their concerns.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is it not likely that the BNP cashed in on the public perception that the Government have lost control of the asylum situation? Is there not a lesson for the Government to learn?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is a lesson for the Government to learn, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been clear, brave and courageous in acknowledging that we must put across to the public the fact that we are getting to grips with the asylum situation. I shall not go into detail—I am happy to do so on another occasion—about the measures that are in place, following the legislation, to make entry harder and stamp out abuse.
At the same time, we do not aid community cohesion or create the sort of society that we want by extremism—in this place or anywhere else—that implies that all asylum seekers are terrorists or by creating that impression. At that level, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is correct: some of the extremist reporting that has taken place will, perhaps, have played into the BNP's hands.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, under any electoral system bar Britain's bizarre first-past-the-post system, the BNP would not have come within a country mile of winning that seat in Halifax? Will he change the system?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that if I said that it would be done by Tuesday, the House would not believe me. So the answer is no. It is also noted that the contribution of independent parties in these elections was one of the products that led to the result. I shall say no more at this point.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected Member of Calderdale Council, of which Halifax is part. Would the Minister agree that there are several lessons to be learnt from that result, and the disaffection that led to the result last Thursday? In particular, it is far from helpful that, because of our system of organising local government finance, the council has to consult on the 14 per cent council tax rise, for no discernible increase in services, at six or seven times the rate of inflation. Furthermore, Calderdale is one of only two metropolitan councils out of 36 that is denied benefit from neighbourhood renewal funding. Should not the criteria for that be looked at afresh?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am disappointed by that question. It implies that the result of that election was the product of the local government finance settlement by this Government. While we should take responsibility for many things, I do not think that is a reasonable or fair inference in this case. There will never be enough money for local government, in terms of what it wants; there will never be a system of local government finance distribution that commands universal support. Members opposite know that as well as we do on our Benches.
If we should want to find local issues, the large increase in members' allowances had substantially played to the BNP's position, plus the failure to resign

1011
voluntarily of a councillor who had not turned up for six months. Those are factors which are very much within the hands of local parties and the council itself.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind, that although not all asylum seekers are terrorists, some of them are not genuine asylum seekers?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, unless I blinked at the wrong moment, I thought that during the past six months, in the legislation brought into this House from about June through to November, we could not have been clearer on that fact. The challenge to the Government, and to public policy generally, is to sort out one from the other. We must ensure that we do not encourage illegal migration to this country, while, at the same time, we should give refuge to those who are genuine migrants. We are clear on that issue and have put in place a range of measures which will make significant progress on closing that gap.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I refer to the point made by my noble friend concerning the national press. Does the Minister not consider that the press complaints' system is entirely inadequate to deal with some of the racist comments that have appeared in certain newspapers and, in particular, the Sun? Will he refer these matters to the police so that they can investigate whether a criminal offence has been committed under the provisions regarding incitement to racial hatred?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sure that those issues are being regularly tracked by the responsible authorities. I shall say no more than that.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the grave and very extensive concern that exists throughout the country about the volume of illegal immigrants? Can he explain why the Prime Minister has confessed that perhaps the measures referred to may not be altogether successful and why the European convention may need to be examined?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes, I would be blind if I had not noticed the strength of concern in the country about illegal immigration, while not for one second implying that legal migration does not play a valuable role in our economy and in our society, because it does. If one looks at the Prime Minister's comments on "Breakfast with Frost"—the transcript is clear—he made absolutely clear his expectation that the measures taken in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, combined with the measures we are undertaking with France and Belgium substantially to strengthen entry control physically, should make very considerable progress in terms of ensuring that we have staunched the problem.
In response to a specific question, the Prime Minister also recognised that there would be a need to think about how immigration asylum policy develops in the future. That is an issue on which we have
1012
signalled in this House previously, that while the 1951 convention is right in its principles, it will benefit from serious and sober reflection on how it should be developed to cope with a world that has changed since 1951. I know that many Members share that endeavour; later this year, we shall no doubt outline further thinking on that.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be particularly unfortunate if the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister does anything along the lines that he was suggesting just at the moment when the Community is fighting really hard to obtain a unified policy on immigration which would be of great benefit to this country, because immigrants would have to be registered in the country where they first arrive in the Community?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am not certain that I totally seized the question; I shall be happy to give further thought subsequently. However, I am certain that what the Prime Minister said, and the leadership that he has given in both international and domestic issues, are absolutely appropriate for the circumstances that we are in. For the future, we must think about whether there are better ways of giving refuge to those people who need it under the 1951 convention but who currently do not get it. I can but instance what happened in Rwanda and in many places around the world. We must be concerned about the fact that operationally the current system does not help such people. Therefore, it requires fresh thinking.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, 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 Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

House of Lords Reform
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that matters already decided may not be brought forward again during the same Session, the House may vote on all of the seven Motions standing in the name of the Lord Privy Seal on Tuesday 4th February; and that Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of

1013
the Order Paper) be dispensed with on that day so that the seven Motions may be taken before other public business.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that we have already spent 20 hours or more discussing this very important matter—three and a half hours in a debate before Christmas and at least 17 hours last week—is it necessary for further discussion on the seven Motions? If all those Motions were put to the vote, they would collectively take a good many more hours to dispose of. Would it not be better if we went straight into voting on these Motions?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Oh yes, my Lords. But it is not my birthday on 4th February; it is on the 5th. Therefore, I do not think that I shall have a present on the 4th. That is entirely a matter for your Lordships. Most of your Lordships will think that we gave the issue a fair ventilation—if that is quite the word I am looking for—last week. It was 15 hours, only. There is much to be said for going directly to the Motions. If we vote on the seven Motions without any, or too much, discussion, that will take approximately an hour and a half.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates, 29th January
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Freyberg and the Baroness Warnock set down for tomorrow shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fire Dispute
3.19 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the fire dispute and the Government's proposals in the light of the breakdown of discussions at ACAS.
"The House will be aware that all sides welcomed the resumption of talks after last Tuesday's 24-hour strike. The chair of ACAS agreed terms of reference for those talks with both the Fire Brigades Union and the employers. The terms of reference are very wide and say that both sides should,
"bring their respective agenda to the table and neither side should seek to rule any issue in or out".
"Despite that, the Fire Brigades Union executive decided yesterday to go ahead with further strikes and at nine o'clock this morning the FBU walked
1014
out for the fourth time. They will be on strike for 48 hours and at present are scheduled to walk out again for a further 48 hours on Saturday morning.
"While we sit here, the Armed Forces and other emergency services, including the police and the many retained fire fighters who have continued to work during the strikes, are providing cover for the striking fire fighters. I am sure that the House will want to join me to express our thanks for their courage and hard work and for the way they have conducted themselves throughout this dispute.
"I have made clear that the Armed Forces will have the resources they need. As I said when I made my last Statement to the House on 20th January, we have now provided 177 red engines to augment the Green Goddess fleet. I can now inform the House that for the first time in these strikes we have a number of aerial water towers to provide cover in extreme situations. The Armed Forces also have 30 new thermal imaging cameras.
"The history of this dispute has been one of last-minute ultimatums and walkouts by the FBU. Let no one in this House be in any doubt. The switch from a series of eight-day strikes before Christmas to a programme of one and two-day strikes after Christmas does not represent a change of heart on the part of the FBU. Far from it. All it represents is a change of tactics. Its aim is minimum pain for FBU members and maximum disruption for everyone else.
"It is the Government's duty to maintain public safety and we will continue to do so. But the House should be aware that so far this dispute has cost the taxpayer more than £70 million. And costs continue to rise at £1 million a day for as long as the dispute continues—whether or not the FBU is on strike. That money has not come from the reserve. It has come from programmes in my office designed to help the most needy in our communities.
"The FBU is now trying to shift its ground by claiming that this dispute is about job cuts and protecting the Fire Service rather than pay and modernisation, as set out by Sir George Bain's independent review of the Fire Service.
"The FBU is not interested in the modernisation agenda. It has put out false and misleading information about thousands of job losses and hundreds of fire station closures. That is a gross distortion of the proposals set out by Sir George Bain. Sir George made it clear that there is absolutely no need for compulsory redundancies. Modernisation will not lead to hundreds of fire station closures. Instead, it will lead to a better Fire Service, greater safety for the public and more rewarding careers for Fire Service employees.
"The FBU is now seeking a judicial review of the proposed repeal of Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, now before the House. That is a sign of how completely it is opposed to modernisation. The repeal of Section 19 will do no more than put the management of the Fire Service in local hands. All it removes is a bureaucratic obstacle, but it is an

1015
obstacle that the FBU has used to good effect to protect its outdated working practices. Contrary to what the FBU claims, local communities will still be consulted on Fire Service priorities and plans. That has not changed.
"Let no one be in any doubt, the FBU's claim remains what it has been for the past nine months—a 40 per cent pay rise for fire fighters and 50 per cent for control room staff without any commitment to modernisation whatever. No change. No compromise. No modernisation.
"Talks at ACAS started on 4th December. There have been days and days of talks about talks. And yet the FBU has walked away without any substantive negotiations.
"I have had numerous discussions with the General Secretary of the FBU and the Government have given him the benefit of the doubt. But this latest strike—coming so soon after the terms of reference for the negotiations were agreed—leads me to conclude that the FBU executive is not serious about a negotiated settlement.
"This latest round of strikes confirms that the FBU is playing cat and mouse with the employers, the Government, public safety and public money. The Government and the local authority employers want to see a fully modernised Fire Service providing the best service to the public. The FBU refuses even to negotiate about that.
"The employers are rightly now insisting, in the light of the past two months of strike action, that talks cannot take place while strikes are in progress or threatened. As yesterday's decision by the FBU showed, the union is determined to press ahead with further strikes. As a result, negotiations have broken down and we are in deadlock.
"The Fire Service is not like any other industry. The public cannot be put at risk on a weekly or monthly basis. It is essential to resolve the dispute.
"We all want to see a resumption of talks. The employers have rightly put forward a fully costed proposal on pay and modernisation based on Sir George Bain's agenda. This is the only basis for negotiations. But the Government have to be prepared. The FBU may continue to refuse to discuss modernisation. So, it is against this background that I have concluded that the time has come to take a further step to help break the deadlock.
"As a matter of priority, I will introduce legislation in the public interest to take new powers of direction over the Fire Service. These powers will, it is to be hoped, bring a new and much-needed sense of reality into future negotiations.
"I will discuss through the usual channels, including the devolved Administrations, the best way forward to introduce this legislation. I will draw on provisions in the Fire Services Act 1947, which were repealed in 1959. Those provisions allowed the Secretary of State to specify the pay, terms and
1016
conditions of the Fire Service. In addition, we will propose powers to direct the Fire Service on its objectives and its use of facilities and assets.
"Legislation in itself will not end the dispute, but it is prudent to take these powers to use if necessary to help reach an agreement.
"The current strike is due to end on Thursday morning. I hope that the FBU will sit down again and negotiate with the Fire Service employers. But for the avoidance of doubt, the Government's position will not change. We will continue to implement the Government's part of the Bain agenda. We will continue to resist these strikes. And we will continue to do all that we can to protect public safety—especially at a time when there is a heightened level of terrorist threat and the Armed Forces are under increasing pressure from competing demands.
"Mr Speaker, it will take some weeks to put in place the legislation and the discussions and consultation I have proposed today. Meanwhile, the whole House will agree that the best possible outcome is for the employers and the FBU to reach a negotiated agreement. I urge the FBU to call off further strikes and get back to the negotiating table".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating yet another Statement on the fire fighters' situation. While I and the House appreciate the courtesy which is extended to us and the information which is brought to us on a regular basis, it is becoming wearisome for everyone. As I and the Minister have said, it is about time the matter was quickly and equably resolved. It is extremely unfortunate that the fire fighters decided to step back from the talks which started at ACAS. I hope that when they return on Thursday, those talks will be renewed and reach a beneficial conclusion.
We cannot overlook the fact that the fire fighters' job is currently being done by retained fire fighters for whom there is little reward and for whom Bain rightly says there should be proper reward based on the same pay as that given to the fire fighters. All of us believe that that must be a proper outcome at the end of the discussions, if only to acknowledge their loyalty and the service they have provided throughout the dispute. I join the Minister in thanking not only them but also our Armed Forces, who earn much less than the fire fighters and substantially less than the fire fighters would earn if they achieved the objectives they laid out at the beginning of the dispute.
We cannot continue to rely on our Armed Forces. We know that and the country knows that. It is abundantly clear that over the next few weeks—as has been the case during the past few weeks—the attention of our Armed Forces will properly be engaged elsewhere. So in a few weeks time we may not have sufficient Armed Forces available to take over this role.

1017
In the situation of a possible war—but certainly of the withdrawal of many of our troops to a potential front—why will not the Government use the legislative powers they already have at their disposal to prevent further strikes? With each Statement I have asked repeatedly why the powers to seek injunctions are not being used. Each time the Minister has replied that they are under review and will be used if necessary. But nothing happens and we end up in the same situation, over and over again, of talks starting and the fire fighters then going on strike.
What further thought is being given to using the legislation that is currently available to the Government to put a stop to these strikes? Will not the Government give thought to doing that before they start considering the value of the new legislation—or the old legislation which was taken out of the provisions of the 1947 Act but which the Deputy Prime Minister now seeks to put back in.
We on this side of the House wish to consider very carefully whether the action proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister will be beneficial. If we think it will, we shall of course co-operate with the Government. But it will take time—more than a few weeks at the very least—before legislation that may be of use to the Government in this situation is on the table. However, there is no guarantee that even that legislation will have the slightest effect on the Fire Brigades Union, which appears hell-bent on defying every obstacle put in its way. Even if the legislation is put in place in a timely fashion, what will happen if the union still refuses to co-operate? Again, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that current legislation could be used.
Bain's proposals have been on the table for some time now. The proposals in the interim report, which was rushed forward in an attempt to prevent further strikes before Christmas, would, as matters stand at the moment, bring a substantial extra reward to the fire fighters. But we have been told by the fire fighters that the proposals, which embrace modernisation, will bring with them substantial job losses for fire fighters—I believe a figure of 4,500 has been produced—and the closure of 150 fire stations. In the Statement, the Deputy Prime Minister makes clear that he does not believe that to be the situation. He suggests that there would be, or could be, some job losses, but without compulsory redundancies. Can the Minister give a clearer view of what he believes the implementation of Bain's proposals might mean under those circumstances?
The cost of the dispute is becoming very substantial. I watched the Deputy Prime Minister giving evidence to the effect that he had already spent £70 million that could have been usefully used elsewhere. As he says in the Statement, the dispute is costing more than £6 million per day. But, whatever happens, at the end of the dispute there will be transitional costs for the introduction of whatever new pay scale comes about. I know that there is a real concern among local authorities—the employers—about the kind of transitional funding that will be available at that stage.
1018
I bear in mind what was said in an earlier question about the forthcoming increase in council tax. Potentially, these additional costs could add extra money to that. Can the Minister say whether or not transitional resources will be available when, it is to be hoped, we get to the end of the dispute.
The offer from the employers has also been on the table for some time. If we are not going to get any further with ACAS, at what stage will that offer be removed and the negotiations moved back to stage one?
I am also glad to note from the Statement that at last—I say "at last" quite heavily—the red fire engines have been made available to the Armed Forces and the retained fire fighters so that they are at least not fighting fires with one hand tied behind their backs. That is a good and useful move. I am only sorry that the point was not taken when we on this side of the House first made it and that those fire engines were not made available earlier.
If the situation was not so tragic this would indeed be a farce. There have been repeated Statements; repeated walk-outs; repeated television appearances of the general secretary making repeated suggestions that he was rushing off to come to an agreement with ACAS; repeated withdrawals; and repeated strikes taking place one after the other. I return to what I said earlier: if the fire fighters are to seek judicial review under Section 19 of the 1947 Act, why do not the Government get in first?
3.36 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As he is aware, we on these Benches have expressed our thanks and admiration to the Armed Services for carrying out a difficult job in difficult circumstances, and we do so again. We also associate ourselves with the noble Baroness's thanks to the retained fire fighters.
We have supported the Government in seeking a fair and realistic settlement to the dispute and we support the Government in giving priority to public safety. But why is it that the famous gibe of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about the last days of the Major administration—"a government in office but not in power"—keeps running through my head? The Statement has all the hallmarks of a panic measure rather than a considered strategy.
That is not surprising because, during the course of the dispute, I can think of at least seven Ministers who have been wheeled out a various times to try to explain government policy. Sometimes the Government have been loftily saying that the dispute is a matter for the unions and employers; at other times they have intervened in minute detail. Instead of a clear strategy for industrial relations and public service pay, we have the usual cocktail of bluster and panic from Mr Prescott. Will the Minister tell the House which Minister in the Government is ultimately responsible for industrial relations policy? The bitter tone of the Statement suggests that the Deputy Prime Minister is not the man to do that job.

1019
Can we be told whether there is a coherent policy towards the public sector, or is each dispute to be handled by a separate department on an ad hoc basis? Would the Minister now care to answer a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, before Christmas. Have the Government a norm for public sector pay settlements?
Is this emergency legislation part of the review of the Employment Relations Act 1999? If not, how is that review progressing? What kind of parliamentary timetable do the Government envisage for the legislation? The Minister referred to discussions through the usual channels, but will it be rushed through both Houses in 24 hours? Is it that kind of emergency legislation?
For five years the Government have been living off the fat of the Thatcher industrial relations reforms without giving any thought to a long-term industrial relations strategy. Warnings of a need for urgency have been pooh-poohed and patronised. Ideas such as compulsory and binding arbitration have been sneered at—again today, I notice, by Mr Prescott—or dismissed out of hand. It is not to dodge the issue to say that we would not have started from here. We are here because the Government stuck their head in the sand for too long about changes in public sector unions and in our industrial relations climate.
So do the Government intend to use the breathing space between now and the introduction of emergency legislation to make further proposals themselves? Or is this the domestic equivalent of sending in the weapons inspectors? For example, as the noble Baroness asked, will the Government still finance transitional funding for modernisation if a deal can be struck? Surely, at this stage it is absolute madness to withdraw the offer of funding. Will the Minister clarify that point?
There is still a good deal of goodwill among the public sector unions for modernisation based on multi-year pay deals. The latest edition of PSM, the public service magazine, states that,
"they guarantee to some extent stable industrial relations where successfully negotiated. Where linked to structural reform, they have also often successfully addressed major staff concerns and provided a greater degree of certainty. Members have largely welcomed them".
We on these Benches urge the FBU to return to the negotiating table. We believe that a multi-year, structural-reform, modernising pay deal is what will finally settle this dispute, probably around the ACAS table.
The Government may well get their emergency legislation, but if they go down that road and if I were Mr Prescott, I would also keep the telephone number of the Official Solicitor handy.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her generally supportive comments on the Government's position. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, at least for his comments, if not entirely for their content. The noble Lord is entitled to take the view that he does, but
1020
I shall try to deal with the various points that have arisen in response to the Statement by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
The first point to bang home is, yes, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It is a rather wearying process. We come to the Dispatch Box week in, week out, to explain the latest twist and turn in the unfolding of this most unfortunate and regrettable industrial dispute. However, I do not think that anyone can question the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to ensuring that another place and this House are kept fully informed of developments "straight from the heart", as it were. The way in which the Deputy Prime Minister has conducted himself throughout this dispute does him great credit.
The noble Baroness repeated the question that she has asked from time to time with regard to the possible war, the withdrawal of troops and using other legislative powers at the Government's disposal. The decision to seek an injunction rests with the Attorney-General—it is his decision alone. The matter is rightly kept under constant review; the Attorney-General is, of course, kept informed of developments and is no doubt well aware of the current situation.
The noble Baroness asked what would be the impact on the current dispute of the legislation we are considering and proposing to introduce. It is our hope that the FBU and its members realise that further strikes are futile. We have underlined that point by bringing forward our proposals. If, when the Secretary of State had decided on a settlement, perhaps using those powers at some future point, FBU members remained on strike, we should have to review our options and give further thought to what we might wish to do. I repeat the comment made on many occasions by the Deputy Prime Minister that nothing has been ruled out.
A number of references have been made to the Bain proposals. The noble Baroness referred to what I believe to be a calumny; namely, the often repeated message from the FBU that there will be four and half thousand job losses and that 150 fire stations will be closed. The references to job cuts and station closures are entirely false and misleading information. I can only repeat that, as Sir George Bain said, there is no need for any compulsory redundancies. Modernisation is about improving the way in which the service works to ensure that the health and safety of our nation is preserved. It is about saving lives, not costing lives; it is not the situation as portrayed by the FBU during the course of the dispute.
Obviously, we continue to be concerned about the cost of the dispute. In his Statement today, the Deputy Prime Minister has spelt out exactly what that cost is. We said that any pay deal must pay for itself over the next three years. That is very much in line with what Sir George Bain concluded in his recommendations. Also in line with the Bain proposals, we acknowledged, at the time those proposals were brought forward, that some transitional funding might be needed and that we should examine sensible proposals to fund the transitional period. It is obvious

1021
that, the more we spend on fire cover, as a product of that there may well be some squeeze on the transitional funding; but we remain committed to the principals put forward by Bain and to the way in which we see the Bain proposals being rolled out.
The noble Baroness raised a question about the employers' offer. She commented that it had been on the table for some time. That is quite right—too long. Our belief is that this dispute should have been settled a long time ago. She asked at what stage the offer would be withdrawn. This has to be a matter for the employers. They have rightly said that it is unreasonable to expect them to negotiate against the backdrop of a strike or strike threat. But that offer remains on the table; it is for the employers to seek agreement with the FBU. We hope that once the latest 48-hour stoppage is concluded the FBU will return to negotiation and "talk, rather than walk"—the second has too often been the case over the past few weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, properly raised the question of responsibility for industrial relations policy. In this situation, the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the fire service and for handling and prosecuting this dispute. Appropriate arrangements are in place for collective discussions on industrial relations issues across Whitehall, but in this instance it is the DPM who is in charge. We should do all we can to provide him with support in ensuring that the dispute is brought to a speedy end.
With regard to emergency legislation, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we shall consult through the usual channels and with the appropriate bodies. Legislation will, we predict, take weeks rather than months. It is not our intention to "bounce" this House or another place, but to introduce it in a timely fashion, taking account, as one properly should, of the usual channels and the usual procedures. But it is important legislation. As I said at the outset, it underlines our commitment to ensuring that no one is under any illusion as to our determination and resolve in bringing this dispute to a timely end.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked whether the Government have a norm for public sector pay settlements. The FBU's negotiating position remains that it wants a 40 per cent increase for fire fighters and a 50 per cent increase for control room staff. All that I can say relates to that. An increase of that magnitude would obviously have an enormous knock-on effect and would destabilise our economy and the economic future of this country. We cannot agree to that approach. I hope that the FBU sees the sense of what we are saying and that it will return to the negotiating table. That must be the hope of everyone in this House. It is certainly the Government's firm resolve.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his common-sense approach to this difficult issue is much preferred to the declaration of war issued by the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats today? Is it right that all hope of resuming arbitration is out of the
1022
question? The Minister has inferred that the Fire Brigades Union will see sense; but is he aware that it is important that the Government assert clearly the possibility that this very grave dispute will be settled if the unions and its members see common sense?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support on this. We have been grateful to all sides of your Lordships' House, who, to date at least, have given the Government fulsome support in their position. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we are looking for an injection of common sense within the FBU leadership. Sadly, that has not been displayed. It is greatly to be regretted. I hope that the FBU considers what has been said today very carefully; that it rethinks the issue; considers the position of its members, who must be more than frustrated and wondering how events will turn next; and return to the negotiating table. The machinery is in place. More than a month ago, the FBU welcomed the opportunity to put its case in front of ACAS. But there have been talks about talks, and so far the FBU has not moved on the issue.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on, at last, having proposed to do something. It is difficult to assess objectively the value of what they propose to do. We have no idea other than that there will be a series of emergency directions. Be that as it may, the measures may or may not resolve the dispute, which has hardened, largely through the ineptitude of the Government, who did not know how to deal with it.
As usual, the fundamental question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who rightly said that the Government are floating along—it is not quite how he said it—on the coat-tails of Lady Thatcher, and had not really extended the relevant concept of law to deal with the situation that has now arisen. That leads to the fundamental problem: shall we deal piecemeal, ad hoc, with every dispute by emergency legislation, in consultation with the Attorney-General and the usual channels; or shall we settle down and try to establish a general concept of law to deal with disruption of public services by collective industrial action? I respectfully suggest that a piecemeal approach using emergency legislation must serve to deal with an emergency. It affords no substitute for a stable system of law established by Parliament.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I greatly respect the point of view that the noble Lord has put forward in this regard—he has expressed the view consistently. I know that he has played a part in the past in advising on industrial relations law and has sought to introduce legislation that no doubt gives effect to some of the points that he makes. But, this Government have been acting in a concerted way throughout the dispute. They have respected the negotiating machinery that is properly in place. They have reminded the unions and the employers of the importance of the positions that they occupy. I cannot agree with the assertion that we are, "floating along on

1023
the coat-tails of Lady Thatcher". We have led where it has been appropriate and right for us to do so. We have made clear and public our position on the dispute and how it has been prosecuted by the FBU. Today's further Statement and the clear lead by the Deputy Prime Minister underline that exact point.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in my experience—and I have been around this place for a long time—if the Statement that he has just repeated had been made by a Tory Minister, there would have been howls of anger and dissent from the Labour Benches? The Government, in respect of a particular dispute, are using a huge hammer to crack what could be a small nut. To take control of the Fire Service nationally and to seek to impose their will on a trade union is not what the Labour Party is about. It effectively removes the right to strike from a democratically elected union in this country.
Is that really what he wants? Is that the Government's intention? If that is so—and, believe me, it is so, because he said it would be futile for the unions to strike—every other public service union is under threat if it takes strike action to gain what it considers a legitimate settlement. I am most disappointed in the Statement. We are supposed to have a new Labour Government; but it is becoming clear to some that we have an anti-Labour Government.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it will not come as a great surprise to your Lordships that I cannot possibly agree with a word that the noble Lord has spoken. I do not think it is right that we should have a situation where an important, major public service such as the Fire Service acts irresponsibly and undermines public safety. It is not part of the role of any government, not least a Labour one, to do anything to undermine public safety. That is why we have adopted a firm position in this dispute.
That says nothing about removing the right to strike. We fully respect that the fire-fighters' union has that right to exercise. But it also has a responsibility to conduct industrial relations in a way that does credit to trades unions generally, and to its union in particular. At the moment, it is hard to see that that is the case. I simply use this opportunity to urge it to return to the negotiating table and to use what has been put before it on the table in the past as a reasonable basis on which to formulate a settlement. That would be in the interests of FBU members and in the greater interests of the public. It would do the Fire Service great credit, too.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is not the FBU very likely to interpret today's Statement and the legislative provision it contains as simply a threat designed to get it hack to the negotiating table? Can the Minister make it clear that the Government intend to go ahead with the legislation whether or not the FBU conies back to the negotiating table?
1024
Secondly, I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it is not right to use the occasional dispute with one union as a basis for legislation that should apply to vital public services generally.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before any confusion about legislation enters into this discussion, let me make it plain that what we are suggesting today relates simply to the Fire Service. To pick up the noble Lord's earlier point about threats, it is not, in our view, a threat. We are simply making our intention plain so that the dispute moves on and the FBU is under no illusions as to the strength of the Government's commitment to their position. I hope, as I said earlier, that the FBU reflects calmly and clearly on what has been said today and takes the sensible step—the step that everybody in your Lordships' House wants it to take—of returning to talks later this week when the current 48-hour strike concludes.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that some of the statements being made here today are somewhat far from the mark? I am old enough to remember the Conservative government's 1970 employment legislation and experienced the raft of anti-trade union legislation enacted in Margaret Thatcher's time. However, we have a Labour Government who have been extremely patient and are not attacking the public sector workers. The situation would not necessarily happen elsewhere because other public sector workers, or most of them, would not require the Army to do their job. That is a very different situation. Given this crisis, and a possible war in Iraq, the Labour Government are taking a stance against the Fire Brigades Union that is sensible in view of the safety precautions that this country needs.
The people of this country are the Government's responsibility. The Government have taken this measure with a view to bringing collective bargaining closer; it might also be a spur to bringing about a settlement. I do not see it as extreme, compared with measures taken by previous Tory administrations.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, has far more experience of industrial relations than I, and I take great encouragement from what he has said. The Government have been patient and it would be understandable if that patience began to evaporate. We have taken a clear trajectory on this and have been measured in our response, but public safety must be paramount. We must do all that we can to ensure that there is proper and adequate fire cover in our nation. If what we propose today helps us establish that in the future, it is a valuable step. I am sure that that is what we will be seeking to do. We remain patient and diligent, and we hope that at the end of this dispute, there will be a return to cooler and calmer thinking, particularly on the part of the FBU, on the way in

1025
which the union has conducted itself throughout the dispute. We want to get the FBU back to the negotiating table to sort this out.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in the mid-1980s, as a Home Office Minister, I had responsibility for chairing the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. It was a useful body that brought together the Government, the Fire Brigades Union, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and others. As far as I know, it still exists. It was not a particularly easy ride. Nevertheless, it was a useful forum and I hope that when the Government consider the form of the emergency legislation that they will bring before both Houses, they will bear it in mind that that forum is a useful way of making at least some progress even if it gives Ministers a hard time, as in my case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I come to the Dispatch Box with a confession. From time to time I was an official on behalf of the local authority side servicing the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. I may, in an earlier life, have been partly responsible for giving the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, a hard time. I make no apology for that—I was doing my job.
Of course such organisations all have a value. What is important is to get people round the table to talk and sort these matters out. Anything that can be done to speed up that process will be welcomed by all sides.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, does the Minister agree that the employers have not been mentioned this afternoon? As I look around these Benches, I see many colleagues who have fought long and hard all their life for working people. I detect, from my knowledge of them, that they have always tried to put out fires—in the industrial sense—rather than light them. But it takes two to tango, and although my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, is one of us—he has worn the shirt and has been there—and I applaud him, as have other noble Lords, I have to say that the condemnation of the employers in earlier days has not been mentioned this afternoon.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his work in the industrial relations field. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, he has a great deal of experience. The employers have a difficult job, and the Government see it as their role to ensure that they are well supported. Reviewing the legislation will go some way to stiffening their position and giving them extra support. That will be an important objective of those measures.
Lord Christopher: My Lords, there is no doubt in my mind that the employers have not done their job in this instance, and have not done it for 25 years. This is only the second serious dispute in the Fire Service for 26 years, and, if what the Deputy Prime Minister says that he will do comes to pass, it will be the second occasion on which a settlement has been forced on the fire
1026
fighters. I do not want to go over the past but I hope that we will learn some lessons from it. Many ill conceived steps have been taken on both sides.
When the dispute is settled, there will be considerable bitterness and low morale among the workforce. I wish to be satisfied that the new arrangements for managing the Fire Service have some prospect of working. We had a formula that worked for 26 years before coming to an end; the employers should have done something about it six years ago but they did nothing.
A second question, which arose on an earlier question, is the relationship between local government fund raising for themselves and the contribution of central government. I do not expect my noble friend to have the answer, but it would be interesting to know the proportion of local government expenditure supplied by the Government today and the proportion supplied immediately after the ending of the community charge.
Thirdly, I suggest that someone in government should have the task, across the public service, of trying to see where industrial fires may break out. You can see them coming, and no government since the war have found a way of dealing effectively with the public services, in which nearly all disputes take place.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever on these matters, the noble Lord speaks with tremendous knowledge, gained from many years of personal involvement and commitment. His comments are helpful. I repeat that of course we must do all we can to ensure that the employers are in a position to be as effective as they should be and need to be. These are necessarily complex relations between employers, the service involved and the Government. That is one reason why a review of the current situation has been undertaken. I think there will be a clear route map outlined from our intention to take additional powers so that we do not end up in a situation similar to the one we are currently in. We need to do what we can as a government to ensure that public services are well run and well organised and that disputes over wages, pay and conditions can be easily resolved. We hope that the changes we propose can aid that process.

Victoria Climbié Inquiry
4.10 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Victoria Climbié inquiry. The report of the inquiry is being published today. It is now available in the Vote Office. I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for your agreement that Victoria's parents should have had advance access to a copy of the report.

1027
"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I established the inquiry in April 2001 under the chairmanship of Lord Laming, formerly the Chief Inspector of Social Services. We are both extremely grateful to Lord Laming and his advisers for producing a searching and detailed report and recommendations.
"Words in a report can never be enough for a family whose child has died in such terrible circumstances. I am grateful to Mr and Mrs Climbié for seeing me last week and allowing me to express, on behalf of the House and the country, the sorrow we all feel at the death of their beloved daughter, Victoria. Anyone who has had the privilege to meet Mr and Mrs Climbié cannot fail to be struck by their quiet dignity in the face of what happened to Victoria.
"I hope the report provides them with some comfort as it seeks to answer the questions any parent would ask. What exactly happened? What went so wrong? What needs now to change to prevent services that are supposed to keep children from harm failing in the way they failed Victoria so badly and so repeatedly?
"Lord Laming's inquiry lasted more than a year. His report runs to some 400 pages. We will study its 108 recommendations with care. Today I will outline the inquiry's findings and the Government's initial views. We will make our substantive response to the report as part of the Green Paper on children at risk which we intend to publish this spring.
"Victoria Climbié was part of a large, loving family living in the Ivory Coast. Her parents had agreed she could come to Europe in order to be educated. This was not about giving Victoria away; it was about giving Victoria an opportunity. All they wanted, as any parent would, was for their daughter to have the best education. Instead, she suffered the worst cruelty.
"Victoria arrived in Britain with her great-aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, in April 1999. Within a year she was dead—murdered by the people who had taken the principal responsibility for caring for her: Kouao, and her boyfriend, Carl John Manning. Both are now serving life imprisonment.
"The cruelty experienced by Victoria before her death is the stuff of nightmares. Manning told the trial that Kouao would strike Victoria daily with a shoe, a coat hanger and a wooden spoon. She would hit her toes with a hammer. Victoria's blood was found on Manning's football boots. He admitted hitting her with a bicycle chain.
"Victoria's final days, in the depths of winter, were spent living and sleeping in a bath in an unheated bathroom, in her own urine and faeces, bound hand and foot in a bin bag.
"Despite valiant efforts on the part of NHS staff, Victoria died of hypothermia, after months of abuse, on 25th February 2000 at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington. She had 128 separate injuries to her body. She was just eight years old.
1028
"It is a shocking but sad truth that around 80 children a year die from abuse or neglect. While a civilised society must do everything it can to protect children, sadly a few adults will always manage to perpetrate abuse, not least because those who do are, by definition, secretive and manipulative.
"What makes Victoria's case so appalling, however, is that while the unspeakable abuse she suffered took place in secret, behind closed doors, Victoria herself was never hidden from the authorities and the agencies empowered by Parliament to protect children.
"Victoria was known to three housing authorities and involved with four social services departments in Brent, Ealing, Enfield and Haringey. Despite receiving allegations that she had been abused, none of the councils even managed to undertake a proper assessment of her needs. Social services did nothing to help her.
"Victoria was known to two separate child protection teams of the Metropolitan Police. Despite being told she had probably been deliberately harmed, they failed to investigate the alleged crime. The police services did nothing to help her.
"Victoria was referred to the specialist Tottenham Child and Family Centre managed by the NSPCC. Despite marking her case as urgent, they failed to take any action to see Victoria. The NSPCC centre did nothing to help her.
"Victoria was admitted to two different NHS hospitals—the Central Middlesex and North Middlesex. Despite suffering scalding to her head and face and other evidence that staff saw of beatings and abuse, she was discharged and returned to her abusers. The health service did nothing to help her.
"Between April 1999 and February 2000. on more than one dozen occasions the relevant services had the opportunity to intervene to protect Victoria Climbié. More than 12 times in 10 months they failed to do so. This was not a failing on the part of any one service. It was a failing on the part of every service.
"As Lord Laming says:
"The extent of the failure to protect Victoria was lamentable. Tragically it required nothing more than basic good practice being put into operation…doing the basic things well saves lives… Victoria died because those responsible for her care adopted poor practice standards".
Lord Laming considers that the current statutory framework for child protection set out in the Children Act 1989 is basically sound. I take little comfort from that. Sound legislative policy and guidance is useless unless we can be sure that it is implemented effectively and consistently.
"Those who take on the work of protecting children at risk of deliberate harm face a difficult and challenging task. As Neil Garnham QC told the inquiry:
"Hundreds of children benefit every year from efficient and timely intervention by social workers, police officers and hospital staff. We would do children like Victoria no favours if

1029
we demonise entire professions as we seek to understand and remedy the weaknesses and deficiencies highlighted by a single case".
"But while public servants should enjoy our support, they should not expect our excuses. There were failures at every level and by every organisation which came into contact with Victoria Climbié. There were problems with staffing and with resources. Haringey Council was spending substantially less than the SSA it had been allocated for children and families. Brent Council was spending just half of what it had been allocated.
"Lord Laming rightly describes as breathtaking the unwillingness of some of the most senior people in these agencies to accept that they were in any way accountable for these failures. It is his concern with this lack of accountability that leads Lord Laming to recommend change through the creation of new national and local structures for services for children and families. Lord Laming rejects proposals to separate child protection services, but calls for better co-ordination from top to bottom.
"It is an all too familiar cry. In the past few decades there have been dozens of inquiries into awful cases of child abuse and neglect. Each has called on us to learn the lesson of what went wrong. Indeed, there is a remarkable consistency both in what went wrong and what is advocated to put it right. Lord Laming's report goes further. It recognises that the search for a simple solution or a quick fix will not do. It is not just national standards or proper training or adequate resourcing or local leadership or new structures that are needed. It is all these things.
"In recent years there has been a renewed effort to improve safeguards for children: the Protection of Children Act 1999; the Care Standards Act 2000; programmes such as Quality Protects and Sure Start; and new work on systems for identifying, referring and tracking children at risk.
"Alongside the fuller response we will include with the Green Paper in the spring, I can tell the House that there are important steps which I intend to take immediately. First, the inquiry is highly critical of the local services that failed Victoria. Since her death, each has been subject to review. Some have been restructured. Some staff have been disciplined, others dismissed. In the light of the Laming report it will be for each employer to determine if further action is necessary against individuals, including those in senior managerial positions. In the meantime, the Home Secretary and I are asking the inspectorates responsible for health, police and social services to undertake further joint monitoring of these local services in north London to provide independent assurances that standards are improving.
"Secondly, the inquiry concludes that in all agencies there was a low priority given to the task of protecting children. The Home Secretary has made child protection a priority through the national Policing Plan. He has asked chief constables to
1030
review force child protection units and consider how to action the recommendations of the report and reflect them in their policing plans.
"Additionally, I am today writing to all chief executives in local health services and local authorities emphasising their duties towards vulnerable children and the need to reflect them in their budget decisions. Social services budgets will rise by an average of 6 per cent in real terms in each of the next three years. NHS budgets will rise by nearly 7 per cent. Extra resources should help employ more staff, including an extra 5,000 social workers, at a time when applications for social work courses, which fell for almost a decade, are now rising.
"Thirdly, the report highlights inadequacies in the training of frontline professionals. Training for police officers is already being reviewed and we will ensure that Lord Laming's recommendations are fully taken on board. Social work training is also being fundamentally overhauled. From September, a new three-year social work degree will be introduced to raise the status and standards of the profession. It will focus on assessment, communication and working with other professionals—the areas where Victoria was so badly let down. The Home Secretary and I also intend to ask the professional bodies responsible for training police, social services and NHS staff in child protection to oversee a review of training needs including interagency training.
"Fourthly, the report highlights the failure of agencies to adhere to common standards in the care of children. I believe that the Laming report re-emphasises the need for new national standards to which all local health and social services can work. I can tell the House that I intend to publish the first part of those standards—covering the care of children in hospital—next month and the remaining standards by the end of the year.
"Fifthly, the report says there was confusion about guidance on aspects of child protection. Within the next three months, I intend to secure the replacement of all the existing local guidance with new, shorter, clearer guidance which will reach every one of the 1 million professional staff dealing with the safeguarding of children. I also intend to simplify the wider range of Children Act guidance. It currently runs to over 1,500 pages. It covers 15 volumes. Some of it is out of date. Our intention is to reduce it by 90 per cent, to make it available in a single volume, and to update it on a regular basis.
"Sixthly, over half of Lord Laming's recommendations are aimed at correcting repeated failures in basic professional practice. We are today issuing a checklist of these recommendations. Police, health and social services are being asked to guarantee that, within the three-month deadline demanded by Lord Laming, these basic elements of good professional practice are in place.
"Seventhly, the report says there was a fundamental failure to translate good intentions into good practice. The Home Secretary and I have

1031
therefore asked the relevant inspectorates to supplement their planned joint inspections with a new programme of further visits to verify that these elements of good practice are being implemented, particularly where there are concerns about local services. We will also consider whether further powers are needed to intervene earlier and more effectively.
"Finally, Victoria needed services that worked together. Instead, the report says, there was confusion and conflict. Down the years inquiry after inquiry has called for better communication and coordination. Neither exhortation nor legislation has proved adequate. The only sure way to break down the barriers between these services is to remove the barriers altogether.
"Fundamental reform is now needed to pool knowledge, skills and resources to provide more seamless local services for children. I am, therefore, today inviting health and social services and other local services to become the first generation children's trusts. These pilot children's trusts will mean local services for children are run through a single local organisation. We will explore a range of models including children's trusts that could be led by local authorities and others that could be established as new public interest organisations drawing in the expertise of the community, private and voluntary sectors. In future, services for children must be centred not around the interests of any organisation but around the interests of the child. Nothing—no existing organisation, no existing structures—should be allowed to stand in the way.
"We will consider Lord Laming's recommendations for further structural changes in the Green Paper.
"These reforms cannot be the end of the matter. If some good is to come out of this tragedy, lasting change must come out of it, too. Lord Laming is determined that that is what should happen. The whole Government share his determination.
"Victoria's parents asked for nothing more for their daughter than the opportunity of a better life in our country. I am deeply sorry that she did not get that simple chance. We cannot undo the wrongs done to Victoria Climbié. We can, though, seek to put right for others what so fundamentally failed for her. That is what Lord Laming's report demands. It is what the Government are determined to do. I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
4.26 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, I begin, if I may, by associating myself fully with his expressions of appreciation and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for all that he has done to produce his report. Those of us who have the good fortune to know the noble Lord will understand what an excellent choice he
1032
was to chair this extremely difficult and sensitive inquiry, with his immense experience of social services matters.
The death of Victoria Climbié would have been an appalling tragedy in any circumstances, but had it occurred as the result of the failings of one or even two public servants it might not have been the trigger for a public inquiry. However, the injuries of that little girl were known to four social services departments, three housing departments, two specialist child protection teams, the Metropolitan Police, two hospitals, plus a specialist child management centre run by the NSPCC. That catalogue tells us on its own why this inquiry was necessary and why the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was absolutely right to use the uncompromising language that he did and to ensure that the proceedings of the inquiry were in the fullest sense conducted in public. I congratulate him on a conscientious, thorough and hard-hitting report. It makes chilling reading. His conclusions merit the most urgent attention.
During the past 30 years, there have been more than 30 inquiries into the deaths of children known to social services. None of those inquiries has had any effect. This report, as the Minister rightly said, has to break the mould. Every week in this country there are between one and two deaths of children at the hands of parents and carers. The group of people who run the greatest risk of a violent death are children of less than one year old. My first question to the Government is therefore this. Will they, please, publish a firm timetable for action in respect of the key recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Laming? Some 82 of the 108 recommendations in the report are, in his opinion, capable of being actioned within six months. We need to get on with it.
I am immediately drawn to the recommendation that there must be a fundamental change, a systemic change, to the co-ordination of children's services locally. In that connection, I shall follow with great interest the formation of the children's trusts that are to be piloted. I completely agree that much more attention needs to be devoted to the training of frontline professionals, including health professionals, to the codification of standards and to the dissemination of those standards.
However, can the Minister reassure me on what I consider to be an especially important aspect of the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Laming: accountability? We do not want to encourage a blame culture, but if things go wrong, the buck must stop somewhere. That does not simply mean a chain of accountability in line management, although that is clearly important. It also means that incompetent social workers should be held to account by a professional body, in exactly the same way as are other professions—such as doctors, nurses and lawyers.
Do the government agree? If so, exactly how is that to be achieved? If—as I think that we all accept—we need to enhance the status of social workers, to value them, and to confer real professional responsibility on them, equally, they must expect to live by and be judged on a defined set of professional standards. The

1033
system must have teeth. We should not be content with a set of structures and reporting lines that amount to a giant talking shop and little else.
In that context, what recommendations have been made about the need for professionals to communicate directly with the children themselves? That conspicuously did not happen in the case of Victoria Climbié, despite the fact that it was her right under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Proper communication between professionals is also vital, but how are the Government addressing the legal barriers to information sharing between professional agencies caused by the Data Protection Act 1998? That is a real issue. I should be glad to know how it is to be overcome.
The Minister will remember our debates during the passage of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 about the need to regulate private fostering. Victoria Climbié was subject to a private fostering arrangement. It is estimated—and it can only be an estimate—that currently about 10,000 children in England and Wales are fostered privately. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of them come from West Africa.
The Utting report highlighted the risks that those children are subject to, but nothing has been done. Will the Government now take urgent action? In the immediate term, what is being done to promote greater awareness among parents in West Africa about child abuse dangers? Is anything being done to encourage a culture of child protection among faith communities—especially in the sort of church that is popular with West African and Afro-Caribbean citizens? I believe that one such church was closely involved in this case.
On a separate but related issue, evidence was given to the Laming inquiry about unaccompanied child refugees being placed in bed and breakfast accommodation without regard to their safety. What is to be done to address that highly undesirable state of affairs?
I welcome much of what the Minister said about steps to be taken immediately, before the publication of the Green Paper. We on the Opposition Benches will support those and, indeed, all necessary measures, but he should bear in mind that we shall expect each programme of action to be properly resourced.
The failure to protect Victoria Climbié was not just a failure on the part of front-line staff, it was equally a failure by senior managers of all the organisations concerned to ensure that the necessary services were properly financed and staffed. That is as much a matter of resources as it is of ensuring that accountable, in-touch managers are in place.
Unless that happens, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will not have delivered the one thing that we all desperately want: never again should Parliament have to address the kind of catastrophic failings in our public services that so shamefully let down that poor little child.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on performing what must have been one of the most difficult jobs. His frank and moving introduction to the report is testimony to the fact that he was indeed the right person to do that difficult job.
I also pay tribute to Victoria Climbié's parents, who throughout what must have been a harrowing process for them have displayed a quiet dignity that is humbling. Perhaps the saddest thing about the report is that little, if any, of it is new. We can go through the list of names: Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford and Victoria Climbié. Every time a report such as this is issued we return to three recurring issues: first, recognition of abuse; secondly, co-ordination and sharing of information across agencies; thirdly, the location of responsibility to act with an accountable person.
We welcome the report's recommendation of national standards for the definition of "risk" and "harm". At present, there are about 150 different definitions of harm operated across the country by different authorities. That leads to understandable difficulties with consistency of application and confusion in staff training.
We ought also now to consider giving children the same legal protection as adults in definitions of assault, so that abuse does not start at a low level and grow. The people who are not mentioned in the report but who are often the first to see signs of abuse are members of the public. In a culture in which it is still permissible to hit children, it is often difficult for them to make a distinction about what is abuse and what is not. That is a serious matter that the Government should consider.
The report is a damning indictment of children's services in England. The Government should therefore press ahead without delay to appoint a children's commissioner for England to ensure consistency of services across areas.
Staffing and staff turnover played a huge part in this case. One in 10 children's social services jobs is vacant; and one in eight social workers leaves the profession every year. In their response to the report, the Government should consider how to enable experienced social workers to stay in the front line and use their experience to protect children.
While the report was being compiled, much has been done by professional bodies, which are as horrified as anyone else at what happened. They have been considering what lessons can be learned by using the expertise within area child protection committees—especially by the involvement of general practitioners and teachers in such multi-disciplinary teams.
Pilots, such as the new model for delivering children's services, called Serving Children Well, which has been developed by the Local Government Association, the NHS Confederation, the Association of Directors of Social Services and education authorities, are beginning to prove that they may be

1035
the way to get around the central problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Laming—that child protection will always be the product of different agencies working together. Even if children's trusts are set up, their constituent parts will still play a separate role in looking after children. I therefore welcome the announcement in the Statement that the Government are willing to consult such bodies on best practice.
As noble Lords will know from our discussions during the passage of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I believe that it is high time that private fostering is at least subject to registration. I hope that the Government will implement that and institute a programme to advertise the fact through embassies and consulates to parents in the countries that are most likely to be involved.
Finally, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that 82 of the 109 recommendations can be introduced immediately, because they concern the development of good practice—ensuring that good practice that has already been identified is spread. I hope that the Government will put their energy and resources into that, rather than into a process of reform that may simply lead to a new, different administrative muddle.
Today is not the day to give this report the full consideration that it most certainly needs. I assure the Minister that when we have time to do that he can count on the full support of these Benches who, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, believe that this little girl was failed and that no child should ever go through the hell that she went through.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for their constructive and very serious responses to the Statement.
First, I echo their tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. He was an excellent choice to chair the inquiry not just because of his previous experience as a very distinguished chief inspector of social services but simply because of the nature of his experience and his robustness. Shining through the nearly 400 pages of the report is an extremely robust procedure in which the noble Lord, Lord Laming, uncovers almost everything, if not everything, that there is to uncover. He subjected those who gave evidence—rightly, in my view—to stringent and rigorous tests as regards the questions that they were required to answer. The result is a very thorough report indeed as regards what happened to Victoria and as regards the almost daily and step-by-step disasters that occurred in the handling of the case. Victoria's case was considered by many different professionals, only one of whom needed to do the job properly for Victoria's life to have been saved.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was right to refer to the number of inquiries that have been held into similar tragic cases in the past 20 or 30 years. I certainly agree with him that we must learn the lessons arising not just from Victoria's case but also from all those other inquiries. If the common theme running through
1036
almost all those inquiries is an inability on the part of professional people to undertake the basic tasks correctly, we must ask why that is so.
The noble Lord makes it clear that it is not the legal framework that is at fault but rather professionals who were not doing their jobs properly—for example, failing to write notes of meetings and failing to have an action plan which made clear which member of staff was responsible for taking actions forward. I refer also to a failure of supervision; supervisors who were seemingly unable to give effective supervision and support to fieldworkers; and a complete failure to monitor cases to help fieldworkers—who we all know come under a great deal of pressure—with proper advice.
We must learn lessons from the report. I say to the noble Earl and to the noble Baroness that we shall implement speedily the recommendations that can be implemented speedily. We shall replace the plethora of existing guidance to obtain uniformity. We shall reduce it to an appropriate number of pages so that one can expect workers in the field to understand fully what is being asked of them. We require all the services involved to assure us within three months that the basics of good practice are being followed. That will be followed up by spot checks. In the mean time, we shall look very carefully at all the recommendations to inform the Green Paper that we shall produce in the spring.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of training. We must learn lessons in that regard in respect of individual professions. Let us be clear that this matter does not concern just social workers, it also concerns police officers and the National Health Service. The National Health Service does not come out of the report well. There were failures in both hospitals. We must look carefully al. the training of individual professions, but alongside that we must ensure that that training covers the integrated and collaborative approach that is required between members of different professions.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly raised a number of points about accountability. The General Social Care Council provides the opportunity to ensure that the professional regulation of social workers is of a high order. But I have to say to the noble Earl that it is very important that the buck does not stop at the level of the individual practitioner. I do not exaggerate the position when I say that there was almost a breathtaking unwillingness on the part of some senior people in some of the authorities to accept their own responsibilities and accountability. Although I agree that it is right for individual practitioners to be subject to disciplinary, and professional disciplinary, action where appropriate, the lesson that I take from this is that senior people—people responsible for the organisations that we are discussing—must accept their own responsibilities for this matter. To leave field officers without proper procedures, proper supervision and proper support is inexcusable.
I agree with the noble Earl's comments about communication with children. One of the tragedies of Victoria's case was—I refer to all the contacts that

1037
were made with the different statutory agencies—the very limited time that was spent talking to Victoria herself. We must learn lessons from that.
We shall consider the issue of information services and the disclosure of information. But I have to say that disclosure of information without consent is permitted under the Data Protection Act if it is necessary to protect the vital interests of the subject. Some statutory agencies are in my judgment misreading what they are allowed to do under the law. But clearly we need to give proper advice to those authorities.
The noble Earl and the noble Baroness mentioned fostering. I understand the arguments in favour of further legislation. There is legislation, but is it sufficient and are local authorities doing what they need to do? We know that the situation is patchy. We shall review the matter and embrace it within our Green Paper.
As regards finance and staff, I do not want to denigrate the work of social workers, nor do I wish to say that they do not come under great pressure. Funding issues and workforce issues cannot be discounted. But the fact is that the evidence of the inquiry reveals an incredible amount of sloppy work undertaken by individuals which is not excused by staff or resource pressures. The great bulk of professionals involved in this area do their job properly, whatever pressures they are under.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about national standards. I welcome her support. She asked about children receiving the same legal protection as adults. There is a great difference between what might be described as reasonable chastisement by parents and abuse. In relation to the seriousness of abuse against children, one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was that the police must recognise that as being a serious crime. I am encouraged that the police force and the Metropolitan Police have very much taken that on board. I understand the point that the noble Baroness made about a children's commissioner. We shall consider that. It is important that that appointment, if it were ever to be made, should add value. The noble Baroness referred to children's trusts. I believe that voluntary organisations have a large role to play in this area. Some boundaries will always exist. It is important to ensure that children's trusts can work together with other local agencies, whether statutory or voluntary.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is 30 years since I came into this House. Almost the first major debate with which I was concerned was on Maria Colwell, and this case is a horrific repetition.
As summarised in paragraph 1.45 of the introduction of the report, the ignorance of the different agencies of one another's knowledge was devastating in its effect. It is reassuring therefore to hear the noble Lord say that social work degree courses will be extended for a further year, with
1038
emphasis on inter-agency work. Will similar extensions with similar emphasis be introduced for the training of the other agencies, so that they are common to all? In that connection, I mention the very laudable fact that the guidance is to be reduced by 90 per cent from 1,500 pages.
I have brief questions on two other points. The noble Lord led with a reference to the children's trusts. Will he explain how that does not cut across what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, says in the first bullet point of paragraph 1.30 in his introduction? It states:
"It is not possible to separate the protection of children from wider support to families. Indeed, often the best protection for a child is achieved by the timely intervention of family support services".
What is the way round that?
What steps are being taken to see that the operation is not focused primarily on London, the South East or even England? How is good practice to be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the extension of good practice, we very much want to work closely with the devolved administrations and will wish to keep them informed on any decisions that we make. It will then be up to them to consider what action, if any, they wish to take. If I remember correctly, we certainly took on board lessons throughout the rest of the United Kingdom from the tragic North Wales inquiry in relation to children's homes a couple of years ago.
I cannot say that we have any particular plans to extend the length of time that other professions undertake training. However, it will clearly be necessary to ensure that the training programmes, whether they relate to the police, nurses, doctors or social workers, cover the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
We need to think about social workers in particular. They have to undertake probably one of the most stressful jobs in the public sector, and are often subjected to a great deal of criticism. The headlines today inevitably focus around the failures of social workers, but the failures were not only theirs. The NHS failed. Those concerned with housing failed. The police failed. The NSPCC failed. We recognise that social workers need to be more professional, to come under the discipline procedures of the General Social Care Council, and need a three-year degree course to raise the stakes and their professional competence. At the same time, it is important to say to the country that the great majority of social workers do a very tough job, and I believe that they do it very well.
The noble Lord is right to pinpoint the great problem that so much guidance has been produced, has not been kept up to date and is inconsistent. Our aim will be to produce consistent guidance in a form that people can readily follow and understand. The aim is consistency, not only between different local authority social service departments. However, I

1039
accept the point that he raises in relation to interaction with health services, the police and other public sector services.
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from on children's trusts. There is no doubt that wherever one draws the boundary—one can cut the cake in any number of ways—there will always be a boundary issue. Although some people think that we should have a national child protection agency, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, decided against that, for the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Those are relevant reasons when it comes to the local organisation of services as well.
The advantage of children's trusts is that they will bring in a different range of services, provided by different statutory and voluntary agencies, and will lead to a more integrated approach. However, whatever way the cake is cut, boundary issues will still need to be developed. We will have to ensure that children's trusts work together with the other agencies as well.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister two brief questions. As a professional social worker, I can say that most social workers across the country are appalled by the case. We have to recognise that social workers are distressed, and would be as distressed as I am to read the report.
Will the Minister reinforce with all his powers the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that we do not go into major structural change? That is the request of social workers across the country. I have spoken to social workers who have talked about turbulence in their work, the inability to get consistency, and being overwhelmed by documentation. I therefore express gratitude about the fact that information is going to be made consistent.
As someone who has spent all their life against the background of childcare and children's services, I welcome children's trusts if they have the continuity to ensure that workers stay with their caseloads. Every time we have restructuring, social workers are moved from the people whom they are helping to another lot of people. Those children then have to make new relationships, and social work is all about relationships. We must have consistency and continuity as we go into any new boundaries. We must not spend a lot of time simply moving desks, but must move practice, training and professionalism.
My second question is about ensuring that quality of service is delivered. I too am shocked about the basic issues on professional need. As we go into yet another change under the commission for social care inspection, will the Minister ensure that inspections look at quality, and that the whole inspection, working with the inspection by the Commission for Health Improvement, looks at those issues in a solid and reliable way?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I fully recognise that the great
1040
majority of social workers will be appalled by what happened. I reiterate that it is very easy to knock the social work profession, and we should be wary of doing so. Actually, the profession needs support, at the same time as a rigorous approach to minimise poor professional practice.
I agree with the noble Baroness about the impact of major structural change. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, makes some significant proposals in terms of accountability at local level, to try to get over the problems that he identified with some area protection committees. Obviously, we will study them with great care. I fully understand the noble Baroness's point about turbulence.
The commission for social care inspection has a major role to play. Often it will need to act in concert with the health inspectorate and the police inspectorate. We will encourage that in relation to child protection procedures. I have indicated that we will carry out spot checks, which will be jointly undertaken to make sure that the basics are done right.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question about recommendations 6, 7 and 9, which are directed towards the responsibilities of local authorities and social services. All three recommendations are, according to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, feasible within three years.
The point is that counsellors from various departments of the authorities should work together as a committee. The board to serve that committee should be chaired by the chief executive, and a budget should be identified for the work of the committee. That appears to be an admirable and simple way of improving co-ordination. How does that tie in with the much slower process of establishing children's trusts? If a children's trust is an alternative to those committees, will it have the advantages of those committees? Those advantages are that the chief executive is the responsible reporting officer for that local authority; he is responsible to the government and to his members and he is responsible in the eyes of the Audit Commission.
5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an interesting question. I draw a distinction between the recommendations that the noble Lord makes in relation to the appointment of a local member committee for children and families, a management board for services to children and families and the director of children's and families services. In essence, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is making those recommendations to ensure proper accountability when different agencies are involved. I distinguish between those recommendations and the children's trusts, which essentially involve providing those services. Clearly, we will need to discuss the matter further with the noble Lord. We shall address such issues in the Green Paper, which we hope to publish later in the spring.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about the establishment of the General Social

1041
Care Council. I declare an interest as its former chair, and I am a former social worker. The GSCC was established to ensure high standards and common standards in training and practice in social care, as the Minister knows. It is also charged with improving the profile of social care workers. As we heard today, that will be important in terms of recruitment if the morale of that profession is not to suffer. Does the Minister see any change in the remit of the GSCC with the establishment of children's trusts, which I am sure most noble Lords welcome? If the idea is to provide a seamless service, it would be a pity if workers were subject to different standards and expectations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for the sterling work that she undertook in getting the General Social Care Council up and running. There is no doubting the fact that it has a very important role to play not only in upholding public safety and public standards but also in raising the status of the profession, which is vitally important. I agree with her that where one has different professions—whether they are doctors, nurses, social workers or the police—working alongside each other, within a consistent framework in relation to child protection, one needs a consistent approach towards regulation. I very much agree with her. We should encourage the GSCC to work with the other regulated bodies to ensure that that happens.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I have two quick questions for the Minister. Does he know why Brent council's spending was half what had been allocated? Is he in a position to give the House some reassurance that those members of staff who have since been dismissed will never, ever be re-employed in any way in any child-oriented agency?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that some staff have been disciplined and some have been dismissed. That will be a matter for the employing authorities to deal with. I repeat my earlier point that it is important that when the authorities concerned review the question of staff responsibility in the light of the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, they do not overlook the role of senior management in accepting its own responsibility and accountability. If one looks back over instances of failure in organisations over the years, it is striking that it is often the people at the lowest level who pay the ultimate price. That is unacceptable.
I do not believe that I can go into the details about why Brent made the decisions about its budget. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, found failures of priority and leadership within the local authority. He found that it had a weak management structure, that there had been service reductions and that there was a lack of senior supervision and monitoring. The evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, found shows that the local authority was in many ways dysfunctional in terms of the way in which it dealt with social services.
1042
Our current aim is that, using the Social Services Inspectorate and our intervention powers, we intervene where we identify that local authorities are failing in that way.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, one of the most appalling aspects of this tragic case is that two professional people refused to visit Victoria Climbié because they were frightened of catching scabies. Will the Government place more importance on giving those concerned in such cases more training in infectious conditions of all sorts? Some people have a real fear of infectious conditions. Does the Minister agree that there should be far more control of infections? There should be more experts on call who can come in when people put their own safety in front of poor helpless little children.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. The rise in infections concerns us all, and we have a number of initiatives in place to try to reduce that. However, this is simple stuff. If there is effective collaboration between local authorities and the health service, it does not, frankly, take a great deal of organisation to ensure that the ready advice of NHS professionals on such matters is readily available—and it should be available.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question about language. I welcome his statement that there should have been much more effort to talk directly to Victoria. Victoria Climbié came from francophone west Africa, and it is reasonable to suppose that some at least of those people with whom she came into contact would have had no difficulty in speaking to her in French; I do not know whether that was the case in this instance. There must be many children who are in need of care or in danger of abuse who have little or no English. Is it possible to say with confidence that interpreting will be available in such cases to enable members of social services, hospital staff, the police and so on to converse directly with the children?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the report contains a number of instances in which social workers and other professional staff mentioned the need for an interpreter. In some cases, interpreters were present. However, this is a more fundamental issue. One of the problems is that many of the professionals involved seemed to be inhibited about talking to Victoria. That was not so much a question of language as about their professional practice. There was also professional confusion about which section of the Children Act related to Victoria at any one time. That confusion caused many problems and led to a hiatus in taking appropriate action.
The revised guidance that we issue will need to deal with the issue of the appropriate use of the specified section of the Children Act and the issue of communicating with the children concerned. I agree with the point about translators and interpreters.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I return to the important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, about accountability. Much of what the Minister said was about accountability. Some years ago, when I was the chairman of an NHS trust, I chaired a committee that was investigating the death of a patient in hospital who should never have suffered what he suffered. He was an adult, not a child. I got the most unsatisfactory answer from a senior nurse on the ward. When we asked her, "To whom do you consider yourself accountable?", she said, "I am accountable only to the General Nursing Council". If there is not in addition proper line-management accountability of the practitioners on the ground to the senior professional managers who are in charge of them, one will have many problems.
When the Minister lays great emphasis—and I do not disagree with this—on the role of the professional bodies concerned, there must on the ground be a clear line of accountability, so that managers can deal effectively with the staff for whom they are responsible. I hope that in the further consideration of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming—and I agree with everything that has been said about him and the report—that can be taken into account.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord. One should look at the report's description of what happened at the Central Middlesex Hospital and at the North Middlesex Hospital. At the Central Middlesex Hospital one had a situation where nursing notes were inadequate; some of the doctors' notes were inadequate; and there was no effort to reconcile medical differences about whether Victoria had scabies or had suffered abuse. At the North Middlesex Hospital there was no formal attempt to speak to Victoria to find out what had happened; the record keeping was poor and there was a failure to get the notes from the Central Middlesex Hospital; no thorough examination of Victoria ever took place; and when she was moved to a different ward, nurses failed to record their observations.
The whole situation cries out for someone to be accountable. There is no doubt in my mind that, alongside getting the guidance right and getting consistency in practice, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is saying that there needs to be a clear system of accountability, so that within each organisation it is clear who is accountable. With his suggested arrangements at local level—a local member committee and a management board—he is trying to achieve accountability between the agencies so that someone can be identified as the person responsible for making it work.
That is not easy. We shall have to look carefully at what the noble Lord recommends. But there can be no disagreement about his aim, which is to try to pin down responsibility within each organisation and, when organisations have to work together, between those organisations, so that no one can run away and say, "I was not responsible".

Courts Bill [H.L.]
5.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Court officers, staff and services]:
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 7, after "(1)" insert "or transferred under Schedule 1"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. I shall be brief. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 aim to clarify this part of the Bill and to ensure that all relevant employees are covered by the Civil Service pension scheme.
The amendments stem from the concerns of the involved unions about the current wording of the Bill. Amendment No. 7 makes explicit that relevant staff transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department will be eligible to join the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS 2000) and that they will be covered by the scheme from day one of their transfer.
Amendment No. 8 aims to ensure that the Bill covers any contracts and sub-contracts entered into. There is always anxiety among staff when transfers occur. These amendments seek to help alleviate that worry. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I can be even briefer on the matter. We on these Benches entirely support the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I cannot be quite as brief, but I shall not be too long. I add my support. The noble Baroness does the Committee and especially employees a service by tabling these amendments. We do not always see eye to eye on employment law, but today I am sure that we shall.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will also want the Minister to place on the record some of the assurances that have been given, both in the letter that the Minister was kind enough to send to noble Lords over the Christmas period, and in the letter of 28th January that was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, a copy of which was handed to me as I came into the Chamber. Both letters are useful.
Today is a significant clay for the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, to move the amendments. Over the past 24 hours reference has been made, both on the radio

1045
and in The Times law supplement, to the fact that this may not be the last of the Lord Chancellor's empire building with regard to transfer of responsibilities. The report by Sir Andrew Leggatt is waiting hot in the wings and it looks as though tribunals—another not "unconsidered trifle"—are about to be snaffled up by this Autolycus of a Lord Chancellor.
So any provisions which the Government implement with regard to magistrates' courts may well become a model for what might happen to tribunal property and employment rights. Therefore, we should all look carefully at the assurances given by the noble Baroness. Perhaps we shall need to return to them on Report simply to tease out some of the details, because they will undoubtedly be of future significance if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has his way.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in referring to the setting up of a department of justice, which I think was suggested today. That is a step forward towards the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of having a minister of justice. So we welcome the bringing together of factors which will make the transition to the appointment of a minister of justice instead of the Lord Chancellor that much easier.
However, the Minister may recall that at Second Reading I raised the question of the cost of transferring pensions to the Civil Service fund. I quoted the figures which had been given to me, which indicated that the cost of transferring the employees of London magistrates' courts to the Civil Service fund was £8 million. If that figure is extrapolated, it means that the cost for the whole of England and Wales would be in the region of £100 million in legislation that was supposed to be cost neutral. Has the noble Baroness considered what I said at Second Reading and does she have any comment to make on those figures?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I hope that in responding I can reiterate the assurances that we have already provided by correspondence.
My noble friend Lady Gibson moved her amendment very succinctly and expertly, as one would expect. I shall try to run through its exact impact and the Government's view.
Clause 2(2) currently provides that any staff appointed by the Lord Chancellor to work in the courts would be eligible to join the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The effect of the amendment would be to add an express provision stating that transferred staff are eligible to join the PCSPS immediately after their transfer. I doubt whether it is necessary to add a provision to the Bill for transferred staff to join the PCSPS because, as civil servants, they would be eligible automatically for membership on transfer into the employment of the Lord Chancellor.
1046
Furthermore, we want to treat the pension provision for staff appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 2(1) and those employees transferred to the new agency under Schedule 1 distinctly. This amendment would prevent us from doing that. That is because there is a possibility that staff who transfer to the new agency on the abolition of magistrates' courts committees will remain temporarily in their present pension scheme after the date of the staff transfer to the new agency while actuarial calculations and negotiations with the relevant trades union as to the terms of transfer of pension benefits are carried out. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 provides for that eventuality. As with transferred staff, those appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 2(1) will immediately become eligible to join the PCSPS on the date of entry into the new agency.
Amendment No. 8 would replace the word "arrangements" in Clause 2(4) with the words "contracts or sub-contracts". Again, I rather doubt whether this amendment is necessary because the word "arrangements" has a wider meaning than the word "contracts". Clause 2(4) as drafted provides the Lord Chancellor with flexibility and allows him, for example, to enter into arrangements with agencies for the provision of temporary staff or to contract out entire functions. Most arrangements would be contracts. However, there may be situations where a secondee from another government department, or perhaps even from the private sector, works for the new agency on a loan basis. Therefore, the current wording provides for a wider range of eventualities.
It is our intention to reflect in legislation what happens in practice. Under current legislation, a distinction exists between staff in the courts employed under the Lord Chancellor's statutory powers via the Court Service and those employed under non-statutory powers. The former category includes staff employed under Section 27 of the Courts Act 1971; namely, those carrying out an administrative function within the courts.
Other categories of staff do not fall within the meaning of "administrative". They might be security staff, enforcement staff or cleaning and catering staff. They are employed via the Court Service under the Lord Chancellor's residual non-statutory powers.
We are obviously very aware of, and sensitive to, the concerns that the trades unions have raised about our wording on contracting out. We give an undertaking to hold further discussions with the unions, and we shall endeavour to report back to the House so that all those involved are aware of what has happened.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I thank my noble friend for giving way. I shall wait with interest to see what transpires on the further discussions that take place. I declare an interest as a pensioner with PCSU. If people, such as security guards and so on, are employed on a temporary basis to assist in the new agency, can the Minister explain how they will do so without a contract governing them to undertake such

1047
functions? So far as I am aware, any government department or agency would enter into a contract and would not simply have an arrangement.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding is that the term "arrangement" describes something which is temporary in nature, but there will be a contract which describes that arrangement. I am not sure that that necessarily helps the noble Lord but I believe that that is how it would work in practice.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Do I understand from the Minister that there will be sheep and goats? The sheep, who are fully employed by the Court Service or whatever replaces it, will be included in the pension scheme; the goats, who are there because they are part of a privatised service hired by the Lord Chancellor, will not receive any pension at all. Is that what the Minister is saying in a very long passage?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not believe that I said that at all. I urge the noble Lord to read very carefully what I said. I do not believe that he gave an accurate summary of what I said. I thought that I made the situation clear.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I thank the Minister for his interesting reply, to which I listened carefully. I thank Members of the Committee who have spoken and given support to the amendment. At present, I believe that the best thing I can do is to say that I would like to consider the answer in more detail in Hansard. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 11, after "arrangements" insert "including contracting out services to private companies"
The noble Baroness said: At this stage, this is purely a probing amendment. I tabled it during the early stages of the Bill, long before the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, tabled her more comprehensive approach to the issue.
As I mentioned during debate on the previous amendment, it was very helpful of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to write to noble Lords over the Christmas period. Certainly with regard to my own amendment in this group, I can be brief. I tabled it so that the Minister would have the chance to place on the record some of the assurances that she gave in her letter to noble Lords over the Christmas period.
With regard to the contracting out of services, I am very much aware that the assurances given by the noble Baroness may not go as far as one would like. I wait to hear what she says. As she is aware, we have perhaps a more open view of the contracting out of services than her noble friends may have. But my concern throughout is that, if there is privatisation of any of the services which come within the remit of the
1048
Bill, that privatisation should be appropriate. I am also concerned that the proper steps of prior consultation take place—in particular, with the judiciary and the unions.
At this point, I thank the Public and Commercial Services Union for its helpful and constructive briefing and for taking the time and trouble to come to the House to brief my noble friend Lady Seccombe and myself. I shall leave the meat of the argument to the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, in her more comprehensive amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not surprised that the noble Baroness has not chosen to elaborate on this ridiculous amendment. When she said that she had a more open mind than the Government, she really meant the opposite—that is, that she had a more backward-looking mind than the Government. I see nothing which the Lord Chancellor should do beyond what the Bill envisages at present. I ask the noble Baroness, who is usually diligent about such matters, to rethink the amendment entirely.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As this is the Committee stage, it may be convenient if I respond to the noble Lord now. As I said, I am open-minded. The amendment was tabled in order to give the Government the opportunity to put on the record the commitments that they gave to noble Lords in a letter over the Christmas break. Noble Lords who took part at Second Reading received the benefit of that letter. Other noble Lords did not necessarily do so. Perhaps a copy of the letter was placed in the Library. If so, that was good practice. I know that this particular Minister is almost always open to good practice. But, of course, members of the public do not have the opportunity to see the letter. Open government; open minded—that is me.
Lord Renton: I am very surprised at the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with whom I sometimes have the honour of agreeing, but not on this occasion. We should bear in mind that the Government who call themselves "new Labour" are far more broad-minded than old Labour used to be. On a number of occasions—I shall not cite them all—the new Labour Government have enlisted the help of private enterprise in order to perform public duties. That is all that the amendment suggests. I would have hoped that it would receive a favourable reception from the Government Front Bench.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 11 which stands in the name of myself, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and others. Under Section 27(3) of the Courts Act 1971, as amended by the Deregulation and Contacting Out Act 1994, the Lord Chancellor may contract out the provision of officers and staff for non-judicial functions, but under Section 27(6) the Lord Chancellor must consult with the four senior judges before contracting out any services.

1049
We believe that that obligation should be repeated in this Bill. If the Lord Chancellor is minded to contract out the provision of courtroom security to a private security firm—an example of what has already been contracted out—surely it is appropriate that he should consult with the senior judges. Picking up a point made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, it is increasingly clear that the Lord Chancellor can no longer be regarded as a judge and that he should take the opinion of the judges—the four designated senior judges—before he contracts out any services that otherwise would be provided by the agency.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I notified the Public Bill Office that I wanted to withdraw Amendment No. 10, so I shall not speak to it. However, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Overall the Bill has been welcomed by the relevant trade unions because it streamlines the system relating to the courts and brings in accountability where there was none before. Those points are seen as great steps forward. The single executive agency and the proposed courts' administration councils are welcomed. However, the unions have some worries about parts of the Bill relating to the management of the new systems and about contracting out.
Contracting out is not an easy subject to understand fully and requires some cross-referencing between Acts. In this context, Clause 2 raises some queries in my mind and in the minds of the trade unions representing the employees involved. Clause 2(4) appears to allow for the expansion of contracting out and removes the requirements and safeguards that currently apply: that is, consultations that take place with the senior judiciary, as the noble Lord said.
The Courts Act 1971, as amended in 1994, specifically provides that any proposals to contract out must be examined by four senior judges and both Houses of Parliament before any contracting out of court work can be undertaken. We cannot understand why those safeguards are being removed. The wording of the Bill appears to weaken considerably the safeguards currently surrounding contracting out and the unions involved have raised their anxieties with me and with other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall also indicated worries on this issue at Second Reading.
The system of scrutiny that has worked well until now is an important checking mechanism. Not only does it ensure the fair administration of justice; it also maintains the independence of that justice. These amendments have been tabled to reinstate the previous provisions from the 1971 Courts Act as amended in 1994; they redress what we see as a weakening of procedures that have worked well in the past.
Lord Hylton: I hope that whichever Minister replies to this amendment will answer fully the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the previous amendment; namely, what is the real level of costs in transferring such staffs from
1050
their present employers to the Civil Service scheme and why should it be so costly to transfer their pensions? Those questions were not answered at all by the previous reply from the Government. I hope they will be answered now.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. It seems to me that the Government may have in mind reducing the cost by making more and more employees of the Court Service part of a contracted out service where pensions would not apply to them. That was the reason for my previous question. Putting two points together, is it intended, for example, that all court ushers should be part of a contracted out service? Or the office staff, or the listing officer? So many important functions in the courts are carried out at the moment by people who are fully part of the administration.
To cut costs it would be tempting for the Government to say that they will transfer to the Civil Service pension as full-time employees those who have some judicial function to perform or who have to exercise a judicial discretion, according to the terms of subsection (5) of the clause. That would refer to a limited class of people—perhaps court clerks, but not many below that level. It is possible, it seems to me, that employees will lose considerable rights as a result of this clause.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before I refer to the substance of the amendments I owe the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, an apology for not addressing his point on costs. I did not have the figures to hand and still do not. I can refer him to the Explanatory Notes at paragraph 290 which gives a broad outline of costs. It says:
"The current cost of running the magistrates' courts is £435m per annum".
Our intention is to ensure that there is a more than adequate resource for the new service. It is perhaps worth putting on the record what was expressed in correspondence on this point by Yvette Cooper, the Minister responsible for the Bill in another place. The letter was to one of the trade union representatives. She said:
"Funding the new agency. With regard to the point you raised about funding the new agency generally, this will be accommodated from within Departmental spending limits, using appropriate phasing and piloting as necessary. I agree that it is important that the new agency should be properly funded, which is why it will not be established until it is known how the costs can be met. As part of the development of the new agency's blueprint, more work is needed to determine the cost profiles associated with the management of the transfer of pay and pension responsibilities, buildings and associated contractual obligations to the new agency. Until a clear costs profile has been established together with how those costs can be met, clauses bringing the new agency into effect will not be invoked".
I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, sometimes pokes fun at what he may describe as "management speak", but I believe that this is a clear commitment to ensure that the agency is properly funded, and that until more precision can be brought to bear on the costs and the costs of

1051
transferring pay and pension responsibilities, those matters will not be established and put in place. That is a reasonable guarantee to give.
Perhaps I can go a stage further. We shall try to put more meat on the bones and see what more information can be provided in terms of facts and figures. It is only reasonable to make the point that such matters are part of an iterative process, that there is much to work out in the detail and so on, but our clear commitment is to undertake to do that.
We also want to offer reassurance, principally to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and to other noble Lords who have been responsible for properly tabling the amendments. There is no plan to expand contracting out as described. Contracting out will be used, as at present, simply to provide some flexibility. It is not part of the transitional plan. We cannot make it clearer or plainer than that. There is no hidden or secret agenda; it is simply to provide the necessary flexibility.
I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. Clause 2(4) states:
"The Lord Chancellor may enter into such arrangements…as appear to him appropriate for the purpose of discharging his general duty in relation to the courts".
The clause does not set out all the bodies or persons with whom the Lord Chancellor can enter into arrangements, as that would restrict his flexibility and choice. It is the Government's intention that the Lord Chancellor will be able to enter into arrangements with a range of people or bodies, including, as I said, private companies, self-employed people or independent contractors, as and when appropriate. For that reason, we doubt whether the noble Baroness's amendment is necessary or adds anything, although it is kind of her to have thought of the point. We are grateful to her for giving some further thought to the point, but we see no reason to go further than we have.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, for withdrawing Amendment No. 10. As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 11 would oblige the Lord Chancellor to consult heads of division before contracting out under Clause 2. I doubt whether a specific provision requiring him to consult heads of division is necessary or appropriate. The current statutory instrument, made under Section 27 of the Courts Act 1971—the Contracting Out (Administrative and Other Court Staff) Order 2001—provides for a general power to contract out the provision of services listed in Section 27(1) of that Act.
Given the broad terms of the 2001 order, there is a question over what consultation with heads of division would otherwise achieve. The order is only about the power to enter into contracts; it does not cover or govern any actual or proposed contracts. It is simply concerned with the power to enter into those contracts. I want it in the public domain and on the record that the Lord Chancellor would obviously wish to continue to consult in much the same way that he currently does. Regular consultation is carried out, in particular, with senior judges about contractual matters. We will continue to consult, and the normal processes will continue. The fears that have been expressed about the
1052
provisions are not justified. I hope that, in trying to describe the arrangements, I have provided the necessary assurance.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Can I intervene without embarrassing the noble Lord? No one is levelling their guns at this Lord Chancellor, but, if we leave the power in without any obligation to consult, his successors would be immune from any obligation. The fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has wisely consulted on major matters would be history. We need something that will bind his successors, who may not be as generously disposed to the judiciary.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I must say that it would be a foolish Lord Chancellor who failed to consult. At this stage in these proceedings, we cannot legislate for every future Lord Chancellor and everything that he or she might do. However, we have well established, entrenched practice, which has served us well. Future Lord Chancellors would be ill advised to depart from good, well established practice.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, he is conceding that the Lord Chancellor engages in such practices now. What is wrong with including the requirement in the Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We want to ensure, particularly in creating CACs, that we have the broadest possible opportunities to consult. If we put something in the Bill along the lines of what has been suggested, we may limit our flexibility and close down opportunities to consult those whom we need to consult.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Then, why cannot my noble friend include in the amendment after the words "the Vice Chancellor" something to the effect that the Lord Chancellor may consult such other persons as he deems appropriate?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Such matters are probably best left to guidance, and the framework document will set out that guidance. It would be more appropriate for us to ensure that consultation arrangements are properly addressed in the framework documents. That is something for the future, but I can give an assurance that those matters will be dealt with directly in that document.
Amendment No. 12 would require the Lord Chancellor to obtain an order before entering into arrangements for the provision of officers, staff or services under Clause 2(4). The new unified courts agency should have the power to enter into contracts for administrative work in the courts as necessary, so that, for example, agency secretarial and clerical cover can be provided. The agency will consult the unions fully about any more significant proposals to contract out for staff, as opposed to directly employing them. I make that commitment.

1053
We see no reason to maintain the provision that the Lord Chancellor must make an order authorising himself to do something. As the order currently in force is in the broadest possible terms, there would be no difference in outcome from that in the existing legal position. Moreover, the Bill specifies that some activities and posts will not be contracted out—justices' clerks, fines officers and officers and staff who discharge functions that involve making judicial decisions or exercising judicial discretion. We have specifically ruled out certain posts from the effects of contracting out.
We are aware of the concerns that the trade unions raised during the preparation of the Bill and their concerns about the ending of the requirement to make an order. I repeat our undertaking that we will discuss those matters further with the unions and, quite properly, report back to your Lordships' House.
I hope that, with that full response, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I take from the noble Lord's reply that the Government have not done the sums, do not know how much the reforms will cost and cannot introduce them until they have worked out the sums. If it so happens that the Government can balance the books only by contracting out services, they will do that and keep people off the pension fund. Finally, the Government do not want the judges interfering with the Lord Chancellor's ability to do that. That is what the noble Lord has told us in the past 10 minutes. I have the gravest fear that, if that is what happens, there will be considerable trouble among the administrative staff not just of Crown Courts but of magistrates' courts and county courts.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Renton for his defence and support of the amendment. First, I turn to my Amendment No. 9. I thank the Minister for his helpful response; although, I am not sure how helpful it was to other noble Lords who have amendments in this group. The Minister has shown clearly that the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, is right. Clause 2(4) allows the expansion of contracting out in the future. The Minister assures us that there are no plans systematically to expand contracting out. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, the potential is there.
I consider that there may be good reasons—I may be on the Government's side for once—at some future stage for contracting out. Where we all agree is that we would consider them good reasons only if there had been proper consultation. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with regard to the importance of consultation being up front and clear in the Bill. We shall need to look at that issue further.
The Minister said, "Ah, well, yes, we need flexibility on this", but one person's flexibility in management is another person's fracture. We do not want a fractured management. Certainly, at this stage, I shall withdraw the amendment, but it may not be the end of the story.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert "(including the functions of a fines officer)"
The noble Lord said: I hope that Amendment No. 13 is unnecessary. Clause 2(5) rightly excludes the contracting out of judicial functions. The tines officers are a new form of officer with a duty to improve the collection of fines. I welcome that. Under Schedule 2, a fines officer has powers which clearly appear to be judicial: the power to vary a collection order, under paragraphs 7 and 11; possibly the power to determine the amount of an increase, under paragraph 9; and the power to issue a warrant, make an attachment order or a clamping order, under paragraph 13. Will the Minister assure us that these are regarded as the exercise of a judicial discretion or the making of a judicial decision? If that is the case, it would therefore be clear that the role of fines officer could not be contracted out, which we think is correct. If that is not so and if the role of fines officer could be contracted out to someone who was not a direct employee of the Lord Chancellor, that would be a matter of great concern to us. I beg to move.
Lord Jones: I speak with diffidence, following the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is clear that we must give full support to the collection of fines imposed by the court—not to do so would countenance the collapse of the entire system. However, there is concern among magistrates that fines officers will have the power to vary a fine without reference to the magistrates who impose them. That could surely undermine the validity of the sentence passed by the court.
Will the Minister consider that point in his response to the debate? Many magistrates would be grateful for a considered view of a matter that greatly exercises them. I know for sure that that is the case in north-east Wales. What checks will there be? What will be done to monitor this scene? How will the fines officer be responsive in all of this? On what grounds will a fines officer vary the fines of magistrates? Is there guidance other than in the schedule and in Clause 31? What links will there be between the magistrates and the fines officers? I was impressed by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I hope that the Minister will respond.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I had not expected to be in a position to raise this point. At Second Reading, I expressed doubts as to whether the position of the fines officer was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was kind enough to write to me—stupidly I have left the letter behind—giving the Government's thoughts on this matter. If I have it wrong in recollection, I hope that she will correct me.
My recollection is that, in part, the fines officer will not be acting in a judicial capacity, but merely enforcing decisions already made by the magistrates'

1055
court. So be it. However, in part, the letter stated that the fines officer would be acting judicially in providing different remedies for collection of lines. It stated that that would be acceptable because there would be a right of appeal to court. I can see the noble Baroness nodding; perhaps my recollection is not far wrong.
Frankly, I was taken aback by that answer. If that is right, we can abolish the independence of the High Court, because there is always an appeal; we do not have to bother about the circuit court, because there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal; we do not have to bother about vast tranches of courts which no longer need to be independent and impartial and qualify under the European Convention, provided there is an appeal to a tribunal court which does qualify. I cannot believe that I understood the noble Baroness's letter correctly; or alternatively—I hesitate to suggest this as an alternative—that she understands the European Convention correctly.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Amendments Nos. 64 and 65, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Seccombe, directly approach the point raised at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. As a result of hearing and subsequently re-reading his speech, I decided to draft the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, has raised an important but wide issue. I do not believe that it would be helpful to the Committee if I rehearsed some of the arguments that will be put in detail later by my noble friend Lady Seccombe.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we shall discuss this issue at a later stage. In order to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I should put on record that the role of the fines officer is to manage the collection of fines on behalf of the court through the tines collection scheme. Before a fine may be enforced through the scheme, the court must first make a collection order. I believe that much is clear.
I should like it to be further understood that judicial powers will not be usurped; neither will the power and validity of the court sentence be undermined. The court will continue to take the sentencing decision, but it will be for the fines officer to exercise the purely administrative function of applying any necessary enforcement measures. I hope that is clear. We can have further elucidation when we reach the relevant part of the Bill.
In respect of Amendment No. 13, I am confident that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the point that he raised in the amendment. Obviously, the amendment would prevent the Lord Chancellor from contracting out the work of fines officers. We are grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment, but we question whether it is necessary. An amendment to subsection (5) to prevent the Lord Chancellor contracting out the work of tines officers is, in our view, pointless. Clause 31(1)(a) clearly states that fines officers will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. No mention is made of the Lord Chancellor being able to make arrangements
1056
under Clause 2(4) for the provision of fines officers. There is a distinction, which I am sure the noble Lord will understand.
Therefore, the Lord Chancellor would not have the power or the authority to contract out the work. I gave that reassurance in earlier debate. I hope that that reassurance will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I want to take up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. His summary of the Government's position was far wide of the mark. I am sorry he made the summary in the way he did because it tries to sour the debate. We should today be concentrating on the practical steps that the Government are taking to implement important legislation which seeks to modernise and improve the working of our courts system. We should focus on the reality rather than on an imagined and unconscious attempt by the Government to undermine its proper operation.
I hope that there is no cynicism in the debate because we are trying to improve the way in which the court system works. We want it to be more accessible, understandable and available, enabling the public—the consumers—properly to use it. I hope that we enter into a better spirit in discussing these important clauses and amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Is cost not the greatest reality? The Minister says that the Government have not costed the proposal. Surely the consumer—the taxpayer—is concerned with cost. That is reality. I do not want to sound as though I am carping. But like are here to test the Government out on all the details of their legislation. We want to look at what appears to be a large loophole in the provisions of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall return to the point. It is incorrect to say that we have not costed the proposal. However, any reasonable person would see that it is right and proper that some of the detail is worked out during the process of bringing forward legislation. We want to ensure that the new system is proper and effective in its running and organisation. That is why we have been necessarily cautious in saying that we want to work out the detail and introduce a pilot scheme.
One cannot be precise at every instance when estimating exactly the breadth of the cost, but we want to ensure that the resources are available in order that the courts work effectively and properly in everyone's interest.
Lord Jones: I rise with practicality in mind and in the best spirit. Does my noble friend categorically say that the fines officer shall not vary the fines imposed by the magistrates?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I make it clear to my noble friend that the fines officer does not vary the fines but that he will be able to vary the way in which they are collected. That is the point.
Lord Jones: My noble friend, with great courtesy, gave me the answer which I did not want. My question

1057
was specific and categorical. Will the fines officer have the power to vary the fines imposed by magistrates in the courts?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that I was clear. The fines officer will not have the ability to vary the quantum—the totality—of the fine. However, he may well vary the way in which the fine is collected; in other words, the collection period.
Lord Goodhart: Having looked at paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, I am by no means certain that the Minister's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, is correct. However, that matter can be left until our debate on Clause 31 and Schedule 2.
Amendment No. 11 was tabled for debate to take place on the assumption that no alteration was made in the powers of a fines officer under Clause 31 and Schedule 2.
I am grateful to the Minister for putting on record the fact that the fines officer can be appointed only under Clause 2(1) and not by virtue of an arrangement under subsection (4). That satisfies the doubt which prompted me to table Amendment No. 13 and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Provision of accommodation]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 18, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that the Lord Chancellor should not be left with the discretion as to whether he should,
"provide, equip, maintain and manage such courthouses, offices and other accommodation"
to be used by the justice system but that he should have a duty to do so. The good old method by which we impose that duty is to change the permissive "may" in Clause 3(1) to the obligatory "shall".
If the requirement under the clause is simply that the Lord Chancellor may obtain the necessary budget and may spend it in the right way, we are leaving open the possibility that he may not choose to do so. That would seem objectionable. To echo a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I cannot imagine that any Lord Chancellor would not want to do so. Only an ill-advised Lord Chancellor would choose not to follow his duty in these respects.
Which Lord Chancellor would not want to make such provision? We allege no such thing against the current Lord Chancellor. Indeed, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am not attacking the personality of any Minister. I am looking at a Bill which will be in place for generations to come and may see many characters come and go. We want to be sure that they all behave in the right way by our justice system.
Would our amendment box in the Lord Chancellor if he wished to take specific action? No, it would not. He would retain flexibility because we have left in place the provision that the buildings and contents he should provide will be those he believes to be appropriate. We therefore leave him discretion on what he does; we say merely that it would plainly be daft if the Bill did not give him the absolute duty to provide the buildings and equipment.
Our amendment guarantees to the public that now and in future the Lord Chancellor will ensure that there is proper provision of the physical resources which support our judicial system. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Amendment No. 14 is important. In order that justice may appear to be done, it must be carried out in circumstances which impress the people. That can occur only if the courts are properly maintained, are suitable and efficient places in which to work, and where necessary have the royal coat of arms. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor of the day should be under a strict obligation to spend public money on ensuring that the courts are properly maintained. That is why I hope that the Government will sympathise with the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. If not, perhaps I may direct his attention to line 10 on page 3 of the Bill. There he will see, in relation to the establishment of court administration councils under Clause 4, that subsection (5) states:
"The Lord Chancellor must provide the councils with guidance about the way in which they should discharge their functions".
Why is it right to have "must" there if it is not right to have "shall" in the part of the Bill with which the amendment is concerned?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: On the face of it, this seems an innocent and worthwhile amendment. I was sitting there thinking that I should concede. However, on reading my notes again, I have to reconsider that proposition.
It seems a sensible amendment—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, put it in good terms—but my understanding of the impact is that it would place the Lord Chancellor under a duty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, to provide court-houses and other accommodation. That is certainly the Lord Chancellor's intention and exactly what we want to do. But Clause 3(1) is modelled on Section 28 of the Courts Act 1971. I was not anywhere near government in 1971—I was probably preparing for my A-levels—but no doubt the draftsman considered that what he had drafted at that time was fit for purpose. The important point is that, as the clause is drafted, it empowers the Lord Chancellor to provide such accommodation. Changing the power to a duty would, I am advised, prevent the Lord Chancellor from entering into arrangements with other persons or bodies for the provision of accommodation as set out in Clause 3(2).

1059
That would be the effect of the amendment. To give its impact some body, some life, I am advised that it would specifically prevent the Lord Chancellor from entering into arrangements with people such as the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of any property held by him. The effect of the amendment would be to impose a straitjacket and prevent the flexibility required under the original legislation to allow arrangements to be entered into for the use of properties held by other departments. That is the explanation.
We always pay great attention to suggestions for improving the quality of the wording and we shall certainly have another look at it. But the amendment could have an unfortunate and unintended consequence. We wish to ensure that courts are properly provided for, properly equipped, properly maintained, and so on. That is the intention, as it was in 1971 when the legislation on which the clause is modelled was originally drafted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before my noble friend sits down. I fail to understand his logic. I would much prefer that he said here and now that the Government will have another look at the matter. My noble friend has not delivered that assurance. He may have intended to, but we have to observe firm rules here.
A sensible case has been argued. We have an opportunity to look at the matter again. On the face of it, inserting the word "shall" in Clause 3(1) is very sensible. Can I hear from my noble friend again in regard to that?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the amendment. The Lord Chancellor is not going to build the court-houses with his own hands. I do not see how his flexibility to hire other firms to build court-houses is affected by changing "may" to "shall".
I was around in 1971, in a brand-new court-house in Mold—the palace-on-the-hill—which really was splendid. However, on visits there over the past 10 years, as I said in the Second Reading debate, there have been buckets all over the place to catch the water coming through the roof. I believe that the Lord Chancellor has not given the right priority to the maintenance of some of these excellent court-houses. The word "shall" would impose a duty—something to which people could point—and require the proper repair of court-houses currently in existence.
Lord Hylton: The 1971 Act has been quoted as a precedent. I am sure that at that time the concept of private finance initiatives had never been thought of. It is very much on the agenda now. I wonder whether the Government's reply, to which we listened carefully, might not conceal an intention to provide new court-houses by PFI.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: One of the oddities of the opposition to the change is that, in replying to the argument, the Minister seemed to address himself to
1060
the "may" found in Clause 3(2) rather than the "may" which is the subject of the amendment—leave out "may" and insert "shall"—at page 2, line 18.
It is perfectly appropriate that the Lord Chancellor should be under a duty in subsection (1), but when it comes to the issue of making arrangements he should be given a degree of discrimination and allowed to use his best discretion in these matters. There is nothing incompatible between having "shall" at page 2, line 18, and "may" in subsection (2) at line 21.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Would it be unkind to suggest to the Minister that he has overlooked his best point—that is, that guidance is free and putting up court-houses is not?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for the support of my noble friend Lord Renton, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, urged his noble friend the Minister to look at this matter again, but there is no need. As the Minister said, the Government have an opportunity here to do something simple. There is no need to wait. My amendment would not impose any prohibition on the Lord Chancellor from doing his job properly. Indeed, it would ensure that future generations of Lord Chancellors would do their job properly.
I would have been happy if the Minister had stayed with his first comment, that the amendment was innocent and worthwhile and that he should concede. I shall give him a chance to think again by seeking the opinion of the Committee.
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 92.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Elton, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Fookes, B.

Arran, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Barker, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glentoran, L.

Byford, B.

Goodhart, L.

Caithness, E.

Goschen, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Greaves, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Greenway, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Colwyn, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.[Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Cox, B.

Henley, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Home, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Deedes, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Hylton, L.

Dundee, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

1061

Kimball, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lindsay, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sandwich, E.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Selborne, E.

L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

McNally, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Maddock, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Stewartby, L.

Marlesford, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Strange, B.

Monson, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Montrose, D.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Moynihan, L.

Tenby, V.

Naseby, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Newby, L.

Trefgarne, L

O'Cathain, B.

Waddington, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Wakeham, L.

Onslow, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Palmer, L.

Walmsley, B.

Peel, E.

Walpole, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Warnock, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Rees, L.

Weatherill, L.

Renton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Andrews, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Harrison, L.

Bach, L.

Hayman, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Borrie, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bragg, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brennan, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brookman, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath. L.

Burlison, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord

Campbell-Savours, L.

Chancellor)

Carter, L.

Jones, L.

Chandos, V.

Layard, L.

Christopher, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston. L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

[Teller]

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Orme, L.

Dixon, L.

Pendry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dubs, L.

Radice, L.

Elder, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gale, B.

Simon, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Golding, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

1062

Thornton, B.

Wilkins, B.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Mostyn. L.(Lord

Privy Seal)

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Winston, L.

Whitaker, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.28 p.m.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Establishment of court administration councils]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 37, after "into" insert "a minimum of 25"
The noble Lord said: Clauses 4 and 5 contain the core of the way in which the new, unified courts administration service is to operate. I find myself in some difficulty. I suspect, as must most other Members of the Committee, that the Minister must be embarrassed, because she cannot tell us in detail how the system is to work. Whenever we begin to approach the detail, the whole system is "out for consultation" and no decisions are to be taken until we have the results.
I find it passing strange that we should be invited to approve legislation to establish a new system when we do not have a clear picture of what it will be. It is somewhat unsurprising, therefore, that these two clauses have attracted a large volume of amendments.
Perhaps I may begin with a quiet question to the Government on Clause 4(1). It states:
"England and Wales is to be divided into areas".
Is that wording appropriate? England and Wales was certainly a discrete administrative area prior to devolution and the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. However, I am fairly confident that there are those in Wales who would argue that Wales is now a separate entity and that the clause ought therefore to read:
"England and Wales are to be divided".
Although primary legislation can properly apply across England and Wales, the Welsh have particular rights and a particular status.
This is a simple question. It could have been asked by means of a further amendment, but I did not think that appropriate. The amendment simply seeks to add to Clause 4(1) a minimum number of areas for which there should be court administration councils. We are dealing with practicalities.
Amendment No. 17 is somewhat different. It ties the court administration councils to police areas, as happens under the existing system. That point is acknowledged in the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the Select Committee on the Constitution in which he acknowledges that the existing limits are to be the base blocks of any new system.
But the Bill does not indicate how England and Wales is to be divided. Theoretically, there could be one court administration council for England and another for Wales. That would be preposterous. But if the scale of the London Magistrates' Courts Committee operation were applied throughout the United Kingdom, one might have eight or nine court administration councils. There would be a logical basis for that, although one could argue that it was impractical. If there were one court administration council to cover the whole of the North, I wonder whether it would take much longer to travel from the east coast to the west coast of that region than it does to travel from the northern boundary of London to the southern boundary, such is the state to which its traffic system has been reduced.
Outside the London area, an area on that scale would be far too big. It would be administratively impossible for a court administration council to operate in an area of that size and to understand local pressures and nuances, which, it is implied, councils must do. So, my first cock-shy—I admit that it is such, because there is no absolute logic in it—is that we should include "a minimum of 25" in the Bill. It is a nice simple number, although it was not the first one that Came into my head. It would allow considerable streamlining of the present system, if it were genuinely desired, but it would have disadvantages. There is much to commend the present arrangements, whereby the magistrates courts, which handle the vast bulk of cases numerically in any event, the police and the Probation Service all work on similar areas.
But the difficulty is that we cannot get any solid information from the Government on precisely what they intend. So my second thought was that we should use the police force area as the basic block, as is almost current practice. It makes a good deal of sense. Large geographic areas would still be involved. A very diligent group of people would be needed to know and understand their area, its pressures and difficulties, and, most importantly, how to improve and streamline a service in the interests of the community they represent.
So, Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are grouped together. I hope that the Government will indicate not only their reaction—
Lord Renton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he proposing that there should be as many court administration councils as there are police authorities?
Lord Dixon-Smith: That would be the effect of Amendment No. 17. It is very practical. The new administration must start somewhere. Tying the number of court administration councils to the number of police forces would give us an existing pattern of building blocks. But that does not prevent the numbers from falling. A reduction in the number of police forces, which may happen, would provide an opportunity for a change in the courts administration system. The difficulty is that, under the Bill and from
1064
what we have learned so far, we have no means of judging what should happen and whether it will work. I beg to move.
Lord Jones: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with some diffidence. In the White Paper Justice for All the Government promised that court management decisions would be taken locally by local management boards. They also stated that,
"resources can be managed flexibly to meet local requirements".
If I understand it correctly, instead we are told that management boards are now to be court administration councils to provide the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with recommendations, which are not necessarily binding. Might that result in an erosion of local accountability rather than the enhancement promised six months ago by a Minister in a letter to all magistrates? I emphasise that magistrates' courts committees currently include in their membership 12 justices of the peace who practise in the area. Under the proposals, each court administration council would have only one justice of the peace as provided at line 3 on page 3 of the Bill in subsection (4)(b).
It is fair to argue that this will not keep the courts,
"in touch with the communities they serve",
as promised previously by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hesitate to intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Jones, but I think that he is debating my next group of amendments rather than the present one.
Lord Jones: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, argued so persuasively that he stirred my enthusiasm.
Lord Waddington: I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jones, because I agree with almost every word he said. We are entitled to guidance on how many areas it is proposed to divide England and Wales into.
If there is to be only one justice of the peace for each court administration council, it follows, as night follows day, that the council cannot have any meaning unless it covers only a relatively small area. The document that was put in the Library—the so-called statement about the principles which will form the basis of the agency's framework document—refers more than once to local areas. That means different things to different people. I hope that by the end of this debate we will at least have a clearer exposition from the Government as to what sort of areas they have in mind. Only when we know how large these areas are can we begin to debate seriously what the representation on the court administration councils could be. It seems absurd that we should be asked to discuss the councils' composition when we have no idea what sort of areas they will cover. If the Government are to stick to the idea of having only one JP per council, it follows that if those councils are to have any meaningful role, they will have to cover

1065
relatively tightly drawn and small areas. We could not have nine or 10 covering the whole of England and Wales.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I warmly endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and my noble friend Lord Waddington. This is controversial because of the anxiety felt about some provisions that greatly enhance the centralisation of the administration of justice in this country at the expense of the well tried and greatly admired local accountability of magistrates' courts. That is the context.
I hope that the Minister took on board what the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said. Are the Government aware that the Magistrates' Association and the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees are at one in objecting to the proposals? They do not object to them in principle, because they realise that there may be better ways of managing the magistrates' courts than through the magistrates courts' committees, as at present constituted and distributed. But they were reassured to read in the White Paper that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, there would be true accountability with meaningful local management with an overall guiding national framework for the unified court. Now it appears, from the Bill, that the CACs will not have any decision-making powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, even the recommendations provided by the council are due to receive only a measure of due consideration from the Lord Chancellor.
We hope to find an explanation in what the Minister has to say for the U-turn in respect of what the White Paper and the letter in August referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, promised. What is the reason for the U-turn and what is the proposed scale of distribution of CACs? If there are to be only a small number, that is a further blow to local accountability and local contact with the administration of justice, and that is greatly feared from this part of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendment No. 17 is replicated in Amendment No. 23. I think it fair to say that Amendments Nos. 23, 28 and 30, in the names of Members from Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches, cover the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, rather more fully. It may be best to keep our powder dry for later.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: On the specific issue of the numbers of court administration councils, I refer to the letter written by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on 23 December last when she replied to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, saying:
"No decision will be taken about the number of Court Administration Councils until there has been consultation with all stakeholders. Our consideration of these matters will of course take full account of the need to fit with the criminal justice areas (which are clearly a building block of the new organisation), and other considerations (such as the needs of civil and family justice). This is in accord with Sir Robin Auld's recommendation 102".
1066
In fact, as I recall from his report, Sir Robin Auld did not approve of the idea of 42 councils. I should like an assurance, once these consultations with stakeholders have been completed, that each criminal justice area will have a court administration council.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to Wales. These matters are not devolved to Wales, but I can understand the Lord Chancellor considering Wales in this respect. The fact that it is easier for the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and me to get to London than to Cardiff is neither here nor there. The temptation to have one court administration council for Wales would be considerable. I look forward to the Minister's assurance that that is not the plan.
Viscount Tenby: Keeping one's powder dry is rather a good thing to do at this stage. Let us not rush ahead too far. We are, as I understand it, talking about the specific amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. But since my name has kindly been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, let me say that I said what I did on Second Reading in an effort not to dismember the 42 existing councils which are showing signs of succeeding. They have been up and running for only 18 months. To take all that to pieces, petulantly, like a child in a nursery, may be a mistake. If the system is running, we should not muck about with it. That was the point that I was trying to make. As far as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is concerned, I am interested to see how the argument develops.
Lord Jones: When the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, examines Hansard tomorrow, he might see that I constructed my argument around his generous cock-shy of 25.
The noble Lord made an interesting point at the beginning of his remarks on Amendment No. 16 regarding Wales. I thought that I should inform him that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, chairs an all-party commission that has been set up by the Assembly for Wales. The noble Lord might wish to go before that commission with his interesting suggestion or to write to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I think, however, that he might have more success with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, than he will ever have with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Waddington: I hope that the Minister will answer this simple question: how can we be expected to agree Clause 4(4)—the composition of a council—until we are told how many councils there will be and how large will be the areas that they cover? Now we are told that the number of councils will not be determined until there is further consultation. In that case, I repeat what I said a moment ago: how, until that consultation has taken place, can we possibly agree the composition of the councils?
Lord Hylton: The Government have a duty to the Committee to disclose the basis on which they have been consulting. Either they must have approached the consultees saying that they had no ideas and wanted to

1067
hear their views, or they must have put forward thoughts on the nature and size of the areas. The Government should enlighten us.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support both amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I well understand why some Members of the Committee may have gone slightly wide of the wording of the amendments. They may have an early draft of groupings that took them further into the Bill. That may well have caused the problems.
As my noble friend Lord Waddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, have just said, the amendments relate exactly to the crucial point of what the Government are saying when they consult on the number of the councils. If we do not know the number, we do not know how we can advise on how the rest of the Bill should be drafted.
I was intrigued to note in the report on the Bill by the Select Committee on the Constitution that, in response to questions about the number of areas, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor echoed, but did not quite copy, the answer from last summer quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The noble and learned Lord said:
"The 42 criminal justice areas will be the building blocks"—
building blocks again—
"for the new structure, though a specific link to them in statute would be restrictive".
It looks like our old friend inflexibility again. He went on:
"if other criminal justice agencies were to change their area structure, the courts would not be able to adapt quickly".
We shall have a full opportunity to discuss that on later amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said. However, that accusation cannot be levelled at Amendment No. 16, which merely says that there should be a minimum of 25. That gives the Government the opportunity to put clearly on the record the terms on which they have consulted so far. Have they proposed any particular minimum or maximum? In what context are people responding? Can we be assured that we shall have a truly local structure? We do not currently have that assurance. The Government should have consulted first and brought the results to this House.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am in an interesting position. The purpose of the consultation process is to make sure that the local voice is heard and that no arbitrary decision is taken centrally about the number of councils that are necessary to meet the needs of the people of our country. If we did not believe in partnership or in listening to the people who operate the system and to the evidence, it would have been possible to pick a number out of the air and impose it. We thought that would be a fundamentally flawed approach.
The court administration council areas will set the structure for the councils and the new agency with which the councils will work in partnership. It is essential that we choose the right areas so that they are
1068
at the right level to have local cohesion and to operate as viable management units for all the courts business in the magistrates' court, the Crown Court and the county court.
There was extensive consultation on the framework and the need for a unified administration. That came from Lord Justice Auld's report and a number of other sources. There is a lot of support for the principle that unified administration will bring many worthwhile benefits.
We are open in principle to the setting of a minimum number of court administration council areas. We do not intend, as some may suspect, to establish as few as possible to water down their influence in some way. However, we need to consider carefully the level at which that minimum should be set so that it does not create an undue restriction. We are not willing to make a cock-shy of it to satisfy everyone immediately. We want to get this right.
The clause already requires that the area structure be set by order, which will give an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny before the area structure is set. The area structure for the councils and the new agency is one of the issues that we intend to consult on, as all those who have spoken know. We know that the areas will differ one from another. We do not believe that one size fits all. What may be right for Wales may not be right for the North West. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that Wales is as precious to us as is England. We would not give up an inch of it. We want a proper balance. We want the right size to meet the needs of each area. That is what we must do.
We have also set minimum standards. There have been comments about the provision for only one magistrate. We are not prescribing that there should be only one magistrate on each council. We are setting that as an irreducible minimum. We shall talk about those issues in due course.
These consultations are taking place across the country, starting this month. The first consultation is on 30th January and they will continue through to April. These events will help us to develop a clearer picture of what the area structure should be and what might be appropriate as a minimum number of council areas. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to withdraw Amendment No. 16.
On Amendment No. 17, the noble Lord is right that the police authority areas are the basis for the criminal justice system structure. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, is aware, the criminal justice areas are not exactly the same as the police authority areas. The Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police areas are treated as one. I presume that the noble Lord's intention is to create a link to the 42 criminal justice areas, not to the 43 police authority areas. I shall reply on that basis.
If the court administration councils are to make an effective contribution, their areas should set the structure for the new agency, with which the councils will work in partnership. It is essential that we choose the right areas so that they are the right level to have local cohesion and to operate as a viable management

1069
unit for all the courts' business in the magistrates' court, the Crown Court and the county court. On a number of occasions in our discussions there has been a proper concentration on the magistrates' courts, but almost no mention that we are also including the civil and Crown Courts in the new administrative procedure. That is a very important point, because some of our practical gains will come from that unification.
The new structure needs to enable us to improve the services to local community and court users and to operate effectively at the level of the 42 criminal justice system areas, as well as within the business network of the civil and family jurisdictions. We intend to ensure that the court administration councils can make an effective contribution to local strategy, to provide for day-to-day operational decisions to be taken locally wherever possible, to reduce the currently wide variation in performance across the country, to ensure that the public receive consistent standards of service from all courts in all jurisdictions, and to support the judiciary and the magistracy at all levels. If Members of the Committee, looking at the whole country, are already able to say that we should have 27, 31, 42 or 43 councils, then I can only respectfully say that they are in a far better position than I am.
We intend to get this right, not for ourselves but for those who use our courts day in and day out. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, is right. The rearrangement into the new areas has brought benefits, which is why we say that it is a building block. We will not injudiciously throw away that which has worked unless and until we discover that there is a better arrangement. We can discover that only by having intense conversations with all the parties across the country who are best able to advise on the best structure. Perhaps 25 is the right minimum number. Perhaps it is 35 or 40. I simply cannot give the Committee that assurance now. Neither am I willing to sacrifice the benefits that will come from that consultative process, as that is how we will ensure sound management for the future.
We are examining the issue as profoundly and thoroughly as we can. Members of the Committee have said that they would like more detail today, and I would love to be able to give them that detail today. However, I give the Committee this assurance. As and when the consultation results come through, we will make that information available to the House as speedily as possible and the House will have an opportunity to discuss it.
I understand the Committee's anxiety about the threat of enhancing centralisation. As I said, however, that is not our intent. I understand, too, the anxieties expressed by the Magistrates' Association and others about the nature of their function. When we come to debate that issue, I shall seek to address those fears. I say now that our intent does not differ; we differ only on how the intent is carried out. The Government share the Committee's desire to ensure that the local nature of service delivery not only continues but is improved and enhanced.
7 p.m.
Lord Waddington: If the areas are going to differ in size, does it not follow that it might be appropriate to have differently composed court administration councils depending on whether they looked after the interests of a large area or a small one? Will we not finish up with the same difficulty when we examine Clause 44? We are supposed to decide the composition of the councils, but we are entirely in the dark as to the number and shape of the areas. If there were a very large area, and therefore a council which had to cover a very large area, there would be a very strong case for a minimum of two, three, four or more JPs on the council, whereas there may be a case for a minimum of only one JP on a council looking after a more compact area.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The intention is that there should be a minimum of one. That would be the irreducible minimum. However, the noble Lord is right to say that, because of the difference in need of different areas, the councils may be constructed differently and have different compositions. We propose to ensure that the framework is right. The fundamental principles on which each council operates will be the same, but they will allow sufficient flexibility and variation to respond to local needs. As the noble Lord rightly said, the larger areas may have many more members. Various and differing consultative sub-boards may also be set up. We intend to examine all those issues in detail and they will be included in guidance. The framework document will help us greatly with the parameters. We shall continue to put flesh on the bones. As that flesh becomes manifest, we shall ensure that that information is brought back to the House.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. However, she has painted a vivid picture of the Government feeling their way through territory which appears to be almost unknown in this consultation, and yet she has not provided an answer to the question that I ventured to ask. What has already been made known to the Government to bring about the change between what was promised in the White Paper and what the Bill currently characterises for the CACs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: One Member of the Committee—I cannot remember now whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his usual charming turn of phrase, or the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—suggested that the Government had made a U-turn on local management boards. I say absolutely that there has been no U-turn. We have strengthened the local focus.
As demonstrated by our decisions, we have decided that an executive agency that provides a national framework will best respond to the needs identified to us both in the Auld report and in the other assessments of the necessary changes. We thought it important that the external members of what will be the local management board have a statutory identity, and we propose to give

1071
them that in the clauses which cover court administration councils. Although some have latched onto the name, we believe that the important point is not the body's name but what it does. It may be called a council or a board. We will examine how the functions between the different parties will operate.
Through the guidance and the framework document, we hope to give not only the Committee but all those with anxieties about the matter, both in the magistrates' community and elsewhere, the types of reassurance about how the arrangements will work that they clearly need. We want to make it clear that our intention as expressed in the White Paper has not changed one jot.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Perhaps I may intervene very briefly. As we are in Committee, we have the wonderful luxury of being able to pick up on one or two little points.
It may be appropriate for me to return later, when we come to my Amendment No. 23, to the noble Baroness's comments regarding actions rather than words. I should like now simply to ask her a question about consultation. In a previous debate, she tried to be helpful about the current consultation. She said that the Government will publish the consultation and that the House will be able to debate it. Does she recognise that noble Lords need to have that debate before the Bill leaves this House? In saying that we will have a chance properly to consider the consultation within the context of this legislation, was she undertaking to speak to the Leader of the House to ensure that we do not reach Report stage before we have that consultation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Baroness knows better than I that that is a matter for the usual channels. We have indicated how the timings will run. We intend, as and when we get the initial outcomes from the consultation, to try to make an on-going assessment and share it as soon as is practicable.
As noble Lords who attended the relatively small meeting hat was held will know—I say small because, although it was open to all, few had the burden of attending, perhaps because the fire was then not as evident as it clearly is in the House today—we are not consulting on specific options. Instead, we are using the large and small areas as scenarios. We are asking stakeholders—if the noble Lord, Lord Gresford, wants me to list whom I mean by stakeholders, I am happy to do so again, but it will be in Hansard, if that assists him—what structure they think would best help them to achieve the objectives set out before we present options.
After that consultation process, we will narrow the options, stating what appears to be beneficial and less beneficial. Through that process, we hope to engage people appropriately.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate and, in particular, the Minister for doing her best in what are exceedingly difficult circumstances to be as helpful as she can. I salute her for that and have every confidence in her in the matter.
1072
However, we still face a dilemma. Procedurally, it would have been perfectly possible for the Government to complete their consultation and take the relevant decisions for us to know what we were doing. However, the Bill is before us and we are being asked to take the decision without knowing in any way how the new system is to work. How can we possibly make a valid and sensible judgment?
The noble Baroness kindly said that the new structure would have to be introduced by order. So it may. That indeed brings the matter before us again, but the procedure for orders is that we accept them or reject them. We cannot alter a comma or a capital letter. On a matter of such significance, I fear that we are being treated in a somewhat cavalier fashion. The other procedure was available under which we could have known what was to happen.
I stick simply to the issue of numbers. I cannot say that I am satisfied with the answer that I have received, because I have not received an answer. Given that, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
7.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 92.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Barker, B.

Kimball, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Laird, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lindsay, E.

Buscombe, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Byford, B.

Luke, L.

Caithness, E.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Carnegy of Lour, B.

L.

Colwyn, L.

McNally, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Maddock, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Deedes, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montrose, D.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dundee, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Onslow, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Palmer, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Glentoran, L.

Peel, E.

Goodhart, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Goschen, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Greaves, L.

Rees, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Renton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hogg, B.

Sandwich, E.

Home, E.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hylton, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

1073

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wakeham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Warnock, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wilcox, B.

Tope, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hayman, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bach, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Borrie, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Bragg, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brennan, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Chancellor)

Brookman, L.

Jannerof Braunstone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jones, L.

Burlison, L.

Layard, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Lipsey, L.

Chandos, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

[Teller]

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees. L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Desai, L.

Pendry, L.

Dixon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Golding, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Tenby, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Harrison, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.23 p.m.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: For the convenience of the Committee, given the hour at which we have arrived, I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee meets again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to
House resumed

Endangered Species
7.24 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made on the review of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (COTES).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope for a positive response to my Unstarred Question as regards longer sentences for those involved in the illegal wildlife trade.
First, I wish to outline the background to the illegal trade. International wildlife trade is regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In the UK the illegal wildlife trade is governed by the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (COTES).
Wildlife crime is a booming business. On average, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise seize thousands of items each year. In one raid alone it seized two stuffed tiger cubs—animals which had been less than two weeks old—mounted on a branch, the skull of a gorilla, a leopard, and vultures, sparrowhawks and snowy owls.
There is increasing evidence that this illegal trade is linked with organised crime, drug trafficking, intimidation and violence. Persistent offenders are very aware of flaws in existing legislation. In 1996 it was reported that Heathrow Customs officers discovered heroin packed in shells of live snails, while investigators in Rome found heroin hidden inside elephant tusks.
However, there is a maximum limit of only a two-year prison sentence and limited fines. Sentences rarely match the seriousness of offences. For example, in April 2000 a company was fined just £1,500 for possessing 138 shahtoosh shawls made from the fleece of the highly endangered Tibetan antelope. Although the fine was only £1,500, the shawls were worth over £350,000 and—even worse—the animals that were killed to obtain the shawls were estimated to represent about 2 per cent of the world population of that species of antelope.
Flaws in current legislation make the cost of building a case and recording the crime extremely difficult. The police have no power of entry into a suspect's premises without a search warrant and no powers to caution people. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and TRAFFIC, an organisation that monitors the trade in wildlife, campaign for tougher sentences and penalties for those engaged in the illegal wildlife trade. They want the maximum prison sentence to be increased from two to five years. That would not only send a strong message to those involved in the illegal trade but would also make the offences automatically arrestable under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
The important feature of arrestable offences is that the police have additional powers. For instance, they would have the ability to search the premises owned or occupied by the concerned person without a warrant. The police would also have the power to take fingerprints, which is highly important. Equally important, they could obtain DNA samples, compel suspects to be interviewed, and bail suspects with conditions, where appropriate. With crimes increasingly endangering such species, it is very important that we increase the penalty.
The good news is that the Government have already set out in consultative proposals the increased penalty— from two years to five— that I have been requesting. That is welcomed by the WWFWK, TRAFFIC and many people in the country. The Government are taking the matter extremely seriously. When their consultative review is completed, I am sure that they will be prepared to act. It is vital that any changes are brought into law as soon as possible.
I have some questions for the Minister. What is the date for completing the consultation process? And, arising from that, when can we expect new legislation introducing tougher sentences for wildlife criminals? Those are important because until we have them the species we are discussing will be in great danger. If at all possible, can the legislation be enacted during this parliamentary term? I do not think I am asking the impossible. If the Government respond quickly, I should have thought that the measure could be introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill. Is that the case? That would mean the proposal being brought forward very quickly, which would be a great help.
What discussions have already taken place between DEFRA and the Home Office on the matter? How far have they gone? Is the timetable that I advocate reasonable?
Knowing that my noble friend is due to reply, I can be sure of one thing: I shall get some very straight answers. I hope that they will be positive, that there will be good news, not only for myself and all those attending the debate—I thank them for taking the time to do so—but for the species in danger.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I declare that I am a member of an endangered species myself. Although I did not speak about my survival in a possible reform of the Lords last week, I rise to my feet on the more important issue of the black-market trade of other, more exotic endangered species. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for the opportunity.
In my view, it is imperative to tackle the problem on two fronts. In the first instance, it must be tackled in the market-place, with strict enforcement to crack down on the black-market trading in endangered species in this country. The proposals announced by DEFRA make a good start at doing that. However, we must go further otherwise DEFRA's efforts will be wasted, because equally important as tackling the problem in the market-place is helping to tackle the problem in the country of origin.
1076
It is for the people living in the countries where the endangered species originate that the issue of smuggling is most urgent. Indeed, many of those people's livelihoods and diets depend on the finely balanced environment in which each species makes up a crucial part. The loss of one species can, and will, upset the whole balance, usually in areas of abject poverty.
The wildlife and poverty study undertaken between April and October 2001, to assess evidence from DfID-funded activities for links between wildlife and poverty, shows that 101 million people in sub-Saharan Africa live on one dollar a day or less. It is in those areas that food security impacts on wildlife, particularly through tourism and bushmeat.
What is the best way to control the trade in endangered plants and animals? In my opinion, an outright ban is not the answer. A total ban on the trade of endangered species would ignore the opportunity for sustainable development. With the hindsight of experience in combating the drugs trade, it would seem unlikely to succeed. Sustainable development involves managing resources in such a way as to allow wealth generation through trading revenues, while ensuring that that practice does not conflict with the overall goal of conservation.
My next point is the one that I really want to press home. It is through sustainable development that those living and working in the country of origin will experience the fact that the good of endangered species and their own good go hand in hand. That matching of interests is the real answer to the dilemma about protecting endangered species. There are some interesting examples of ranching and farming of exotic species such as, in Ghana's ranching operations, the export of skins of monitor lizards, chameleons and pythons.
A decade ago, I joined conservation teams mapping coral reefs in both Belize and the Philippines to determine the impact of tourism and fishing on coral reefs. Many reefs were not only damaged through dynamite and cyanide fishing, but through poor diving techniques. Conservation officers teaching and training local university students and local people to understand their coral reef environment, on which their communities' livelihoods relied, enabled those communities to realise the damage being done to their livelihoods. That is now helping to bring about sustainability.
What does that mean with regard to today's debate? Measures to ensure stricter enforcement of illegal trade in endangered species are imperative. Illegal trading of wildlife not only risks the introduction of diseases—we have surely learned how serious the consequences of that can be—but can result in endangering species and a decline in food security in the country of origin.

1077
However, more than that must be done. Where there is a desire expressed by the country of origin to initiate sustainable development, we must work with it to make that happen. There is an opportunity here that should not be wasted. Let us go further than the well-meaning but limited DEFRA proposals that we are debating.
7.39 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I warmly welcome this short debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for introducing it. It enables noble Lords to focus on the urgent need to strengthen the existing regulations and to introduce tougher sanctions against illegal trading in endangered species. I hope, too, that a new clause may be introduced into the Criminal Justice Bill to give to police and wildlife inspectors new powers and to make much more effective the campaign to curb this obnoxious trade. It is extraordinary that one can be arrested for poaching deer or salmon—or even a pheasant—in this country but that one cannot be arrested for selling a tiger or dealing in rhino horn or ivory.
My concern is for two reasons. There is a very real danger of the extinction of certain species, which would be a disastrous loss to the biodiversity of the planet, and a serious matter in itself; it might well also have significant implications for human well-being. Even on a narrowly anthropocentric view of conservation, it is highly desirable to maintain the greatest possible variety of species for the sake of possible undiscovered benefits to humanity from plants and animal life. On any proper reckoning, the beauty and diversity of creation should be respected and protected in its own right.
The second reason is that illegal trading in endangered species can often inflict considerable suffering on the animals concerned, whether they are brutally killed in their own habitat or—even worse—subjected to long journeys in intolerable conditions if they are live imports. There are many examples of scandalous abuses, which cry out to be dealt with more effectively and deserve much more severe punishment than can currently be administered by the courts. They have been well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. I agree with him about the changes that are needed.
Illegal trading in endangered species is a very valuable business; it is extremely lucrative and is frequently linked to violent crime, drug dealing and Mafia networks. The present sanctions are ludicrously inadequate. Because the offence is not an arrestable offence, the police officer investigating it can say to a suspect, "Would you care to come with me to the police station?", but the person can perfectly well reply, "No thank you".
The decline in the black rhino population has been catastrophic. Numbers have fallen from 65,000 about 30 years ago to 2,500 today. This species is particularly targeted by illegal traders. This trade needs to be stopped and the police given proper powers to bring
1078
traders to justice. However, a man found in possession of 127 rhino horns in 1998, with a value of £2.8 million, was able, on appeal, to retain them. In 2000, a survey by TRAFFIC, the wildlife monitoring programme, found that two-thirds of Chinese medicine shops in the United Kingdom were selling products containing protected animal and plant species. In the same year, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, pointed out, there was a haul of shahtoosh shawls, which are made from the wool of the rare and endangered Tibetan antelope—the chiru—but a ridiculously inadequate fine was placed on the person who had gathered the stock, which was worth £350,000.
There are many more examples of the money that can be made out of the trade and the total inadequacy of the sanctions that are currently in place. It is, to our shame, true that the United Kingdom is a particularly lucrative market for this illegal trade in endangered species. We must accept our share of responsibility for the catastrophic decline in many rare species. Even the Indian tiger is threatened; its numbers are down by 95 per cent over the past 100 years. The South China, Siberian and Sumatran tigers are on the verge of extinction and three sub-species have already gone for good.
There is much cruelty and malpractice in this wretched trade. Birds of prey are stuffed into six inch plastic tubes with their claws tied together, with no access to food or water on interminable intercontinental journeys. Eight deadly snakes were discovered closely confined in a flat in Sheffield. A four-foot alligator was abandoned in a telephone box. It beggars belief. Much of the trade goes on undiscovered and vast numbers of animals, birds and reptiles die in transit.
I am not sure about sustainable trade in endangered species; I believe that it is actually a contradiction in terms. I am all in favour of sustainable trade, which genuinely benefits developing countries, but we must be very careful before even considering the possibility of sustainable trade in seriously endangered species. There must be an absolute priority for protection and conservation.
We need stronger legislation as soon as possible to tackle this abominable business, for reasons of conservation and of animal welfare. Of course there is legitimate trade, which is properly and carefully controlled, and that needs to continue. However, the criminals should be caught and punished and other would-be illegal traders must be suitably deterred.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, am pleased to take part in this debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for initiating it. For me, one paramount reason for debating this matter is that we cannot allow those who are irresponsible, to say the least, or are corrupt and ruthless exploiters, to say the most, to destroy vulnerable species, which I believe we have a duty to preserve for future generations.
One of the difficulties that we face in the protection of endangered species is that such animals are often those that tend to be less popular with the public at

1079
large. Turtles, tortoises, vultures and sparrowhawks arc not as attractive as furry seal pups with their big eyes, for example, which we see on many adverts against seal culling. There is not overall revulsion against the endangerment of such animals from the population at large.
The WWF and the RSPCA have welcomed the Government's new proposals, which are currently out for consultation, and which involve tougher sentences for illegal wildlife traders. Both are pressing for those proposals to be implemented speedily. They are also campaigning for the Government to highlight what is happening in this relatively unknown area of crime. The trade is relatively unknown but it covers the sale of rare birds of prey, exotic reptiles, ivory and rhino horn, and it is claimed to be worth more than £5 billion per year. That sum is second only to the illegal drugs trade.
The RSPCA has proposed a formula for dealing with this crime. It believes that there should be tougher penalties to reflect the suffering involved. It says:
"For every animal that survives, hundreds die a most horrific death. All too often we see the gruesome consequences these endangered animals have suffered, at the hands of the inexperienced handlers".
In the latest RSPCA journal, "Animal News", a graphic description of what we are facing is given. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, last year 23 rare birds of prey were pushed into plastic tubes in a bid to import them illegally into the UK from Asia. Their value on the black market was £35,000. They endured a 14-hour flight with their feet bound and had no food or water. Customs officers at Heathrow Airport found them in two suitcases. Six were already dead and another died later. Other examples include: young animals that are brought into this country, which are cute when they are small but which cannot be properly looked after in gardens or sheds when they grow to maturity; birds that need a much larger aviary than that which is provided for them, resulting in damage to their wings and feet; and reptiles and lizards that grow too large for a house. The right reverend Prelate mentioned an alligator in a phone box. Such animals are too large to be comfortably handled, so they are let out into the wild, where conditions are not conducive to them.
Recent government proposals to overhaul animal welfare have been widely welcomed by the RSPCA, which described them as "radical". In particular, the society praised DEFRA for adopting its proposals for a statutory "duty of care" approach to protect not only wild and exotic animals in captivity but also domestic and farmed animals. John Rolls, the RSPCA director of communications, said:
"This initiative is a massive step forward for animal welfare, and puts the responsibility on owners to provide all animals with a certain standard of care".
In order for the Government's initiative to be built on, it is vital for this cruel trafficking to be highlighted, for explanations to be given—as is being done tonight—about what such cruelty entails and for information to be circulated about the ruthless individuals who are involved in it. This debate is part of that exposure. I ally myself with the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Hoyle.
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate tonight. I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for bringing forward this important matter. I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the Labour Animal Welfare Society and joint secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Animal Welfare.
We must have measures in place to protect endangered species; otherwise, so much will be lost for ever. Future generations will not thank us for any inaction on our part. Much has been done to protect endangered species but the illegal trade still continues. The present laws, it seems, are not strong enough to deter those who are determined to carry out illegal trading in endangered species. The rewards can be much greater than any fines that may be imposed.
I welcome the public consultation launched earlier this month by Elliot Morley, the Minister with responsibility for nature protection, to look at ways of tightening the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997. As my noble friend Lord Hoyle said, wildlife crime is a booming business. On average, HM Customs and Excise seize thousands of items every year. Again, my noble friend Lord Hoyle pointed out that it has now become a lucrative sideline to drugs and arms trafficking and is often carried out by persistent and known offenders who have little regard for the effects on vulnerable species.
The obnoxious people involved in the illegal drug trade have little respect for the human lives that they destroy, and they certainly have no care or concern for the protection of wildlife. The law must be clear. This illegal trade cannot be tolerated. Those caught and convicted must be dealt with in a manner in which robust messages are sent out. It should no longer be possible to make a profit out of this awful trade.
As has been mentioned by several noble Lords, the WWF, in partnership with TRAFFIC, has been campaigning over the past year—I am sure that it is more than a year—to put a stop to the illegal wildlife trade and to bring an end to low sentences and nominal fines. We know that they are campaigning for tougher sentences and penalties and to increase the maximum sentence from two to five years' imprisonment. Again, as other noble Lords have mentioned, if the offence could lead to automatic arrest, that would certainly send out a very strong message to the criminals.
The WWF and TRAFFIC say that they are,
"delighted with the government's recently published new proposals for consultation. This is a significant step forward in stamping out illegal wild-life trade within the UK".
It is vital that these changes become law as soon as possible. I am pleased to note, as others have done, that animal welfare groups have welcomed the consultation proposals. That is always a good sign that government thinking is on the right lines.
I look forward to the Minister's response. She can be assured that the Government will have a good response from all animal welfare groups and from all those who care about the welfare of animals. I believe that the Government have shown their commitment to

1081
improving and strengthening laws in this field. I look forward very much to legislation coming forward on this matter as soon as possible.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, it is certainly very timely that the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, has introduced his debate tonight. His suggestion that the regulations could be attached to the Criminal Justice Bill is very practical. From these Benches, I also congratulate the WWF, which has, indeed, campaigned tirelessly on this issue. It might otherwise have remained unseen and unspoken of. The fact that that organisation has researched the matter thoroughly deserves full recognition
Noble Lords have mentioned that the scale of the problem is huge. When I looked into the facts and figures, I was astonished at the size of the trade—some £3.5 billion per year. However, the figures are more depressing when we look at the number of animals involved. It is estimated that every year at least 350 million animals are traded. Although UK Customs seizes some 570 items per day, I believe we can safely assume that that is the tip of the iceberg. I ask the Minister how many prosecutions are brought following the seizure of 570 items per day. I realise that we are discussing stiffer penalties, but it would be invaluable to know how many prosecutions are brought under the present seizure system.
By its nature, this trade targets the already rare. A vicious circle is then entered. Because it targets the already rare and lifts the creatures that remain in the wild, they then become more rare. Therefore, it is extremely urgent that we tackle the issue. Indeed, we owe it to other countries which try to tackle the problem themselves. I quote the example of Brazil, which has formed a task force to address the issue. There, individuals involved in the enforcement work are at very real risk—the type of risk to which I do not believe people in Britain would be subject. As the end market for this trade, I believe that we owe it to the countries in the developing world to tackle it from this end. We should take the impact on the biodiversity of those countries as seriously as we do the impact on our own.
At present, there is a far more effective framework in place for the police to deal with those who commit crimes against the wildlife in this country—for example, by stealing rare eggs—than there is to deal with the international offender. Of course, UK rare species deserve protection, but I do not believe that they deserve far better protection than the wildlife of other countries. Because Britain is such an important end market, it is our duty to tackle the issue. It will be disgraceful if we remain a consumer nation of endangered species.
I ask the Minister, too, whether it is simply the case that we are a consumer nation or whether we are also a primary entry point for the European trade in endangered species. Do other European countries have a better regime than we do in tackling the problem?
1082
Noble Lords have mentioned that the scale of the punishment does not match the scale of the profits that can be made. Various examples have been quoted and therefore I shall not quote endless others. I simply say that, if a pair of parrots can realise £50,000 and if, of every 10 birds or animals captured, nine are dead on arrival, it does not take much imagination to realise that the scale of the profits is still enormous.
I believe that the National Criminal Intelligence Service is also to be congratulated on establishing the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit. I should be interested to hear a little more about the successes of that unit. I believe that it takes exactly the right approach and that a great deal of such crime could be solved through good intelligence. I am sure that the work of that unit will prove invaluable.
I turn for a moment to the role of Customs and Excise and control at airports, in particular. I mention an issue that we on these Benches have highlighted constantly over the past 18 months—that is, the need for a more rigid regime, such as the use of sniffer dogs and so on, to counter the illegal meat trade. Much of that overlaps the issue that we are discussing. The bushmeat trade often deals in illegal species. Again, there is no point in increasing the penalties if Customs and Excise do not have adequate resources to catch the criminals.
The Government's consultation on tougher sentences is certainly to be welcomed. Clearly we are dealing with big business and organised crime. We need to take an approach that recognises that. It is astonishing that until now offences under COTES were not deemed arrestable. This is big-time crime and it is time that we tackled it as such. The main difference and the reason why it has not been addressed before is that these are victimless crimes. Traditionally victims are seen as human beings. Ultimately we are the victims, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, because we suffer the loss as the planet loses its biodiversity and some of its most extraordinary creatures.
I believe that unintentional acts also lead to the trade in endangered species. Although I realise that such acts are not the subject of the regulations, the Government could take some steps that would help. It would be helpful if, on leaving this country to go on holiday, we could pick up a leaflet detailing what we should not buy in the country to which we are travelling. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a website giving advice on health and safe practice which could also advise one of the products not to buy. Sometimes it is difficult to know what one should not buy. If one is approached by someone selling shell carvings, which would be nice souvenirs to buy and which one may consider would encourage the "trade not aid" attitude, one does not know whether the shells are from endangered species. A more pro-active approach to British people travelling abroad would be helpful.
The CITES website, for which the Government are not responsible, is simply a dense list of Latin names, although one can opt for the more common names. It

1083
is not very enlightening, nor does it contain any pictures of endangered species. It provides little guidance for the British tourist abroad.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, I do not want to believe that any trade in endangered species is sustainable. I believe that encouraging tourists to spend money seeing plants and animals in the wild in an appropriate manner, spending money on what is known as eco-tourism and ensuring that the money goes to the preservation of habitats abroad, is the most positive contribution that we can make. I hope that the Minister will take from these Benches every encouragement to introduce the regulations as soon as is practicably possible.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, in 1978 my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, who is not in his place—the then Robin Hodgson MP—introduced a Private Members' Bill on this subject. Another of my colleagues in another place, David Amess, introduced another Private Member's Bill last year. It is a pity that neither of those Bills received a Second Reading. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for giving the House an opportunity to debate a subject which is close to our hearts.
On 15th January this year the Minister issued a news release announcing the proposals for doubling the maximum prison sentences and strengthening controls on the banned trade. I believe that support for that has been shown around the House. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position as my understanding of the news release was that it was to extend the sentence to four years rather than to five. If it is four years, that means that it is not an arrestable offence. When other noble Lords were speaking I began to think that I had misunderstood the position. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. If the sentence is limited to four years, there will be huge problems.
Since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has indicated, we on these Benches have been urging for action to be taken to stop the import of dead animals into this country, particularly of bushmeat and joints of fillets of beef. All kinds of items enter the country in personal luggage. It is an illegal trade that should be recognised and acted upon. Equally important is the risk of importing into this country disease which may affect our livestock, as all noble Lords who have participated in debates on the recent foot and mouth outbreak are all too aware
Recently a variety of programmes from "Farming Today" to "You and Yours" have contained complaints from contributors that it is possible to enter this country without observing any check on imports. Will the Minister place in the Library examples of the notices that the Government are apparently using to warn against the imports of animals and animal products and perhaps a list of locations where they can be viewed because so many people who enter the country say, "I did not see anything'?
1084
A report on Radio 4 news last Sunday morning stated that the trade in illegal animals, animal products and plants is proving worth while for organised crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, explained. For a long time the WWF has campaigned to stop illegal imports and for the imposition of swingeing sentences and crippling fines for those caught trading in, or keeping, banned items. As other noble Lords have said, that organisation wants the offences to be made arrestable, hence my earlier question. Were that the case, offenders would have to comply with police instructions; their premises and private property could be entered and searched without a warrant, and their fingerprints and DNA samples could be taken.
When will the current government consultation close? How soon will the new sentences, if approved, come into being? Can we also have assurances from the Minister that the consultation will not be used as an excuse for delaying the action for which noble Lords are calling tonight? So often, sadly, consultation means delay. I mean that genuinely. More importantly, I ask the Minister to ensure that the sentence is five years.
The evidence of damage being done to wildlife and to habitats all over the world is overwhelming; the evidence of how much is perpetrated illegally is compelling; and the constant demonstration of how this country connives sadly with the continued existence of a healthy illegal trade is shaming. I am so glad that the right reverend Prelate used that word—I have it in bold type in my speech—because it is a disgrace and something that we should attack.
The right reverend Prelate also highlighted the suffering caused to animals which are killed in t heir own country prior to being imported here; but more importantly there is the cruelty involved in transporting animals around the world in difficult circumstances.
We are constantly told that the police and Customs and Excise do not have the manpower to conduct a realistic operation. However, I suggest that police or Customs officers need not necessarily be responsible for such work. Are the Government considering ways in which help could be given with checking and searching? I also wonder whether similar searches of restaurants, pubs, clubs, shops, hotel kitchens and pet shops could be done by, for example, meat hygiene inspectors, who have to enter such premises to carry out checks anyway. Has there been any liaison between the Department of Health, which is now responsible for the Meat Hygiene Service, and DEFRA?
We are told that notices are displayed at airports. I have checked to see what is happening on our airlines, and I understand that British Airways is working with DEFRA on a video to be shown on in-corning flights. Can the Minister expand on that?
I am sorry that time has been so restricted tonight. The subject is dear to our hearts, and all the contributions have reinforced the importance of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. I hope

1085
that the Government do not delay. They know that there is a problem; we do not need to establish that. We need to find solutions, and to find them quickly.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I echo with great feeling the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It is a pity that we have not had enough time tonight. I will, of course, write to all noble Lords who took part, as I will not be able to cover everything.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. I fully agree with him and other noble Lords that we must do all we can as a government to reduce these disgraceful crimes. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, the world's wildlife is a priceless natural heritage, and we owe it to future generations to fight as hard as we can for its survival.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked detailed questions about the extent of the trafficking. I shall write to the noble Baroness about that. Where I offer to write to noble Lords, I will send a full reply on everything to every noble Lord who took part. As my noble friends Lord Hoyle and Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford—to mention a few—said, wildlife crime is big business. The cruelty is appalling. Ounce for ounce, some wildlife products such as rhino horn or deer musk are worth more than class A drugs or gold. There are huge financial incentives for people to traffic in wildlife products, and we are keen to respond firmly and effectively. We wish to make progress with the review, and I beg noble Lords who spoke so knowledgeably to respond fully to the consultation, further details of which I shall give in a moment.
We welcome the opportunity to debate the issue. I am also grateful for the way in which all noble Lords stressed the importance of giving full support to the proposals in the consultation on the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997. The COTES proposals would strengthen the power of the police in investigating and prosecuting people who are illegally trading in endangered species in the UK. They would give the police power to enter premises and land where protected specimens were being used for commercial purposes, and once they are there, to require specimens and any relevant paperwork to be presented for inspection. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and other noble Lords that no powers are proposed that would allow the police to enter dwellings unless they had a search warrant or unless the occupier or owner was already under arrest. Clearer powers for police officers to require blood and tissue samples to be taken from wildlife specimens are also proposed.
The proposals would clarify the powers of DEFRA's wildlife inspectors, by specifying more clearly when and why they carry out inspections. The inspectors would have powers, during inspections, to require specimens and paperwork to be presented and to require blood
1086
and tissue samples. New offences are also proposed which mainly follow on from the proposals for new powers. They include failure to present wildlife specimens or paperwork or obstructing police officers or wildlife inspectors in other ways. Finally and fundamentally, penalties will be increased across the board. The maximum gaol sentence for offences tried in magistrates' courts would be increased from three to six months. For offences tried in the Crown Court, the increase would be from two to five years. As the noble Baroness recognised, it would also make the offences arrestable, which should significantly improve the chances of achieving successful prosecutions for this awful trade.
Those are important proposals and we shall be looking at the responses to the consultation paper very carefully. As the consultation period does not end until 4th April, it is important that noble Lords respond and encourage the many organisations with which they are obviously involved to do so likewise. After the responses have been received, copies of all responses will be available in the Library.
In response to my noble friend Lord Hoyle, some proposals can be taken forward through a statutory instrument; others will need primary legislation. Subject to the outcome of the consultation process, the Government will be looking for an early legislative slot. My noble friend Lord Hoyle, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, asked whether the Criminal Justice Bill might be an appropriate vehicle. I assure all noble Lords that this possibility is being considered. We are currently having discussions with the relevant departments to explore the proposals further.
It is clear from this debate that noble Lords will want any proposals put forward by the Government to have a smooth passage so we can ensure that these criminals are properly penalised for their crimes and are made to realise the damage that they are causing.
As noble Lords have recognised, reviewing the COTES regulations is only part of the answer. In answer to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, the Government have taken three other significant steps to combat illegal wildlife trade. First, at the international level, the UK delegation, led by my honourable friend the Minister for Fisheries, Water and Nature Protection, was a key player at the conference of parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) held in Santiago, Chile, in November. The conference took a number of decisions of great importance, both for the development of CITES and for the wildlife species it protects. For example, it agreed to the UK's proposal to move the basking shark up to Appendix II of the convention and to provide similar protection for the whale shark, sea horses, mahogany and many turtle species. The experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, were fascinating. I am sure that we shall benefit from his knowledge as we take forward proposals following the consultation.
In response to my noble friend Lady Gale and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, CITES imposes a complete trade ban on the most endangered

1087
species. Therefore, there is no question of sustainable trade in such species. I note the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, about the density of the website. We shall try to draw attention to that.
We believe that these outcomes represent a triumph for persistent lobbying by the Government in support of its sustainable development agenda within CITES. We took further significant steps in April 2002 when we launched the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit, which complements the excellent work being done by police and Customs officers tackling wildlife crime at the international level. The unit was given £440,000. That, along with the £100,000 promised by police chief constables in England and Wales, and the support of the Scottish Executive, has ensured that the unit has the resources it needs to go ahead. It also aims to identify the main individuals involved in serious wildlife crime, gather intelligence in relation to priority species, including caviar, ivory, shahtoosh, parrots and birds of prey, and has access to databases.
It is important to note—the noble Baroness, Lady By ford, will be interested in this point—that the Magistrates' Association information toolkit and sentencing guide will increase magistrates' awareness of the seriousness of environmental crime. The sentencing guidance will increase the importance of stressing the conservation implications of wildlife crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, raised different facets of sustainable development. It is important to try, as we did at the CITES conference in Santiago in November, to reach a compromise between the various countries in regard to stockpiles of raw ivory. Noble Lords will recognise that many of them suffer from poverty; for example, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa. We believe that we achieved a fair and reasonable balance, but there is always a conflict between the needs of those in poor countries and those who want to protect various species.
It is important that noble Lords respond to the consultation. The Customs and Excise operate a specialist CITES enforcement team based at Heathrow, which is widely recognised across Europe and the rest of the world as an example of how to tackle the problem. It is also important that we supplement the work carried out by the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit, which complements the excellent work done by police and Customs officers in tackling the crime at national and international level.
It is important that punishment matches the crime and I have already outlined our proposals for increasing sentences. However, it is no deterrent if the available sentences are not used. We were therefore delighted that the Magistrates' Association joined my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Environment and a number of other key players in the fight against environmental crime to launch the information toolkit.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for intervening. I have not taken part in the debate. We
1088
discussed the important aspect of surveillance equipment during the course of the Animal Health Bill. I accept that increasing penalties will have a deterrent effect, but surely the key is catching people.
Sophisticated surveillance equipment is available but I wonder whether it will be made available to those whose job it is to try to catch these people.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that the wildlife unit which I have detailed will be examining the most effective means of developing its work to counter such trade. If I can provide further information, I shall write to the noble Earl.
I apologise for running over my time. In conclusion, I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for initiating the debate. I have not had time to discuss in sufficient detail the COTES proposal and I hope the House will understand why I said initially that I should be delighted to write to all noble Lords who have taken part. I welcome the support we have been given.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the consultation is definitely not a means of delay. Quite the contrary: it is a means of achieving consensus for action. My noble friend has ensured that we have a good base on which to build that consensus and during the consultation period we must all press to ensure that not only is there agreement and consensus but a will to act with best speed to protect animals and species about which noble Lords have spoken with such passion.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.25 to 8.30 p.m]

Courts Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 4.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) Before appointing the members of a court administration council, the Lord Chancellor shall consult judges, lay justices and local authorities serving in the area."
The noble Lord said: At this stage we are dealing not so much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said are the Government's intentions but with what is written on the face of the Bill—that is, with the unrestrained power of the Lord Chancellor. I believe the noble Baroness when she says that, in practice, we shall be considering something rather different, but, in part, the amendments are addressed to that issue.
Clause 4(3) states baldly that members of the court administration council,
"are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor".
Presumably that is a complete and factual statement of the intended position. But, with the Bill as drafted, the Lord Chancellor can appoint who he pleases, as he pleases, subject only to Clause 4(4).
Amendment No. 18 in this group requires the Lord Chancellor to consult judges and magistrates before appointing members of a court administration council for a particular area. From what has been said, I am sure that that is the Government's intention, but it is not apparent from looking at the Bill.
I know that there is an issue as to the significance of what is said on the Floor of this House and on the Floor of another place and its validity in law, but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why, if the things we say on the Floor of the House have meaning, we cannot put them on the face of the Bill where everyone can read them and people outside the House can understand what is going on.
That is a particularly pertinent consideration in regard to Amendments Nos. 19,20 and 21. Clause 4(4) states what each council "must" have. We discussed the word "must" before the adjournment. The subsection states that each council must have one member who is a judge—not two or three or five, but one. It states that each council must have one member who is a lay justice—again, not three or six—and so on. Amendment No. 21 relates to paragraph (d), which refers to,
"two more members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be representatives of people living in that area".
The subsection goes on to say that each council "may" have other members. "May" is not an instruction; "may" is a possibility.
We had an interesting discussion on the size of the areas pertinent to the functions of court administration councils. The point was made by my noble friend Lord Waddington and others that the size of an area is relevant to the size of the councils.
The Minister says that Clause 4(4) merely sets out the minimum requirement. It may do—and I am happy to take her word for it. But that is not what is on the face of the Bill. The Bill as drafted states:
"Each council must have…one member who is a judge…one member who is a lay justice—two other members",
and so on.
Bearing in mind that we do not know the areas for which the councils will be responsible—even if we did, I suggest that one such member would not be sufficient—I propose that each council must have,
"a minimum of 2 members who are judges…a minimum of five members who are lay justices",
and, in subsection (4)(d),
"four members chosen from among those who are elected representatives of the people living in the area",
as opposed to the designation in the provision as drafted.
The Minister has often spoken fulsomely—and I am grateful to her for it—of the need to involve local people and to make sure that the local community is fully committed to what is going on. I submit that, given the way in which the clause is worded, she has not fulfilled that ambition. I ask her to give serious consideration to this series of amendments. They go
1090
much further in committing the Government to the pledges made by the Minister than does the wording in the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is perhaps at a disadvantage in having to propose these amendments after the Minister has commented on the provisions. Clarity was provided in her indication that the number of members in the different groups listed were minima, which many of us understood to be the case anyway, because that is what has to happen. In addition, Clause 4(4) concludes with the statement that each council "may have other members". The Minister indicated that, because in all probability there will be local areas of different sizes, the provision would be suitable for court administration councils of different sizes.
There are further strong objections to the amendments. Amendment No. 18 is surely unnecessary. Why should anyone—unless he or she has a perverse attitude towards the Bill—imagine that the Lord Chancellor would not consult appropriately in making the appointments? There is even greater objection to the other three amendments. Amendment No. 19 refers to judges being,
"chosen by the judges serving in the area".
Amendment No. 20 refers to lay justices being,
"chosen by the lay justices serving in the area".
In other words, they would be representatives rather than people appointed by the Lord Chancellor to do right by their own individual judgment, which is surely what we would want. Amendment No. 21 is even worse. It refers to,
"four members chosen from among those who are elected representatives",
without saying how they are to be chosen. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has given us an important opportunity to try to get some picture of how the Government expect the council to be composed. My approach shall be from that point of view.
First, I have concerns about the mechanics. As my noble friend pointed out, the council must have,
"one member who is a judge"
and
"one member who is a lay justice".
But human frailty being as it is, what happens if, sadly, one of those members dies? If the council does not have a member who is a judge, does that invalidate its proceedings, or will provision be made for such circumstances in subsection (5)?
Secondly, my noble friend refers to the way in which the representatives will be selected or elected. Subsection (4)(d) states that each council must have,
"two more members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be representative of people living in that area".
Can the Minister give the Committee some idea of what the Lord Chancellor may base that decision on? Will it be on socio-economic profile, for example? What kind of

1091
language will the Lord Chancellor seek to adopt in defining how people may be representative? Obviously, that is pertinent with regard to the Government's statements on the future composition of your Lordships' House.
It is important that we have had this short debate because. as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden and my noble friend Lord Waddington commented before the dinner break, we are being asked to put the seal on something whose real shape and form we know not.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: At present, magistrates' courts committees are elected by other magistrates in the same division. It is right in principle that those appointed to the new councils should be representative in the sense that they have gained the respect and support of their colleagues. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate, whatever their number, that members be elected—magistrates from among magistrates, judges from among other judges, and elected representatives who at least have the support of the population who elected them to their local authorities.
There are elements in your Lordships' House who like appointment; but, so far as I am concerned, legitimacy and accountability come through election. I support the amendments.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am pleased that the noble Lord has been consistent in his desire to have an ever-greater number of elections. I shall bear that in mind in responding.
Before responding to the detail of each amendment, I ask the Committee to look at Clause 4(4) followed by subsections (5) and (6), which should be read together. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie, whose suggestion of the interpretation that we should give to Clause 4(4) is right. He is also right, therefore, to highlight the fact that "must" is attached to paragraphs (a) to (d), which give the minimum numbers required. Clause 4 also provides that each council "may have other members". That gives us flexibility so that, if necessary, there could be more than one judge.
I know that on other occasions mention has been made of Crown Court judges. En passant, circuit judges in the civil division, not just Crown Court judges, and others will have to be accommodated in the list. Additional magistrates or members of any other category could also sit on the council. The Committee will have noted that there are to be,
"two other members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to have appropriate knowledge or experience"
and,
"two more members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be representative of people living in that area".
Let me deal with what happens if someone dies. Clause 4(5) states:
"The Lord Chancellor must provide the councils with guidance about the way in which they should discharge their functions".
However, Clause 4(6) specifically provides that:
"The guidance may, in particular, include provision about the constitution, procedure and quorum of the councils".
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It may be convenient for the Committee if I raise this point now. My difficulty still is that subsection (4) provides for an absolute minimum. A quorum means nothing if the provision requires that the constitution of the councils includes one of this type of person and one of that. I am worried that someone's dying may therefore invalidate the body as a whole. The Government may wish to consider some redrafting; I do not meddle in this area unless I genuinely feel that the Government should look at something. Perhaps "must" could apply except in the circumstances provided by the guidelines. One should never make suggestions on the hoof—I should have spoken to my noble friend Lord Renton before I dared mention anything to do with drafting—but is the Minister prepared to consider that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am certainly happy to consider that. We have responded to people's fears and anxieties that there would not be a minimum by saying that there must be one. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we wish guidance and direction to be in place to ensure that there is provision for what happens in such and such an event. I am confident that we would be able to replace a member of the judiciary relatively quickly. There may, for instance, be arrangements as to what happens on the council. If a judge is ill and cannot attend, could a deputy stand in, such as a brother or sister judge in the same locality? We must look at the detail to ensure that such a provision is in place.
The real reason that we wanted to include the word "must" in relation to the minimum number was to reassure those who ask how we can guarantee that there will be anybody on the council. They might think, if the councils are subject only to guidance, that a new Lord Chancellor could go off on a frolic of his or her own and say that no judges should be on the council. We wanted the minimum to be provided for, but I understand the anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I hope that we will be able to do what is necessary in guidance.
Let me deal with the amendments in sequence, starting with Amendment No. 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. One effect of the Bill will be to end the requirement for local authorities to fund 20 per cent of magistrates' court expenditure. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, knows, subsection (7) states:
"A council is not prevented from exercising its functions because of a vacancy among its members or a defect in the appointment of a member".
That deals specifically with the point and adds to what I said earlier.
Local authorities used to be responsible for 20 per cent of magistrates' court expenditure. They will continue to be a valuable stakeholder, but I do not believe it appropriate in the circumstances for them to be formally involved in the appointments process, especially as they are not involved in the appointment of MCC members. It will place a burden on them

1093
which they do not have currently and which they may not welcome when the funding procedures have been changed.
In devising an appointments process, we will want stakeholders, in particular the judiciary and magistrates, to have confidence in the way appointments to the council are made. We will be consulting with stakeholders on the appointments process at a series of events to be held between January and April. For example, a representative of the local magistracy may be asked to sit on a panel that assesses applicants for the posts against clear criteria. Such an arrangement would be more appropriate than a general consultation.
As well as being inappropriate, the process that the noble Lord proposes seems unduly cumbersome. For the membership of the court administration councils we shall seek a transparent and open appointment process in which members are appointed for the skills that they can contribute to the efficient administration of all the courts.
Much of this discussion has been foreshadowed. Amendment No. 18 relates to who will be on the council and how they will be selected. I have outlined that the process will be transparent. Members could include professional judges, magistrates, people with knowledge of the local area, which might include a local councillor, for example, and people with appropriate knowledge of the work of the courts, which might include a volunteer from the witness support programme, for example. Appointments will be made on merit and will be fair. There will be open competition, with members selected who have the relevant knowledge. It is vital that the opportunity to become a member of the council is open to all sections of the community. In accordance with the Cabinet Office guidelines on public appointments, we are committed to achieving the equal representation of women and men, pro rata representation of members of ethnic minority groups and increased participation of disabled people. Various bodies in the public and non-profit sectors can provide advice and guidance in meeting these commitments.
How exactly will we do this? We can ensure that the opportunities are advertised nationally and locally. As well as the press, we can use other means, such as local open days, websites and advertisements on court notice boards or in public libraries, citizens advice bureaux and local community centres. We can also ensure that our commitment to encouraging minority groups to apply is clearly stated in any recruitment literature. We will continually monitor the selection process to ensure that this commitment is being fulfilled.
We want to ensure that the job specification for what members will be required to do is drawn as tightly as possible for the application process. The process will be competence and skills-based. We need to hear in mind that we are looking for people who can contribute towards the administration of local justice—people who can think strategically, focus on the delivery of services to the local community, be objective and make a positive personal impact. We are
1094
not looking for professionally qualified people such as accountants and personnel officers. These roles will be undertaken by officials in the new agency. We want people who can take the wider view without constraint. I hope that is a helpful outline of the way in which we intend to approach the issue.
On Amendment No. 20, Clause 4 requires each council to have a minimum of one lay justice. I have already spoken about flexibility and responsiveness to local situations, which will be vital to the success of the councils. In particular, local membership will need to vary. I therefore invite the Committee to take into account all that I said earlier about the need for that. We think that as a result the councils will be properly representative, as we desire.
The court administration councils are not intended as a substitute for wide consultation with magistrates and judges. We intend that the guidance to councils will include advice on when they should involve Bench chairmen, local magistrates, the judiciary or other stakeholders in their deliberations. The local chief officer will be under an obligation to involve the magistracy, just as the Court Service is obliged now under the terms of the framework document. Benches of magistrates associated with individual magistrates' courts will also still have influence over the operation of those courts. For example, they will continue to be consulted administratively about decisions to assign and replace justices' clerks. Benches and Bench chairmen must all feel that they have productive relationships with their clerks and administrators.
We want magistrates to have a say in how they should be consulted. As I said, the answer may vary from area to area. It is right that the arrangements we put in place should allow that. We will explore whether it would be appropriate for the court administration councils to establish consultative arrangements with the magistrates in their areas through, for example, a consultative panel. We will also make it a requirement that magistrates on the councils should be serving in the local justice area for which the council is responsible. That seems to be a reasonable requirement, and we shall give it further consideration. I very much heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other Members of the Committee said about that.
Finally, we have not yet decided on the process for selecting individuals to sit on the council. We are clear, however, that the process must be fair and open and that the aim is to select the individuals with the most appropriate skills and experience. We want the process of appointing magistrates to the council to command the respect of the magistracy and of other stakeholders. I am not convinced that the procedure recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would achieve that objective. As I said, the appointments process is one of the issues on which we will be consulting in events from 30th January until April. The appointments process will be in line with the Code of Practice on Public Appointments. We will want to learn from the experience of the MCC members who are appointed by selection panels of local magistrates.

1095
I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Waddington: Can the noble Baroness help me with regard to Clause 4(6)? It states:
"The guidance may, in particular, include provision about the constitution…of the councils".
It is the constitution that I am worried about. Will we in Parliament have knowledge of that guidance?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are very sensitive to what a number of Members of the Committee have said about the need to look at the guidance. We are taking it back and investigating what opportunities there may be for scrutiny. We certainly understand the need that has been expressed both today and previously. It is important that Members of this place—and perhaps eventually Members of another place—have a much better and clearer idea of exactly what will go into the guidance. We will try to do that as best we can.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for answering my concerns about Clause 4(4). She directed me, very properly of course, to subsection (7), to which I was going to refer in later debates. The difficulty is that that subsection could inspire the very fear that she was rightly trying to allay. It could be alleged t hat subsection (7) is a way of getting round the minimum set in subsection (4). However, I do not seek to take the issue further now. I think that she and I are trying to reach the same objective. I am just not convinced that the current drafting helps to take us there.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think that it does help. Earlier, the noble Baroness expressed the tension as follows: what if we do not have the minimum number and this provision is cited? We are confident that all the councils will have at least one judge, one magistrate and the other minimum numbers for which we have provided in paragraphs (a) to (d). It is likely, however, that a number of councils will have more than one of each. The expectation is that a great number of them will have more than one.
Subsection (6) sets out the guidance that may include provision about the constitution. That minimum will therefore be preserved. Subsection (7) ensures that, in the event of the circumstances that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, outlined—such as a member's death or illness—the council's acts are not invalidated by a short hiatus. That is why I am attached to the minimum; I would not want it to be removed or in any way watered down. Subsection (4) concludes by stating that we may have more than that minimum. In the guidance and other constitutional arrangements, we have an opportunity to state what should happen in the event of a death or similar event in order to make the arrangement valid. Subsection (7) specifically deals with the hiatus.
So it is unnecessary for us to undermine or touch that provision. However, several noble Lords have expressed their anxiety about certainty and we want to give the assurance that there will be no games playing and that
1096
that will be the least that the councils will have. Of course, we hope that many of them will have many other constituents, dependent on the needs of their area.
9 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I listened carefully to the Minister but she has not answered my question. Why is straight appointment by the Lord Chancellor preferable to some form of representation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I assume that the noble Lord suggests that all the posts be put up for election. Perhaps we could have an election by the judiciary. I invite him to think for a moment of the prospect of electing a High Court judge to sit on the matter and how long the college might take to decide on who needs that. It has always been convention that the divisions in the High Court have been able to come to an accommodation on how they allocate judicial time to fulfil such requirements.
The magistrates' courts have had the benefit of the panel. We shall consider the different nature of those whom we want to attract. However, at present, we do not have an election process for all public appointments. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that it would be extremely difficult if we did.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting discussion. It has at its roots the question of ownership of the local consultative council. Will it be a creature of the Lord Chancellor, or will it, as it properly must, be a creature of the local community? I hear what the noble Baroness has had to say. Our difficulty, as the Bill is drafted, is that the council could be interpreted as being the creature of the Lord Chancellor. I am clear about what she said, which is that it must be the creature of the local community. However, this is not a question of who holds the title deeds; it is a much more subtle question.
My amendments were intended to enable us to explore that question. We have had a useful debate. The noble Baroness may find it frustrating to have to keep repeating herself, but that is part of the purpose of the operation. Some interesting points have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made clear that, if the council is to be effective, its members must have the support of their colleagues in the area. There is a question about how we arrive at that result, but if the council is to have the respect of the area that it is supposed to serve, that is essential. We cannot avoid that.
The noble Baroness said that the Bill ends the requirement of local authorities to fund 20 per cent of the expenditure. I accept that. However, I do not see the relevance of that to the constitution of the court administration councils. Court administration councils will have some local representation but that is not related to the question of funding, as I understand it. It is related to the question of having people on the court administration councils who know the area, who know what is going on, who know what the political—with a small "p"—questions are and who know the political background as a matter of instinct without being necessarily political. In that sense the question of

1097
expenditure is not relevant. Local authorities in the area of any court administration council will still be stakeholders in the area. If one completely ignores the question of elected members, the matter can become fraught with difficulty.
I heard what the noble Baroness said and will study it with some care. I rather infer from what she said that if I simply tabled an amendment stating what I considered to be the minimum in this matter she would not object to it although she might consider that it was unnecessary. I may be tempted to do that at a later stage. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 3, line 10, after "must" insert "by order"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 21A, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 B and 22. I can speak more briefly than I had expected due to the helpful intervention of my noble friend Lord Waddington.
These amendments relate to the issuing of guidance. I note that the Constitution Select Committee's report on the Bill drew attention on page 4, paragraph (b), to the procedural requirements for guidance which will be given by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 4 as it stands. The committee's report states that it is not clear whether such guidance is to be binding on the councils, whether it is to be publicly available and whether it may contain specific as well as general directions. I seek to probe the Government on those matters. I have read the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the committee. Will the Government give us assurances about what they will do between now and Report as regards considering the way in which these matters may be brought before Parliament for scrutiny?
In the course of the discussion that the Minister was kind enough to hold recently—those who attended were, regrettably, a select few but we obtained good value from the Minister and her advisers—and, indeed, during the course of discussion tonight, the Minister has said that the Government are prepared to consider how they can make the functions of the CACs more clearly subject to parliamentary scrutiny. One way of doing that that was mentioned at the briefing meeting was to refer to the guidance in more forceful terms in the Bill. I refer to issuing the guidance by order. Has the Minister considered that matter further since the briefing meeting? Can she tell us the results of that consideration? Will she undertake between now and Report to consider the matter so that if I were to table an amendment on Report she would be able to respond to it more fully at that stage? I do not propose to take the matter further at this point. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I strongly support these amendments. To some extent the debate we are having on this group of amendments, like the debate we had on the two previous groups, is really a curtain raiser to the major debate
1098
which we shall have on the next group. That group will try fundamentally to replace the scheme of the Bill by creating the area court management boards, which are intended to fulfil—perhaps rather more than fulfil—the role that we thought was envisaged in the White Paper of the area consultative councils as local management boards. One considers the amendment on the assumption that the amendments in the next group will not ultimately succeed, so one is looking at a situation in which area consultative councils still exist.
If that is so, the amendment would be essential, because the guidance is crucial to the whole operation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I was present at the briefing meeting at which the Government told us about all sorts of their excellent plans for what the court administration councils would do. That came close to what we envisage as a proper role for the local management boards. The trouble is that there is nothing of that whatever in the Bill.
That is a major problem for us. Even if what the Government now propose were carried into effect, nothing would prevent any future Lord Chancellor or Minister of justice from changing the whole scheme and producing something much more subject to central control, with much less local involvement. Therefore it seems essential that, if we cannot manage to get the scheme into the Bill, it should at least be in regulations, which are subject to parliamentary control. In view of the importance of the matter, we believe that approval of the guidance should require the affirmative procedure, as proposed in Amendment No. 21B.
Surprisingly, Clause 4(6) states:
"The guidance may, in particular, include provision about the constitution, procedure and quorum of the councils".
That quintessentially seems something that one would expect to see in regulations, not merely in guidance. If that becomes material because we are unable to force the Government to put the matter into the Bill, we would regard the amendment as an obviously inferior but essential alternative.
Lord Waddington: My only criticism of the amendment is that it does not go far enough, for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It seems extraordinary that we should want guidance about the way in which councils should discharge their functions to be laid down by order, but should not at the same time demand that provision about the constitution, procedure and quorum of the councils be laid down by order. I would like the noble Baroness to explain why the Government do not recognise that it is important that the power in subsection (6) be possible to implement only by order.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As I said at the meeting, I want to say straightaway that, in terms of what the Government want and what Members of the Committee have expressed, we are very much at one. That particularly applies to what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, have indicated today, and to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said about the purpose and the nature of these issues. We are considering how to give voice to

1099
that in a meaningful and satisfactory way. I understand absolutely that Members of the Committee are concerned to ensure that the guidance receives appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
I have explained why I am not in a position to undertake to provide the Committee with a draft now. However, the Government are committed to ensuring that those who use the services offered by the courts, those who dispense justice within them and those who work to support the delivery of justice within them are consulted throughout the process of developing the new system of courts administration. The series of stakeholder events, which I have now mentioned on a number of occasions—they are planned from the end of this month through to April—will involve them in developing that guidance.
I have noted the concerns that Members of the Committee have expressed in general on this issue. I will consider all the amendments that have been put forward, with a view to ensuring that once the guidance is developed, it will be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I can say now that I am not opposed in principle to the guidance taking the form of a statutory instrument, although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is probably right to say that it would probably be more appropriate to do that in regulations rather than in an order.
Members of the Committee will have noted that all the technical provisions about proposed statutory instruments are located in one place; that is, Clause 97. That would be the place in which to specify whether the negative or affirmative resolution procedure should be used. I cannot give a guarantee at this stage but I can certainly say that we are looking at the matter in a concrete way to try to ensure that the best route is taken to give some reassurance in a form that the noble Lord finds acceptable. We will therefore need to consider the spirit of the amendment in the context of the drafting of the Bill as a whole. We very much take on board the thrust of what is said in this regard.
I hope to be able to give the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, a more positive and definitive response on Report, but I am not able to do so now. We must consider all that is said in relation to the other parts of the Bill to establish how best to manage what has to go where. I am happy to assure Members of the Committee that we are by no means resistant to the thrust of the comments that have been made.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks, which may describe her overall approach in this regard—that she is prepared to look at the matter. My noble friend Lord Waddington is right: these amendments definitely do not go far enough and I should not have pressed them on that basis. I tabled them as the opening salvo—a gentle one—in the hope that we can entice the Government into doing the right thing. Of course, the opening salvo may turn into a deafening roar on Report if we are not able to find the right way forward in this regard. Because I am assured that we will go into much greater detail on Report, I shall
1100
not take up the time of Members of the Committee further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21B and 22 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 23:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new Clause—
"AREA COURTS MANAGEMENT BOARDS
(1) For the purpose of implementing this Part, England and Wales shall be divided into areas.
(2) For each area there shall be a board (referred to in this Act as an "area courts management board") which is to exercise the functions conferred on it by virtue of this Act and any other enactment.
(3) Schedule (Area courts management boards) (which makes provision about the constitution of area courts management boards, their powers and other matters relating to them) is to have effect.
(4) References in this Act or any other enactment to an officer of an area courts management board are references to—

(a) any member of the staff allocated to an area courts management board to exercise the functions of an officer of the board, and

(b) any other individual exercising functions of an officer of an area courts management board by virtue of section 5(2).

(5) The initial areas for the purpose of implementing this Part are—

(a) the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (police areas), and

(b) the area comprising the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London Police Area.

(6) The division of England and Wales into areas for that purpose may be altered from time to time by order made by the Lord Chancellor.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 30. These amendments appear in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
I propose to set the scene by explaining why we tabled the amendments. That history will be well known to Members of the Committee but it may not be as well known to those who read our debate in Hansard. I leave the meat of this matter—the reasons behind the amendments and the way in which they work—to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to explain later.
Briefly, the effect of the three amendments would be to create a structure that we believe is preferable to the CACs. We believe that it is vital for the local structure to be the authoritative voice of local justice. I am grateful to all those who have briefed us on these matters—in particular, the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Magistrates' Association, both of which support the amendments.
I note, in particular, that over the past couple of months the Magistrates' Association has taken care to consult its 30,000-plus members to ensure that there is support for any action that it might take over these amendments. Indeed, members feel so strongly that they have written directly to noble Lords on this side

1101
of the Chamber. I have received letters from, among others, the branches at Bromley and East Yorkshire, whose members very much support the amendments that we have put forward today and who object to the Government's plans for CACs.
I make it clear from the start that none of us will argue for the status quo. We have not objected to the abolition of magistrates' courts committees per se, and we have not sought to oppose the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill. But we do want to move on to a better system for delivering local justice. We argue that, if the committees are abolished, the replacement structure must be better. At present, we do not consider that the CAC structure is better. We are trying to find a system that is.
At Second Reading, we went into detail about how we felt that the Government had done a U-turn. I shall not repeat all those arguments now. In her letter to noble Lords and, again, tonight, the Minister said that what is important is the substance of the role, and not the name. I agree with her. But the difficulty is that we say that the substance of the role of CACs as set out in the Bill is simply not acceptable. It is not merely the name; it is the substance. It is not what the Government first offered in their White Paper. We are afraid that we shall end up with a mere talking shop which will not earn local credibility or respect.
Very briefly—as I said, I shall leave the meat of this issue to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—the amendments are as follows. Amendment No. 23 seeks to insert a new clause to establish area courts management boards. They will enable national priorities to be interpreted in the light of local circumstances and local needs. The boards will be corporate bodies. Their boundaries will match those of the 42 criminal justice areas for England and Wales. They will be based on police areas but will treat the Metropolitan and City of London as one criminal justice area rather than two police areas. I set that out in response to a comment made by the Minister. I hope that the explanation is sufficient.
The objective of the structure is to maintain and enhance local capacity to meet the Government's aim of improving efficiency by creating common boundaries across all the agencies in the criminal justice system. Our objective is to make the local bodies definitely the authoritative voice of local justice. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I do not know whether it is appropriate to intervene at this point. If it had not been for the matter of proposing the resolution, I would have sought to intervene before the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, sat down. This series of amendments deals with the functions, powers, constitution and so on of court management boards. Are the amendments meant to apply not only to the administration of magistrates' courts but also to the administration of justice in the Crown Court and county courts so that
1102
the present existing unified system under the Court Service would be changed completely to that of a locally administered service in X number of areas?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has jumped ahead. I was trying to present the case in a dual way in that I would set the scene and the real explanation would come from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who, as a lawyer, is better able to provide that. This is passing the buck and enjoying it.
The amendments are put forward for a sensible reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will be aware, both these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches have worked very closely on this matter with the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Magistrates' Association. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to jump in and answer the noble Lord's question, which, I believe, should properly come at the end of the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Phillips. However, if he is still unhappy at the end of that, I shall certainly be delighted to come back and answer any further questions.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I believe that I can answer the pertinent question posed by the noble Lord. Lord Borrie, by saying: largely, yes. The effect of these three long amendments is to turn the tables on Clauses 4 and 5 so that the ultimate, decisive powers will rest with the board—I shall speak to that in a moment—rather than as Clauses 4 and 5 state, with the Lord Chancellor. We understand how fundamental the change is; we also understand that there will be ramifications in the directions that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, enunciated and there is no amour propre about the particular arrangement here. If necessary, we shall have time to change the wording and the disposition of provisions before the next stage.
We are dealing with an argument about where power should lie ultimately, although it has been heavily disguised by what the Government have said and by what the noble Baroness has said here and at the meeting. We are not dealing with recommendatory or consultative power, but with real decisive power. On these Benches we are at one with the Conservative Benches and we believe that no good case, no remotely sufficient case has been made for what would be a radical departure from an age-old system that requires improvement and requires movement in the direction in which other parts of the Bill take it, but which does not deserve this fundamental upheaval in terms of powers.
I shall briefly read from what the Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate said in its 1998–99 report which was confirmed the following year:
"on the whole the MCC structure seems still to work well. It has shown itself capable of reform, and of increasing efficiency and effectiveness. The challenges help MCCs to strengthen their membership and improve their procedures to meet the new requirements".
This debate is bizarre. Again and again in her replies the Minister does not refer to the provisions in the Bill, but to provisions that are not in the Bill and to

1103
proposals that the Government may advance, whether in the form of guidance or whatever else in the future. We must bear in mind that on this Bill we have the cart before the horse, with the consultation coming after the Bill is debated. We are at the start of much of the consultation process.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that hereafter we shall have to put flesh on the bones; it would be better to say that we should put flesh on the skeleton. So much of the essential substance of what should be in the Bill is not there. The noble Baroness is never less than gracious and never less than helpful. But it is not sufficient or right for the House to deal with such a hugely important piece of legislation on the basis of trust, hope and expectation, particularly when it concerns where power lies. The power is being removed from where it lies at present to another place, in fact to the Lord Chancellor who is centralising the whole of this unified system in his own hands.
Where power is concerned, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. When dealing with the Government and with Whitehall I suggest that a bird in local hands is worth 10 in any Whitehall bush. It is all very well to talk about the efficiency and improvements that the Government have asserted will result from their grand designs, but it rarely appears to come to pass. There is an amount of scepticism among magistrates. They look at the centralising reforms in education, health and transport and they are not encouraged. If one compares the rhetoric that preceded reformation Bills with the aftermath, one will understand. We have been through such a situation with the county police committees and probation committees. There was precisely the same kind of attempt to centralise ultimate power in Whitehall—in a Minister—and, wisely, we rejected it.
The central issue of whether this is a shift from what preceded it needs to be knocked on the head. It would be like something from Alice in Wonderland if we were to pretend that the White Paper was not different from what is in the Bill. I shall remind the Committee what the White Paper said:
"We expect the decision making to be decentralised to the local management boards".
That is not consistent with Clauses 4 and 5, however eloquent or ingenious the Government's advocate. The clauses give no decision-making powers to the councils, which are not management hoards anyhow.
We should examine what is provided for in the clauses. The Lord Chancellor appoints every person; the Lord Chancellor gives guidance; and the Lord Chancellor receives recommendations to which he must have regard. The 30,000 magistrates in this land think of the recommendations that they are asked to make about court closures. There is a right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor with regard to a court closure, the sort of appeal that the noble Baroness said that we might get for certain other matters with regard to the Bill. The Committee will know that the number of occasions on which an appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a court closure has been upheld is infinitesimal. There is scepticism about such arrangements.
1104
I also notice that the issue of the composition of the councils has come up several times. The noble Baroness said that the Government had provided for—I noted the wonderful phrase that she used—"an irreducible number" of magistrates on the councils. I can tell the Committee why it is an irreducible number: it is one. I marvel at the passion with which the Minister assuages the fears of paranoid magistrates. At the moment, there are 12 on magistrates' courts committees. What is one among six?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, said, there is huge discontent among magistrates. They are slow to anger. They are judges. They are deliberative, sensible people. However, they are now extremely concerned about what is in train. If the Magistrates' Association is thought to have been slow to gird up its loins, that is because it has consulted 30,000 magistrates. It is a charity and feels inhibited about the strength with which it expresses its views.
I shall read another document that may help us better to understand why the magistrates have no faith in an administration that will not put anything in the Bill. I have a court circular that was issued at the end of November, under the name of Mark Swales, the criminal courts' business redesign manager. It says:
"The Bill provides for a summary offence to be treated in the same way as an indictable offence and will allow proceedings to be brought anywhere in England and Wales, rather than just in the 'LJA' where the offence is committed. This will have the effect of reducing delay by allowing bulk processing of cases and will allow specialist courts within an area to hear certain types of cases.
Whilst the prosecutor will decide the court, they will do so in accordance with directions to be issued by the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, as to where the cases are to be heard. The directions will state that people should appear before a court in the local justice area in which the offence was committed, or suspected to have been committed unless other factors are applied, such as the hearing of bulk issue cases in a particular court, the hearing of cases by a specialist court or the convenience of witnesses and victims".
That sort of scenario—a magistrates' court system run by administrators who think in terms of bulk case management—has added greatly to the anxiety felt by all justices. Those in east Yorkshire put it rather well, when they said that,
"the most important feature of the current magistrates' court system was that local justice was dispensed by local magistrates in local magistrates' courts, managed by a local magistrates' courts committee".
The Government talk about the increased accountability of the new councils, but no one has made the point that lay justices are intrinsically accountable in a way that professional judges never are. They are butchers, bakers and candlestick makers from the community over which they preside. That is the last surviving element of justice of the people. by the people and for the people. If we take away from them the powers that they have left to organise justice in their petty-sessional divisions and in their magistrates' courts areas, their belief is that a number of factors will follow from that. Local magistrates' independence will be affected; the dictates of administrative convenience—the so-called efficiency which is one of the statutory aims of all this—will override the interests of justice; their jobs will be less

1105
interesting; their roles will have less status; and local justice will go down the pan. And local justice—although much lip service is paid to it—is the cornerstone of the lay justice system. If the magistrates cease to have familiarity with their localities and their people, and they cease to be able to have regard to local sentiment, a great deal will have been lost. It is no good the Government pretending that this issue is not part and parcel of the consequences of going down this road.
Therefore, I say to the Government that they must take on board that decisive powers must rest with local management boards. Nothing else will do. It is an irreducible requirement. The Government must understand that; it is no good relying on 101 elements of soft soap.
Finally, the delivery of justice is hugely complex. There are always elements that can be improved. However, by and large, this is a system that has stood the test of time. I urge the Government to have regard to the prospect of losing some of the best magistrates now serving—as is happening in some counties. I see the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, looking askance at that. The evidence from magistrates' courts committees is—this is not my view, but at Second Reading I quoted from the report of the Suffolk magistrates' courts committee—that good magistrates are folding their tents and saying, "Enough is enough". Recruiting the best magistrates is becoming more difficult. The decline of status and morale are devastating to the magistracy as a whole.
I do not need to spend much time on the amendments because they are self-evident. If anything, they are too long. But it is abundantly clear that the proposal does not simply remove all power from or retain all power with the proposed area courts management boards. In Schedule 1, the Lord Chancellor is given a whole raft of intervening powers. In subsection (7) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 28:
"The Lord Chancellor may determine whether any provision made by an area courts management board under this section is sufficient".
He can intervene with a management order under subsection (12); he can intervene in the composition of the boards; he can give direction to the boards. Therefore, it will not be sufficient or satisfactory for the Government to pretend that this is denying the Lord Chancellor the necessary powers to take steps where a management board is failing in its tasks.
I shall leave these three amendments at that. but urge them on the Committee.
Lord Jones: Within these amendments is the core of the belief that our courts should be rooted in the locality. Any mooted central control in these debates has been cast as negative and unwelcome. Ministers disagree and give assurances. Reform and value for money there must be and, perhaps occasionally, even court closures. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must surely be in leadership in this.
1106
My anxiety is that as a consequence of necessary reforms our local magistrates, their courts and their structures are cast down. That is what I fear. I fear that something highly valuable and very precious will be lost in the consideration of new legislation. My noble friend Lady Scotland is leaning over backwards to do the right thing and to assuage our concerns. I want to emphasise that magistrates give so much, but I note that many are standing down. Recruitment is becoming more difficult, particularly of younger magistrates whom we now need.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for succinctly expressing his support for the amendments. He referred to the Magistrates' Association, to court closures and to the organisation Justice. Magistrates are volunteers. They serve with distinction and often for decades. They become expert, wise, mature and capable of dispensing good local justice. My judgment is that they might lose confidence if they see any significant loss of the current local grounding of the organisations within which they now serve. The ultimate and decisive powers should remain in the locality. That was the cry from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, during his impassioned remarks today.
The magistrates are local and accountable. The blunt fact is that the system of the magistrates' courts as described is successful. They are working. It is a British phenomenon and it has emerged slowly. It should not be humbled or dismantled. My noble friend the Minister is not intent on premeditated mischief and she will always listen and respond to widespread concerns throughout England and Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jones. We live perhaps 10 miles apart in north-east Wales and it may be that our confidence in the magistracy depends on the locality from which we come. I strongly suspect that the magistrates of north-east Wales are replicated all over England and Wales and are all of the same quality.
It is interesting to see how the Government have reached this position. The Auld report made no recommendation. The report at page 294, paragraph 73, having recommended the abolition of the Courts Service and the magistrates' courts committees, stated:
"It would be for others to determine the most practical way to link administratively and geographically the three Criminal Court divisions that I propose and the civil and family courts".
We are concerned with two divisions and not three. The issue next surfaced in the House of Commons on 9th July 2002 when Yvette Cooper said:
"It is important that decisions about courthouses and the provision of services at the local level be taken as far as possible at the local level, by the people who have the experience and the knowledge of local circumstances".
She is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department and she refers to "decisions". She went on:
"That should continue. It is part of the current system that it is a matter for magistrates courts committees in the first instance to make decisions about court venues and where services should be provided. We need to retain such local decision-making. It is also important that rural decisions are taken into account.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/02; col. 736.]

1107
In the White Paper, Justice for All, published in that same month, the proposal was for unification of the courts administration as we know it within the single agency. It was said that the key was the proposal to establish local management boards, which would continue to provide a role for magistrates in the strategic management of their courts but which would also bring on board the local judiciary and members drawn from the wider community. Nothing could be more straightforward than those two statements—in understandable, clear English—from Yvette Cooper and from the White Paper, Justice for All.
But then the English began to get turgid and difficult to follow. A written statement was laid in the Library on 4th December, which stated:
"Court Administration Councils will work in partnership with local chief officers. They will make a non executive contribution to the development of local strategy for delivering high performance and securing value for money within the national policy and performance framework".
Writing on 9th January to the Constitution Committee, as it appears in its third report, the Lord Chancellor said:
"Court administration councils will ensure that local people have a real say in the running of courts in their area. They will make a non-executive contribution to the development of local strategy for delivering high performance and will work in partnership with local chief officers to do this.
The Lord Chancellor continued:
"The new agency will not be centralised. It will be responsive to local needs through a network of empowered local managers and accountable through the community-focused Court Administration Councils. These bodies will bring together representatives of the local community and the judiciary, lay and professional, with real influence on the administration of the courts. Where decisions are best made locally they will be".
That is jargon. I know that the Minister objected to the word "guff' when I used it in a previous Committee meeting, so perhaps I may put it in my own language—that is, geiriogrwydd—which, for the benefit of Hansard, when translated means "guff".
We need to pin down precisely what the role of these councils is to he. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, wrote to us all and tried to set out what was to be the role. She stated:
"the Court Administration Councils will approve the area's strategic plan—this will include the area's estate strategy (including any proposals to open or close courthouses); its staffing structures and recruitment and retention strategy; and spending priorities for the year, including any major local projects".
Let us pause there for a moment. The councils are to approve these matters. What if they do not approve them? Suppose a council is in conflict with someone who is administering the courts as part of the agency; suppose there is a difference between them, and the councils do not approve. What happens then? We do not learn that from this document.
The letter continues:
"Throughout the year, Councils will receive regular performance reports and will propose remedial action, where necessary".
Suppose that the proposals are not accepted or carried out. What happens then?
"At the end of the year, Councils will contribute to their area's annual report".
1108
What does that mean? What are they to contribute? A rundown of what has happened during the year?
"Local managers will be accountable to them as well as to the national agency if they tail to deliver the plans that they have agreed with them".
How are local managers to be accountable? Will the councils have the power of hiring and firing them or anyone employed in the agency? I very much doubt it. I very much doubt that the councils will have any redress except a right of access, as the letter states, to the national chief executive about any issue, including managerial performance.
So the people appointed to the councils by the Lord Chancellor—they will not be elected; there is no democratic element in the process—will be there, flapping on the sidelines, without arty power to take decisions. How can we go from what Yvette Cooper said in another place about the need to retain local decision-making to the position now encapsulated in the Bill? And why is it expressed in such involved language, which in effect conceals the lack of power that the councils will have? It may be accidental. I cannot imagine the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, ever writing in this kind of style.
There is a further passage that I think is rather nice. The agencies are to take a "holistic" approach—as though we are talking about aromatherapy! That is not the language of government Ministers, yet that is what is appearing. In the course of our debates in Committee, we must get through all that and pin the Government down—not with the kind of bile that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was referring to, but pin them down nevertheless—as to what they mean.
If the genuine intent is to allow magistrates to retain a power of decision-making—as was originally promised to them—we shall avoid at future stages of the Bill divisions which may well lead to all kinds of conflicts between ourselves and another place. That is one way to proceed. But it would be much better for the Government to explain in clear, simple language, as Yvette Cooper did on 9th July last year, what the councils are about.
Lord Waddington: Surely, by now, the Minister must be aware that there is a feeling of betrayal over the proposal that advisory bodies should take the place of magistrates' courts committees. The wording it the White Paper is absolutely plain. I am afraid that I must repeat it yet again:
"We expect managers of Courts to be accountable to new local management boards, We expect decision-making to be decentralised to the local management boards".
Nothing will persuade this Committee that an advisory council is anything like a board which has managerial responsibilities. There is a clear case for any new bodies having responsibility for all the courts. We know that. But these bodies should be there to manage, not merely to advise. They should be there to ensure an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on of the business of the courts.

1109
I simply do not understand how the noble Baroness can stand at the Dispatch Box and say with a straight face that the undertaking given in the White Paper is being honoured. No one in his right mind can argue that an advisory council is the same as a management board. What we are hearing today is an attempt to justify a complete reversal of policy by the Government and an attempt to justify a Bill which by no means honours the undertakings given in the White Paper and the undertakings given to the magistracy. No wonder people are cross.
Lord Borrie: I was most interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury—in particular because he answered the question that I put to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay: she, as it were, passed it over to him. I believe his answer was that the local area court management boards proposed in his amendment would be concerned not merely with the administration of justice in magistrates' courts but also with the administration of justice in the Crown Court and the county courts—which is quite different from the present situation, where they are under a court service. I was interested for several reasons. Like my noble friend Lord Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, argued that we should all cherish and value the work of magistrates as a special feature of this country's administration of justice compared with that of others. Surely we should all share that view.
The excellence of so much of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was spoiled by three matters. First was his obsession with the notion that the Lord Chancellor wishes to centralise in his own hands all power relating to the administration of justice. The second was the noble Lord's failure to address himself to the argument of Lord Justice Auld in his massive report of a couple of years ago for a unified system of court management. Thirdly, I was concerned that the noble Lord made no mention of the fact that magistrates, whose role in life we all cherish, will gain something in return for the loss he described. He never mentioned that they will gain a role in the administration of all courts through the Bill's proposal for court administration councils and their larger consultative role.
The Auld report's case for a unified court management system was made powerfully a couple of years ago. It proposed the replacement of the present system of two separate court structures whereby Crown Courts are run by the Court Service and magistrates' courts are run by local Magistrates' Courts Committees, which makes for much inefficiency. I am still unsure whether the two opposition parties are for or against unification of the court management system. It' they are in favour, it is odd to go about unification by proposing that in the administration of all courts in the country there should be a division of responsibility among—pick your number—42, 30 or however many areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, quoted from the Auld report. At least he paid attention to it. The report, at page 292, states that there should be,
1110
"an executive agency providing a national service but with maximum delegation of managerial responsibility and control of resources to an accountable 'local manager' working in close liaison with the professional and lay judiciary".
Clause 4 seems to provide for that. But the opposition parties seem to want 42 different bodies, or whatever number they propose, not a unified national service. The logic of the Auld report was to point to a national executive agency, which I shall not describe because my noble friend Lady Scotland did so adequately on 20th January as reported at column 543 of Hansard. She referred to an executive agency working in partnership with the court administration councils for each area, with each such council comprising members of the lay and professional judiciary and representatives of the local community.
The Auld report also pointed to a local manager being employed by the court agency, not, as the opposition parties propose in their amendments, by a local management board. The amendments seem to constitute a complete turnabout from a unified structure, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, admitted. Their effect would be nowhere near what the Auld report recommended as desirable and sensible for a rational court structure.
10 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord's quality of offensiveness is such that he almost persuaded me not to make this brief speech. At the risk of attracting death stares from my noble friends on the Front Bench and from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I have some sympathy with the Government's position. If the issue had been restricted to that of the magistracy, I would have had complete sympathy with the amendments.
There is a real argument to be engaged in about the desirability of a unified court system. I know that I am a tedious advocate of the virtues of the Scottish system, but we have something like that. Nevertheless, in England, the magistracy is one of the jewels in the crown. The Government damage, at their risk, that wonderful contribution of lay justice which is not to be found anywhere else in the world and ought to be held in the highest possible regard.
As I understand the role of the court administration councils, and as the Government wish to advance them, they should give the Lord Chancellor recommendations on how he should discharge his general duty in relation not only to magistrates' courts but to the Crown Court and county courts. I am sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that the Queen's writ should run uniformly over the whole country. The Lord Chancellor has a general duty, and he should discharge it. In that context, regretfully, I do not entirely buy into the arguments that have been advanced, given the context within which the council is to be established.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, may find a measure of comfort in what I have said, but let me tell her that I find the relationship between subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 5 so offensive that even if no one else divides on the relevant amendment, I shall. I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor should have a general

1111
duty. I shall at a later stage have longer observations to make about this quite unnecessary restriction that the court administration councils can only make recommendations relating specifically to the area for which they are established. I give the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, fair warning. It seems a key point, and perhaps she would like to reflect on it before we next return to the Committee stage. In short compass, at present, I hope that I have given her at least a small measure of comfort.
Lord Hylton: It is regrettable that we should be discussing these important amendments after dinner, at 10 o'clock, in a thinly attended Committee.
I have a good deal of sympathy for this group of amendments, but feel that they could be considerably improved. Subsection (4)(a) of Amendment No. 23 refers to
"an officer of the board".
I would like it to refer to officers of the courts, whose first loyalty is to the court and the interests of justice and not the interests of some centralised administration. The proposed subsections (7) and (8) in Amendment No. 28 seem to give back to the Lord Chancellor the widest possible powers to do whatever he likes. I do not think that can be quite right or achieves the purpose.
Can the present system of justice, as exercised in magistrates' courts on a voluntary basis by volunteers, be combined with the professional courts with professional judges and juries? The two seem very different animals and I wonder whether the benefits claimed in the Auld report are real.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall briefly support the amendments. Given the Government's reluctance to show any sign that they wish to move on the substance of these clauses, the amendments will inevitably have to come forward and are bound to be strongly supported. Had the Government shown some sign of movement, there might have been some justification for staving them off. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, I have considerable support for the idea of a unified courts administration system. However, the fact is that we have a lacuna in the information provided to us and we can get no answers. The inevitable result of a vacuum is that something will try to fill it. The amendments have a great deal of merit and are worthy of support in the absence of any movement or indication by the Government of precisely how the new system will work.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I note that it is now five past 10. Although I would like to be telegraphic in my response, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would have put it, these amendments deserve a full response, because so many points have been made. I commend to the Committee the comments made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. For a moment I wondered whether there was unity of purpose to unify the courts. I adopt every statement made by my noble friend. I am most grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, although I understand that it is given with a caveat.
1112
There has been no U-turn. We have local decision-making. These decisions will be taken locally by chief officers in partnership with the court administration council. I am most grateful to my noble friend for reminding the Committee of what Lord Justice Auld said in the report that has caused us to seek to reform the courts administration structure in the way we suggest.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the noble Baroness accept that Lord Justice Auld said nothing about councils? He said that he leaves that to others, as the quotation that I gave shows.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is right. I shall not reiterate everything that my noble friend Lord Borrie said. He rightly referred to the comments of Lord Justice Auld that telegraph the way in which he suggests this may be managed and informed on a local basis, outlined in detail. That is echoed in the structure we have adopted.
I appreciate that, at first blush, the suggestion in the amendments seems attractive—until one examines how it will work. We are told that there is agreement that a unified system has merit. We see much of that merit in the Court Service at the moment—the ability to move the occupation of courts from one area to another, the way in which area-to-area co-operation can help relieve the burden on certain courts and the way in which judges co-operate with each other, crossing boundaries to relieve brother and sister judges in other areas. Hertfordshire may assist Bedfordshire, who may assist Cambridgeshire. That happens with success and to the benefit of the individual citizen who awaits the determination of their case.
It is important that we do not concentrate on magistrates' courts alone, valuable though they are. We must consider the system overall.
I reiterate that we, too, believe that the function performed by magistrates is extremely valuable and precious. It was this Government who firmly said that the suggestion that we should do away with the lay magistracy and replace it with perhaps 1,000 district judges was not acceptable. In legislation we shall bring forward in due course, we propose to expand the jurisdiction of magistrates to enable them to have greater sentencing powers. So it cannot be said that this Government do not properly value the magistrates and the function they perform. I regret to say, however, that we believe that the model put forward in these amendments is internally inconsistent. I shall, if I may, touch on some of those inconsistencies.
Our proposals are the fruit of a long period of discussion and consultation, beginning with Sir Robin Auld's review—which recommended a single, nationally funded administrative structure, but also one that provided significant local autonomy and accountability. In our statement of intent in Justice for All and in further work with the magistrates' court community, we did consider alternatives to the mode] set out in the Bill. We know that our objectives—local delegation and accountability within a national framework—are not easy bedfellows.

1113
We considered separate executive management boards with a national co-ordinating structure but concluded that it would not cure the defects that Sir Robin and our stakeholders diagnosed. It would undermine all that we seek to achieve by unifying, for reasons that I shall explain in commenting in detail on this amendment. We looked for a compromise—I suspect that noble Lords have made the same search—but concluded that a hybrid structure would serve only to muddy the waters and make it less clear than it is now who is responsible to Parliament for the effective and efficient administration of the courts.
There are a number of disadvantages to Amendment No. 23. I shall, if I may, explain why we reject it. First, it would not create a unified administration. It would create 42 separate court administrations. Instead of breaking down organisational barriers, the amendment would erect them, undermining what we want to achieve in establishing clear accountability for national performance. The amendment would leave the Lord Chancellor with accountability for national performance but would give local boards the tools to deliver. The Lord Chancellor could intervene only by means of persuasion or by a cumbersome process of statutory direction. That is not a satisfactory situation.
I should like to say something about court closures. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that court closures are an example of the difficulties. He said, "Look what happens when magistrates appeal to the Lord Chancellor". Let us look at it. It is the MCCs that decide to close courts. The Lord Chancellor is involved only in the event of an appeal by the paying authority. There is no specific criteria, as every appeal is decided individually. Common themes are accessibility and the cost of travel. In 2001, 12 appeals were decided and all 12 were dismissed. Of course, that means that the Lord Chancellor upheld the decisions made by the magistrates' courts committees.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: As the noble Baroness referred directly to one of my points, perhaps she will allow me to say—as indeed Lord Justice Auld says—that the decision on closures is driven by the budgetary arrangements that come from central government. It is a myth to say that the closures are ordered by the MCCs. Closures are entirely a consequence of funding cuts and the formula adopted, which, for example, maintains that if one has a new central court system one is not charged any of the interest of the capital cost of building, thus putting the existing estate at a disadvantage. I therefore hope that she will reconsider the point.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We must beg to differ. We have crossed swords on the matter before and I refer the noble Lord to the answers that I gave previously. One benefit of the new administrative structure is that we could make better use of the court estate right across the piece. We would hope that in so doing, some of the court closures currently being mooted may be avoided, because those courts could be
1114
used by the county court, Crown Court or otherwise. That is one of the huge benefits in the change of model. That would also give a greater and stronger voice to magistrates' courts at the national level.
Under the amendments, for example, instead of giving magistrates' courts a clear voice on the national criminal justice board through a unified agency, all the courts would be divided into 42 local bodies. I understand that that is what noble Lords on the Opposition Benches advocate. Making better use of resources—in particular, the court estate, which I mentioned—is a real benefit.
The amendment would damage our ability to do so, reinforce organisational barriers and prevent us reaping the full benefit that we seek. That is especially important in the Crown Court, where it is often necessary to transfer work, and therefore resources, at short notice because of convenience to witnesses, security, or getting a jury without prejudice in high-profile murder and sex cases, for example. That is needed to deliver high levels of performance, which means a better level of service across the board, providing a platform for other reforms in the criminal justice system and in family and civil justice, for which a unified administration is crucial.
For example, 43—or another number that may be chosen—separate organisations acting independently could hinder the early development of business centre capability for civil business. The current 218 county courts operate 218 back offices in isolation. The Courts and Tribunals Modernisation Programme (CTMP) is intended to remedy that by directing much of the most basic administrative work straight to business centres. The new agency will aid that process, contributing to increased efficiency in county courts.
The amendments also undermine the benefits that I mentioned for staff and court users. There are problems at present with MCCs. Although of course we applaud the good work that they do, it would be futile not to acknowledge that there are difficulties. The Lord Chancellor's present relationship with them makes it difficult for him. For example, difficulties that arise in individual magistrates' court disputes between local magistrates, justices' clerks or JCEs can be resolved only by the MCC. Under unified administration, the Lord Chancellor will be able to set standard procedures for dealing with magistrates' complaints about the administration that are agreed with the Magistrates' Association, and to ensure that they are resolved.
Many of the amendment's provisions are similar to those elsewhere in statute where particular public functions have been given to multiple local bodies—for example, local probation boards—but they simply would not fit with what we need to cure the problems that have been identified in the area.
Several noble Lords mentioned the magistrates' courts committees as being representative. I hear what they say about that, but at present they are not as representative as they could be. Magistrates' courts committees are 75 per cent male and 25 per cent female. They are 96 per cent white; 0.5 per cent black;

1115
1.5 per cent Asian and 1.5 per cent described as "other". Many magistrates' courts committees are 100 per cent white and 90 per cent male.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. How will the Bill affect the issue that she is now discussing?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In terms of our ability to set standards, make recommendations and how composition can be decided.
I simply address the issue raised by Members of the Committee when they say that the magistrates' courts committees are at the moment representative. We say, "Yes, hut not as representative as perhaps they could he". This is an issue which the magistrates' courts committees themselves seek actively to address across the country, and quite rightly so.
I refer to the other problems that arise. It is very easy to think that everything at the moment is perfect; regrettably, it is not. Sir Robin Auld highlighted the fact that magistrates' courts committees had no budgetary control over their affairs; they simply bid each year to the maximum permitted by the Treasury. The arrangements for their accounting between themselves and the local authority, or authorities in whose areas they fall, are unsatisfactory. In addition, they are not subject to the satisfactory regime of audit. There is little detailed examination of the MCCs' financial affairs by the external auditor appointed by the Audit Commission to scrutinise local government expenditure or by the LCD's internal auditors.
The inspectorate highlighted that practices vary considerably from one MCC to another, for example, in the format of case file sheets, legal aid applications and information technology systems. The MCSI report of 2001–02 found that 11 out 12 MCCs inspected were still not good at ensuring that systems to manage performance were in place. That had been highlighted in two previous MCSI reports and in 2001–02 the inspection report showed that only half of the MCCs inspected had appropriate monitoring procedures in place for fines and fees collected. Again, that was reflected in the two previous MCSI reports.
Inspectors have some concerns about the leadership and direction provided by MCCs with only three out of 12 inspected being judged as providing clear leadership. Even where structures to manage performance in case administration had been put in place, inspectors found few examples where data were used to identify the factors contributing to poor performance. The MCSI also noted that in a quarter of MCCs inspected there was no clear link between the objective set in the strategic plan and the financial planning processes being undertaken.
Therefore, we cannot pretend that all is rosy in the garden. There is much work to do. The MCC structure restricts the implementation of national initiatives. Many MCCs do not have scheduling protocols that conform to the national listing protocols published by the trials issues group in 1999. Inspectors encountered several senior MCC officials who had never heard of
1116
that document, despite reference to it in many individual reports and the last MCSI annual report. MCSI found nine out of the 12 MCCs inspected needed to improve scheduling in order to deploy resources effectively and needed to follow national guidance.
It is well recognised that magistrates' courts handle 95 per cent of criminal business, yet there are inconsistencies in performance that cannot be explained by the complexity of the cases. A third of MCCs inspected had poor or declining case throughput performance and the associated long waiting times for witnesses and defendants.
There is wonderful practice in some MCCs and less wonderful practice in others. What we want is a system which is nationally of good quality so that the quality of the justice and the efficiency of the procedure to which people are subject are not dependent on the area in which they live but are influenced by the local flavour and commitment of the people who operate the system.
We hope that the structure that we propose addresses many of those issues. That litany of what can be improved in the MCCs does not mean that we do not value the extraordinarily good work that is done by the majority. However, if this was a report, we would have to say, "Could do better". The Bill is a means to deliver that improvement.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It does not sound as though the Lord Chancellor's Department has done terribly well, having listened to the litany to which the noble Baroness referred a moment ago. It is a question of devolution in the end. Do we believe in local initiatives, priorities and decision making or, to use some of her words, do we want nationally the same thing, no inconsistencies, and national standards? Do we want to centralise, so that everything is the same throughout the country? It is a matter of approach.
I have always been a devolutionist. I always believe that there is more confidence if decisions are taken locally by local people. In the same way in which I always mistrusted socialism, I have also mistrusted the centralisation of power and the decisions in Whitehall or wherever, among the heads of nationalised industries, that they know best for everyone throughout the country. I have always been against that, and in the clause the Government are going along those lines. Auld is clearly a centraliser. His report says nothing about local councils of any sort. I do not think that they are even implicit in what he says. He talks about local managers, who will take decisions locally. He is not involving local magistrates or anyone of that sort.
The noble Baroness should not think that we are simply talking about magistrates. Of course we appreciate that the council or board proposed in the amendment will deal with Crown courts and county courts, as well as magistrates' courts. However, I see nothing wrong in magistrates being concerned in the administration of the Crown courts and county courts, as opposed to the Lord Chancellor's appointees, who

1117
may come from a locality but know nothing about any court at all, and are merely there because their names have gone forward. Magistrates are at least involved in the criminal justice system, and are more qualified than anyone else among the lay public to sit on such boards.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It is late, so do not worry: I am not going to say much. I shall merely thank the Minister for a long reply. I cannot resist her closing, headmistress-like jibe, "Could do better". Who could not do better? Which government department could not? Which centralised quango could not?
The question is one of finding the right balance. In terms of a unified service, one can have more or less federalism among the 42 local boards. The litany of failure that the Government talk about could be dealt with via a much more effective national agency, which could work with the semi-autonomous boards that the amendment proposes.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was going to begin my winding-up with exactly the same words as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It is indeed late. The Minister was right to take the amendment as seriously as she did and to give it careful consideration in her response, late though the hour is. However, I would be wrong if I then summarised the powerful points put by all Members of the Committee, whether they disagreed with me as did the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, or had some reservations as did my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. All Members of the Committee made strong representations. Debate on the subject goes to the heart of our main problems with this part of the Bill.
Our difficulty is that we have a unity of purpose between us, but our unity of purpose is that we believe that the Government got things right the first time round, when they talked about local decision making. It is their second approach that we find unacceptable. The Minister said tonight and in her letter that what they said in the White Paper is what we have now, but patently that is not what we or all those outside the
1118
Chamber believe is in the Bill. We are trying to get greater clarity with regard to that. My noble friend Lord Waddington made a powerful point about the wording of the White Paper and clearly showed that there would be executive action at the local base. That would be, as he said, within a unified structure; the arrangement can work and will not simply involve a talking shop.
The Minister said that our amendments were internally inconsistent. She did not actually prove that in her responses, but I shall read carefully what she said. We are not arguing that the amendments are the perfect solution. We are prepared to listen and learn and to work between now and Report for that solution. Our problem, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, is that so far the Government have made no movement. The Minister repeatedly said that magistrates' courts committees have not worked and involved many problems. They have said that they want to find a way forward to something better.
The more that the noble Baroness spoke tonight, the more I saw coming towards me the leviathan of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the unified structure. I am sure that that is not the impression that she was trying to give. However, I saw that coming down the tracks towards me at a slow but relentless rate, gathering within it all the other organisations: tribunals here and tribunals there.
On Report, we may have further opportunity to reflect on what unification as opposed to centralisation of power means. We may come back with a proposal that finds favour with, I hope, a majority in the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Connswater River: Pollution Management:
  Connswater River: Pollution Management:
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Linguistic Diversity Branch
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Linguistic Diversity Branch
  The Lord Chancellor: Pension Package
  The Lord Chancellor: Pension Package
  Downpatrick and Newtownards
  Downpatrick and Newtownards
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Language Implementation Body
  Language Implementation Body
  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Foyle Valley Railway Museum
  Foyle Valley Railway Museum
  Kerr Street, Portrush, County Antrim
  Kerr Street, Portrush, County Antrim
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002: Schedule 7
  Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002: Schedule 7
  RAF Fylingdales
  RAF Fylingdales
  Temporary Deployable Accommodation
  Temporary Deployable Accommodation
  Service Personnel: Immunisation Programme
  Service Personnel: Immunisation Programme
  Heavy Equipment Transporter
  Heavy Equipment Transporter
  Wheeled Tanker Fleet
  Wheeled Tanker Fleet
  Royal Air Force Regiment
  Royal Air Force Regiment
  Strategic Rail Authority
  Strategic Rail Authority
  Election Material: Post Office Box Numbers
  Election Material: Post Office Box Numbers
  Hunting: Welfare of Dogs and Horses
  Hunting: Welfare of Dogs and Horses
  Hostels for the Homeless in London and Liverpool: Funding
  Hostels for the Homeless in London and Liverpool: Funding
  Sexually Transmitted Infections
  Sexually Transmitted Infections
  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst
  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst
  Donor-conceived People: Access to Information
  Donor-conceived People: Access to Information