Sitting of 11 July 2003

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

  Ragwort Control Bill
  Order read for consideration, as amended.
  9.34 am
  Norman Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is about Wednesday's transport statement. As you will know, Mr. Speaker has always taken the view that the House must be informed of important statements before the media and the outside world. It has become clear to me from discussions with members of the media that information that was made available to Members only after the Secretary of State's statement, in line with normal practice, had been available to journalists some time before by means of an embargoed statement.
  I raise with you as a matter of principle the question of whether the provision of material on an embargoed basis to members of the media some hours in advance of a statement being made, so they have information that they can use—no doubt they can write their stories without having access to the views of Members, other than Ministers—is a practice that is consistent with Mr. Speaker's view that Members should be informed before the media. I should be grateful for any advice that you can give on this matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Mr. Speaker's views on these matters are well known, and the hon. Gentleman's points will no doubt be noted.

  Ragwort Control Bill
    Clause 1

      CONTROL OF RAGWORT
      Sir Paul Beresford: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 4, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 1, line 7, after 'appropriate', insert—
      'including the National Farmers Union, the Local Government Association, the Bridleways Association, the Pony Club, Riding for the Disabled, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Trust, and the Country Landowners Association.'.
      No. 7, in page 1, line 9, after 'code', insert—
      'at any time, but must revise it not later than five years after it has been laid before Parliament'.
      No. 4, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
      '(7) The requirement in subsection (1) shall apply from 31st March 2004.'.
      Sir Paul Beresford: The Government's attitude to private Members' Bills varies. In some instances, they say no and scupper a Bill. In other instances, they say yes because they have written the Bill, or they say, "Perhaps," because they quite like the Bill but they do not want to do too much to it. Sometimes, as on this occasion, they scupper the Bill by putting in the word "may". My amendment would change "may" to "shall".

      1495
      My thinking is to a large degree informed by background in agriculture, albeit not in this country. The accent keeps creeping out no matter what I do. I think my country benefited from immigration, although I accept that one or two of the Maoris might not agree with me. But with immigration came bits and pieces of debris from this country. We did not get foxes in New Zealand, but we got many other pests. We got gorse—that was one of the classics—and we also got ragwort. I am therefore somewhat familiar with ragwort and with the struggle to deal with it in New Zealand. When I came to the United Kingdom I was astonished to find that exactly the same problem existed here.
      When I came to this country I was disappointed to find that there was a much less positive attitude towards dealing with ragwort than existed in the antipodes, where it was recognised as being especially damaging to cattle and horses. It was not so damaging to sheep, although I understand that there is evidence in this country that it can be damaging to them.
      In New Zealand, ragwort was less important when we were predominantly farming sheep. However, as the wool price dropped—likewise the meat price—there was a swing away from sheep, with changes in style and changes in pumping water. The result was huge cattle stations. One of the areas where I worked and where I went shooting had been predominantly engaged in sheep farming, but moved across to cattle. There had been very few sheep to the acre, but the number of cattle per acre was enormous. Whereas the sheep cropped the grass quite low and tight—effectively they prevented ragwort by eating it—ragwort was extremely damaging to cattle.
      Until fairly recently, the care of horses was vital. Horses in Australia and New Zealand were used on farms. They were not used for pleasure to the same degree as in the United Kingdom. Their use in farming is not so widespread since the advent of motorbikes and helicopters.
      In dealing with noxious weeds in a country that is predominantly agricultural, there is a real determination to succeed. Given the measures set out in the Bill, it is clear that that determination does not yet exist in the UK. As I have said, I am always suspicious when the Government say "may". Even when they say that they will—I have in mind a Bill that recently passed through the House, with support from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—
      Mr. Andrew Miller: Given the hon. Gentleman's antipodean experience, he may be familiar with a paper produced by D. A. McLaren, entitled "Biological Ragwort Control in Victoria". The process of control is there described, and particularly biological control, which I would like to mention later if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In his paper, D. A. McLaren says specifically that landowners who do not control ragwort "may" be served with a land management notice. The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw parallels with the antipodes, but as I understand the published data, a "may" is associated with the Australian regulations.
      Sir Paul Beresford: There are two problems with that. First, Victoria is not the same as New South Wales or
      1496
      other areas of Australia where farming is extensive. Secondly, the relationship between Australians and New Zealanders is traditionally a difficult one. My daughter, who has just returned from New Zealand, stuck a big postcard on my wall which says, "I support two teams—the New Zealand All Blacks and anybody playing Australia." However, in the parts of Australia where farming is important—in Victoria, dentistry seems to be more important than farming—the hon. Gentleman would see that there is a firmer policy.
      To return to my main argument, "may" suggests that the Government do not really care.
      Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is being a little disingenuous about his neighbours in Australia. There are 825,000 hectares of Victoria where ragwort grows, so the problem is serious.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek. The relationship between Australia and New Zealand is in fact very good, and I utterly denounce the rumour that the Australians think that the word "aperitif" means a set of dentures.
      Mr. George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the House may benefit from a prolonged visit of several months to the antipodes by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who could then report on his experience?
      Sir Paul Beresford: That is probably a very good idea. If the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) went during our winter and their summer, I would be more than happy to accompany him as a translator, as the phraseology there is rather different from the phraseology here. We could even make use of the practice commonly called pairing, which was used in the past and will be used again very soon, I suspect.
      To return to ragwort control, a key part of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—that measure was introduced before the election under the aegis of the Home Office and deals with commercial interests and is vital to the police—has been sat on. It looks as if its provisions will not be enforced, so questions need to be asked—and that is leaving aside the use of wishy-washy words like "may".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am following the hon. Gentleman very carefully, and trust that he will now come on to the amendments before the House.
      Sir Paul Beresford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your timing was perfect, as I was just about to deal with the use of the word "may".
      In my area, the Mole Valley and, in fact, all the way down the A3, we have difficulties with ragwort. The prospect of the Bill being enforced is extremely positive, as landowners can then be pushed to deal with the problem of ragwort. Such enforcement is needed, and I was intrigued to learn how it would be done. However, when I picked up the Bill, I saw the word "may", which should be changed to "shall". My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and I felt that we

      1497
      needed to go a bit further, so we tabled amendment No. 4, which specifies that the measure shall apply from 31 March 2004.
      There has been a huge effort to try to get individuals to try to deal with the problem. I have worked closely with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for a long time, but there has been no action from the Government. I urge the Government either to change "may" to "shall" or to explain clearly the timetable for the Bill and how long it will be before its provisions are enforced. I wish them to say, in no uncertain terms, that they really mean action.
      9.45 am
      Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for expressing his interest in, and support for, this important Bill. I agree wholeheartedly that action needs to be taken.
      As for the question of whether the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality should be under a statutory requirement to issue a code of practice or whether the Bill should be permissive, we considered that in Committee. I made a joke that the Minister and I, when we both had the home affairs brief—we were in government and he was a shadow home affairs Minister—had many arguments in Committee about the use of "may" and "shall". It is an old device for taking up time but, equally, it is a valid argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley was essentially asking whether we can trust the Minister to introduce a code if we use the word "may" instead of "shall". I should like to give him some encouraging news, as I believe very sincerely that we can trust the Minister. We have discussed the matter at length, and he is as committed to doing something about it as me, my hon. Friend and other Members who are here to support my Bill.
      The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I am tempted to tease the hon. Gentleman, and remind him that we often argued about "may" and "shall" when the Conservatives were in power because getting action on law and order was like pushing rocks uphill. However, work on the code is almost complete. We have been working closely with the British Horse Society, and I intend to publish the code so that it can be consulted on and discussed by everyone who is concerned about the issue before the Bill becomes law. It could then be implemented in the shortest possible period, because we will already have had the opportunity to discuss and improve the code, should that be required, before the formal consultation required by the Bill.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that point, which is also relevant to the question of whether the Bill should specify 31 March 2004, as specified in amendment No. 4. I hope that we will have action before then. Indeed, the Minister was unnecessarily modest in his intervention, because I know that he intends to make an announcement about the code within a matter of weeks, if not days. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that that amendment is not necessary.
      1498
      On the issue of whether or not the Bill should be permissive, when any piece of legislation requires a Minister to consult, one should never pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. My hon. Friend did not refer to another amendment that he tabled in which he lists a number of organisations that should be consulted. I agree that they should all be consulted, as we need a broad consultation. However, the problem of putting lists in Bills is that some people who ought to be consulted, but are not included in a list, never get consulted. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend accepts my assurance that we intend to consult widely, and listen to all the interested parties.
      In conclusion, my hon. Friend's amendments have served a useful purpose in teasing out just how definitive is the Government's commitment to doing something about the problem. We have made tremendous progress in the six months since I first announced that I would use my place in the ballot to introduce the measure. On Third Reading, I shall pay tribute to various organisations, but at this juncture I simply say to my hon. Friends who have tabled amendments and to others who will shortly try to catch your eye to speak to them, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am grateful for their support for urgent action, but ask them to accept that the Bill will provide the way forward that we seek. Tricky as it is to get a private Member's Bill on to the statute book, I am optimistic that, before long, the Bill will receive Royal Assent and the code will be introduced, making a significant difference to the control of ragwort in Britain.
      Alun Michael: We are in danger of a mass outbreak of agreement on this issue. I agree with the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) that we want to see action, not delay, and I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that the Bill is a useful vehicle for moving in precisely that direction.
      On the issue of replacing "may" with "shall", I hope that the hon. Member for Mole Valley will accept that we are moving ahead of the necessity to do that in legislation. We are working closely with the British Horse Society to produce a draft code, which I had undertaken to do in advance of the opportunity for legislation arising. The draft code has been prepared and is a reality, so there is no need to impose an obligation on the Secretary of state to produce a code; we are already virtually there. It will be published on a voluntary basis in advance of the legislation. Nor do I believe that a mandatory requirement is necessary for the future. There will be a code, and statutory obligations need to be proportionate. None of us knows what the future may hold and circumstances may change. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the modern approach to legislation is to be permissive rather than prescriptive, and that is the approach that we should follow in relation to the code of conduct.
      Amendment No. 6 refers to
      "including the National Farmers Union, the Local Government Association, the Bridleways Association, the Pony Club, Riding for the Disabled, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Trust, and the Country Landowners Association"
      in consultation. It is already a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult those bodies as are considered appropriate. The Secretary of State must

      1499
      consult; it is not discretionary. But including a list of bodies to be consulted is a bit of a hostage to fortune, because those bodies not specifically included may well be offended and feel that we value their comments less. The amendment is slightly inappropriate in that it omits not just several of the key stakeholders but the British Horse Society, which has done most to produce the Bill and has done a great deal of work with us on the preparation of the code. I hope that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) will agree that it would be rather unkind to the British Horse Society to include others in the consultation and to leave it out. However, I undertake specifically to consult those named in the amendment, along with others that it is appropriate to consult on the code.
      Mr. David Wilshire: As the author of that list, I think the Minister is right to chastise me for leaving some organisations out, and when I speak to my amendment I shall explain why it is there. No offence was intended to those that I should have known about but did not include in the list.
      Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and I am sure that various organisations' feelings will be assuaged by his comments. As I say, we are perfectly prepared to give the undertaking here today that each of those organisations in his list will be among those consulted, as well as the British Horse Society, which has been working with us already on this, and any other appropriate bodies, so that all those who have an interest in the matter have an opportunity to comment fully on the code, initially on the voluntary basis to which I referred and subsequently in the formal period of consultation that is a requirement within the Bill.
      Amendment No. 7 refers to revision after five years. It is appropriate for there to be a capacity to revise the code of practice, and that is allowed for in the Bill, but it does not lay down a time scale for doing so. It may be necessary to revise the code from time to time, but that should be based on the experience of those who are concerned with the issue, and it should be proportionate. In other words, if it ain't broke, we should not bother to fix it. If there is a need to update and revise the code, that should happen, and it should happen in less than five years should that be necessary, but I am not convinced of the need for a statutory time scale.
      Amendment No. 4 is linked to amendment No. 3 and requires the code to be laid from 31 March 2004. As there is no requirement in the Bill to prepare a code, the amendment would automatically fall. An obligation to make a code by a specific date would not be consistent with the permissive power to make a code. It is worth pointing out that, were it successful, the amendment could hold up our proceedings, which I am sure is not the intention. As I have said, we have already prepared a code and a draft is being published shortly. I hope that we will be in a position to lay the code before Parliament early in 2004 consistent with the Bill and to introduce it in spring 2004. If we were required to make the code
      1500
      from 31 March 2004, we would not be able to lay the code before Parliament before that date and that would risk holding up the timetable of events. I am certain that that is not the intention and I explain it merely to encourage hon. Members to agree that we should complete the informal work on the code as quickly as possible, obtain agreement on it, and then proceed at a fast clip through the formalities as soon as the legislation reaches the statute book. Because of the work that will have been done in advance, the ground will be clear for the code to come into effect in the shortest possible time required under the Bill.
      Mr. Greenway: When we discussed this some months ago, the Minister made it clear that he would ensure that Parliament would see a copy of the draft code. Will he place a copy in the Library of the House at the appropriate time?
      Alun Michael: As soon as the code has been finalised, we will publish it and place a copy in the Library, and we shall obviously be interested in the comments on it of hon. Members as well as of the bodies that have been formally consulted.
      Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Given our proximity to Ireland and the number of horses that move backwards and forwards between the two countries for racing and so on, and the dangers of ragwort to horses, will the Minister consider allowing the Irish Government to see the code? That is not under the Minister's direct control, but it will give them some idea of what we are trying to do control ragwort on this side of the Irish sea.
      Alun Michael: The formal consultation will be with directly affected organisations in Britain, but the code will be in the public domain and we would be perfectly happy for it to be available to others in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggest.
      I hope I have been able to reassure hon. members that it is our intention, as it as been the intention of the hon. Member for Ryedale, to proceed as quickly as possible to effective action in order to improve the eradication of ragwort and the nuisance that it poses to livestock in general and to horses in particular.
      Mr. Wilshire: Given the more relaxed mood of a Friday morning, I am tempted by the last intervention about consultations with the Irish Government to say that formal consultations with a foreign Government, particularly when it comes to the Belfast agreement, do not appeal to me, but I am sure that I would be ruled out of order were I to develop my thoughts on that, so I shall resist the temptation.
      I am wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill, although it could be made tougher than it is, and I have no wish to prevent it reaching the statute book. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) because being in the Opposition Whips Office means that one does not have the time to do some of the things that one would like to do, otherwise I would have been willing to be a member of the Committee had he been able to tolerate that. I shall not ask him to answer in public.

      1501
      10 am
      Nevertheless, having not participated in the Committee, I should like to explain why I feel strongly about the Bill. In doing so, I want for the avoidance of doubt to set out some information that is not quite a declarable interest, but which is relevant in that context. Some 10 years ago, I became the joint owner of four acres of farmland. Until I acquired my interest in the land, it had been grazed by sheep, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has mentioned. I did not have any knowledge of farming and I acquired the land because it was attached to a house as part of a joint lot. I did not set out to become involved in such matters. When I bought the house, I did not buy the sheep, which had departed. As the sheep had gone, the grass grew, as did the ragwort. I did not know what it was at the time. I thought that it was pretty and that it would look decorative if one gathered it and put it in the house—an attitude of which I was soon disabused.
      The problem was that the four acres with which I was involved were surrounded by lots of other fields full of horses. As is patently clear from the point made by the Minister, I am not a horse person, which is why I did not keep horses and why I do not understand who represents what in terms of riding. None the less, I rapidly discovered that ragwort is a problem. In that regard, I have some further observations about the Bill as a whole that I would have made on Second Reading if I had been able to do so. Perhaps I can do so on Third Reading, but I shall not try your patience just now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I need to speak about the amendments.
      I should like to deal with the amendments in the order in which they appear on the selection list rather than to speak to my own first, as that seems the logical way of proceeding. Amendment No. 3, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, seeks to delete the word "may" and insert the word "shall". I always like the recurrent debate about "must" or "shall" in the context of time wasting, but that point does not arise in this discussion, and I am perfectly happy to settle for "shall".
      The amendments raise a general issue. There are occasions when I thoroughly enjoy kicking the current Government around the place as hard as I possibly can. It would be possible to lay some blame at their door in respect of some of the amendments, but this is a Friday morning and I am in a more charitable mood. For the purposes of the amendments, my castigation of the Government is a castigation of all Governments. For 10 years, until I was put into the Whips' Office in the hope that it would shut me up, which it patently has not, I was a dedicated Back Bencher who was suspicious of all Executives, whatever their political colour. I still have that attitude in the back of my mind.
      If we believe that it is worth having a code of practice—I believe that it is—we must be sure that the Government will proceed with it. I have never been willing to take it on face value that any Government will get round to something if it does not have to do so. Governments have far better things to do, such as social
      1502
      engineering, than worry about horses. Perhaps that it is not true of the Minister, who worries about foxes, but never mind.
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Perhaps we can get the Minister off the hook. If he genetically modified the ragwort and the foxes ate it, would that help him in other deliberations?
      Mr. Wilshire: I suspect that if I tried to answer that question, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not let me continue. I am a little disappointed that my hon. Friend is trying to get a Labour Minister off the hook; I would rather leave him dangling, if I possibly could.
      The House agrees that the code of practice is a good idea, as does the horse fraternity.
      Sir Paul Beresford: Is my hon. Friend aware that anyone who drives down the A3 will pass on the left hand side a farm that predominantly farms sheep, but has introduced llamas to keep the foxes away. It is possible that ragwort is poisonous to llamas—hence the link to foxes.
      Mr. Wilshire rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sheep are one thing and foxes are another, but llamas are beyond the pale.
      Mr. Wilshire: The best that I can say is that I understand the difference between them, but I know nothing about any of them. I shall not pursue that train of thought, partly because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not want me to do so, and partly because I am not sure what I can say about llamas at this moment.
      If a code of practice is worth having, the Government of the day must have an obligation to do something about it, and I wish to test the Minister on that point. He told the House that he had already acted, that there was no problem and that we did not need to worry. If we do not need to worry and he is going to proceed, why does he wish to resist an amendment seeking to insert the word "shall"? As he is going to proceed anyway, can he not make a gesture in accepting an amendment so as to indicate that his total commitment can be put beyond all doubt?
      Amendment No. 6, which stands in my name, deals with this provision:
      "Before making the code the Minister must consult such persons as he considers appropriate."
      In my 16 years in this place, I have come across such provisions regularly. Falling back on my somewhat suspicious attitude to Governments of all persuasions, I am never quite comfortable with the idea that we should leave such matters to the Minister. We might be told that the current Minister is sensible and reasonable, but how am I to know that that is the case or be sure that his successors will not be entirely different? It therefore seems sensible that, as there are some obvious people who should be consulted, the Minister should have an obligation to consult them.
      The fact that the list that I propose is not the right list does not affect the point that I am trying to make. I will not burden the House with the provenance of the list, but I point out that it was drafted in rather a hurry,

      1503
      which is why some people are missing. The fact that I am not a horse person means that I left out some people who should have been included, but that does not relate to the point that I am seeking to make. Initially, I thought that I would include only one organisation so that we could have a debate. If my list is wrong, but the principle is accepted by the promoter, the other place can put the matter right.
      Mr. George Osborne: My hon. Friend should not be too hard on himself. By tabling the amendment, he has obtained from the Minister an assurance that the organisations that he did include in the amendment, albeit in haste, will feature in the list of consultees.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am always glad to be rescued from my self doubt, so those are helpful remarks. None the less, whatever one makes of my particular list, the principle of making it an obligation for the Minister of the day to consult certain people is correct.
      Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman admits that, as a country landowner, he did not know what ragwort was, and he gets his list wrong. He claims to represent the party that claims to represent the countryside. Clearly, he has proven beyond any doubt that that is a complete fallacy.
      Mr. Wilshire: I set out at the beginning of my speech to be conciliatory and generous and to suggest that any criticism of the Government was a criticism of all Governments. If the hon. Gentleman wants to start along that track, however, I shall rapidly remind him of the iniquities of this Labour Government in its jackboot attitudes to democracy. If that is what he wants, let him say so, and we will have a good kick-about. On the specific points that he makes, I pointed out that I discovered what ragwort was 10 years ago. I may be a slow learner, but 10 years later, I understand the issue. Unlike the Labour party, which will not ever bother to listen and learn, I do so. He also spoke about my representing a party, but this is a private Members' Bill morning. That is why I am not down on the Front Bench. I am speaking in my own capacity, and, for better or worse, there are not many animals on the grass around the runways of Heathrow or in the gravel pits or reservoirs in the area that I represent. In fact, it is very difficult to find any green space left in my constituency.
      Mr. Miller: Plenty of ragwort.
      Mr. Wilshire: I shall come to that in a moment, but I point out that, for practical purposes, I am an urban MP rather than a rural one. I shall put that to one side for a moment, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, I shall willingly listen and have another go at him.
      The particular list that I proposed was an attempt generally to detail some agricultural and animal organisations. However, I included one of the organisations very deliberately, as I wished to comment on it—the Local Government Association. An important aspect of the ragwort problem is the amount that one finds, certainly in my constituency, in the middle and on the verges of dual carriageways. That
      1504
      should be a matter for local councils, but I am not certain who owns the land: is it the Queen or the local council? I do not know, but if we are to deal with verges and dual carriageways, the Local Government Association is likely to be the body that is most able to come up with a satisfactory way of placing an obligation on those councils that do not understand the problem and are not willing to do anything about it. I apologise for leaving some organisations out of the list—I am fully aware that some very deserving ones should be there—but that was my reason for including the Local Government Association.
      Norman Baker: It is sometimes not so much the case that councillors do not understand, although that may be so in one or two councils, but that they do not have the necessary money to deal with the problem, which will come way down the list of priorities in comparison with social services or transport matters. If we are to get councils to tackle it, we must ensure that they have a ring-fenced pot of money for the purpose.
      Mr. Wilshire: I would enjoy a debate about the Government's failure to fund Spelthorne council and Surrey county council properly, but I suspect that even on a Friday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not want me to go down that route. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have to engage in the debate on priorities. All of us—whether Members, Governments or parties—are fond of saying, "This is a good idea: we must do it", then forgetting to fund it properly.
      Mr. Greenway: I want to make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the Local Government Association is being consulted. Secondly, because ragwort is a controlled weed under the Weeds Act 1959, local authorities already have an obligation on local authorities to clear it from their land. The code is merely intended to give them some help as to how they should do it and to provide that if they do not, they will find themselves in trouble.
      Mr. Wilshire: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. That is why I flagged up the fact that some matters—that is one of them—should be discussed on Third Reading rather than in the context of the amendment. If he will forgive me, I shall leave it until then.
      Amendment No. 7, which stands in my name, would make it obligatory for the Minister to revise the code after five years. I have learned to distrust Governments of all sorts; if they say that they will or should revise a provision in future, history teaches that they sometimes never get round to it. Time moves on, science moves on, and the problem of ragwort will probably move on. There should be a cut-off point beyond which it is not acceptable for a Government to drag their feet. If the Minister, or any Minister, says, "We are on the side of this attempt to control ragwort", they should be willing to accept the amendment. If the Government say, "No, we are not prepared to accept that we have to revise this

      1505
      every five years", that suggests to me that they have no intention of doing so and that that possibility could disappear.
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Given the Government's success with public service agreement targets over the past few months, is there an opportunity for a target for ragwort-pulling in England and Wales?
      Mr. Wilshire: We have had numerous opportunities for ranging far and wide in the debate. I would love to have a debate about the Government's targets stupidity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I guess that you would rise from your seat to tell me that it is not a matter for today. I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be such a target: we could then mock the Government when they fail to meet it.
      10.15 am
      Amendment No. 4, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, would impose a time limit beyond which the code of conduct cannot be left unpresented to Parliament. That seems completely innocuous in view of the remarks of the Minister and the Bill's promoter. The code of practice is almost ready to be published in draft for us to comment on. If the Government are going to do it before 31 April 2004, why not stipulate it in the Bill? This Minister is a kind and generous man—he is smiling, as I thought he would, but perhaps he should worry about that remark coming from me—and I readily accept that he will do as he says. He has given us his word; I do not quarrel with that. However, he works for a Prime Minister who regularly botches reshuffles, and it is possible that he might be moved between now and the deadline that my hon. Friend suggests. The Minister could do us the favour of underscoring his sincerity by ensuring that any successor cannot wriggle in the way that he has promised not to. I am sure that he will recognise that I am trying to help him to go down in the annals of history as the person who actually put integrity before party politics.
      Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman's kindness in trying to help me is transparent and greatly appreciated. I can tell him that the work has already been done, not by the Department alone, but jointly with the British Horse Society. It is not a question of giving undertakings to do the work—it is virtually complete.
      Mr. Wilshire: Yes, I know that. When the Minister said initially that the work had been done, I wondered whether it was on ragwort or the next reshuffle, but he made it clear that it was the former. I entirely accept what he says. I know what is going on and what is going to happen. Given that, what is so objectionable about simply setting a date? That would help the Minister if, as he fights the battle to do it now, somebody else—his boss or Downing street—says, "No, there are other things to do; we want to put it off." If he accepts the amendment, it will be impossible for it to be put off, so it might help him to deliver what he has promised that he is trying hard to deliver.
      1506
      All the amendments have merit, and none would weaken the Bill in any way or hold up the implementation of what we all want. On that basis, I sincerely commend them to the House.
      Norman Baker: I am relatively new to the Bill, which was previously dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). That has advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps one advantage is that I am able to look at the matter objectively and afresh, whereas other hon. Members have been ensconced in it for some time.
      Although I agreed almost entirely with the Minister—he is a very reasonable chap—I disagree with him profoundly about one point: namely, his defence of the word "may" rather than the preferable word in the amendment, which is "shall". If the word "may" survives, it is possible that nothing at all will happen. The Bill could be passed and become law, then, in theory, nothing might happen. The Minister said that he is doing the work, that it is nearly completed, and that we will have the code of practice—in other words, that everything that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and others want will happen. We can all agree that that is good news. Nevertheless, the wording of the Bill is such that there is no requirement on the Government to do anything when it becomes law: that cannot be right.
      Why are the Government resisting the word "shall"? That is an important point not only in relation to this Bill and this amendment, but more widely, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) suggested. I would love to know how many pieces of legislation exist that, having had Members of Parliament agonise over their wording, have been duly passed into law, yet nothing subsequently happens: they sit there on the shelf with whole sections of good intentions gathering dust. I suspect that there are more such Bills or parts of Bills than we would like to think. That also brings me to question our use of time in this House.
      As a matter of principle, notwithstanding the Government's preference for permissive legislation, we should insert requirements such as the word "must" or "shall" where it is clear that that is the will of the House. Not doing that leaves open the possibility that nothing will happen in specific circumstances. The Minister said in his defence of "may" that circumstances may change and that that was the reason for permissive legislation. Although that argument may be appropriate for some occasions, it is not for the Bill because we are considering a code of practice. The Bill requires the Minister to undertake now to act in the future. Once he has fulfilled the undertaking, the requirement is discharged. The idea that the requirement will present difficulties in future does not hold up logically.
      I fear that I share the cynical view of Governments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. They are always busy, full of good intentions and have something other to do than act when they have discretion to do nothing. That is the reality of government. If Governments have the opportunity to do something that is not a requirement, they might not follow through.
      Alun Michael: If the hon. Gentleman considers the general purpose of legislation, redundant parts require the use of parliamentary time to remove them. Permissive requirements can be used when appropriate. Earlier, I said that there was currently a need for the provision and that the Government will therefore act on the "may". However, the hon. Gentleman should reflect that it is bad parliamentary practice to make requirements when "may" suffices. We are considering a minor example, but it is not bad practice to ensure that legislation is generally permissive rather than prescriptive.
      Norman Baker: The Minister may have a case in specific legislation. I accept the point that legislation that provides for a requirement that becomes redundant takes up parliamentary time. However, the Bill places only a one-off requirement, to be fulfilled now, on the Government. It will therefore not become redundant. The amendment does not require the Minister to produce codes of practice continually but simply to introduce one when the Bill is enacted.
      Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister says that he will fulfil the requirement by the time the Bill becomes an Act. The hon. Gentleman's comments are therefore redundant. We know that the code of practice will be introduced; the Minister said that that will happen. We therefore get a finite conclusion.
      Norman Baker: That is true, and it reinforces my point. I do not want to take up hon. Members' time, but the hon. Member for Spelthorne asked about the Government's motivation in rejecting the amendment. It is not to be found in the Bill, which the Government are prepared to accept. However, they do not wish to concede the principle that the word "shall" should be accepted occasionally.
      The Minister's comments on the other amendments made sense. There is no reason to include a date of March 2004, especially when the Minister has got so far ahead. He also gave a fair answer about consulting groups. I hope that we shall listen to other hon. Members and get on to Third Reading, and that the Bill is subsequently enacted.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: I want briefly to contribute to the debate on "may" and "shall". Perhaps I can assist my right hon. Friend the Minister by reminding him of a specific case from the time when he was Opposition spokesman on Home Affairs and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), the Whip, was a member of the national executive of the Fire Brigades Union. The case was the Crown v. the Home Office ex parte Fire Brigades Union and others. I was a solicitor in the case. The House of Lords, in ruling in favour of the union, also ruled on the definition of "may" in legislation. It said that if a Minister did not act on a "may" provision, an obligation remained to keep the power under regular review. I am sure that my right hon. Friend remembers the case because it led to the Conservative Government's introducing emergency legislation to correct their proposed changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman has legal expertise and I therefore seek some free advice
      1508
      from a lawyer. I should like some clarification. I understand from his remarks that the House of Lords ruled that there was an obligation to keep the provision under review, but not to do anything about it.
      Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have often argued for similar "shall" or "may" amendments on Friday based on my understanding of the law as set out by the House of Lords in the case that I described. However, my right hon. Friend's earlier comments illustrate the point. He said that he would act on the provision. However, if there are special circumstances and he does not do so, the fall-back obligation to keep the legislation under review remains.
      Sir Paul Beresford: The next Bill that we will debate includes a provision that states:
      "Not later than 31st October 2004, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report".
      Is it a case of horses for courses?
      Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a case of horses for courses. Their performance on the course may be affected by whether they have eaten ragwort. However, my right hon. Friend has explained why "may" is appropriate in the case that we are considering. We shall have to wait and see what happens to the next Bill.
      Mr. George Osborne: Since it is my first opportunity to do so, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on steering the Bill through our proceedings with skill, characteristic good humour and flexibility. Consequently, we have a Bill that we all hope will become law. My hon. Friend is too modest to say that he is the hero of the horse world for introducing the Bill, and too coy to say that, like some Greek warrior, he wants to receive his laurels at York races at lunchtime today. He is therefore keen for us to proceed quickly. I note that he is wearing a special tie, with horses on it.
      Mr. Greenway: I have been counting the horses on my tie while listening to the debate. There are more than 500 horses on it, and that is important because 500 horses died from ragwort poisoning last year and double that number will die this year.
      Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a good point and demonstrates another way in which we can pass the time in the Chamber when matters proceed slowly.
      We should fail in our responsibilities if we did not give the amendments due consideration. Let us consider amendment No. 6, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) tabled. He lists the organisations that he would like the Minister to be required by statute to consult. As I said in an intervention, he is too hard on himself. He has secured an assurance from the Minister that the organisations will be consulted. I am sure that they will all be delighted about that. He made an error, to which he was happy to admit, in excluding the British Horse Society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and the Minister

      1509
      said, that society provided much help in drafting the Bill. Horse owners and horses will benefit most from the measure.
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend mentions errors. In the hope that it will save me a thousand e-mails, I apologise for not including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the list.
      Mr. Osborne: For reasons not connected with the Bill, I am currently keener on the British Horse Society than the RSPCA. However, my hon. Friend has done us a service in at least getting the Minister to assure us that the organisations will be consulted and he should therefore be proud of his work today through the amendment.
      Amendment No. 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne also tabled, is excellent. It does not set an arbitrary time for reviewing the code of practice but states
      "not later than five years".
      That gives the Government much flexibility. Several uncertainties remain about the spread of ragwort and the best means of dealing with it. When I was preparing to speak today, I read the debate on Second Reading and learned all about the cinnabar moth and what has happened to the moth population.
      Of course, we do not know how the code of practice will work once it is implemented. It would therefore be right to review it within five years to see whether it is having a significant impact on the spread of ragwort and whether it is imposing excessive regulatory burdens on local authorities and the rural economy. I know that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale introduced the Bill, he was particularly keen to minimise its regulatory impact on the countryside. Indeed, he presented the Government with a menu of options that they could discuss with him before choosing the most appropriate vehicle.
      Amendment No. 3 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I am not such a veteran of the "may" and "shall" debate as other hon. Members, but I have been told that I soon will be. It seems to me, as a novice, that my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley and for Spelthorne have made some very good points on this issue. If we are to take the Minister at his word—I have no doubt that he means what he says—it is puzzling that he will not accept the amendment, because he is going to establish a code of practice. Clause 1 contains many "musts". For example:
      "Before making the code, the Minister must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
      The Minister must lay a copy of the code before Parliament."
      It therefore seems strange that the only conditional provision is that
      "The Minister may make a code of practice",
      because that is the whole point of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could give us a watertight assurance that the code of practice will be introduced, and that if it does not prove effective, he will look at the provisions again and revise them within five years.
      10.30 am
      Alun Michael: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance now. It is our intention to publish the code within the next few weeks, so that it can be consulted on during the remainder of the summer. We shall leave the consultation period open-ended because the statutory period of consultation has to start when the Bill is enacted, but I can assure him that it will be completed at the earliest possible date consistent with the requirements of the Bill, so that it can have effect during next year's ragwort season.
      Mr. Osborne: It is good to have that assurance, and particularly good to know that that will happen before next year's ragwort season. It has been pointed out that the time to strike is before the ragwort comes into flower and everyone can see it.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I presume that my hon. Friend noted that, in the Minister's assurance, he said that it was the Government's "intention" to publish the code. He did not say "the Government will" or "the Government shall" publish it. He merely spoke of an intention, which is still dubious.
      Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend is even more of a cynic than I am. Perhaps the Minister can clear this matter up.
      Alun Michael: I should be happy to do so. In this House, it is very unwise to presume that a Bill will complete its passage, but, so long as this Bill completes its passage, I am happy to use the words "the Government will".
      Mr. Osborne: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale getting all excited by this talk of the Bill completing its passage so that he can get on his train to York and go to the race meeting.
      Today's debate marks the end of a long parliamentary campaign in which many Members—not all of whom are here—have taken part. We have had Adjournment debates on the matter, and early-day motions have been tabled. Today's debate has strengthened the Bill. I finish by passing on the apologies of the person who would normally speak for the Opposition on this matter, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). It is his wedding anniversary today, and he told me that if he missed that in order to be with us, Mrs. Hayes would cook up some ragwort and feed it to him for supper this evening. He therefore sends his apologies, and I am happy to have taken his place and to have spoken to these amendments.
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Two organisations that affect my constituency quite a lot are not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. One is the National Trust, which has enormous holdings throughout the greater Exmoor area. The other is Forest Enterprise, the commercial arm of the Forestry Commission, which also has enormous holdings in the area. I am sure that the Minister knows that it is difficult to get ragwort out of woodlands, and I wonder whether there has been any consultation on the issue with either of those organisations.

      1511
      I have the good fortune—or misfortune—to have an incredibly long coastline in my constituency, which I believe is Crown property, and we have a ragwort problem there. Who is responsible for dealing with ragwort on such Crown property? Speaking as a border Scot whose family farm crosses two miles over the border into Scotland, I am aware that the problems of ragwort do not stop at borders. My family's horses cross the border regularly. Unless Scotland adopts the same code in relation to weed control, it will not be bound by the code of practice. The role played by the British Horse Society crosses all borders, but, unfortunately, so does ragwort. Unless we can depend on the cinnabar moth or the ragwort flea beetle to deal with the issue in Scotland, we are going to have a problem. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that. I know that Wales is included in the provisions, but Scotland is not.
      Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that ragwort is indigenous to the whole of northern Europe. On his logic, should we not have a European directive?
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: The thought of Mr. Berlusconi coming up with an agreement with the Germans on ragwort control is almost a complete new film. On that logic, I do not think that Herr Schröder will be holidaying anywhere in Europe. Perhaps Mr. Berlusconi and his marvellous media empire could publish Ragwort Weekly featuring those great stars, the cinnabar moth and the ragwort flea beetle.
      There is a 22-mile steam railway in my constituency. Railways transport ragwort seed, and they travel quite fast—unless they are in west Somerset, where they travel quite slowly. The county council owns the railway, so the logic is that the council is responsible for the embankments—that is, when it is not setting fire to thatched cottages in my constituency. Who will be responsible for picking the ragwort? I cannot believe that the Liberal-controlled Somerset county council—which does not get many things right—will be able to get the ragwort problem sorted out. Has the Minister given any thought to the question of who will be responsible for railway embankments? This one does not come under the Strategic Rail Authority; it is run under an agreement between a voluntary body and Somerset county council. Twenty-two miles is an enormous distance in this context. The point also affects the North Yorkshire Moors railway and others.
      Alun Michael: We are seeking to deal with ragwort where it is a threat to horses and livestock. The issue therefore arises in a particular location only if such a threat is posed. We are not seeking to eradicate ragwort completely from these islands but to ensure that it is eradicated in the locations in which it could cause problems for livestock, which is particularly important for horses because of the impact that it has on their digestive system. I hope that that explanation assists the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I thank the Minister for that. He will be aware that there are one or two horses, and one or two hounds, in my constituency. The railway that I mentioned runs through a large area of the Quantocks,
      1512
      greater Exmoor and the Brendons, where there are a great many horses, which I hope will stay there for a long time to come. The Minister is right that we are not trying to eradicate ragwort completely; we could never do that. It would be a fallacy to suggest that we could. Horses are prevalent in that area, however, and he should look at that area in particular, if possible, and include it in the code.
      By and large, the people in my constituency look after their horses very well, but there are one or two who do not. We know that we can enforce a code because the legislation is there to do it, and a code is only as good as its enforcement. We could argue about "may" and "shall", the Fire Brigades Union, the Home Office, Berlusconi and everything else, but the matter comes down to enforcement. If an owner will not comply because he believes in organics or whatever, that will cause difficulties. That is a flippant point, but it will be difficult to achieve enforcement. Is the Minister prepared to put power behind enforcement?
      Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is making an important point that I was going to raise on Third Reading, but I shall deal with it now if I may. The code makes it abundantly clear that it may be taken into account in any court case and the power of enforcement already exists in the Weeds Act 1959. If somebody does not comply with the code, that could be used in evidence in any prosecution that followed under the 1959 Act. For that reason, the Minister and I believe that it will greatly strengthen enforcement. Equally, if someone can show that he has complied, he may wish to use that in his defence if he is prosecuted under that Act.
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do not want to prevent him from heading off to pastures north with his 500-horse tie. He knows that it is good when people will comply, but in places such as Exmoor, Dartmoor and the more sparsely populated areas of this nation it is sometimes difficult to achieve enforcement. Those areas are very large and people have an attitude that is not always, shall we say, compliant with the law. I know of people in the constituency up on Exmoor and the Quantocks who are not complying. Also, we have horses, and my wife, who goes across those areas, tells me that a lot of people do not comply.
      The British Horse Society should be commended for all its super work. I have been a member of the society, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for all his work with it and with the Minister to try to get this important Bill on the statute book.
      Sir Paul Beresford: The most fascinating thing about this discussion, which has been brief considering the seriousness of the matter, is that the Minister has learned. He recalls, from his time in opposition, why there is so much concern and a determination to try to substitute "shall" for "may". He has responded by increasingly moving towards accepting "shall", which is the logical conclusion of what he has said. One must recognise that he has moved in that direction and that he has been as firm as he is allowed to be. I cannot see his officials from this vantage point, but I suspect that there

      1513
      was some twitching as he moved closer and closer to accepting the proposal. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      10.43 am
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      As much as I would like to catch an earlier train, I have resisted the temptation to move Third Reading formally because I think it important at the end of a long process to place one or two thoughts on record. First, it is obvious from the preceding debate that all Members present know only too well both the pernicious damage being done to our horse and pony population by ragwort and the urgent need for something to be done about it.
      I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has just withdrawn his amendment, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that I would have liked the Bill to have a few more teeth for enforcement, but in the practical world of private Members' Bills, I am satisfied that, with the Minister's help, we have gone as far as we can.
      We want the Bill to go to the other place and return unamended, in which case it would get on the statute book by prorogation. That would be a great day for horse and pony owners throughout Britain. We should not underestimate the fact that the code will have teeth and that it will make a difference, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger). We intend to help public authorities and landowners to take their existing responsibilities more seriously. For example, they already have a responsibility to control ragwort.
      I hope that as a consequence of the code, which the Minister will announce soon, we do not have to return to the matter in Parliament ever again. We want events to run their course and we hope that there will be no need for further legislation. However, if that does not work—I make no threat to the Minister, as it will take a few years to work things out and we may have a different Government if we ever have to revisit the matter—it is patently obvious that Members from all parts of the House will make a fuss for more to be done, as has happened in the past two or three years.
      I commend the Bill to the House and to the other place, where Baroness Masham has agreed to promote it. I thank the Minister formally for his help and for his co-operative and flexible approach. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and congratulate him on his appointment to the Front Bench. I do not know whether this is his first major outing, but he has acquitted himself extremely well. He has a rosy future in our party, not just in opposition, but in government, I dare say.
      I thank Members who are here, and many who are not, for their support, as well as, in particular, the British Horse Society, the British Horseracing Board and the National Farmers Union. Everyone inside and outside Parliament who supports the Bill does so for one overriding reason—the welfare of the horse. The former
      1514
      Member for Ealing, North, Harry Greenway, whom you will remember, M r. Deputy Speaker, although he is not a relation of mine, was known in the House as the friend of the horse. It is a fitting tribute to his time here to say that I am delighted that another Greenway has followed in his footsteps by introducing this measure.
      10.47 am
      Alun Michael: May I briefly indicate the Government's support for the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on steering it successfully through the House of Commons? As he said, it is no small thing to succeed with a private Member's Bill, and I very much hope that this one completes its remaining stages quickly.
      When the Bill started out, it was not at all clear that we would achieve such a happy result, but its fate in Committee shows what can be done when there is a will on both sides of the House to work together. The central measure is the authority given to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to develop a code of practice to control the spread of ragwort. I want to make one or two things clear. The Bill misleadingly refers to "the Minister". That is a legal quirk dictated by the fact that Weeds Act dates back to the 1950s, when the Minister responsible was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. With the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the functions previously exercised by that Minister transferred to the Secretary of State. Those include the ability to develop a code of practice under the Bill.
      I said in Committee that we were already working with the British Horse Society on what would have been a voluntary code. Indeed, if anything happens to the Bill, there will still be the capacity for that voluntary code to come into being. The initial stage of the work has been carried out with the help of a small steering group, which has included representatives of the British Horse Society, local authorities, Network Rail and English Nature. That work has concluded, and a draft code of practice will be made available later this month. It will be a comprehensive document, and I intend to put it in the public domain at that early stage so that stakeholders and interested parties have plenty of opportunity to study its contents and comment on them. That will fulfil the indications that I gave in our debate on the amendments.
      The Bill requires the Secretary of State to
      "consult such persons as he considers appropriate".
      before introducing a statutory code. We do not want that to delay publication of the final code, and the informal stage of consultation will expedite the Bill's eventual implementation. We shall have to undertake formal consultation on the draft code as a consequence of legislation, and will do so as soon as the Bill is enacted—which I hope will be soon after the summer recess.
      Norman Baker: I know that the Department is trying to deal with other invasive weeds, such as Japanese knotweed and other unwelcome countryside species. Will that work run in parallel with the Bill's progress?
      Alun Michael: We are working on the Bill separately and specifically. I shall explain why in a moment.

      1515
      The Bill requires the code of practice to be laid before Parliament. That is a formal step that cannot be taken until the Act comes into force, three months after it is passed. We should be able to lay the code before Parliament early in 2004, thus ensuring that it is in place before the start of the 2004 ragwort season. I described that as an intention when I intervened earlier, but as long as we keep to the legislative timetable it will certainly happen. If anything prevented the Bill's enactment—after all, such things cannot be taken for granted—the code would already be available on a non-statutory basis.
      To ensure that we meet our better-regulation obligations, a formal consultation on the regulatory impact assessment will take place later this month. Early publication of the draft code will ensure that comments on the assessment are made in the knowledge of the obligations that the code will place on statutory bodies and other businesses. An initial regulatory impact assessment has already been circulated informally among key stakeholders before the code's preparation, and they have indicated that they are broadly content. Again, we are moving expeditiously in the right direction.
      The code will provide clear guidance for all landowners and occupiers, including local authorities and statutory organisations, on best practice in controlling the spread of ragwort. It will advise on how to develop a strategic and, we hope, a more cost-effective approach to weed control. That will enable organisations to focus their resources more directly, and to plan more effectively on a longer-term basis. The code will give information on all the different methods of weed control, and will advise on the most suitable method, taking into account efficacy of control, value for money and environmental considerations. I know that some people are interested in biological methods, and I can confirm that the code will take account of those.
      I can tell those who are concerned about biodiversity that the code will not seek to eradicate ragwort—or, more accurately, common ragwort. It will recognise that in the right circumstances common ragwort contributes to the diversity of flora and fauna in the countryside. It will apply only to common ragwort, and will include advice on how to distinguish it from rarer types such as Oxford and marsh ragwort.
      As I have said, the code will give detailed advice on control methods, risk assessment, environmental considerations and weed identification, but the Bill confers on it another useful purpose. The Bill enables it to be used as evidence in enforcement proceedings under the Weeds Act. Under the Act, the Secretary of State may serve notice on an occupier of land on which injurious weeds are growing, requiring the occupier to take action to prevent the spread of weeds. If the occupier unreasonably fails to comply with the notice, he or she will be guilty of an offence.
      The code will provide a yardstick against which compliance with such a notice can be assessed. That will help both parties, who will know in advance what is considered reasonable action to comply with an enforcement notice, and a person who can show
      1516
      compliance with the code will be in a better position to defend himself against action taken against him under the Weeds Act.
      Mr. Wilshire: Can the Minister clarify a point that I raised earlier? Who is the occupier of the central reservation of a dual carriageway, or the verge of the Queen's highway?
      Alun Michael: The point is that whoever is the occupier in any particular circumstances will be the person on whom a notice is served. I understand that in some circumstances the occupier will be the highways authority, while in others it may the local authority. It will depend on local arrangements. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that there will be no doubt about the application of the Bill in either case.
      The Bill is a valuable amendment of and addition to the Weeds Act. I earnestly hope that landowners and occupiers will act to clear ragwort before enforcement proceedings begin. We want to reduce the amount of bureaucracy involved in dealing with the weed. When such measures are necessary, however, the code will clarify the enforcement proceedings and make things more straightforward.
      Questions were asked earlier about the code's application only to common ragwort. It does not extend to the other four injurious weeds specified in the Weeds Act—the curled dock, the broadleaved dock, the spear thistle and the creeping or field thistle. Ragwort is the subject of the vast majority of complaints received by DEFRA under the Weeds Act. The fact that the hon. Member for Ryedale has focused on it reflects the concerns of the wider public, particularly horse owners. Just 10 per cent. of the complaints that we receive involve the other four weeds, while each year ragwort generates numerous letters from MPs and members of the public. It has also been the subject of frequent parliamentary debates. In other words, ragwort is the colossus among the five weeds covered by the Weeds Act.
      More seriously, ragwort is the only specified weed that poses a significant threat to the health and welfare of animals. We feel that that is where we should concentrate our efforts, and where a code of practice would have the greatest impact. The hon. Member for Ryedale has struck the right chord where priorities are concerned.
      Norman Baker: I agree with the Minister, especially about the threat to animals, but would it not be sensible to extend the code to enable it to deal with other species in the future? I am thinking particularly of Japanese knotweed, which I mentioned earlier.
      Alun Michael: I do not think that that would be appropriate, given that we are dealing with a specific element of the Weeds Act and a specific threat to horses. We wanted to co-operate with the hon. Member for Ryedale on this particular issue, and that is what we have done.
      On Second Reading, I promised that DEFRA would review the way in which we investigate complaints under the Weeds Act. We are doing that, and will shortly complete the process that will enable us to implement a

      1517
      new approach. I hope to be able to give full details later this month. Our aim is to streamline our procedures, and to focus our efforts more effectively on where the problem is greatest. I am sure that that is the right way in which to eradicate the nuisance caused by ragwort, and the concerns raised with us by organisations such as the British Horse Society, which estimates that several hundred horses die every year as a result of ingesting ragwort. That means misery as well as costs for their owners.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Ryedale would want me to acknowledge, as he did, the role of the British Horse Society in pressing for action and in producing the Bill. It is largely owing to the society's concerns that concern has also mounted in the House, and that the Bill has reached this important stage. I know from the many letters I have received supporting the Bill that not just horse owners but farmers and other members of the rural community will be pleased with its progress. I hope that all landowners and occupiers will find that the code of practice helps them to understand their responsibilities for weed control, and will act on its advice.
      I thank all who helped to draw up the code—the British Horse Society, Network Rail, local authorities, English Nature, and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. The co-operation shown by that diverse group suggests that the Bill and the code will be widely supported. I also thank the hon. Member for Ryedale for his co-operation, and I commend the Bill.
      10.59 am
      Mr. Wilshire: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I well understand why he would prefer not to be here at this moment but I am glad that he is here to hear people say, "Well done. Congratulations." The House is doing him a favour because, if he were to have caught the 11 o'clock train, he would have been in York in time to lose money on the 2 o'clock. At this rate, we will save him money on the 2.30. He will start losing at about 3 o'clock, or whatever time he gets there.
      I support the Bill. I know from experience that ragwort is a real problem. My only reservations are as to whether the Bill will solve the problem as effectively as we all hope it will. When I look at the extent to which the Bill modifies the Weeds Act 1959, I personally think that there are one or two missed opportunities.
      I understand why it is that a private Member can only go so far with a Bill. Therefore, I make no criticism of my hon. Friend for not going further. My main concern is that, although the Bill enables more effective court action to be taken by the code of practice being an admissible matter in any court action, it does not make it easier to take court action. The Weeds Act says that any court action must be authorised by the Minister. I would have preferred it if any principal council were able to do so. I accept that some councils are villains but some are not. If we are to tighten up and to use the Bill and the code of practice to take more effective action, the mind boggles at the Minister having to rush around the country signing orders all over the place. That could slow down progress. I would have liked to see some extension to the powers of various authorities to institute court proceedings.
      1518
      I have not had a chance to talk to the Minister about the work that has been done on the code of practice but I sincerely hope that the main focus of parts of the code will be on the unthinking and the uncaring. I know the problems from bitter experience. I said on Report that I acquired some land. I am not a horse person and therefore do not keep horses on it. I am here so much of the time that I have not been able to keep any animals on it. Therefore, it seemed sensible to have a hay crop.
      I had the misfortune to have someone next door who could not care less. The weeds just grew and the wind blew. If one is growing hay, the wretched stuff does not appear until it is very big and over the top of the crop. The problems of getting it out and of complying, if one cares about it, are enormous. I can assure hon. Members that my efforts with a fork to get the wretched stuff out was no happy experience. Therefore, I hope that the focus of attention will be on those who let their land run amok and just let the stuff grow, and that those who are already trying to do something, even if what they try to do is not as effective as some people would like, are not singled out. The real targets lie elsewhere.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) asked why the measure applies only to England and Wales and not to Scotland, with his horses going to and fro. Unless the Scottish Parliament acts, we will do something in England and horses can be poisoned effectively a mile up the road. Earlier, comment was made about consulting with the Irish Government. I do not want to reopen the issue that I was tempted to reopen, but the measure does not apply to Northern Ireland. The point has been made about the Irish horse industry. If we are not to take the same view of the situation in Northern Ireland, particularly with Stormont suspended at the moment, are we missing an opportunity to do something in that part of the United Kingdom, too?
      There is just one other thing that I cannot resist the temptation to mention. I think that it is the lot of most hon. Members to be bombarded from time to time by organisations that want to preserve the world as it is. My mailbag, postcards, e-mails, telephone calls and surgeries are full of people saying, "Please leave the countryside alone." It is interesting that no one, not even the great carers for the past and our heritage, have leapt to the defence of ragwort, saying, "It is part of our heritage, leave it alone." If that voice is silent, if those who would have us not do anything else ever again to upset the countryside are not prepared to jump to the defence of ragwort, it is entirely proper that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is doing what he is doing. I congratulate him and wish the Bill well.
      11.05 am
      Mr. Miller: This could go down as the potential title of a J.K. Rowling novel: "John Greenway and the Ragwort Menace." I congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on the way in which he has dealt with the Bill. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister not only for his positive approach to the Bill but for being proactive and dealing with some of the issues at an early stage.
      I chastised the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) earlier but having listened to his Third Reading speech I could find barely a word with which to

      1519
      disagree. Clearly, he has learnt his lesson from his acquisition of land 10 years ago. I was going to offer him the services of Mrs. Miller, who could identify the plants on his land for him. I am sure that her price would be lower than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
      Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman is offering the services of Mrs. Miller to help to dig the wretched stuff out, can she come round with her fork this afternoon?
      Mr. Miller: No. Biological identification was what I was considering but, on a serious point, we should encourage landowners to look carefully at DEFRA's website, where the identification leaflet can be seen, including some pictures and line drawings of the plant. The hon. Gentleman is right. There are a lot of new landowners, people buying parcels of land, speculating about its future use in terms of construction and in some cases not looking after it terribly well.
      Mr. Greenway indicated assent.
      Mr. Miller: I see the hon. Member for Ryedale acknowledging that. It is proving a problem where we have people who do not have the traditional husbandry skills and do not recognise the plant at an early stage. As a small landowner, I am in exactly the same position as the hon. Member for Spelthorne.
      Mr. Wilshire: Join the Tory party.
      Mr. Miller: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Tories do not have custodianship of the countryside. Considerably more Labour MPs fit the bill there. I say seriously to him and to landowners that, having taken care to identify the nature of the plant, one way of dealing with it—he is right that, if one leaves it until the grass is at the level of hay, it is a serious problem—is to get at it earlier. Walk the fields much earlier.
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Miller: I will not. I do not want to go on for too long.
      Inspect the fields very early and pull the weed at a very early stage. The alternative control methods raise some interesting points. There has been some interesting work on the use of the cinnabar moth, flea beetles and so on—biological control agents. I referred earlier to a paper published in Australia, where that is described in great detail. Those can be an effective biological control agent. Where there are horses on the land or nearby, the most effective method is pulling.
      Herbicides can be used, and the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) may be familiar with a paper written in New Zealand not long ago that evaluated the trials of sulfonyl urea herbicide in some detail. That commercial product proved effective in respect of spot killing, but dangerous for widespread use on pasture because of the damage to the underlying grass. I urge landowners to concentrate on the physical
      1520
      methods, which are the most effective. But there are fallbacks, in terms of carefully controlled herbicides, that can be used. I should prefer the former method. We need more research on the biological control agents, and that will now start.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale on proposing a particularly important Bill, given the change in ownership of land in the countryside. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the code is in force at the earliest possible opportunity.
      11.11 am
      Mr. Osborne: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I see the Members whose Bills are next on the Order Paper are sitting in the Chamber. It was useful to hear the Minister's speech on Third Reading, in which he fleshed out what will be in the code of practice; we look forward to seeing it. The Minister is modest, because he is also Minister for the horse, which sounds like an 18th century court title. That is better than Roman emperors who used to make their horses ministers—[Interruption.] I suspect that was my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) disagreeing.
      I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that we are grateful for the support and help that the Government have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in proposing his Bill and in taking it through the House. We wish it speedy progress in the other place. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about my debut at the Dispatch Box. By the end of the day, I shall be a veteran, because I am covering quite a lot of subjects. In opposition, we can handle these matters with one person, while the Government need several Ministers.
      I shall end by saying that the entire rural community is grateful to my hon. Friend who, as I said earlier, is the hero of the horse world. I shall end with a quote from Kay Driver, chief executive of the British Horse Society, who said:
      "This society has campaigned hard for the past five years for effective control of ragwort. It is the responsibility of every landowner to control ragwort and we hope that this Bill is the first step in ensuring that they recognise the need for that control. We are indebted to Mr. Greenway for his support for the Bill."
      So is the House, and I hope that my hon. Friend can now catch his train and at least get to the latter half of the racing at York.
      11.13 am
      Sir Paul Beresford: I can hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) sigh as the prospect of lunch disappears over the horizon. I am sure that the bar will still be open by the time he gets to the racing.
      I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend on this important Bill. I accept that it could have been stronger and that he would have liked it to be stronger. I am sure that my local branch of the National Farmers Union would back that, as well as those who are involved with horses. My constituency has a large number of horse owners and a local authority that is aware of the problem because it uses its property for cutting hay. I have cattle and dairy farmers in my area but, being close to London, we also have a number of very small landowners.

      1521
      The problem is that ignorance can come with that. If one has horses—or hay, like the local authority—next to a small section of land that has become progressively dominated by ragwort, and the owner shrugs his shoulders and says, "So What?"—that has happened to me, and to the RSPCA and the local authority—one ends up feeling hopeless. We now have a code of practice and an opportunity to press the Minister. For once, I hope that when the season comes around the Minister is not reshuffled, so that we can approach him directly. I hope that he will remember his words and his almost-promises and that we can count on action. That action will be on the basis of the Bill going through, as I sincerely hope it will, and on the code of practice that comes from it.
      I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale enjoys what is left of the day, even if it is just the evening.
      11.15 am
      Mr. Roger Williams: I shall be brief, and I draw the attention of the House to my entries in the Register concerning agriculture and agricultural land.
      On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, may I say how much we welcome the Bill? I congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale on his work; certainly horse owners in Wales will be grateful for his efforts on their behalf, as will the broader population of the countryside.
      Landowners have a responsibility to keep their land free from ragwort, particularly where horses can enter that land; sometimes that entry is accidental and everyone has a responsibility in these matters.
      As I travelled down from Wales yesterday, on the English side of the Severn bridge people were vigorously digging up ragwort; at least I took it to be ragwort. That
      1522
      drew to my attention the fact that the Bill affects England and Wales. However, the Bill amends the Weeds Act 1959, an Act that was subject to a transfer order to the National Assembly for Wales. Perhaps the Minister could write to me on this point. Will the code that he intends to produce cover England and Wales or is the code just for England?
      Mr. Greenway:England and Wales; it is in the Bill.
      Mr. Williams: As I understand it, the Weeds Act is a devolved matter and the Bill amends a devolved Act.
      Alun Michael: The code of practice is intended for England and Wales. That was the basis of consultation, and is a matter that we discussed with the Assembly.
      Mr. Williams: I am pleased to get that assurance. This is the first time I have taken part in debates on the Bill, but I am extremely supportive of it. Will the Minister add the Farmers Union of Wales to his list of consultees in drawing up the code, because obviously it would like to make an input? I wish the Bill well, and I am sure that it will make a major contribution to the countryside of England and Wales.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
      Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale a safe journey to York racecourse, to ask him if he has a good tip for the four o'clock and, if he gets there on time, to put a few quid on for us?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect the Chair to comment on such matters.

  Household Waste Recycling Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Household Waste Recycling Bill
    New Clause 1

      POWER TO APPLY SECTION 45A TO WELSH WASTE COLLECTION AUTHORITIES
      'After section 45A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as inserted by section 1 of this Act) there is inserted—
      "45B Power to apply section 45A to Welsh waste collection authorities

      The National Assembly for Wales may by order made by statutory instrument provide that section 45A above shall apply, subject to subsection (2) below, to all waste collection authorities whose areas are in Wales, as it applies to English waste collection authorities.

      Where the Assembly provides as mentioned in subsection (1) above, the reference to the Secretary of State in section 45A(5) above shall be read for these purposes as a reference to the National Assembly for Wales.

      Section 161(3) below (which relates to ordermaking powers) shall not apply to the making of an order under this section.".'.—[Mr. Morley.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Morley: The amendments have been tabled in response to concerns raised in Committee that the National Assembly for Wales should have the power to apply the Bill to Welsh local authorities.
      Before I go into detail, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on the enormous amount of work that she has put into the Bill with my predecessor as Minister and groups such as Friends of the Earth, which supports the Bill. The Bill, as amended in Committee, addresses a great many concerns and makes a very important contribution to waste minimisation and recycling.
      The Government amendments that were accepted in Committee were not applied to Wales because waste is a devolved matter and it would not have been appropriate to impose requirements on Wales. Initial contact with the National Assembly for Wales had indicated that it did not want the provision to be introduced because this is a devolved matter, and because it has its own waste strategy, "Wise About Waste". Through that strategy, it seeks to work in partnership with local authorities to achieve improved recycling and diversion from landfill. For example, the Assembly has not introduced such recycling targets under the best value provisions in the Local Government Act 1999, but it is working with local authorities, using voluntary targets under policy agreements.
      Current indications are that local authorities are working successfully towards delivering the first round of targets within the waste strategy for Wales. Under those agreements, which will require 15 per cent. composting and recycling by the end of 2003–04, we
      1524
      have already seen a significant increase on the 5 per cent. figure of only a few years ago. "Wise About Waste" recognises that kerbside collection is the best way of separating viable materials for recycling, and encourages local authorities to introduce it. However, the strategy also recognises the need for local authorities to be able to respond flexibly to local circumstances: in the very rural parts of Wales, alternative arrangements may be preferable, recognising the different circumstances of local authorities.
      The National Assembly for Wales is understandably concerned that the current successful and flexible voluntary arrangements in Wales be retained, and we understand that. However, Committee members made the reasonable point that the Assembly does not have primary legislative powers and therefore could not apply those provisions to Wales at a later date if it considered it useful to do so at some stage. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) agreed to write formally to the Assembly to ask if it wanted the power to apply the Bill to Wales. I am pleased to say that the Assembly has agreed that that would be useful, so we are introducing these provisions.
      New clause 1 will allow the Assembly, by order, to apply the requirement that Welsh local authorities collect at least two recyclates, separate from residual waste, by the end of 2010. The Assembly will then have the power, equivalent to that of the Secretary of State, to grant an individual local authority an extension beyond that for up to five years. We have not included Wales in the requirement to report to Parliament because that would clearly be inappropriate. However, if the Assembly decides that it needs to introduce the Bill's provisions in respect of Wales, the Assembly's normal arrangement, whereby the relevant Minister reports on progress across his or her portfolio, will of course apply in such circumstances.
      I am very pleased that the Welsh Assembly has given its support to the principles behind the Bill. I am also pleased to move these amendments, so that we can extend the provision to include Wales, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. George Osborne: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on the way in which she has steered this Bill through the rapids of the private Members' Bill process; indeed, she had previous experience of this process some years ago. She has a well-established commitment to this issue, and rather than allowing the Bill to go down in flames by sticking rigidly to the points that she wanted to make, she has shown a willingness to be flexible. She has worked with the Government—always a sensible move when it comes to business on Friday—and as a result we have a Bill that we all hope will become law.
      I want to make it clear that the official Opposition entirely support the Bill, just as we supported the previous version. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who did speak for the Opposition on this issue but resigned from the Front Bench over the issue of Iraq, on a matter of principle. He left a real legacy by getting the Conservative party to take an even greater interest in green and environmental issues.

      1525
      That said, we very much welcome the extension of the Bill to Wales, and we shall support new clause 1.
      Mr. David Wilshire: I should say at the outset that I, too, support the Bill. I can well understand why the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), having looked at the Order Paper, might have become a little nervous at seeing a rash of amendments in my name. I appreciate that we are not discussing them at the moment, but I just wanted to put it on the record that I do support the Bill. I say that in the hope that the hon. Lady will call off the hounds and my e-mails will go silent, so that I can perhaps have a quiet weekend.
      I support new clause 1. It is entirely right that the people of Wales be consulted as to whether it is a good idea to extend the provision to them. If they say that it is, then far be it from this Englishman to prevent that from happening. However, on looking at the new clause I discovered something quite interesting. Subsection (1) begins with the phrase:
      "The National Assembly for Wales may by order made by statutory instrument".
      I do not want to start the "may" versus "shall" debate in the pedantic, legal sense. [Interruption.] I hear someone ask, "Why not?" from a sedentary position, but on this occasion there is a somewhat more significant point to make. This House is saying that the Assembly "may" apply the provision, so I imagine that the Assembly will debate the matter and ask itself the very simple question: is this in the best interests of Wales? It will come to a conclusion and have a vote, and it will be Members of the Welsh Assembly, from Wales, who will take the decision.
      I have one worry about the new clause. The Government rightly say that the provision should be extended to Wales if the people of Wales want it, and that in the end, the vote shall be taken by people from Wales. So why did the Government mobilise Scottish MPs the other day to interfere in an English matter, unlike in this case, where the people of Wales can decide for themselves? On the question of foundation hospitals, surely the English should have decided what happens in England.
      Mr. Roger Williams: I welcome new clause 1. Wales is absolutely committed to playing its part in recycling, and as the Minister says, we in Wales have our own strategy, which has been agreed to by the Welsh Assembly and in consultation with local authorities. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on introducing this Bill. I was pleased to take part in a previous stage of its legislative progress, and I am very pleased that new clause 1 respects the spirit of devolution, enabling the Assembly to take appropriate action, rather than imposing a duty on it. We support the new clause.
      Joan Ruddock: I thank all Members for their comments and the appreciation that they have shown today. It has been a joy to work on this Bill, despite the many difficulties that arose. It was always my wish that the Bill should extend to the whole of the UK if possible, notwithstanding the devolution arrangements. I hope that the assemblies and the Parliament in the other parts of the UK will be able to
      1526
      adopt such measures, because I believe very strongly that the people of those countries want to contribute to environmental sustainability, just as the people of England want to so contribute. This legislation enables one of the obvious ways in which ordinary householders can make a very significant contribution.
      At one point, the Bill was in a form that set UK targets of 50 per cent. for recycling. That was an attempt to bring the Government on board, because they had not been able to support the original Bill. Unfortunately, I then found that the Government could not support the new form of the Bill either, so it took all my wit to produce it in yet another form. That was done successfully in Committee. It then became necessary to limit the Bill to England, and it was proper of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), who was one of my sponsors—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who was another sponsor—to raise the question about Consultation with the National Assembly for Wales.
      11.30 am
      The Minister undertook in Committee to write formally to the Welsh Assembly, and I am delighted that it has come back with a positive response. This is the best of all worlds. We in the House today offer the Assembly primary legislation, which it can bring into force if it fits its requirements. I congratulate the Assembly on the progress that it has made so far, but I say to its Members that, as in the rest of the UK, recycling levels are still far too low. Much more still needs to be done, and the Bill offers local authorities an incentive and an opportunity for people to lobby their elected representatives to ensure that more progress is made. I greatly welcome and support the new clause, and I hope that it will be accepted as a way forward for the people of Wales. As someone born and brought up in Pontypool, the Welsh environment is close to my heart.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Minister clear up a point about the new clause? Am I right that the requirement on Wales would have to be abided by on the same terms that apply to the English provisions—no later than 31 December 2015? We understand why such a long time frame has been built into the Bill, but we also partly regret it. Can the Minister let us know within what sort of time scale he would envisage Welsh authorities and the Welsh Assembly complying with this part of the Bill?
      Mr. Morley: Briefly, new clause 1 extends the same provisions to Wales. Of course, it can choose not to apply them. As I said earlier, if the provisions are not accepted now, no primary legislative powers would apply and it could not enter into the provisions later. My understanding is that the Welsh Assembly is keen to apply these measures, just as we are, so the time scales are the same.
      Joan Ruddock: May I point out that the Bill's provisions are for 2010, although there is an opt-out potential for 2015?
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      DEFINITIONS
      'In this Act garden waste shall not be included within "household waste".'.—[Sir Paul Beresford.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 7, in clause 1 page 1, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
      No. 10, in clause 1 page 1, line 15, leave out 'two types' and insert 'one type'.
      No. 6, in clause 1 page 1, line 17, at end insert—
      '() For the purposes of subsection (3) above the types shall be—

      paper waste;

      metal food or drinks containers;

      glass food or drinks containers;

      plastic;

      textile fabrics or clothes.'.

      No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 19 leave out '2010' and insert '2007'.
      No. 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 19 leave out '2010' and insert '2015'.
      No. 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 5 leave out '2015' and insert '2010'.
      No. 12, in clause 1 page 2, line 5 leave out '2015' and insert '2020'.
      No. 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 7 leave out 'or composted'.
      Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) knows me well from when we did battle, in reverse position, on these matters. She knows that I am a supporter of recycling. I come from a county that is a leading light on zero waste and the techniques and methods of recycling. I do not know whether there are any incinerators there, though it looks as though there is an attempt to place one in my constituency, which is a great bother to me and the residents nearby. However, I have tabled the new clause as a probing one to give the Minister an opportunity to assist us and to recognise—as one would expect from someone in his Department—that there are both urban and rural areas, and urban and rural reactions to Bills such as this.
      When I examined a research paper from the Library, I was particularly disturbed to find that household waste included garden waste. If one has a couple of window boxes and a handkerchief garden out the back, probably mostly paved, the garden waste proportion put out for recycling is pretty small and the opportunity to recycle there on the patch is also pretty small. I have watched what has happened in one of the two local authorities with which I am associated, and Friends of the Earth got rather upset about the problem that I deal with in the new clause. The organisation obviously did not talk to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, who would have explained that these were probing provisions with
      1528
      no real intention to stop the Bill. The reaction was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has already mentioned, a flurry of e-mails. People were calmed when I responded to them.
      One e-mail made an important point. The author was disappointed because she originally anticipated that I was attempting to stop the Bill. She said:
      "Here in your constituency we are trying and trying to increase our recycling percentage as we should be. The holes on the ground are full up and Surrey has more waste than any other counties in England"—
      though I am not sure that she is right about that.
      "On the doorsteps in our wards we meet residents who have waste from the gardens that need to go to Randalls Road"—
      or the dump, as we used to call it when I was a child—
      "for composting. All those cars queuing up along Randalls Road at the weekends, polluting Mole Valley's atmosphere while they take their sacks to the tip. We are working to increase the percentage we recycle, through doorstep collections. At the moment our residents have to pay for their green sacks (which is ridiculous) for it to go to composting. To have it collected from home makes sense, as does recycling plastics."
      As I see it—and I believe that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford would confirm this—the drive of the Bill is to hit the things that are really difficult to recycle, and to emphasise to those doing the recycling and those providing the opportunity for materials to be recycled, that it is the plastics, the metals, rubber and other such materials, some of which are covered by further amendments, that need to be targeted.
      In a constituency such as mine, if one wanted to lift the recycling level—and could put expenses completely to one side—one would concentrate on collecting garden waste. Before the local elections, Guildford council, then under Liberal control, did exactly that. It had a doorstep collection of garden waste as a pilot for an area in Guildford, which dramatically lifted the percentage of recycling.
      In my constituency, my own neck of the woods, is an area where there used to be an oak plantation. It is easy to tell that it is ancient by looking at the trees, some of which are bent in such a way as to form the wood for ships—obviously no longer needed. Many but not all of the oaks have gone. In respect of my own garden—here I declare an interest—I would be delighted if the Liberal idea from the Liberal councillor, to collect all our garden waste, were implemented. In the autumn or fall, the oak trees—I have three in my garden: two about 150 years old and one 450 years old—deposit vast quantities of oak leaves on the ground. I really mean vast quantities. I estimate that one tree produces about 31 cubic yards of leaves.
      I should be delighted if the council would take them, and I would be even more than delighted if it would take them for free. It takes me a good day to sweep them up, put them into bags and compost them. If I could stick them out the front, I could fill one or two trucks without any difficulty. That does not apply only to my house, but to every single house in the street. We need to recognise how the figures can be distorted and that many local authorities take composting exceptionally seriously by approaching it in a different way. Mole Valley district council is taking an approach to garden waste that is different from the approach of the Liberals in control of Guildford. It is trying to make people aware of the opportunities for composting on their own properties.

      1529
      The council provides, at low cost, special bins and know-how—it practically holds composting parties at the weekends. The roads are covered with signs protesting expansion at Gatwick airport, but under those signs are ones saying "Compost teach-in". That approach is starting to work.
      As a result, the local authority's percentage figures for composting will go down. I raised that issue under the best value indicators, and the Minister was a bit nonplussed. I got an answer, but it was inadequate.
      Joan Ruddock: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I agree entirely with what he says. What he describes is clearly the best environmental option and should be encouraged, but there is nothing in the Bill that would stop a council adopting the approach that he describes. We would all favour doing much more of what he proposes.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I would have been surprised if she had not said that. However, the Bill might be used by some local authorities and councillors to turn the system. It would be useful if we could get a sensible answer from the Minister, explaining his approach. The disposal of garden waste and composting are important, but they can be achieved in other ways. However, the drive of the Bill must be to recycle glass, paper, rubber, metals and, especially, plastics. That is the point of my amendment.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned plastics. The arrangements made by local authorities for the collection of plastics vary greatly. One of the excuses that many local authorities use is that the markets do not exist for the recycling of plastic materials. My understanding is that that is a misinterpretation of the case and that local authorities are not aware of the markets that are available. Plastics are bulky, especially the bottles containing soft drinks and the like, even when disposed of in normal domestic waste. At home, I try to put out our plastic bottles separately and it is surprising how much room is left in the bin for other items. It makes a tremendous difference. If my hon. Friend cannot address that issue, perhaps the Minister can do so when he responds to the debate.
      11.45 am
      Sir Paul Beresford: The other point that my hon. Friend did not touch on is the expense to the local authority of dealing with plastics, quite apart from the difficulty of disposing of them. Many of the plastic bottles have a different type of plastic in the top, so I hope that my hon. Friend takes the tops off the bottles he puts out, to make separation easier. That is an example of the real difficulties that recycling can present. Mole Valley has gone into the issue in detail and has set up special arrangements to tackle it—the composting of garden waste aside—and I applaud it for that. It takes courage to do that, although the council also provides the collection that the Liberal Democrat council is promoting.
      Because of the cost, Mole Valley charges £l for a green bag, although the bags are free for the elderly, people who have not got cars and those who live in rural
      1530
      villages. The other difficulty that I hope the Minister recognises is that in charging £1 the local authority is also subsidised by an environmental trust grant and has had to work in conjunction with Longbridge council next door to meet the demands and costs of the scheme. The council is unlikely to receive back the costs of the scheme, so the blithe reaction by local Liberal Democrats in rural areas—the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford will understand that emphatically—is the wrong approach. Those individuals need to recognise that what they intend to do would severely damage the pockets of people in rural areas, to no good advantage.
      The opportunity to promote composting at home must be the right approach. I accept that if I lived in Deptford, and had a large window box and a small garden, composting might be difficult, but individuals in that situation can try an internet site called Wiggly Wigglers, which breeds worms for composting and supplies the necessary equipment to compost almost everything that is organic in the back garden, even if it is tiny. In theory, therefore, all peelings and other kitchen waste can be shoved into a Wiggly Wigglers bin. Perhaps I should not promote Wiggly Wigglers, because I do not know the company personally, but many other groups and local authorities provide the same service.
      If we took the approach suggested by the Liberal Democrats—for their own propaganda reasons—we should recognise that it would affect the council tax. The council tax in my area has just gone up exorbitantly, for a variety of reasons that I shall not go into because I would be ruled out of order. If Mole Valley district council were to include garden waste in its recycling service without charge, to follow the trend promoted by the local Liberal Democrat councils, the council tax would be unbelievably high. One of the biggest factors in the increase in the local council tax in Mole Valley was that it had to resubmit the contract for waste collection, and costs went up dramatically.
      As I have said, I would love to have my oak leaves collected, but we will discuss shortly the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill, and that would mean an enormous increase in the amount of hedge trimmings. Grass cuttings would be another problem. In my street, on a sunny Saturday afternoon, everybody cuts the grass and the cuttings would probably fill one collection truck. I hate to think how much that would cost. In fact, what happens in reality is that people compost grass cuttings, because they have been to the local authority's teach-ins and have set up a composting area in their back garden. Some people may even have some live worms from Wiggly Wigglers to put in the compost to speed up the whole process. That must be the positive way forward.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Surely it is absurd that we should even be considering creating much more waste by ludicrously cutting down loads of hedges that are good for the environment, and then place duties on local government to get rid of the material.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I entirely agree. However, I recognise that if I move into that area, I will get my wrists slapped.
      I am concerned that with recycling targets and so forth there seems to be an indication—the Minister can confirm or deny this—that the Government will take

      1531
      into account the proportions of the waste that are incinerated in such a way as to provide energy. To my mind, that is exceptionally difficult. I recognise that there is probably a percentage of household waste that may have to be incinerated. Huge efforts are being made by individuals, groups of people and Governments throughout the world to try to ensure that that does not happen. There is zero waste from the antipodes.
      It will not help if the Government continue as they are, as I understand it, and take energy from waste and insinuate that that is part of recycling. Given my personal situation, matters are made worse in that the Government have agreed to allow an incinerator in the countryside, or have given a nod to the local authority. However, that is another issue.
      I have already referred to amendment No. 8, which relates to composting.
      Mr. Wilshire: I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to amendment No. 7, which stands in his name. I am anxious to hear an argument in favour of removing the provision that makes the authority consider whether the cost is "unreasonably high".
      Sir Paul Beresford: I am almost going to thank my hon. Friend. However, in the past, in various Committees, for example, the boot has been on the other foot. My hon. Friend has introduced amendments and new clauses that have not always won support from me. If he supported amendment No. 7, that would lead to some difficulty. I will not be pushing the amendment.
      Mr. Wilshire: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was suggesting that I had tabled amendment No. 7. I was wanting to disagree with it.
      Sir Paul Beresford: It may be that I shall end up disagreeing with myself on that amendment. I will not be pushing it. Unfortunately, in putting the amendments together, and in my discussions with my researcher, my understanding of the English language was not sufficient. As a result, amendment No. 7 was included. I suspect that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford was smiling all over her face the moment she saw the amendment. It would be just about the last one that I would move in this place.
      Mr. George Osborne: As my hon. Friend has explained, these are probing amendments. Amendment No. 7 allows us to discuss the cost of the Bill to councils. It is a useful probing device.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend for his attempt to rescue me. I fear that I am being rescued from a boat that looks more like a sieve.
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend should not be so concerned about what he has done. If he had not tabled the amendment, it would not have been possible for us to refer to the marvellous and sterling work on value for money that he did in local government. I am sure that that is why he tabled the amendment. I am delighted to commend him.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I think that we have reached the point of desperation. I shall move on to amendment
      1532
      No. 5, which, again, is a probing amendment. I would like to know why the year 2020 has been chosen. One of the things that I know about is value for money, and one of the ways of obtaining it, especially for local authorities, is using contractors. I have chosen 2010 rather than 2015 because it is a point at which most of the contracts would have come up for reconsideration at least once. The issue on which local authorities will be reflecting can be installed, as it were, in the new contracts as they go out. The House will be aware that contracts, especially for collection, although not necessarily for waste, mostly run for five or seven years. I recognise that some contracts for disposal run for 25 years or more.
      One would hope that the intellect of those drawing up those contracts would have provided for sufficient flexibility to allow a reaction to Bills such as this. I suspect that there is a possibility that that is not so, having examined Surrey county council's movements and actions with the county council contractor who will be disposing of waste. If we followed the lead of Surrey county council, we could be looking desperately to fill an incinerator. Demand could be put upon us as local council tax payers to fill these blessed incinerators when what we should be doing, and are doing, as can be seen today, is moving towards recycling. Possibly the judicial review that hit the incinerator plans in Mole Valley and therefore in Surrey, has brought the county council up short. It will be able to reflect on what we are saying today, and on what many of us have being saying for a considerable time, which is that recycling is appropriate and can provide much of the disposal that we seek along with a positive approach, bearing in mind that some of the materials that we want to recycle are finite. Both technically and in reality, we are going to run out of many materials that enable us to make plastic from oil.
      Bearing that in mind, as well as the fact that these are probing amendments, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to some of the points that I am trying to get across. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford may think that I am being tongue-in-cheek, but my amendments, as she will know from experience, are not. They are probing and thoughtful, tabled in the hope that we can get a more sensible, thoughtful and forward-looking reaction from the Minister that deals with rural areas, rather than just urban ones.
      Mr. Morley: I shall deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) from the Government's perspective, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) may have her own views.
      The hon. Member for Mole Valley asked what is being done to find markets for plastics. If we are to encourage recycling and re-use, we have to promote markets, and the Government take that very seriously. The economics of recycling plastics is much more problematic than that of other parts of the waste stream, but that does not mean that we cannot tackle the issue. The Government and devolved Administrations have set up the Waste and Resources Action Programme—WRAP—which is designed to tackle market barriers to increased recycling. WRAP has identified plastics as a priority area in its business plan to 2003–04. One of its priorities is marketing existing recycled plastic products

      1533
      and removing discriminatory standards, and that is linked to the development of policies on bio-recycled materials and a research and development programme to develop plastics recycling technology and support composite product development—I have seen one or two examples of that.
      One of WRAP's targets is achieving a 20,000 tonne increase in mixed plastics processing for industrial products by 2003–04, and it intends to award a grant to address the lack of infrastructure for sorting and processing plastics in the UK. Finance is therefore available to set up infrastructure to deal with the problem.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Do the Government believe that recycling should be undertaken even if it costs extra, particularly for materials such as plastics, or do they believe that recycling should not be more costly for local authorities than disposing of, for example, plastics through landfill or incineration?
      Mr. Morley: The Government have established a waste disposal hierarchy, at the top of which is waste minimisation. If we can minimise waste, that takes a lot of pressure off the problem of disposal. The next level in the hierarchy is recycling and re-use. Incineration is next to bottom on the hierarchy, and at the very bottom is landfill, which itself involves costs. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point—of course, recycling involves costs that may be higher than those for landfill. However, the increased amount of waste that we are producing is simply not sustainable, so we have to tackle it by introducing a range of measures, including support, regulation and targets, to reduce the waste going to landfill. We are committed to doing so, because there is a great deal more to do about this serious problem. The Government strongly welcome the measures in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford, which help us to try to address that problem.
      Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is right that it is not just a question of the costs of recycling: there may be energy and transport costs as well. We must also remember the depletion of raw materials and their replacement. That is an important issue—we must reuse things whenever we can. Plastics are one problem, and aluminium is another particularly acute one, given the costs of aluminium mining.
      12 noon
      Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Energy costs and materials used need to be taken into account. There is real potential here for a re-use and recycling industry. There is enormous potential in terms of new technologies, new industries and new companies. They are being developed now, and to give such industries a boost, complementary measures, such as landfill tax and others relating to targeting, are needed. There is no denying that there is a cost to recycling, but given the range of benefits, environmentally and in the re-use of materials, and in the development of new technologies, industries and materials for the future, it is more than justified.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I am sure that it was an oversight, but the Minister failed to touch on the prospect of using
      1534
      alternatives as a form of prevention. Plastic is used extensively and we could use alternatives. The plastic disposable equipment used by the medical and dental professions, in the NHS or privately, is outrageously expensive. It is used once and then thrown away. For some equipment, such as needles, there is a health reason for that, but frequently other items, such as capules, can be made out of glass, used to be made out of glass and in some cases are still made out of glass. We need to make the effort to use alternatives and I hope that the Government will lead on that.
      Mr. Morley: I accept that there is a case for alternatives to the use of plastics and for the development of non-oil-based alternatives. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Government are sponsoring work on alternative crops at the Central Science Laboratory in York. One area of research is into using sugars to develop biodegradable plastics, along with a range of other crops. At the royal show, I was struck by a jacket that appeared to be denim but was made out of nettle stems. Such industry crops and alternatives have tremendous potential in terms of biodegradability. We take seriously the replacement of finite oil-based products with renewable resources and we support research into that.
      Mr. Leigh: Unfortunately, we are not there yet. I understand that reprocessing firms can take only one form of plastic and many other forms are thrown away. I imagine that the local councils will have to do the sorting themselves, and I am concerned about the extra costs that will be placed on rural authorities. What extra burdens will be placed on local authorities, such as those in our part of Lincolnshire, which has a sparse population, in collecting all that plastic?
      Mr. Morley: I accept that point, which the Bill recognises by giving local authorities flexibility in applying kerbside recycling measures. In the hon. Gentleman's area and parts of my own on the boundary with his constituency there are tiny isolated communities where the cost of such measures would be disproportionate. There are other ways of addressing this. My local authority of North Lincolnshire has set up excellent recycling sites. It is true that people have to travel to them, but at one, adjacent to my village, there are facilities for the separation of a range of waste streams, including textiles, metal, former electrical equipment, rubble and green waste. I use that site myself and it is much appreciated. Such sites do not exist in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which is why we have had some problems with his constituents using our sites, although the problem of people travelling across borders to use facilities is not unique to our area. I urge him to encourage the Conservative-controlled Lincolnshire county council to provide similar facilities. I suggested to North Lincolnshire that it should speak to Lincolnshire county council about cost sharing, as the facility is important for the whole area.
      Mr. McLoughlin: While the Minister is urging Conservative-controlled Lincolnshire county council to provide more facilities in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), will

      1535
      he also urge Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council to provide some facilities in the Derbyshire Dales area, where they would be very welcome?
      Mr. Morley: That shows why it is sometimes dangerous for Ministers to go down such paths. We are keen to encourage all local authorities to improve waste collection and recycling facilities. Of course, the Bill is a great help in getting local authorities to focus on those matters. A lot more needs to be done and it is true that different local authorities have different records. We want the records of the worst to be brought up to the same standard as those of the best, and we want to work with the Local Government Association in seeking to promote the issue.
      To return to the amendments, I was saying that WRAP's target is to achieve a 20,000 tonne increase in mixed-plastics processing for industrial products by 2003–04. As I mentioned, it intends to award grants that should result in diversion from the waste stream of an additional 20,000 tonnes per annum of post-consumer plastic bottles. Plastics recycling is popular and the message is increasingly being received and acted on by local authorities as an appropriate response to local pressure.
      Joan Ruddock: One significant company to which I spoke when it came to exhibit at my exhibition of companies dealing in recyclates told me an extraordinary story. It said that it was importing plastic bottles in bulk from the continent to keep its processes going. Let me underline to my hon. Friend the fact that there is real scope for greater collection.
      Mr. Morley: I am amazed and quite disturbed to hear that that is happening, but it demonstrates the point that my hon. Friend is making. While I would not pretend that there are no costs to recycling—nor would I pretend at the moment that the landfill option is cheaper—I acknowledge that we need to change the whole economics and dynamics of the situation. It is outrageous that a company should be importing plastic bottles for processing when we should be separating them from the waste stream and dealing with them ourselves.
      Mr. George Osborne: I am not sure that that is outrageous. After all, waste disposal is a global problem. If recycling technology and recycling companies in Britain are ahead of the game and are importing waste from other countries, surely it benefits the planet on which we live.
      Mr. Morley: That is an interesting point, but I shall stick with my assertion: it is outrageous that we should let other countries apply such principles while not applying them ourselves. Incidentally, we want to develop a home-based industry in recycling and alternative use. There is potential for establishing one, and the measures before us are part of that approach.
      Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to change the limited exemptions for which the Bill provides to a requirement that all waste collection authorities collect at least two types of recyclate. The exemptions currently in the Bill
      1536
      amount to a test of reasonable access—a point that I made to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)—so the requirement applies except where the cost is unreasonably high or where comparable arrangements are available. I touched on examples in that regard that I think are reasonable and pragmatic.
      Mr. Leigh: I should like to put a point on the record for the sake of local authorities in rural areas. Assuming that the Bill completes its passage and becomes an Act of Parliament, will a very rural authority such as West Lindsey, which currently does not have enough resources even to collect bin liners from people's homes—residents have to put them at the bottom of their drives—be able to point to the clause and say "This is all very well and we'd like to do it, but we simply cannot afford to do so" in the knowledge that that will be the end of the story?
      Mr. Morley: I would not wish to present the matter in that light, which I might say was rather negative. The provisions will encourage local authorities to have the flexibility to apply the waste and recycling measures that are most appropriate in their areas. Indeed, an example from Wales was also cited. It is certainly true that rural areas have particular problems—for example, small communities and houses with long drives. I have such areas in my constituency, and I know all about the time that it takes to walk up drives to knock on doors and the difficulty of finding people on the electoral roll. However, there can be alternatives. I gave the example of recycling centres that people can travel to; that is more cost-effective. Local authorities should address the issues in the most cost-effective and reasonable way, and they are being given the flexibility to do that.
      Sir Paul Beresford rose—
      Joan Ruddock rose—
      Mr. Morley: I give way to my hon. Friend.
      Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to both hon. Gentlemen. In the case that my hon. Friend mentions, refuse collection already takes place. There is a danger that it may then be argued that it is unreasonable to collect separated rubbish from the same point.
      Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I do not know whether my example would apply in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mole Valley. It might be possible to have a larger vehicle for the weekly waste collection round—unless the current size is the maximum currently possible—with separate compartments to allow the normal rubbish collection to go in one compartment and recyclates for separated waste streams in another. That will not work in all areas, but the system can be adapted by local councillors, who are the best people to know about their own particular circumstances and needs. We want to encourage local councils actively to think about solutions, not to say that they are too difficult or expensive.
      Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister is responding to my new clause as I hoped that he would. I am sick and tired in my area of listening to Liberal councillors whose

      1537
      knee-jerk reaction is to expect the local council to do it—"To hell with the cost" to use the phrase of one in particular—and to land the cost on the council taxpayer. Then, when it comes to setting the council tax, they blame independent and Conservative councillors for setting a high council tax. Alternative approaches—I particularly mentioned my oak trees—are vital. It will be helpful if I can take the Minister's words back with me to quieten the knee-jerk reaction of these local councillors in trying to further their own cause without thinking of the consequences.
      Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I cannot comment on any individual councils or their circumstances. [Interruption.] I can comment on the circumstances of my own local council, as I know it pretty well—I would be a poor MP if I did not.
      In general terms, the Bill provides flexibility of approach. We as a Government are keen to encourage local councils to address seriously waste minimisation and recycling. Indeed, we are introducing measures such as the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which sets targets and caps on landfill. Local councils will have to take that seriously, and they know it. We want good examples to be applied across the country to all councils on the basis of the needs and requirements of their own areas.
      Sue Doughty: The Minister mentioned the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which deals with matters such as biodegradable municipal waste, including composting. We do not yet have a date for its return to this House from Committee. Yesterday, the Leader of the House said that it is in the Lords, which suggests that he is not quite certain of the facts. Can the Minister give us some guidance?
      Mr. Morley: I cannot give exact dates, as that is a matter for the business managers and the Leader of the House, but it is a Government Bill, we are committed to it, and it will proceed in due course.
      Amendment No. 7—[Interruption.] I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Mole Valley is not keen on that. Let us move on to amendment No. 10, which would change the requirement to collect at least two sorts of recyclates separately to only one sort. That is not ambitious in view of the need to reduce waste and encourage recycling, about which I hope all hon. Members agree.
      12.15 pm
      Hon. Members will recall the need to fulfil the landfill diversion directive requirements. We landfill more waste and recycle far less than most of the rest of Europe and we must increase doorstep collection to meet our recycling targets. That is a serious matter. Fifty-eight per cent. of households already have separate collections of at least one sort of recyclate and we must ensure that the Bill helps us to progress.
      We considered balance and recognised the need to encourage better performance without allowing collection systems to outstrip markets. We therefore believe that a minimum of two sorts of materials was a fair balance. We hope that many local authorities
      1538
      will collect more than two sorts. It is not compulsory to collect only two; we want as many sorts as possible to be collected.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The Bill deals with the end of the problem. What pressure are the Government putting on companies to use less packaging? That is one of the biggest challenges. Waste collection is the responsibility of local authorities but some people put what appears to be a huge amount of packaging around small items and that is a large part of the problem.
      Mr. Morley: I freely acknowledge that. Companies come within the ambit of the packaging directive and there are increasing incentives for them to reduce packaging. They also have to pay landfill tax through commercial waste collections. This week, I saw a waste collection centre in Bristol for trade waste. It charges a slightly lower rate when traders separate the cardboard and packaging, thus enabling recycling to happen. I re-emphasise that waste minimisation is first in the waste hierarchy. That applies to packaging.
      We are keen to encourage as many different recyclates as possible. One sort does not go far enough. Amendment No. 6 covers the possibility of listing in the Bill the materials that a local authority should collect separately. We do not believe that it is helpful to be so prescriptive. The market that a local authority can find for the material is what matters. We are giving support to encourage that. The materials that local authorities collect need to adapt to those markets; they will change as technology changes, A list that is appropriate now may not be in future.
      We need to ensure that the material is properly recyclable. The Bill states that the material must be capable of being recycled or composted. Whether a material is considered to be of the same type or recyclate as another depends on the way in which it is recycled and used later. For example, we are clear that it is not sufficient for a local authority to collect two colours of glass and count them as two types. However, paper or wood count as two distinct types.
      Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 11 and 12 give a range of options for dates. That suggests that the dates for which the Bill provides are about right. The Government would be delighted if authorities could implement the provisions by 2007. There is nothing to stop them doing so if they choose. The fact that 58 per cent. of households already have a doorstep collection of at least one type of recyclate shows that people take the matter seriously. However, it takes time to establish the infrastructure and plans for efficient, successful doorstep collection schemes. Some local authorities may have other means of fulfilling statutory recycling targets. They therefore need time to change them.
      Amendment No. 8 would provide that compostable waste was not considered as a type of waste to be collected for recycling I understood the point about leaves and hedge clippings. There is nothing to stop people composting in their garden. Many people do that, including me. We need to encourage composting, and biodegradable waste—all compostable waste is biodegradable—is a vital part of the waste stream to tackle. That is the subject of the landfill directed diversion targets, because biodegradable waste forms methane in landfill sites.

      1539
      About 65 per cent. of the waste stream is biodegradable, and a large proportion of that is compostable. Compost, when processed, can be beneficial for conditioning the soil. I agree that home composting is important, and this provision should not discourage it. I reassure hon. Members that home composting will not be an alternative to the collection of a recyclate, and we would expect local authorities to promote it as a form of waste minimisation.
      New clause 3 would exclude garden waste from the description of household waste in the Bill. This occurs only in the context of its usage in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, where household waste is defined in section 75(5) and (8). The purpose is to ensure that one of the recyclates collected is not garden waste, and I can give some reassurance to the hon. Member for Mole Valley on that point. I understand his concern about this. It is true that, when local authorities provide a separate collection of garden waste, it tends to increase waste arisings, which runs counter to the need to minimise them. However, I am not convinced that we should deal with the issue prescriptively in the Bill.
      There are occasions on which the separate collection of garden waste is sustainable. The first choice of method for dealing with such waste would be home composting, but if householders were unable or unwilling to home compost, or if they had reached their capacity, it would be better for this stream to be collected separately. That is because it can then be composted and returned to beneficial use, rather than contributing to the formation of methane in landfill sites. I agree that there always seems to be more waste in separate collections than there would have been in a mixed collection, even when the same amount of home composting is going on.
      There is a balance to be struck between increasing waste arising, which is unsustainable, and dealing appropriately with waste. We think that the Bill has struck the right balance. I hope that I have dealt with the amendments in sufficient detail for hon. Members and I encourage the movers of the amendments to withdraw them.
      Joan Ruddock: I would also like to comment on the amendments, all of which I oppose. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for saying that they are only probing amendments, and it is valuable to have them. I became slightly anxious about the way in which he kept telling the House how well we knew each other. For the sake of clarity, I should say that he was once a Minister and I was his opposition.
      We have had a useful debate on these issues. In relation to new clause 3 and amendment No. 8—in which the hon. Gentleman seeks to remove garden waste from the provisions—I want to make it clear that the Bill deals with compostable waste, which covers more than just garden waste. We have some difficulty at the moment because there are issues relating to regulations on food safety and composting that have still to be debated and resolved. Compostable waste would include kitchen waste.
      The hon. Gentleman put forward a strong argument about the best environmental options available to be adopted by councils, and I entirely concur with that. I
      1540
      confess to having some difficulties with my home composter in the inner city area of Lewisham, Deptford, and I might take advice from the hon. Gentleman afterwards on how to improve my performance. I am with him on the argument that home composting is the most appropriate method. Perhaps in the kind of area that he represents, where people have very large gardens, and very large green waste arisings, it is most appropriate that they should compost them in their own home and on their own ground.
      Councils would do well to publicise how that could be done, and to help people to do it. Although I grew up with market gardening grandparents, I, like most people, have forgotten everything that I knew about dealing with the land, and with waste, in a natural way. We need education on these issues, and it is appropriate for councils to invest in such education to help us all to do better. As the Minister has suggested, there are circumstances in which the collection of green waste can be sustainable. For that reason, it would be wrong to exclude garden waste.
      The Bill has been designed to try to give local authorities real options on how they conduct their business and how to make the collection of recyclable materials most sustainable in their own communities. I want them to have flexibility and choice. I assure the hon. Member for Mole Valley that his amendment No. 7 is unnecessary—he was embarrassed to find that he had tabled it—as the Bill would build on the 1990 Act, which requires the collection of waste. However, that legislation allows for authorities not to collect waste if that is too difficult and unreasonably costly, although most Members will have little experience of households that do not have their waste collected.
      Where households have such a collection, the imperative, if the Bill is passed, will be for local authorities to examine how to make collections of recyclables in addition to the collection of regular waste, which they now undertake. The Bill makes no prescription for the doorstep, although we had a long debate about that. It expects that there will be a collection of the recyclates from the point at which the householder currently has his or her waste collected. That clarifies our expectations for the record.
      Some householders, particularly in my experience in the inner city, have to bring the rubbish from their flats down to the collecting point at the base of the tower block. They will continue to do that under these new provisions, but they will also important.
      The hon. Member for Mole Valley introduced amendment No. 5 to ask why 2020 has been chosen, but 2020 does not figure in the Bill. The major proposal provides for local authorities to undertake the new duties by 31 December 2010 at the latest. All that is permitted is the possibility of their being a circumstance in which the local authority could go to the Secretary of State and of there being a dispensation, which would have to be agreed. We think that that is extremely unlikely to happen, but the provision is there to reassure local authorities that they would at least be permitted to make their case if achieving that target were utterly impossible, although I cannot foresee circumstances in which that would occur. That is all the Bill says about such circumstances, and the relevant date is 2015.

      1541
      I believe, and I think that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees, that the powers that we want local authorities to exercise over collecting two separated recyclates by 2010 are entirely reasonable and practicable. I expect, further, that a local authority that sees its way to collecting two recyclates will probably go for three or four. That is how things work once local authorities have decided to put the infrastructure in place. They respond to the demand that comes, such as that from my constituents. We have had but a partial collection service in our borough, although it is improving and getting a roll-out to all parts of Lewisham. It was but a paper collection, and not from every household. Of course, once local authorities get into this business, they increase their uptake, which is crucial.
      As to the amendment that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), which suggests that only one waste stream should be collected, I find that difficult to understand. All our experience is that once a local authority begins the process, it sees that the economics dictate that it should move to two, three or four streams. That is extremely important if we are to deal with the huge and constant increase in waste arisings that we are suffering from in this country.
      12.30 pm
      During the preparation of the Bill, on Second Reading and in Committee, we discussed at length what we should prescribe for collection. Those of us who worked on the Bill—including local authorities, some 200 of which support it—reached a consensus that we in the House should not prescribe the types of rubbish and recyclates that authorities should collect. They should be able to decide what is right and economic for them, and identify the best environmental option in the waste hierarchy.
      We made clear in Committee that we did not want loopholes in the Bill. It specifies a minimum of two waste streams. Councils must not be allowed to define green and brown bottles, for instance, as two separate streams; it must be made clear that we are talking about different types of material, and the Minister emphasised in Committee that green and brown bottles, both being made of glass, constitute a single form of collectable waste.
      There are some minor amendments suggesting changes in dates. Two Opposition Members have diametrically opposed views: the hon. Member for Mole Valley wants to bring the dates forward, while the hon. Member for Spelthorne wants to put them back. This is, of course, an example of the disagreements on the Opposition Benches about which we are now used to hearing. As I have said, I want to secure a consensus.
      Mr. Wilshire: I imagined that some mirth might be generated by our differences of opinion. At least ours is a free-thinking party—and I doubt that this particular exchange of views between my hon. Friend and myself is likely to hit the Sunday papers in anything like the same way as news of Labour Members tearing each others' eyes out over Europe and so forth.
      Joan Ruddock: I could not be more delighted if this spat got into the Sunday papers. I want the maximum publicity for this very sound measure, on which there is considerable agreement in the House.
      Sue Doughty: Early-day motion 46 begins
      1542
      "That this House believes that every house should have doorstep recycling by 2010".
      It was tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), and supported by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).
      Joan Ruddock: Indeed. I suppose I ought to jump to the hon. Gentleman's defence and say that I understand he supports the Bill as well, or at least the principle.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am happy to place on record that I support the Bill and wish it well. The intervention from the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) just goes to show that Liberal Democrats have not the slightest idea of what actually happens in Parliament, and why Members table amendments.
      Joan Ruddock: I assume that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendments, and will let us proceed to Third Reading.
      While I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Mole Valley's wish to bring forward the date on which we could implement local authorities' duties in regard to separate collection, I specified 2010 because, following extensive consultation with local authorities and other interested bodies, with industry and indeed with Government, I concluded that it was the most realistic date. There is consensus on that, and despite my enthusiasm for the cause I do not think that the arrangements could be completed any more quickly.
      Mr. George Osborne: As I made clear when we discussed the Government new clause, the Opposition wholly support the Bill but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who is renowned for his green credentials, on at least allowing us to probe some of the issues to which the Bill gives rise. It is right to do so. It is quite brave to do so, too, I understand, because both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) have been deluged with e-mails and letters from people around the country. Obviously, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has mobilised her army to put pressure—
      Mr. Wilshire: I would not like it to be thought that the deluge was from all over the country. Quite a few who have contacted me are my constituents. I am quite pleased to have the opportunity to demonstrate what a caring and efficient MP I am and I am glad to be in touch with them.
      Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend demonstrates that all the time and has used the opportunity to do so again.
      As I understand it, amendment No. 8 would have a similar effect to new clause 3. The amendment prevents compostable waste from being included under recyclable waste. New clause 3 specifically excludes garden waste. I have listened to the good arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. My constituency is pretty similar to his constituency in character. I know that because one of my good friends lives in his constituency and I have spent many happy weekends there at a house called Goodman Furze. I think that the Bridges family are

      1543
      known to my hon. Friend. The collection of garden waste is a real issue both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend.
      Of course, it is far better, as my hon. Friend says, to encourage home composting than to collect garden waste. Indeed, one could argue that a garden waste collection service discourages people struggling with the home composting kit, because they know that they can just put the garden waste in a bag and leave it outside the front door. However, it is worth pointing out, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford said, that not everyone is either technically capable of operating the composting kit, or prepared to go to the effort. In an ideal world, they would but that is not the case. Therefore, it may be appropriate in some areas, including areas with small city gardens, to have a collection of garden waste.
      There is a general point. Councils are probably best placed to decide these issues for themselves. They are closer to the ground. They understand their area better than we could ever understand it. The decision as to the kind of recyclable waste that should be collected should probably be left to those councils. I would not personally favour us directing from Parliament exactly what kind of waste is collected.
      Even if we accepted new clause 3, councils would still have to deal with garden waste. We may end up requiring three separate waste collections from local authorities. In an ideal world, that may perhaps be a good thing, but it may be a bridge too far at this stage for councils in their present state.
      I do not want to dwell on amendment No. 7 because my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has made it clear that it was tabled in error perhaps, but it gives us a chance to discuss the question of what we can expect from councils. As the Minister said, there is a difference in the performance of councils. I understand the argument that, in sparsely populated rural areas, it is expensive to collect waste. Nevertheless, may I blow the trumpet of my own local authority, Macclesfield borough council? My house in Cheshire is in the Peak District national park. It is extremely remote as most houses go. It is at the end of a very long and ill kept path. I am still discussing the matter with my neighbour, who will pay for the upkeep of the road that leads to our houses, but the council sends a rubbish truck down that track every week and collects the bags, so it has not used the unreasonably high get-out clause that is already in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is worth asking whether that is a good excuse for councils these days. Since a bit of party politics crept into today's otherwise happy and gentle debate, it is worth pointing out that 80 per cent. of Conservative councils—which tend to cover more rural areas—have separate collections for waste to be recycled, whereas only 50 per cent. of Labour authorities do. Most Labour authorities tend to be metropolitan authorities.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne tabled amendment No. 10, which would require authorities to have to collect just one waste. He has not spoken to the amendment and I would not wish it to be passed; he probably would not either if he was being honest.
      1544
      However, it gives us an opportunity to discuss the costs that this Bill and the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill impose on local authorities.
      The Minister will be aware that there is already substantial criticism that the Government do not cover the costs that local authorities incur in meeting the targets and obligations that Parliament imposed on them. There has been an increase in the environmental protective and cultural services block of the standard spending assessment, but the Minister will be aware that that does not cover only waste, but matters such as flood defences, libraries and emergency planning, a subject to which over the last year or two councils have devoted much more energy.
      Councils are struggling to meet the extra responsibilities and costs caused by a range of environmental obligations such as abandoned cars and fridges. We also have the implications for composting of the animal by-products order, which authorities must take into account. We should pause when considering the amendment and the costs that we impose on councils.
      It is unfair that high-performing authorities get a raw deal out of the system. They get much less financial support than low-performing authorities and are set harder and more ambitious targets. They have proved that they can perform well, but the system acts as a curious disincentive to perform well if one gets less support while being urged to go further. We should be focusing our ambitious targets on the poorer-performing authorities.
      I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 4, 11, 5, and 12, the contradictory amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends. I suspect that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford would be tempted to accept amendment No. 4 if she had a free hand. Friends of the Earth—which has done a great job in helping her prepare the Bill—would have supported the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, but fears that Government support for the Bill would be withdrawn. We would probably find the Minister giving a lengthy speech and, perhaps, the hon. Member for Hendon doing likewise if we accepted the amendment.
      Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman will know that before I adopted this Bill, there was a draft Bill from Friends of the Earth that included the date of 2010. We all have aspirations to do more and faster, but 2010 is realistic.
      Mr. George Osborne: I suspect that 2010 is what we will get. I was just pointing out that some of us would be keen to accept amendment No. 4 if we had an assurance that the Government would then support the Bill.
      The amendments draw attention to the question of how ambitious the Government are, and whether they can achieve the relatively ambitious targets that they have set themselves. In the original Bill, there was a 50 per cent. target for the recycling of municipal waste by 2010. The Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), said on Second Reading:
      "The Government as a whole are not persuaded of the practicality of delivering a 50 per cent. target, given that resource allocations beyond the spending review of 2002 have not yet been determined."—[Official Report, 14 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 573.]

      1545
      I suspect that the purpose of the amendments is to tease out just how confident the Government are of meeting their recycling targets. As the Minister is more than aware, the Government want us to recycle or compost 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005, 30 per cent. by 2010 and 33 per cent. by 2015. However, the DEFRA-commissioned review of the UK landfill tax, which was published last year, found that a quarter of local authorities are likely to miss the statutory recycling targets by 2005–06. And this year's report by the Environmental Audit Committee—I probably speak for everyone in saying that the Committee has done a very good job in examining this entire issue—concludes that the UK will not come close to meeting any of the national targets for recycling, and that the 2010 and 2015 targets set by the Government will be missed by "a wide margin".
      12.45 pm
      In discussing these amendments, it is worth considering whether the Government are capable of meeting their recycling targets. Perhaps they should accept amendment No. 4 if they are to have a realistic prospect of meeting their overall targets.
      Sue Doughty: I shall not speak at length as I am aware that there is another Bill to debate, and I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that I do understand the purpose of amendments. I support what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has said and I congratulate her on her work so far on the Bill. Although, as we all accept, it is not what we wanted, it is much better than nothing. Even though we are talking about collecting two sorts of waste, rather than four, that still constitutes progress. As she pointed out, because of the economics involved in collecting two types of waste, it will hopefully lead to the collection of three, four, five, six or even seven types. The principle of separate collection that she has so strongly established will make a great difference, and she has done a tremendous job in making so much progress. I look forward to the Bill's becoming law.
      I have some sympathy with certain of the amendments and new clauses, particularly new clause 3, which deals with garden waste. In a perfect world, all of us would say yes to compost bins and the use of green cones every Saturday; we would do things neatly, turn over our composting heaps and everything would be all right. But the reality is that, despite the extent to which councils have promoted such approaches—Guildford council has promoted them, and it, too, has had its composting champions over the years—a lot of garden waste ends up in dustbins, black plastic bags and landfill. That is unacceptable. If a council chooses to dispose of it in that way, we might say that that is not really what we want, and that we could have different, more imaginative schemes. Such issues are for a particular council to determine. A suburban London borough that has lots of trees and small gardens and generates lots of garden waste, but which has little opportunity to dispose of it, must decide what to do. The council concerned could say, "We will sell you a green bag for £1" and recover the cost; that would be a matter for it. The Guildford pilot examined the question of whether such bags should be provided free, or charged for. It considered the different options and how they would impact on councils.
      1546
      So, although I have a lot of sympathy for the intention behind new clause 3, I agree with those who have said today that in practice, councils must be able to make up their own minds about how they deal with this problem, which will get worse as the level of building increases across the country, particularly in the south-east. Higher housing densities and smaller gardens will leave less room for this sort of activity. But the most important point is to encourage householders to accept responsibility for the products that they use, to reduce use of products that go for disposal, and to ensure that they are disposed of in the most appropriate way.
      We have heard about plastics recycling, which Guildford has been doing for some while. When I visited Delleve Plastics, which was mentioned earlier, I realised that there were major issues about how that industry has priced the cost of the waste streams. Now that he is aware of the issue, I strongly urge the Minister to take it up and examine the underlying factors that affect the plastics recycling market. He could learn why it is cheaper to import from Belgium. It would be better to balance the books by using our own plastics.
      The Government need to do much more in respect of a Bill on waste management. The Liberal Democrats have called for a comprehensive waste Bill. We accept that, at this stage, we have the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill and the Household Waste Recycling Bill—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are dealing with a particular group of amendments, but her remarks are more appropriate to a Third Reading debate, which we have not yet reached.
      Sue Doughty: I thank you for, and respect, your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Returning to the group of amendments, I support the objective of achieving recycling by 2010—the Bill's targets. I was surprised to hear that there appears to be some doubt about it. Those who have studied the issue at length and examined the targets placed on local authorities have sought to clarify how we achieve success. We do not want failure; we want success. I do not support the amendments, but the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Leigh: The whole House owes a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for tabling the new clause and amendments, because it has given us an opportunity to debate the issues in greater depth. It is particularly important for the House to debate how local authorities will meet their obligations under the Bill. My main concern is about garden waste and the date at which the provisions will become operative.
      I am also concerned that what may be easy to carry out in an urban environment such as Lewisham could be very difficult in a rural environment such as West Lindsey. I know that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) will acknowledge that she represents a tightly knit urban borough, perhaps 2 square miles, whereas I represent a constituency of 600 square miles. There are about 72 constituencies in London, but my constituency is about the same size as the whole of Greater London. The potential duties placed by the Bill on local authorities are enormous. As I

      1547
      have already said, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has done the House a service by proposing amendments, but I do not want the Bill to become any more prescriptive or descriptive than it already is. We have to allow considerable latitude to local authorities in meeting their obligations under the Bill.
      The issue of garden waste sums up the whole problem. It may be appropriate, as the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) said, for local authorities in an urban or suburban environment to collect garden waste, but I do not believe for a moment that it is appropriate for a rural environment in which people have much larger gardens and are far more aware of how to compost. People can put their grass cuttings in a pile in the corner of the garden without much difficulty. In that sort of environment, no rural authority wants to place on itself a duty to collect garden waste. In an area such as West Lindsey in Lincolnshire, that would be absurd. It will not happen there, but, as I said, it may be more appropriate for urban or suburban areas where there are smaller gardens, lots of trees and people stuff bits of branches and leaves into ordinary black bin bags.
      Local authorities have to given the freedom to decide. I am concerned about the Bill, particularly after listening to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford. When I intervened earlier, I said that West Lindsey was so starved of resources that it could barely afford to collect the black bin bags from people's houses, which are left at the bottom of the drive. The hon. Lady made the point that local authorities have a duty to go round once a week and collect black bin bags, so it would not be difficult for them, even in rural areas, also to collect a couple of other bags, perhaps containing plastic bottles or textiles. The Minister agreed and suggested that the waste disposal vehicle could have different compartments so that it would not have to go around twice to collect everything. However, it would be an enormous cost to a rural area if it had to re-equip its fleet.
      I do not want to throw too much cold water on the Bill, because we all believe in recycling as a worthy aim. It is ludicrous that such a small percentage of people recycle their waste. Many people, even in rural areas, are conscious of the cost to the environment of all our rubbish going up in smoke or being buried in landfill sites, and they would like to be given the choice. People in my area would like West Lindsey council to collect plastic bottles or whatever separately, and we should leave it to the local authorities.
      The Minister teased me about the lack of sites available in Lincolnshire. We do have an absurd situation, because people have to cross the county border and can be turned away. That demonstrates the resources problems that exist in large rural areas when dealing with waste, which are so much greater than in urban areas. It is important that someone from a rural area can describe to the House some of the difficulties that local authorities face.
      If the amendments are not accepted, we have time to think about the issue before 2010. Local authorities such as West Lindsey or Lincolnshire county council can point to clause 1 and the addition of a new section 45A—specifically subsection (2)(a)—and say that much as they would like to collect such materials, the cost
      1548
      would be unreasonably high. That is a get-out clause that could have various consequences. Either it means that the Bill will have very little effect—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman what I said a moment ago to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). He is referring to a clause that has already been dealt with. We are not on Third Reading yet, and the hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to this group of amendments.
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the amendments will be accepted as probing amendments and will not be pushed to a Division. We must respect the right of rural local authorities to rely on the provision that I just mentioned. They should be able to claim that the cost of collecting the materials would be unreasonably high. I know that my hon. Friend does not wish to push his amendments, and that he wants to leave that provision in the Bill. He is wise to do so. I suspect that many local authorities will rely on it, and it is only fair that they should have the ability to do so.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I shall be brief, because the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford is looking anxiously at the clock. I am pleased to have obtained a reaction to my probing amendments. I received the reaction from the Minister that I wanted—to a degree—and I expected the positive reaction that I received from the hon. Lady. Rural local authorities will feel that the difficulties they face have been recognised, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      MINOR AMENDMENT
      Amendment made: No 1, in page 2, line 32, after "45A" insert", 45B".—[Mr. Morley.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      12.59 pm
      Joan Ruddock: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill is a simple measure but one that I believe will have far-reaching consequences. Our deliberations in Committee produced a final outcome that has overwhelming support not only in the House but in the country at large. I am delighted that the Bill has remained intact today.
      Most people want to contribute to a cleaner and more sustainable environment, and they expect their elected representatives to provide them with a means of doing so. The Bill does exactly that. It places a duty on local authorities to provide for the collection of two separated recyclable materials by 2010. It gives local authorities just seven years in which to bring that about and to introduce this provision for all households. It further places a duty on the Secretary of State to report on progress.
      I thank all those who have helped me to bring the Bill to its final stage, including my local authority, Lewisham; the Local Government Association; the

      1549
      Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee; British Glass; Alupro; the British Paper Federation; Recoup; the Environment Agency; and the Waste and Resources Action Programme. I am sure that there are others that I have not listed.
      My thanks go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who was the responsible Minister for most of the life of the Bill. He played a very constructive role. I also thank the Minister for the Environment for his support today. I thank the civil servants involved and the Committee Clerk, who have been extremely helpful to me in this process.
      I thank as well the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench. Despite a significant number of changes of personnel and some reservations—
      Mr. George Osborne: I have been here all the time.
      Joan Ruddock: Indeed.
      Despite the changes of personnel and some reservations, those on the Opposition Front Bench have consistently supported the principle of the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) for his support today. Similarly, I thank the Liberal Democrats for their constant support and in particular the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) for her support today.
      Thanks are also due to my 11 sponsors for their participation and strong encouragement. I thank my researcher, Heidi Alexander, for taking on all the extra work that a private Member's Bill entails. I thank also Martyn Williams and those in the parliamentary unit at Friends of the Earth, which has made sure that our postbags were constantly full. It obviously organised the most recent e-mail campaign, of which we have heard today and ensured that 360 Members signed the supporting early-day motion, as well as its amendments. The staff there provided me with valuable technical help throughout this process.
      Tackling waste is an environmental imperative, and Britain has lagged behind for far too long. This is our chance to do better. I believe that the Bill will give us all an opportunity to recycle more and to contribute to a more sustainable waste policy in England and Wales, and I commend it to the House.
      1.3 pm
      Mr. Morley: I put on record my thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) for the deft way in which she has negotiated with the Government and steered the Bill through the House. It is complementary to the commitments that we have given through our waste implementation programme. We have to do a great deal more in the UK in reducing waste, and the Bill is an important part of that. I take on board the comments that have been made by bodies such as the Environmental Audit Committee. We take such comments seriously.
      The Committee made the point that we would not meet the targets that we have set given the present rate of increase in recycling. It is increasing, but not at a satisfactory rate. We can change that rate and hit our targets, and I believe that the Bill will help us do that. I
      1550
      genuinely call on all Members, given the connections that they have with local authorities and organisations, to encourage them to take the opportunities that are being presented to them through the Bill, and to reduce waste streams on the basis of sustainability, the damage that is being done to the environment and the need to have a much more sustainable approach in dealing with energy, waste, landfill and incineration.
      1.4 pm
      Mr. George Osborne: I, too, wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on behalf of the Opposition. As I said at the start of our discussions today, she had a choice between, on the one hand, being inflexible and seeing her Bill run into the sand and, on the other, being flexible about a Bill which, we all hope, will become law. I believe that it will make a genuine contribution to all our efforts to increase recycling and reduce landfill.
      Like the hon. Lady, I pay tribute to the organisations that have assisted us, especially Friends of the Earth. I hope that the Bill makes the targets that the Government have set themselves more achievable. As I have reminded the House, the Environmental Audit Committee fears that they will be missed by a wide margin, but let us hope that that margin is a little smaller as a result of the Bill.
      1.5 pm
      Mr. McLoughlin: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on taking the Bill forward. As someone who, in the past, has come fairly high in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I remember the immediate joy, followed by sorrow, as I was inundated by letters from all sorts of organisations on which subject to choose to pursue. A lot of those subjects are worthy, and it is always a difficult choice to make. I therefore congratulate the hon. Lady warmly.
      There is a wide variation in the amount of recycling that is done throughout the country. Daventry holds the record, recycling 44 per cent. of household waste, whereas the average council recycles only 13 per cent. Councils in the north-east have a much poorer record, collecting on average only 6 per cent. of recyclable household waste. Although Daventry's system costs money, it is a fact that waste collection does cost money, which we sometimes overlook. There has been a large recycling factory in my own constituency for many years which recycles 95 per cent. of lead in car batteries. It does an extremely important job, but it faces problems of marketability and profitability when there is a dip in the price of lead. There are difficulties in the economic process of recycling lead when it falls below a certain price.
      The hon. Lady's Bill specifies a time for the introduction of its provisions. Local authorities have an important role to play but the Government, as the Minister accepted, have a major role to play as well in making sure that there is an end use for recycled material. If we can find, end uses, there is no question but that recycling will be successful. I want to underline that,

      1551
      and urge the Government, whose commitment I do not dispute, to redouble their efforts to make sure that markets are found and recycling is practicable. Most people I meet want to recycle their household waste—they do not want it to go into large landfill sites when it could be used for practical purposes.
      I hope that this worthy Bill not only focuses our minds on the issue of recycling but sets us another target. I know that targets are not too popular with the Government at the moment. They are happy for them to be set for everyone else but, having listened to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last week, it seems to me that they want to divorce themselves from their own targets. I hope that the Bill gives the Government a target so that they can redouble their efforts on finding markets so that recyclable material can be used.
      1.9 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). In the 16 ballots in which I have participated since first coming to the House, I have never been placed at all, let alone achieve a position where it is possible to do any good.
      While we support the Bill and its implementation, I hope that it will not be offered as the sole solution to a serious problem. The removal of waste that can be recycled is part of the solution. I still think that there is a great need to focus on reducing the amount of material that is there to be recycled, because that will help to keep down the cost to the council tax payer and taxpayer, and probably keep down the cost to the purchaser of the product in the first place.
      I wish the Bill well. It is a sensible, practical, realistic measure. My only reservation is that there is more to do. I know that when the hon. Lady's Bill is passed, as I am sure it will be, we can count on her not to say that that job is done, but that it is partly done.
      1.11 pm
      Sue Doughty: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on all the work that she has done and the opportunities that she has taken to overcome difficulties and continue when all was despair before us. I also pay tribute to the Minister and his predecessor for accepting that targets would be useful in this case, and for taking away the original
      1552
      targets and saying, "We do not want those targets, but we will not walk away from the Bill. Let's get together and see what we can achieve." That compromise will deliver real success. This is a Bill that we want and desperately need, which will make a real difference to sustainable waste management.
      None of us want incinerators in our constituencies. We all want to see waste reduction, more recycling and much more public awareness of sustainability. The Bill will do much to support the public demand that we do not have incineration.
      I thank all those who have supported the hon. Lady and all of us working with her, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on her work today.
      1.12 pm
      Sir Paul Beresford: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on the Bill and thank her for her tolerance of what she found a little surprising but at least understood. We got an impression of the importance of some matters to certain people a moment ago. That reminded me of some of my local government days, which in turn reminded me that when I first became a councillor recycling was called totting. The first time that I heard the word recycling used by the bin men in south London was when they were caught emptying a large storehouse of fur coats and fashionable gear: on being asked what they were doing they said that it was part of their recycling programme.
      The reality is that the Bill, which I hope completes its passage through Parliament, is another step. We could have gone further and we should have gone further, and I know that the hon. Lady would have liked to have gone further, but she was handcuffed and coupled to the floor by the Minister. That said, I congratulate the hon. Lady and wish the Bill well.
      1.13 pm
      Joan Ruddock: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say a few words. Despite what the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) says, at times I thought that I had the Minister in handcuffs.
      I simply wish to thank all those hon. Members who have attended the debate today for the way in which it has been conducted, and, in anticipation, add my thanks to my noble Friend Baroness Gale who will sponsor the Bill in the other place. I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Female Genital Mutilation Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Female Genital Mutilation Bill
    New Clause 1

      OFFENCE OF ADVOCATING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION
      A person is guilty of an offence if he advocates the practice of female genital mutilation for any reason other than those specified in subsection (2) of section 1.

      For the purposes of determining whether an offence has been committed under this section, it is immaterial whether the advocacy took the form of spoken or written words.

      For the purposes of determining whether an offence has been committed under this section it is immaterial whether there are any religious, cultural or ritual reasons.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.14 pm
      Mr. David Wilshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The events that take place on a Friday morning are many and various, and sometimes debates are held for reasons other than the real purpose of the Bill under discussion. On this occasion, I start by making it clear that the amendments in my name are in no way intended to delay or water down the Bill. I tabled them because I believe that some issues need exploring.
      Before I speak to the new clause, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on choosing a very worthy cause that has the support of the overwhelming majority of people not only in this House, but in the country at large. I have no hesitation whatever in supporting everything in the Bill. These are very serious matters. The Bill deals with what is, sadly, a growing problem in the United Kingdom and a huge problem elsewhere in the world. It is absolutely right that an individual Member should take it up in a private Member's Bill as a cause that needs our urgent attention.
      The various amendments, of which the new clause is the first, are attempts to explore whether even at this stage or in another place, there may be some scope for strengthening the Bill. I can always understand why private Members' Bills generally stop short of going as far as the promoter and probably a lot of other hon. Members would like. If that is so in respect of the amendments, it would be helpful if the hon. Member for Cynon Valley or the Minister could explain the difficulties associated with the various changes that I have proposed. I did so in order that we may discuss them rather than because I desperately want them to be accepted. I think that the underlying principle might be helpful, but if not, I shall seek to withdraw my proposals without hesitation.
      New clause 1 is about advocating the practice of female genital mutilation—or promoting it, if that word is preferred. I tend to be associated with promoting, as I was the hon. Member who introduced what is now known as section 28, which deals with the promotion of homosexuality. Any debate about advocating or
      1554
      promoting is therefore one with which I am horribly familiar, and I know that the matter raises some issues that have to be thought about.
      The Bill's starting point is to make it an offence to carry out any act of female genital mutilation. That is quite right: the act itself is the primary target. Clauses 2 and 3 address the issue of assisting, procuring, helping and so on. That is absolutely right. It is a separate issue to discuss helping and assisting in this country or abroad, so I shall come to that later. However, I wonder why the Bill is silent on advocating the practice with which it deals. One of my amendments focuses on mental health. If mental health is a justification for the practice of female genital mutilation, surely the Bill should take into account somebody who advocates the practice as relating not only to the cultural and ritual reasons to which the hon. Lady already refers, but to religious reasons as well.
      I wonder why the Bill as it stands shies away from any reference to religious justification. I know the sensitivities that are involved, but I have a sense that, if it is not made an offence to advocate, particularly for religious reasons, that this practice enables somebody to be more respectful to their god or guru, it might be possible that, at some stage, somebody will be so mentally traumatised by that advocacy and so committed to the beliefs that are being advocated that the result of it not being possible to go through the procedure will mean that she becomes mentally ill. If that is so, the person who has done the advocating should be caught by the Bill.
      That is the issue that I am raising. I am very conscious of the fact that, if we are to get involved in a debate about advocating or promoting—we can use whichever word is preferred—we will enter into a debate about the freedom of speech. I accept that we could also enter into a debate about the freedom of religion. However, in this country, we have no hesitation in saying that incitement to racial hatred is an offence. In a growing number of situations, freedom of speech is not absolute. There are certain practices that people should not be allowed to advocate; given the seriousness of the problem, this is one such practice.
      New clause 1 tries to strengthen the Bill by bringing another activity into the group of activities that it seeks to stop. It does not in any way affect the others: it has nothing to say about doing or assisting in the act. The Bill could contain a loophole; I am merely trying to close it. I shall be interested to hear the thoughts of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.
      Ann Clwyd: I am grateful for the spirit in which the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is approaching the Bill. I hope that I can assure him that the concern that prompted his new clause is unnecessary, because the criminal law on incitement is sufficient to meet it. To incite any of the prohibited acts in clause 1 would be an offence in common law, even if that incitement had no effect. For the purpose of determining whether a person is guilty of inciting a criminal offence, it does not matter what form the incitement takes, so subsection (2) of the new clause is superfluous. It is not necessary to go beyond what the law of incitement already provides, nor, given the need to protect the fundamental right to freedom of

      1555
      expression guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, would it be appropriate to do so. I hope that in view of that, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): It is not my intention to detain the House, but I wish to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) says about the sufficiency of the criminal law in this area. It does not matter what form the incitement takes, nor even matter whether it has an effect. Inciting any of the prohibited acts in clause 1 would be an offence in common law, as she suggests. Although I appreciate that the motivation of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is to try to improve the Bill, new clause 1 is unnecessary.
      Dr. Jenny Tonge: I, too, appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is approaching the Bill. Perhaps I can put his mind at rest even further by saying that my experience in reproductive health and in international development—I share the latter with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—tells me that the practice is not advocated by religious groups, nor even by particular ethnic groups: that is what makes it so difficult to deal with. It is a practice that has grown up within family groups and village groups; nobody quite knows its origin. If we were to prosecute everyone who encouraged it, we would probably end up with prisons full of grandmothers. That is how the practice is perpetuated. It is important to say at an early stage of our deliberations that it is not a religious or a cultural practice in the sense of being confined to a particular group, but a tradition that has grown up in various parts of the world. It must be regarded as such and dealt with very sensitively; it is certainly not a practice that is publicly advocated.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. If I had suggested that a specific religion advocated the practice, I would be wrong. I hasten to tell the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that I did not intend to give that impression. I have been involved in such issues generally, although not in the specific matter that we are discussing. When considering matters of tradition, where does tradition end and ritual begin? Where does tradition end and cultural activity start? Where do tradition and religion merge? I would not care to reach a conclusion on those questions. I simply say that, in new clause 1, I would be willing to bracket religion with culture, tradition or whatever word the hon. Lady would like to use. As sure as day follows night, somebody will advance a religious argument one day. However, I do not suggest that any religion in the world is currently involved in the practice. I put the record straight on that.
      The experts tell me that the common law of incitement is adequate. Who am I to dispute that? I am not lawyer and if lawyers say that it is adequate, it is all right by me. However, I believe that it was also said that it would be better to use common law than to get involved in article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
      1556
      Perhaps Hansard will bear me out on that. That prompts the question of whether article 10 is justifiable if it allows someone to advocate female genital mutilation. I am not comfortable with that. If it was claimed that it would be better not to pursue the debate on freedom of speech, perhaps we should consider discussing article 10. However, that matter is not before us.
      I am glad that I raised the matter and that I was reassured that it can be tackled in a different way. If that is so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      OFFENCE OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION
      Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 5, leave out "or mental".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, we may take amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (5).
      Mr. Wilshire: Amendment No. 9 would remove a subsection, thereby ruling out a specific defence. I want to make it clear that that is consequential on amendment No. 8. I do not want amendment No. 9 to be considered as a free-standing amendment. It flows from amendment No. 8 and I hope that no one would read anything more into it.
      I am not a doctor or an expert in such matters. I am not involved with psychology or psychiatry. However, over the years, one gets a sense of some of the relevant arguments and issues. Again, to draw out some of the reasoning, amendment No. 8 would remove the justification of carrying out female genital mutilation on the ground of mental health needs.
      I have no difficulty with the argument about physical health needs. The reasons that the Bill sets out are straightforward and sensible. Sadly, there are occasions when the procedure has to be carried out. A doctor is sitting near me and perhaps the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will correct me. However, I accept that there will be occasions, when, with all the good will in the world and the different methods of tackling problems, there is no other alternative for the health and life of the relevant person. That must be a difficult decision for medical practitioners, the relevant person and perhaps the families, but I have no quarrel with that.
      1.30 pm
      There have, however, been occasions on which practices with which we do not agree have been justified on the ground that they were carried out in the interest of the mental health of the person concerned. I sense a loophole there. As I suggested in relation to new clause 1, a girl or woman, or her family, might have considerable pressure brought to bear on them in this regard, on the grounds of ritual, custom, tradition or religion; it does not matter which. They could be told that if they did not do this, they would be letting the family down, letting themselves down or letting their guru down. Whatever the argument might be, I, as a lay person, suspect that there would be a real risk of mental

      1557
      ill health resulting from the repeated pressure and the repeated argument that a person would be a failure because they had not done certain things that we are seeking to make illegal.
      Can the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) reassure me and anyone else who shares my concern that it is possible to have a reason that I can understand as to why mental health could be relevant. I find it difficult to see how, for mental health reasons, a woman could be helped by having part of her genitalia removed. It puzzles me, as a layman, that that should be a justification. If there is a reason why that sort of thing has to be done for mental health purposes, I would bow to that superior judgment and would be happy to withdraw my amendments. For the moment, however, I put this issue in front of the House in order to ask what the mental health justifications are. How can I be certain that this is not a loophole? Would it harm the Bill if this provision were taken out?
      Ann Clwyd: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman. The effect of amendment No. 8 would be that any surgeon carrying out an operation of this kind for which there was a genuine psychological need would be committing a criminal offence. As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment No. 9 is consequential on amendment No. 8.
      Operations that are genuinely necessary for mental health reasons might well be rare, but it would be wrong to criminalise them. That was certainly not Parliament's intention when the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 was passed, and there is no reason to suggest that the intention of this Bill is any different. In particular, we need to allow for the fact that gender reassignment surgery is less rare than it once was. That is a good example of an operation that may be necessary for mental health. The British Medical Association supported that view in guidance issued in 2001. I hope that, in the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
      Paul Goggins: I rise briefly to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said. Surgical operations of this kind carried out for mental health reasons are extremely rare, but there may occasionally be strong grounds for allowing them to be carried out. For that reason, the Government believe that these grounds should be included.
      Dr. Tonge: If the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) would like to see me afterwards, I could give him a whole catalogue of reasons why there might be mental health grounds for carrying out operations on the female genitalia. I understand his reservations, however. We have all heard stories about people having breast operations, for example, with mental health being given as the reason, when it probably should not have been. There are, however, genuine mental health reasons for carrying out operations. I assure him that there is a huge range of female genitalia out there, and sometimes they cause enormous problems, both mentally and physically, but primarily mentally. I want to reassure him that this provision is necessary.
      Mr. Wilshire: Earlier, I had some free advice from a lawyer, which is a rarity. I have enjoyed my free
      1558
      consultation, but I will pass on the offer of free medical advice. There are things in this world that I do not wish to know, and those may be some of them.
      A number of points arise from what has been said. I say to the Minister that I am sure that there are strong grounds. I think that he used that phrase, but I would have found it helpful had he said what they are. To assert that they exist is helpful, but to know what they are would be doubly helpful.
      I am not sure that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) necessarily reassured me as much as I know she was trying to. Again, I am happy to stand corrected, but I am not sure that I buy the argument that it is wrong to criminalise a surgical procedure. I think that that is what she suggested. I would be surprised if there are not surgical procedures that are already made illegal. I think of the abortion legislation. Under certain circumstances, late abortions, as I recall from the debates in the House, are indeed prohibited. That might not be the best example, but I am not sure that I buy the argument that we must not do this because we cannot make surgical procedures criminal offences. I think that we can, and there are occasions when we should. Whether this is one is a different matter.
      The hon. Lady then offered me the fact that gender realignment might be a justification. I tend to understand the term as sex change. I am not sure that I have got into the newspeak on some of those issues, but we shall let that pass. If this procedure is necessary for that procedure, it would be perfectly possible to make the procedure of gender realignment one of the justifications for it not being a criminal offence, rather than using the blanket argument of mental health reasons.
      I do not think that either argument that the hon. Lady offered in itself persuades me that the amendment is not worth pursuing. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who sits on the Liberal Democrat Benches, managed to save the day by saying that a range of other issues gives rise to mental health problems should surgery be necessary. Coming from a medical practitioner, I unhesitatingly accept that. She is an expert, but I ask her to spare me the gruesome details. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      OFFENCE OF ASSISTING A NON-UK PERSON TO MUTILATE OVERSEAS A GIRL'S GENITALIA
      Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).
      The amendment raises the following issue, if I understand the Bill correctly. It will become an offence for somebody going abroad to carry out, assist in or procure—or whatever other phrase the Bill uses—this procedure in respect of UK citizens or people permanently resident here. The only question I would ask is, why stop there?
      Parliament has the power to legislate and say that acts carried out abroad by people who would otherwise be in this jurisdiction can be prosecuted in it. I wonder whether we should be singling out UK citizens and

      1559
      people normally resident here as those we are trying to protect and whether we should be considering the citizens of the world. I am not sure that I would like a distinction to be made in respect of somebody who goes abroad to get involved in this ghastly business, the victim of which might happen to be a Somali rather than a UK citizen. I think that the crime is the same in both cases.
      The only purpose of the amendment, if I have the wording correct, is to say that if anybody goes from this country to get involved in this business elsewhere, it is immaterial who the victim is. We do not seek any restriction that applies only to UK citizens. The Bill's promoter or the Minister may tell me that that is not possible because of how our legal system operates. If that is the justification, I will stand corrected. For the moment, I would like to know why we do not protect foreigners as much as our own people.
      Paul Goggins: I appreciate the strong wish of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) to protect every girl from this procedure. All children should be protected from female genital mutilation, whatever their nationality or residency. It does not necessarily fall to the United Kingdom, however, to legislate to protect all victims outside our jurisdiction, nor is it possible for us to do so. That is why the offence of assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia is restricted to cases in which the victim is a UK national or a permanent UK resident. Without such a restriction, we would be making it an offence to assist any female genital mutilation operation carried out abroad by a person with no connection with the UK, and in which the victim has no connection with it. Restricting application of the clause to victims who are UK nationals or permanent UK residents increases the connection to the UK, and lessens the risk that another state may object to the assertion of extra-territorial jurisdiction by the UK.
      It is, of course, desirable to protect all victims from this dreadful practice, and the Department for International Development supports a range of work throughout the developing world to eradicate female genital mutilation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is a limit to how far the UK can go in this regard, and I ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment.
      Mr. George Osborne: I want to join my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) in teasing out some answers.
      The new offence is intended to cover circumstances in which a family resident in the UK arranges for a girl to be taken overseas for the purpose of an operation of this kind. However, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) probably knows—it has been pointed out by the pressure group Forward—it does not cover those who are newly arrived in Britain. That includes many of those who are most at risk. The group believes that that could give rise to a fundamental inequality in the rights and protections of, for example, African girls in Britain. There could be one rule for those who have gained UK nationality, and another for those awaiting immigration decisions. Forward wants the Bill to be amended so that
      1560
      it offers protection to all girls, irrespective of nationality. I believe that that has been done in other countries, such as Norway.
      We are not talking about all girls everywhere in the world; we are talking about girls in this country who are awaiting immigration decisions and are then taken abroad. I should be interested to hear a response from the Minister or the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand what the Minister said, but I am not sure that it covered the point that I was trying to make. Perhaps I did not make it as clearly as I should have.
      The reply that I received seemed to be that we might be seeking to become involved in acts carried out by foreigners on foreign nationals, which would be extending our attempts to legislate too far. I have no difficulty with that: I would deeply resent, as I hope the Minister would, some other country passing legislation and trying to control what went on in our jurisdiction. The clause that I want to amend, however, relates to a person who
      "aids, abets, counsels or procures a person".
      There is no attempt to say anything about the person carrying out the operation, or the procedure, if that person is not a British subject. There is no attempt to say that a foreigner who is not covered by our laws must not carry it out because we will prosecute that person if he or she does so. I understand clause 3 to refer to a UK citizen, who is prosecutable in this country, who goes abroad and aids, abets, procures or encourages someone else. What concerns me is the act of aiding and abetting, rather than the carrying out of the procedure. I am not sure that I understand what the Minister said about why, if someone who would normally be prosecutable in this country becomes involved in the aiding and abetting—rather than the carrying out—that should be offensive to a sovereign independent state.
      1.45 pm
      Paul Goggins: To try to clarify the position, if the person in this country is the person who is aiding and abetting, they will be open to prosecution. That is the purpose of the legislation. What we are seeking to emphasise is that both the person who is doing the aiding and abetting and the victim need to have that close connection with the United Kingdom—that, in particular in relation to the victim, they must be a citizen of the UK or a permanent resident here.
      Mr. Wilshire: We have sought to take powers to treat certain things done outside this country—for example, acts of terrorism or murder—as prosecutable here. I hope that we will never get to a situation where we say, "We will prosecute you for murder if you carry it out abroad, provided it is a UK citizen whom you murder." I would have thought that where the victim is from was not as important as the Minister wants me to accept, but I do not want the Bill to get bogged down and disappear into a big black hole because of my being somewhat pedantic, as the Minister may see it. I would be grateful if he gave the matter some thought and, if there is anything more useful that he wants to say, wrote to me about it. If he does write to me about it, I am sure that he will put a copy in the Library.
      Paul Goggins: I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the position further. May I

      1561
      respond to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who asked about people newly arrived in this country? Considerable thought has been given to the matter. Of course, those newly arrived in this country who may be subjected to the procedure here would already be covered by existing legislation. We regard it as highly unlikely that someone who has just arrived here who is perhaps seeking asylum will remove themselves or be removed from the country to go to another country where the operation could be carried out, because if they did that, their application for asylum would fall. Therefore, we believe that, in all the circumstances, we have the balance about right.
      Mr. Wilshire: In view of the Minister's offer to write, I do not want to detain the House any longer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT AND GENERAL SAVING
      Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 13, leave out from 'on' to end of line 14 and insert
      'the day after this Act receives Royal Assent.'.
      The House will be relieved to know that this is the last of my amendments. Probably, it is the one that either the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), the promoter of the Bill or the Minister could accept because to me, the layman in all this, it is the obvious thing to do. Clause 8(2) says:
      "This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint."
      It would be out of the spirit of the debate if I were to seek to repeat some of the things that I said earlier on the Ragwort Control Bill. Suffice it to say that I have throughout my 16 years here been deeply suspicious of Governments—all persuasions, I hasten to add for the Minister, if he did not hear me say it before—introducing such provisions. This is not an attack on his Government; it is probably an attack on all Governments. I am deeply suspicious of provisions that say a Government may do something, because experience teaches us that they usually do not. I would prefer "must" or "shall".
      We accept that the Bill is important and addresses a nasty problem that needs urgent action. I do not like the idea that we pass the Bill, it becomes an Act, we all say that it is wonderful, but there is a provision that says that it will take effect only as and when a Secretary of State gets around to saying that it will. I cannot for the life of me think of any good reason why the Bill does not say that it shall come into effect the day after, the day or even the moment that it receives Royal Assent. If it needs doing urgently and addresses a real problem, why not get on with it? Having passed the measure and applauded the hon. Lady, why have a provision saying that we must wait for a Minister, of whatever political persuasion, to do something about it? I should be grateful if the Minister justified why the amendment was not acceptable. If it is acceptable, I hope that he will say that he is happy to accept it.
      Paul Goggins: I understand the desire of the hon. Gentleman to make sure that the Act comes into force
      1562
      as soon as possible, but I hope that I can reassure him. We all want the increased protection that the Bill will bring to be put into place as soon as possible. The disadvantage of the commencement date proposed by the amendment is that it would allow too little time for law enforcement agencies, health professionals, social services and others involved with child protection—and, crucially, the practising communities themselves—to become fully informed about how the new law will operate.
      We take this issue seriously and we know from discussions with those who work with the practising communities that proper time for preparation and raising awareness is crucial. Bringing the Act into force by order means that the implementation period can be used for those agencies to promote the new law and its effects before it comes into force. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will bring the Act into force as soon as is practical. Our aim would be to do so within three months of Royal Assent. It is important that there is flexibility and I hope that, with that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister, who has probably persuaded me of the exact opposite of what he hoped. Only his mention of three months might save us from catastrophe. I am conscious that dividing the House would have the unintended consequence of bringing things crashing to a halt. That is not what I want to do, and that is the real reason why I shall not press the amendment to the bitter end.
      There is an alternative comment to, "We need time to consult." I see a danger of the following happening. Following Royal Assent, people will go out and say, "In three months' time, these activities will be illegal." We will have given people three months' notice to get on with it, and we could have a great campaign and an outbreak of the activities that we are trying to stop. I know why the Minister said that we need time to spread the word, and I know that that is sensible, but there is another way around it.
      It would be more realistic to bring the law into effect and say that we will phase in enforcement over the period of consultation, preparation and explanation, but if anyone were to decide that that was a justification for organising these activities in the period, we would have the means to prosecute them. Doing it the Minister's way has a serious danger. However, three months is three months, and we have that on the record, which is hugely helpful. I shall not press this matter, because it is important. Destroying the Bill is the last thing I want to do, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      1.53 pm
      Ann Clwyd: I beg to move that the Bill be read the Third time.
      I shall be brief, as I have been at the bottom of a pile in this House, waiting to propose a Bill. I thank everybody who has taken part in enabling the Bill to reach this stage. The Bill cannot solve the problem of FGM overnight; legislation on the issue has to go hand in hand with educating the practising communities to abandon FGM and to raise awareness of the law.

      1563
      Neither will it necessarily remove some of the barriers to prosecution. Many of the victims are too young and vulnerable, or too afraid, to report offences because they are under pressure from their families or their communities to remain silent. We must create a climate in which victims will be able to come forward and receive the help and support that they need to give evidence. Increasing the maximum penalty reflects the seriousness with which this appalling practice is viewed and I hope that it will have a greater deterrent effect than the present maximum of five years.
      As the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said in Committee, if the Bill succeeds in sparing even one child or young woman the appalling suffering that FGM causes, it will have been worth while. I therefore commend it to the House.
      1.54 pm
      Paul Goggins: I certainly want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—as, I am sure, do Members on both sides of the House—on the way in which she has steered this Bill through the House of Commons. It is very important legislation and a further example of her efforts to uphold human rights in this country and throughout the world.
      Female genital mutilation is a barbaric practice that is already illegal in this country thanks, I might say, to the pioneering work of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who introduced the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. This practice cannot be justified on cultural, medical or any other grounds. It causes extreme pain and suffering and often leads to permanent health problems. For all of those reasons, the Government have supported the Bill very strongly.
      The extent of the extra-territorial jurisdiction provided for in the Bill is unusual. However, unlike some offences that are illegal in this country but legal abroad, the offence of FGM is of international concern, and the UK has a proper interest in suppressing it. The practice is rightly and widely regarded as a form of child abuse, although those who belong to the communities that practise it may not see it as such. It is right for us to strengthen our law in this way—we simply cannot allow people with a close connection to the United Kingdom to evade the law by temporarily leaving the country.
      Of course, as others have said today and in Committee, legislation alone will not eradicate FGM, which is deeply ingrained in the social fabric of the communities that practise it. Educating them about the dangers and unacceptability of such a brutal practice is the best way to break the cycle of mutilation. That is why the Government support, and help to fund, organisations
      such as Forward and the Agency for Culture and Change Management, which do such valuable work at grass-roots level. And as I have already said, the Department for International Development also funds and supports work to eradicate FGM in other countries.
      Alongside education, we need to promote greater awareness of the law. Between Royal Assent and the legislation's being brought into force, health professionals and others will work with those communities that practise FGM in order that they become aware of its provisions.
      1564
      I conclude by renewing my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley on bringing the Bill this far. I commend it to the House and I hope that its passage through another place will be equally successful.
      1.57 pm
      Mr. George Osborne: I, too, take this opportunity, on the Opposition's behalf, to congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). She has had a pretty memorable 12 months in this place—indeed, I saw her on television the other day, being awarded the prize for Back Bencher of the year. That was for other things, but I hope that she will also remember the past 12 months for this Bill and what she is seeking to achieve through it.
      I want briefly to acknowledge the work members of the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health—which includes people from both sides of the House—under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty). That group has been particularly active in lobbying on this issue. And I join the Minister in once again congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who first brought this issue to the House's attention in 1985.
      Before I finish I want briefly to discuss one point. Of course, there have been no prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985—although two doctors have been struck off the register—so we must ask whether the Bill will lead to an increased likelihood of successful prosecutions in this country. There are already great difficulties in communicating the law to immigrant communities and in taking action to protect girls from this practice. An increase in the maximum penalty or the creation of new offences will be academic if knowledge is poor and prosecution remains almost impossible to obtain.
      In general, however, we very much welcome the Bill, which provides a valuable opportunity to improve the protection of girls and women in the UK. The House's handling of it is a welcome reflection of this issue's importance and the seriousness with which it deserves to be treated. I commend the Bill to the House.
      1.59 pm
      Dir. Tonge: The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Bill. On behalf of all health and social services professionals in this country, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for choosing this issue when she won the ballot for a private Member's Bill. The subject has exercised many people for the last 20 years and the problem has escalated during that time. As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, I hope that the Bill will lead to prosecutions. Only by that means will we manage to highlight the problem. I thank the hon. Lady—and everyone else who has helped to pilot the Bill through the House—from the bottom of my heart.
      2 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: I, too, will be brief, because we have other business to consider. Having perhaps worried the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) by my amendments, I would like to take the opportunity to

      1565
      congratulate her on performing a huge service to all political parties and the whole House. She has helped this country to give a lead to other countries to take firm action against what the Minister described as a "barbaric practice"—I could not think of a better phrase myself. It is indeed extremely barbaric.
      On the number of prosecutions to which the Bill will lead, I would like to think that just one prosecution will get the message out pretty firmly and pretty smartish. If this practice continues, I certainly hope that there will be one prosecution and, if it continues after the first, I hope that there will be lots more prosecutions. We must take action; we must prosecute; we must send out the message. On the issue of the appropriate penalty, I was relieved that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) did not press his amendment to reduce it, because I would have been forced to debate whether 14 years was adequate. I accept the hon. Lady's wisdom on that.
      The Bill is, sadly, necessary, and it is timely. I commend the hon. Lady and I commend the Bill to the other place. The quicker it gets on the statute book, the better.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      Retirement Income Reform Bill
      As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
    New Clause 2

      DEFINITION OF "DEPENDANT" AND "SURVIVING SPOUSE"
      '(1) Section 630(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (definitions) is amended as follows.
      (2) After the definition of "authorised insurance company" there is inserted—
      ""dependant" means—

      a child of the member who is under the age of 18;

      a child of the member who is aged 18 or over and who is continuing to receive fulltime education;

      a person who is financially dependant on the member; and

      a person who is dependant on the member by reason of disability."

      At the end there is inserted—
      ""surviving spouse", in relation to a member, means a person to whom the member was married at the time of his death.".'.—[John Healey.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      John Healey: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on piloting the Bill thus far through he House. However, as I explained in Committee last week, the Government cannot accept—in principle or in practice—some of the provisions in the Bill, and some issues remain to be dealt with. I therefore propose new clause 2 and associated Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: I am acutely aware of the time constraints that face us this afternoon, though one resulting joy is that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) will not be able to speak for two and a half hours. The Minister need not explain the new clause and corresponding amendments at great length, because I accept them.
      John Healey: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for indicating his acceptance at this stage. I shall not develop my argument to the extent that I could, but a couple of important points need to be made to enhance the House's understanding.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) accepts the Government new clause and amendments, but ultimately they are a matter for the House and at some stage of the debate I want to raise some of my concerns about the amendments. I therefore hope that the Minister will outline the amendments in a little more detail.
      John Healey: I shall certainly outline them, but I would not want to prevent my hon. Friend from

      1567
      expanding on his concerns. He demonstrated on Second Reading the detailed study that he has given to the Bill and his detailed concerns about some aspects of it.
      The new clause inserts definitions of "dependant" and "surviving spouse" into the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. I propose the new clause because, although the Bill purports to be about setting a minimum retirement income for members of personal pension schemes so that they do not have to rely on state support, it is also important to think about the spouses and dependants of the scheme member, once he or she has died. The risk is that they would suffer the very real disadvantages that the Bill would impose just as much as the scheme members. In essence, the Bill would wipe away the rule that says that by age 75 all pension funds built up with the benefit of tax relief, other than the tax-free lump sum, must be used to provide a secure income for the whole of a person's remaining retirement. Instead it would require people with personal pensions to buy an index-linked annuity by age 65 of at least a minimum amount to be specified annually by order. The Bill would allow any funds not used to buy such an annuity to remain tax free in a retirement income account—or RIA. It would allow unrestricted access to the funds of the RIA at any time and the ability to pass residual funds on death to the annuitant's estate. That in a nutshell is what the Bill would do.
      While the Government agree that pension annuities deserve wider debate, the proposals in this Bill are not the way forward. They would help only a minority of the better-off, and they would also seriously disadvantage the vast majority of people in personal pension schemes, and their dependants, who are saving for their retirement. That is an extremely important point that is consistently glossed over by the Bill's proponents.
      Mr. Howard Flight rose—
      John Healey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been a staunch proponent of the Bill and of a wider debate on annuities. I pay tribute to him for that, because he brings great expertise from his previous professional life and his time in the House to the issues.
      Mr. Flight: I thank the Minister for his kind comments. The pensions Green Paper contains a commitment to end the obligation to buy an annuity by 75. Much discussion has taken place within the pension industry on what would happen then, but can the Minister confirm that that undertaking represents a commitment from the Government to address the issue and end the enforced—and outdated—obligation to buy an annuity?
      John Healey: I can confirm what is in the Green Paper and—as I indicated earlier—the Government's commitment to a full and wide debate on the future of annuities, but I cannot confirm the detail of what proposals we will make. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the nature of a Green Paper and the issues deserve wider debate, but the detail of this Bill is not the place for that debate.
      1568
      The hon. and learned Member for Harborough said in Committee that
      "just because we cannot help everybody that does not mean that we should not help anybody."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 2 July 2003; c. 20.]
      Of course, if the proposals merely helped some people and left others as they were they might be less objectionable, but the fact is that the main effect of the Bill would be to take away people's choices as to what type of annuity to buy and when to buy it. Instead of increasing choice and freedom—the principles on which the Bill's proponents, including the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), argue their case—it would force the vast majority of people to use the whole of their pension funds, after the tax-free lump sum had been taken, to buy an annuity at age 65 and not by age 75 as the current rules require. Furthermore, it would force them to buy only an index-linked annuity, thus restricting the flexibility and choices that people currently have when deciding when and what kind of annuity to buy. Spouses and dependants of the annuitant would of course suffer indirectly as a result of those impositions.
      Mr. Barry Gardiner: It is on the issue of dependants that I seek clarification from the sponsor of the Bill or from my hon. Friend the Minister. I probably cost the Treasury rather more than I had anticipated when I went to the Vote Office and asked for a copy of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Given its size, I now appreciate how much work hon. Members did in previous years. We thought that we were hard done by on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the number of clauses—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is making an intervention, not a speech.
      Mr. Gardiner: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance. I shall stick to the point.
      The new clause reads:
      "After the definition of 'authorised insurance company' there is inserted—"
      Will my hon. Friend clarify whether the part of section 630(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 comes after the words "authorised insurance company", or whether it comes after the following two paragraphs, (a) and (b), because that would seem to conflict with the numbering within the amendment? It is an extremely technical point, but I think that it requires clarification.
      John Healey: As my hon. Friend says, it is a highly technical point. I undertake to reflect on the issue. If my hon. Friend will accept that, I shall be happy to deal with the matter in detail once I have had a chance to reflect on the point.
      I shall not develop my arguments as I might have done in other circumstances because I want to give the hon. and learned Member for Harborough time to respond.

      1569
      The new clause does what currently tax legislation does not do, which is to define the terms "dependant" and "surviving spouse". Nowhere in legislation are these definitions laid down. At present, the Revenue uses discretionary powers in guidance notes for both personal and occupational pension schemes. In principle, the Revenue's proposals for simplifying the tax regime mean that it is moving towards a single and simpler set of rules covering all sorts of pension arrangements. The rules imposed by the Revenue under these discretionary powers are to be minimised, and in principle that must be right.
      The Bill gives us the opportunity to take a step in that direction by defining "dependant" and "surviving spouse" for pension purposes. It also gives us the opportunity, but I do not propose to take it up now, to consider the consequences in terms of the provisions in the Bill. Suffice it to say that new clause 2 is simply designed to import current definitions into the taxes Act. It is intended to maintain the status quo until any wider changes are announced. I have in mind particularly the consultation document that was issued last month by hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions on the new legal status for civil registered partners—same sex partners. To be clear, that is not to say that unmarried partnerships will not be able to benefit under the current pension rules. As things stand, an unmarried partner of either sex can qualify for a survivor's pension if they were financially dependent on the scheme member at the time of his or her death.
      To go further at this stage, as some propose, to try to provide an automatic pension for the surviving partner in the way that a widow's or widower's pension is provided for now, poses serious challenges that I do not propose to deal with now, and which need to be discussed and developed elsewhere. The new clause is designed to clarify things as they stand. Until a clear-cut alternative to a formal marriage is introduced such as the proposed civil registration, I see no alternative to defining "spouse" as the person to whom the scheme member is married, and "surviving spouse" as the person to whom the scheme member was married at the time of their death.
      I turn briefly to amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The Bill makes it compulsory for the annuity benefit that a personal pension scheme must provide to be not less than the minimum retirement income that is set under clause 2. Of course, while the Bill attempts to keep the personal pension scheme member off state benefits, it would do nothing for the member's spouse or dependants. There is no provision to prevent spouses or dependants falling back on the state because there is no requirement that they should be provided for out of the minimum retirement income annuity. At present, most annuitants would want to, and do, provide for their spouses and dependants through, for example, joint life annuities.
      Mr. Gardiner: I hate to raise the issue of Jeffrey John in the Chamber because it has been much discussed in another place, but the issue prompts me to ask what is the definition of a dependant person, and would it
      1570
      include same-sex partners. It appears from the definitions that have been set out in the Bill that it would not be covered under the Bill as it is drafted.
      John Healey: Generally, such definitions, as my hon. Friend will be aware, are a matter for the scheme's trustees and administrators. Generally, the Revenue does not seek to impose such terms on schemes. If Reverend John was interested in those issues, the definition would depend on the provider with whom he or his partner had annuities.
      Finally, the correct level for the minimum retirement income annuity is subject to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), which we may or may not reach shortly, so I do not propose to rehearse the arguments on that. Assuming that the Bill could be made to work, Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3 extend the Bill's underlying principle by requiring the minimum retirement income annuity to continue after the scheme member's death to his or her surviving spouse or dependant. The amendments would result in the annuity to the surviving spouse being set at 100 per cent. of the scheme member's annuity. That is logical, and would ensure that the surviving spouse stays off state support.
      2.15 pm
      Where there are sufficient funds, it is right that they should be used for both the scheme member's pension and the pension of any surviving spouse. Although we have made plain our reasons for opposing the thrust of the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee, and I hope, this afternoon, its form remains largely the same as when it was first introduced. That being so, it should at least work properly and logically in accordance with its purported underlying principle. It would certainly not be right for a scheme member to secure his own minimum income retirement annuity, then remove the residual fund at will, leaving his spouse or dependants unprovided for after his or her death. On that basis, I commend Government new clause 2 and Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to the House.
      Mr. Garnier: In view of the time that is left, I am under no illusions about what will happen to the Bill. There is absolutely no need for the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) or the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), the two Friday boys who turn out to do the Government's business on these occasions, to get overexcited. In the past, we have had plenty of opportunities in their absence to have fruitful and intelligent discussions about the policy behind the Bill and its details. I congratulate the Minister on what he said in Committee and this afternoon—unlike his hon. Friends, he has approached our deliberations constructively.
      I will acquit the hon. Members for Brent, North and for Hendon to a certain extent, because I largely agree with the amendments that they have tabled today. Indeed, I largely agree with the Government new clauses amendments that we are discussing. Of course, it is open to Government Back Benchers to engineer a sterile final few moments in the Bill's life, and no doubt their pensioned constituents will thank them for the line that they have taken on the Bill over the past few months. I

      1571
      am pleased that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is in the Chamber—his private Member's Bill has already received the treatment that the Government usually give to private Members' Bills that are designed to ameliorate pensioners' position.
      A delegation from ASW—Allied Steel and Wire—is in the Palace of Westminster today. The plight of those people and many others whose companies have failed to deliver on their pension promises is something that all of us in the House should be concerned about, irrespective of our party allegiances. I welcome the Government's constructive amendments and the way in which the issue behind the Bill has at last received attention from the Treasury. It is undoubted that the pensions crisis exists and that it is growing. Other than the issues that the Government face over weapons of mass destruction, the pensions crisis is probably the biggest political issue with which the Government, as the governors of this country, and we, as politicians, must cope.
      Mr. Frank Field: Given that my hon. and learned Friend has sympathy for the new clause and the amendments, would it not be proper for the Government to respond by adopting his Bill and my Bill, and to say that they will work them into a new form? That would at least send out a clear message that they believe that there is a pensions crisis and that they are trying to grapple with it—they have failed to grapple with it up to now.
      Mr. Garnier: I could not agree more. My Bill is the third Bill on this subject, and I make no claims for originality. Until my Bill came out of Committee last week, it was identical to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). As far I can tell, it is little different from that promoted a little while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).
      The Government cannot have been taken by surprise by either the policies behind my Bill or the thrust of the Bill of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. They cannot have been taken by surprise by the growing fears for their future prosperity of those who are already of or who are about to enter pensionable age. Those matters have been on the table for months and months, and they are getting worse.
      The hon. Member for Brent, North almost begged for congratulation on having gone to the Vote Office to get the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, which is a large volume. He would have been derelict in his duty as a parliamentarian if he had not gone and got the 1988 Act, which my Bill would amend. It is not a matter for congratulation but a matter of common sense that he went to get it. I trust that Government Members—this was their job on 7 March on Second Reading—have taken the time to study the 1988 Act and to interweave it with my Bill to allow them fully to understand the issues that we are discussing.
      I shall end my remarks because I want to hear what the Minister has to say about the succeeding Government amendments. Because I suspect that I shall
      1572
      not have another opportunity to address you on this subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say in advance that I have no quarrel with new clause 3.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even at this late stage, the hon. and learned Gentleman should not stretch the rules of order to the extent of discussing amendments that are not in this group.
      Mr. Garnier: I merely seek to engage in the same constructive behaviour as the Minister, who has taken that approach since he took charge of the Bill a little while ago.
      I am acutely aware that we are in the last six minutes of the Bill's life. I want to take the opportunity offered by the discussion on the new clauses and amendments to thank all those, including the Minister, who have supported me in getting the Bill this far. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) for his hard work and, indeed, the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. I also want to thank the Retirement Income Reform Campaign, which has given me sterling support on both the technicalities of the Bill and the wider policy issues. Without its support, the Bill would not have got this far.
      In conclusion on this group of amendments, the ideas behind the Bill are ones that the Government must come to terms with, and they must do so very quickly. They have no time to waste. I suspect that between now and November, when I assume that the next Session will begin, the Treasury will need to do a great deal of work to produce the detail of a pensions law that incorporates not only the ideas in this Bill and that of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, but some of the other matters discussed in the discussion papers that the Government have produced over the past few months, and to announce in the Queen's Speech a Bill that deals with the same matters. It is no good the Government saying, "We are looking at this and consulting on it." They have had plenty of time to do that and the time has now come for action.
      If the Government introduce early in the next Session a Bill that takes up the points that I have made, as well as those made by the right hon. Gentleman, I shall be prepared to wish them a degree of good will in dealing with this aspect of public policy. On the other hand, if they allow the issue to dry up and wither on the vine, hundreds and thousands of pensioners in this country, as well as the hundreds and thousands of others who will inevitably become pensioners, will reward the Government in the usual way at the next election. I am not suggesting that my Bill alone will be the undoing of this Government, but it is symbolic of a need for them to open their mind, relax and be prepared to take on ideas that come from outside the Treasury.
      Retirement income reform is a vast subject and I accept that it is perhaps not always adequately dealt with by Opposition Back-Bench Bills. None the less, the thrust of my Bill and that of the right hon. Gentleman lies in ideas that are worthy of support. They are worthy of constructive support, as well as constructive thought—something that I fear has not always been given to the Bill. It was certainly not given on Second Reading by some of the Minister's hon. Friends.

      1573
      On that basis, I shall sit down and prepare to wind up the funeral band.
      Mr. Dismore: Obviously, I am not going to talk for two and half hours in this debate. I think the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has probably shot my fox in his last remarks in terms of trying to develop my arguments effectively. I say to him that the only reason why I had to speak at such length in our previous debate was that he did not introduce the Bill properly. I did so not because I was doing the Government's bidding, as he suggested in the personal attack on me that he made at the start of his speech. I have taken a great interest in the issues with which the Bill deals as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and of its predecessor. Indeed, I have been a member of that Committee for five years or more. I was very concerned that the Bill was inadequate. If he had addressed some of the arguments that I advanced in that two-and-a-half hour speech, we might have been able to make rather more progress. As I recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you called me to order once for quoting some lengthy figures, but I think that the rest of my remarks were in order.
      Mr. Garnier: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that, no matter what he intended on that previous occasion, the impression that he inevitably gave was entirely contrary to the expressions that he has just given to the House?
      Mr. Dismore: I can only respond by saying that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced his Bill properly, developed the arguments at length and dealt with some of the issues when they had arisen in debates on similar Bills, we might not have had to spend so much time on the detail. None the less, as I said last time, I am wholly in favour of annuity reform. My concern is that the Bill is simply not the appropriate vehicle. If I may express some agreement with the hon. Gentleman, I hope that the Government will make their own proposals very soon, preferably in the Queen's Speech, to introduce proper annuity reform.
      On new clause 2, I have some concerns about the definition of "dependant".
      Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend said that he hoped that the Government would introduce their own reforms in the next Session. If they fail to do so, may we ask him to adopt the pose of a Trappist monk and remain silent when others of us are trying to push through pension reform?
      Mr. Dismore: The answer is that I shall take any Bill as it comes. If the Bill is adequate, I will not have to say anything. If it is woefully defective, as the Bill before us has been during the previous attempts of the Conservative party, I will make the contribution that I should make and point out those defects.
      On the meat of new clause 2, I am very concerned about the definition of "dependant". I can illustrate that point in a number of different ways. My first concern is the reference to "a child of the member". A little while ago, in my previous life, I had to represent a family who had been bereaved by the Zeebrugge ferry disaster. The father and the mother had both been killed. The mother had children by a previous marriage who had not been
      1574
      formally adopted by the father. The net result was that although the father had assumed financial responsibility for those children, they were not technically his children in law or by blood. That created an enormous series of anomalies that had to be corrected in the courts—
      It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

      HIGH HEDGES (NO. 2) BILL
      Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
      Further considered.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read the Third time on Friday 14 November.

      FOOD JUSTICE STRATEGIES BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Not moved.

      ANIMALS (ELECTRIC SHOCK COLLARS) BILL
      Order for Second reading read.
      Hon Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.

      FOOD LABELLING BILL
      Order read for resumed debate on Question [7 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 November.

      STREET FURNITURE (GRAFFITI) BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

      MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND DENTISTS (PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE INSURANCE) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.

      DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE (REFERENDUM) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 21 November.

      FISHERY LIMITS (UNITED KINGDOM) AMENDMENT BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
      CONSUMER PROTECTION (UNSOLICITED E-MAILS) BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
      CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER FOR ENGLAND BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
      PENSIONER TRUSTEES AND FINAL PAYMENTS BILL.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

      GREENBELT PROTECTION BILL
      Order read for resumed debate on Question [13 June], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 November.

      COMPANY DIRECTORS (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
      DISABLED PEOPLE (DUTIES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES) BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
      HARBOURS BILL [LORDS]
      Read a Second time, and committed.

      CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 21 November.

      PENSIONS (WINDING-UP) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Mr. Frank Field: As the Government have again blocked the Bill on pension reform, I ask for 21 November, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      To he read a Second time on Friday 21 November.

      HOUSING (OVERCROWING) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.

      HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (OFFENCES) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.

      FOOD COLOURING AND ADDITIVES BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.

      ROAD SAFETY BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.

      AVIATION HEALTH BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.

      PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN (PROHIBITION) BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
      EMERGENCY BROADCASTING SYSTEM BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

      TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (RAILWAYS) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 21 November.

      EQUALITY BILL [LORDS]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

      LOCAL COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 21 November.

      CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 September.

      GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.

      HOUSE OF LORDS (EXCLUSION OF HEREDITARY PEERS) BILL
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been informed that, although the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) destroyed the last chance of the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill becoming law, he will not be identified in Hansard. Is that correct? If so, is it in keeping with transparency and openness in the House?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am guided entirely by the rules of order of the House. I cannot alter those instantly. Hansard will show what it has traditionally shown.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that a Minister blocked Bills 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32 and 33?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can say only that Hansard will show what Hansard will show.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for Hansard to record that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who shuttled between his Front-Bench and Back-Bench responsibilities, objected to the Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill, which is important in setting proper penalties for health and safety offences? Will it also show that he objected to the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, which I promoted, and would have made important reforms to admission procedures to the civil service, especially for those from ethnic minorities?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not stray into discussing Bills that we have covered. Any hon. Member has the right to object.

      Greater Anglia Rail Franchise
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
      2.38 pm
      Bob Russell: My previous dealings with the Minister suggest that we agree about very little, but I have confidence that we shall be in complete agreement on my opening remarks.
      The privatisation of the railways by the Conservative Government was a disaster. It was a shambles. Public assets were sold off with gay abandon, no regard to their worth and total disregard for the well-being of the railway industry and its passengers.
      A once proud industry, which generations of dedicated railway men and women built up over many decades, was split asunder and fragmented. Where once was unity of purpose, there are now 101 or so companies. There is no longer joined-up thinking in service provision. The same applies to maintenance; there is a belief that safety standards are not what they used to be.
      Each company apparently has an interest in only its compartment of the industry, with a prime objective of securing dividends for shareholders, ahead of the public service ethos that existed hitherto.
      We were told that privatisation would bring sweeping benefits to the industry and to the travelling public. I have seen no sign of them. If I compare the publicly-owned British Rail of the early 1970s—when I was a daily commuter from Colchester to London—with the rail service of today, I can see that it has not got any better in those 30-plus years. I use the train to travel between my Colchester constituency and London. I am a politician who practises what he preaches. I believe in public transport and I use it—unlike most Ministers, it has to be said. But are the railways a truly public service? The train operating companies are owned by shareholders, not by the public through state or local authority ownership. They are private companies that the public use, in the same way that Tesco and Sainsbury are private companies whose shops are used by the public. So can we please drop the misnomer "public transport"? The accurate description is "transport for public use".
      Many of us, including the real Labour MPs, would like to see the railways—and our once-proud municipal bus transport undertakings, for that matter—brought back into public ownership, at which point they could again be truthfully described as public transport. Alas, six years down the line, there is no indication that new Labour has that as an objective. The Government's only solution to what they acknowledge is a problem is to reduce the number of train operating companies. How that will galvanise the industry and provide a better service is not clear, but the Government want to give the impression that they are doing something.
      So we are faced with the continuation of a privatised railway. At this point I will admit—perhaps uniquely, given what I hear is happening elsewhere in the country—that for the people living in the areas centred on Colchester and Ipswich there has been one advantage from privatisation: namely, that it has resulted in more

      1579
      services from two companies, First Great Eastern and Anglia, both of which serve that part of East Anglia. But will this be the case when, instead of two competing privately owned companies, there is a one-company private monopoly? A public monopoly is one thing, but I suggest that a private monopoly is not in the public interest.
      How long will it be before rationalisation—a euphemism for cuts—results in a reduction in the number of services between Colchester and London? Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee today that the number of trains running from my town into the capital will not be reduced? If not, what possible advantage is there for rail customers in my constituency if the only benefit that might have accrued from privatisation is lost? Accepting, albeit reluctantly, that public ownership of the railways is not on the Government's agenda, we are simply left with a dog's breakfast being served up differently.
      Like it or not, the good people of East Anglia are to be served by one privatised monopoly railway company. However, the public in general, and rail passengers in particular, are not being allowed any say in who that company should be—quite the reverse, in fact. Although the public have indicated overwhelmingly their desire for one of the existing companies to be considered to operate the new Greater Anglia franchise, their views have been arrogantly ignored by the Strategic Rail Authority, a quango operating without any remit to provide the public, whose interests it purports to serve, with an objective assessment of what it does and its reasons for doing it.
      Can the Minister say how much influence, if any, the Department for Transport has on the Strategic Rail Authority? To whom is the SRA answerable? Is there a democratic process that requires it to operate within the democratic framework of the United Kingdom when it comes to the parcelling out of railway franchises? Or are those who run the SRA a law unto themselves, as appears to be the case? Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the SRA has complied with the spirit and letter of the directions and guidance given by the Secretary of State—in particular, section 6.10, which covers value for money, and section 10.5, which deals with the criteria for replacement franchises?
      I hold no brief for First Great Eastern. I am not saying that, as the largest of the three operating companies currently running trains in the region, it should automatically be given the new single Greater Anglia franchise. But what I and thousands of other rail users are saying is that it is completely unfair that the SRA has banished First Great Eastern from the shortlist. Everyone is asking why that should be the case. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us; the Strategic Rail Authority has refused to do so.
      First Great Eastern is the best-performing train operator in London and the south-east. It is also the only franchise in the region not receiving public support, having turned a £40 million a year subsidy into a £10 million a year premium to the Government. The latest report from the London Transport Users Committee shows that First Great Eastern achieved the best punctuality and reliability score of all operators running services to London.
      1580
      The SRA has refused to give verifiable reasons for excluding First Great Eastern. That has prompted some to ponder whether the SRA decision has more to do with the settling of old scores by senior members of the SRA against First Great Eastern than with what is best for a public railway service in the east of England. I am told that the SRA decision is without precedent. Can the Minister confirm that? We are not talking here of another Connex.
      A MORI survey revealed that only 3 per cent. of passengers support the SRA's decision to exclude First Great Eastern from the Greater Anglia shortlist. The same survey shows that support for First Great Eastern services is twice the national level for rail franchises. The rail passengers committee for eastern England, which, as the Minister knows, is part of
      "the statutory watchdog protecting and promoting the interests of rail passengers throughout Great Britain"
      is appalled at the dumping of First Great Eastern.
      The RPC's eastern England secretary, Mr. Guy Dangerfield, told me in a letter:
      "The Committee publicly expressed its surprise that FirstGroup did not make the short-list for the Greater Anglia franchise. Our Chairman, Derek Langslow, wrote to the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority on 1 May asking about the basis on which the decision to take forward only three bidders was reached.
      So far the SRA has declined to say more than that the process is commercially confidential and will remain so.
      Our view is that, while we don't expect to see the answers, provided to the SRA by prospective bidders, in an open and accountable world we cannot see why the questionnaire itself, together with details about the weighting applied to the questions, is a commercially confidential document."
      Mr Dangerfield added:
      "We remain perplexed that FirstGroup, a company of financial strength owning a demonstrably competent subsidiary like First Great Eastern, is not on the short-list."
      Does the Minister agree that because the
      "statutory watchdog protecting and promoting the interests of rail passengers"
      has made such a strong statement, perhaps there is something seriously fishy about the whole situation?
      The Federation of North Essex Rail User Groups—representing rail users from Colchester, Clacton, Manningtree, Frinton, Walton and Harwich—is particularly scathing about the SRA. A press release issued on 13 June said that the different groups
      "are so angry that they have combined to make this joint statement to the media."
      This is what they had to say:
      "We deplore the arrogant way that the Strategic Rail Authority has acted in relation to rail services between London Liverpool Street, Colchester, Manningtree and Ipswich, and between Colchester and Clacton, Frinton and Walton by:—
      Sacking a highly competent rail operator (First Group) without giving any reasons or explanations for such a bizarre decision.
      Short-listing three operators that in at least two cases, either lack experience in some areas or are plainly known to be weak in train punctuality or operations.
      Refusing to answer any correspondence on the issue with anything other than a meaningless response that says they will not change their decision. The answer has been issued to all who have written to them regardless of status and position.

      1581
      Taking over timetable planning and changing the timetable without consultation with any of the current or future train operators or the established rail user groups."
      A signatory to the federation's press release is Mr Graham Male, chairman of the Colchester rail users. He goes on to make further complaints, including that the SRA's strategy
      "would mean that average journey times would be longer than those achieved by steam trains in the 1950s."
      What a damning indictment of the SRA.
      I was told by one First Great Eastern employee:
      "There is widespread concern at First being excluded—from people who smelled an injustice. Many local authorities made strong protests. There was obviously cross-party political support."
      I welcome the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) to the Chamber. The employee continued:
      "We received well over 500 letters and e-mails and I suspect the SRA got more."
      Surely the Minister must accept that the travelling public, and all who work for First Great Eastern, are fully justified in demanding that the quango SRA respond to the best interests of railway users by including First Great Eastern on the shortlist. Surely that would be natural justice.
      Between my seeking the debate and securing it, there has been a legal challenge, the first round of which was a victory in the name of First Great Eastern. Astonishingly, its parent company threw in the towel. That must be the first recorded case in which someone on the brink of a legal victory has capitulated. Why did that happen? It does not need a Sherlock Holmes to find the answer. It is blindingly obvious from what the managing director of First Great Eastern, Mr. Dave Kaye, told me in a letter dated 27 June:
      "Having exhausted the various options open to us, we wish to withdraw with grace and, as First has received assurances from the SRA that it is still a valued participant in the railway industry, move on to new challenges."
      New challenges? Assurances? Nudge nudge, wink wink!
      Quite simply, the SRA has told the parent company of First Great Eastern, FirstGroup plc, that if it drops its case for the Greater Anglia franchise it—the SRA—will ensure that the company is treated favourably in regard to franchises elsewhere. What other explanation can there be for First's otherwise inexplicable decision to withdraw from a legal challenge that it was winning?
      FirstGroup has services in the north-west, and from London to Wales and the west country. Moreover, the group is one of the two final bidders for the TransPennine Express franchise. On the day that First was given the bad news about the Greater Anglia franchise, it was announced that it had pre-qualified for the Northern franchise. A coincidence, or what? It is not necessary to be a cynic to see that FirstGroup realised that it was not in its best interests to upset the SRA, so First Great Eastern was sacrificed.
      1582
      The words of FirstGroup's spokesman Mr. Martin Helm, as reported in the Colchester Evening Gazette on Wednesday last week, were most revealing. He said:
      "The SRA has decided they're not reinstating us and we've got a broader business to consider."
      He added:
      "It's very difficult for an operator. There's no appeals process and we're in the hands of the SRA—its decision is final."
      Back in April, seeking to justify the rejection of First Great Eastern from the shortlist, the SRA's communication director, Mr. Ceri Evans, told the Evening Gazette:
      "This is a commercial deal",
      but he said that the commercial reasons were too sensitive to divulge publicly. Then the excuse got even lamer. Mr. Evans said that First Great Eastern was not being judged on its past performance—which, as a regular rail user, I would have thought would be a good indicator of whether it was up to the job—but had
      "left gaps in what they said they would do to run the new franchise".
      He said that the gaps involved "quality", but refused to say where quality had been compromised in First's application for the new franchise. Obviously, the words "openness" and "transparency" are not part of the SRA's vocabulary; certainly they are not part of the vocabulary of the inappropriately styled communications director.
      First Great Eastern issued a legal challenge, requesting that the SRA disclose the documentation on which its claim that First had failed was based. It came as no surprise that the judge found in favour of the company—but then came the capitulation by the parent company. What we do not know is how the stitch-up between the SRA and FirstGroup plc was engineered. Was there a simple phone call, a private meeting at a discreet venue—perhaps over lunch—a nod and a wink? Perhaps the Department for Transport would like the appointment diaries of the two parties, and logs of their phone calls, to be examined. Or does either outfit contain a public-spirited whistleblower who will spill the beans?
      First Great Eastern staff with whom I have discussed the situation feel that they have been shafted and betrayed. They have been let down and abandoned by a parent company that seems to have its eye on franchises elsewhere, and it is felt that the SRA has done a deal to get the legal challenge dropped.
      While I do not doubt for a moment that most First Great Eastern staff will transfer next year to whichever company wins the Greater Anglia franchise, for many middle and senior managers the future is not so sure. Some, no doubt, will be head-hunted by companies elsewhere; I am told that others are already dusting down their CVs, and making overtures for jobs that have not yet even been advertised. What will happen to the management of First Great Eastern in the meltdown of the remaining period of the franchise? I fear the prospect of months of uncertainty as staff leave, having been dumped by their current employer.

      1583
      One employee told me:
      "The SRA still claim they can get the new franchise in by 1 April but most people think it is very unlikely."
      Worryingly, he also said:
      "First will freeze all investment and, frankly, I think we will very quickly see a drain of good managers off to other parts of the FirstGroup or elsewhere in the rail industry. The chances of replacing them are slim.
      He added:
      "We will do our best to get the new trains in service but we have no budget to market them—the biggest rail investment story in Essex for many, many years (£80 million on 21 new trains just a few months before the franchise ends) and we can't tell anyone about it!"
      Another staff member wrote to me saying:
      "We have recently achieved the Investor in People Award for our Engineering Department with the rest of the company being assessed for the Award later this year. If we do not get back in the bidding process a huge amount of work by many of our staff will be perceived as a waste of time—and motivation levels to exceed business goal targets will nosedive."
      It is recognised that the railway network, not just in the Greater Anglia area but nationwide, has been starved of investment and encouragement by successive Governments. Despite that, the industry has generally been well served by managers, who know what the railways are about. The action of the Strategic Rail Authority towards First Great Eastern is a kick in the teeth towards those who have served the region well.
      Before I commence my concluding comments, I invite the Minister to encourage his officials to see how they can help with the following request. The Government are keen to promote regional identities, although in the case of the east of England, it is a somewhat artificial region. That said, if the Government are serious about devolving power, which as a principle I support, and since Cambridge is geographically central to that region, 1 hope that whichever operating company wins the franchise will provide a regular direct service linking Colchester and Cambridge via Ipswich as a practical alternative to the A12-A14 road journey. It would be helpful if the Department for Transport endorsed such a direct rail service.
      In its documentation seeking bids for the Greater Anglia franchise, the Strategic Rail Authority stated among its key objectives of letting in paragraph 3.1:
      "Deliver a safe, more reliable service of consistently high quality for rail passengers;
      Provide a clarity of service specification so that industry partners work together for passengers;
      Deliver value for money for passengers and taxpayers; and
      Secure accountable, viable operators who are passionate about delivering for their customers."
      I submit to the Minister, in the total confidence that it is a view shared by 97 per cent. of those surveyed by MORI, that First Great Eastern should have been included on the final shortlist. Its track record, literally, demands that it should. Even though the parent company has done the dirty on First Great Eastern, its staff and those who use its services, I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will tell the Strategic Rail Authority that its behaviour is not acceptable, demand
      1584
      answers to the questions that its decision has caused to be asked, and state that First Great Eastern should be reinstated on the shortlist.
      2.57 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing the debate and on providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the Greater Anglia rail franchise. I do not think that he did his constituents or others in East Anglia any service by the manner of his speech. I shall forgive him his childish and tiresome rant about the state of our railways. People who consistently do our railways down do no favours to commuters or all those struggling to work hard in the railway system. I forgive him, too, because there is no budgetary provision whatever in any shadow Budget emanating from his party for the full renationalisation of the railways, so he is out on his own, as ever, in that regard, too.
      What I cannot forgive, even under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, is the irresponsible manner in which the hon. Gentleman alluded to some conspiracy theory, where we have everything but the second gunman on the grassy knoll. To speak of half-truths, innuendoes, stitch-up, companies being shafted, nudge-nudge, wink-wink and the Strategic Rail Authority telling FirstGroup what it may or may not get elsewhere, is frivolous beyond belief, irresponsible in the highest regard and does the hon. Gentleman no credit at all. Nor does it help in any way to pursue what his constituents require.
      The hon. Gentleman will know that, last year, the SRA consulted the industry, stakeholders and passengers on its proposed policy of one operator at London termini. The authority's consultation document suggested that having one substantive operator at a terminal would—this may have been the area that he should have dwelt on—facilitate optimum use of available capacity, both in the station and on the approaches to it; provide a simplified, more understandable and impartial day-to-day interface with the passenger; remove many of the contractual interfaces that he complained of at stations and simplify the timetable planning process; and improve reaction to service disruptions.
      In the main, the responses to the consultation were positive, supporting the notion that such a policy would bring significant benefits to operators and passengers alike. The SRA has therefore adopted the policy in its programme of replacing franchises. All services into London Liverpool street are therefore to be combined into one Greater Anglia franchise. The franchise will be comprised of the services currently operated by Anglia Railways, First Great Eastern and the West Anglia services of West Anglia Great Northern, the franchises for which are due to expire by 31 March 2004. All the stations managed by those operators will be included in the new franchise, as well as the stations operated by Central Trains between Peterborough and Norwich.
      The competition for the franchise was originally launched on 27 March 2002. There was a strong response to the invitation to pre-qualify and in May last

      1585
      year the authority announced that nine parties had done so successfully, including FirstGroup, the incumbent operator of the First Great Eastern franchise. Following the publication of the Strategic Rail Authority's new franchising policy in November 2002, the competition for Greater Anglia was relaunched in January of this year. On 1 April, the authority announced that three parties had qualified as bidders for the franchise. These are GB Railways plc, the incumbent operator of the Anglia Railways franchise; National Express Group plc, the incumbent operator of the West Anglia Great Northern franchise; and Arriva Trains Limited.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been much debate and speculation over the decision not to qualify FirstGroup to receive an invitation to tender for the franchise. While this is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority as the letting agent, it would be difficult for me not to comment on the matter in the context of this debate. Of course, the authority's primary concern in letting any franchise is to get the best possible deal for passengers and taxpayers. Given that the Greater Anglia contract has a headline value of up to £3.5 billion, there had to be a rigorous process for selection.
      The Transport Act 2000 makes it clear that each franchise competition is a new competition and everyone, whether incumbent or not, must treat it as precisely that. The Strategic Rail Authority is well aware that Great Eastern has performed well under the stewardship of FirstGroup. That was not overlooked in the decision-making process. However, that process is primarily centred on the responses to the "Qualification to Receive An Invitation to Tender" document. That was a clear and concise document, explaining precisely what was required of bidders.
      FirstGroup, along with all the bidders, accepted and participated in this process. The Strategic Rail Authority evaluated the substance of FirstGroup's response on a basis consistent with all others. The notion that it is about settling old scores or nudge-nudge, wink-wink elsewhere is immature to say the least and ill becomes the hon. Gentleman. He besmirches a number of people who are working with integrity throughout the rail industry. He might want to reflect on those comments when he looks at Hansard tomorrow.
      Bob Russell: I have been well briefed.
      Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman says that he has been well briefed. He might have employed a speechwriter to give greater emphasis to the genuine concerns among commuters from his constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst).
      As I said, the SRA evaluated the substance of FirstGroup's response, consistent with all others. On the basis of those responses, it selected the bidders that scored highest against the criteria that had been clearly set out. The authority made it clear in advance of the qualification exercise that if a sufficient number of applicants met the minimum requirements, it would invite not fewer than three and not more than five bidders.
      FirstGroup was not ranked among the top three bidders and was therefore not invited to continue in the bidding process. The company was Understandably
      1586
      disappointed, but I am glad that the prospective legal challenge has been withdrawn and the SRA can now focus its attention on selecting a preferred bidder and working towards signature of a franchise agreement. Unless I am informed otherwise today or subsequently, the SRA will not change the bidding process halfway through; the process was clearly mapped out for all individuals concerned.
      What are the next steps? In June, the Strategic Rail Authority finished consulting stakeholders on their aspirations for the franchise and, having evaluated the responses received, issued a final franchise specification to the bidders on 1 July. This specification indicates a number of options and proposals that could be included in bids such as schemes designed to enhance capacity, the possibility of a metro-style service within the Greater London Authority boundary, improved interchanges between train and other forms of transport and improved station facilities such as the capacity and quality of car parks, improved facilities for cyclists, better access for disabled passengers, better security and improved signage.
      The SRA also requires bidders to put forward with their bids a detailed rolling stock plan, indicating how they would maximise the use of infrastructure capacity during peak periods. Such plans would be expected to show how the bidder intends to accommodate the implications of operating longer rolling stock, and what trains they intend to refurbish, replace, procure or lease.
      The authority intends that rural routes be managed within a separate business unit. The successful franchisee will be expected to ensure that the business unit has appropriate autonomy to review and develop rural services, and to provide local focus, accountability and partnership with the communities that they serve. As I said, rural routes are important in this regard.
      The bidders will work up their proposals and submit them for the authority's consideration in time for a preferred bidder to be announced later this year. The franchise is envisaged to come into effect in April 2004. Of course, all bids must be backed by a robust business case. The authority will be looking to select the bid that is affordable, deliverable and of most benefit to passengers: in other words, the one that offers best value for money.
      I hope that I have gone some way towards demonstrating that the new franchise will bring significant benefits to passengers—a point that the hon. Gentleman chose not to touch on—both to commuters to London, and to users of local services. The Greater Anglia franchise is the first to be let under the new franchising policy, and the first to be let under the one operator per London terminal principle. It will therefore be under a particularly bright spotlight, and I know that everybody in the industry will do their utmost to ensure its success.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the comments of aggrieved employees who would rather that their company was involved in the bidding process. However, it is a matter of regret that he chose to couch his contribution in such a childish and immature context, which did nothing for commuters in the area served by Greater Anglia, or for his Colchester commuter constituents. Nor did it add anything in terms of highlighting what is a very important issue.

      1587
      In my previous manifestation as Minister with responsibility for housing, I had a rather rough debate with the hon. Gentleman in Westminster Hall. I came here today with the explicit intention of being nice, emollient and terribly ministerial, but I am afraid that I
      1588
      could not be because of the unnecessary and immature drivel that he introduced into the debate. Perhaps next time will be third time lucky.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Three o'clock.

TREASURY

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the subvention to Northern Ireland was in the last financial year. [124364]

  Mr. Boateng
  The final provision in the Northern Ireland Office's 2002–03 supply estimates for payments to the Northern Ireland consolidated fund was

  Economic inactivity rates1 of working age2 people by Parliamentary constituency in Wales

  Year to February, percentage

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Wales

  25.3

  26.2

  26.9

  26.2

  25.6

  26.6

  Aberavon

  35.6

  35.1

  36.9

  33.7

  40.5

  32.5

  Alyn and Deeside

  18.3

  23.3

  23.2

  18.1

  21.7

  20.0

  Blaenau Gwent

  33.2

  34.3

  35.4

  32.5

  39.7

  31.5

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  17.1

  19.5

  15.9

  15.1

  16.7

  20.9

  Bridgend

  20.8

  25.4

  23.6

  21.6

  20.2

  24.3

  Caernarfon

  22.8

  29.3

  35.1

  29.7

  20.5

  26.7

  Caerphilly

  34.7

  31.1

  22.8

  23.8

  25.3

  29.0

  Cardiff Central

  20.9

  29.6

  33.2

  22.3

  26.8

  28.0

  Cardiff North

  12.9

  20.2

  23.4

  18.5

  16.3

  20.6

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  21.9

  30.3

  31.8

  22.9

  29.8

  32.6

  Cardiff West

  24.3

  30.8

  30.4

  20.6

  19.7

  23.9

  Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

  24.7

  22.0

  26.1

  34.3

  24.7

  28.5

  Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

  22.7

  22.9

  26.5

  30.1

  36.5

  28.1

  Ceredigion

  21.1

  25.8

  24.3

  28.1

  33.0

  30.6

  Clwyd South3

  28.6

  22.8

  26.1

  26.1

  20.5

  25.1

  Clwyd West3

  24.0

  23.6

  21.9

  19.4

  19.6

  25.3

  Conwy

  26.5

  26.9

  23.6

  25.0

  22.3

  26.3

  Cynon Valley

  31.0

  25.3

  21.6

  25.3

  29.8

  35.2

  Delyn

  24.2

  22.5

  22.3

  19.7

  20.7

  24.7

  Gower

  22.1

  18.1

  22.3

  29.1

  24.6

  22.7

  Islwyn

  28.4

  27.8

  29.3

  27.6

  27.5

  28.3

  Llanelli

  27.4

  28.2

  28.7

  22.6

  30.4

  32.8

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  23.0

  3—

  3—

  31.2

  20.4

  23.3

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  29.5

  36.3

  34.8

  31.4

  41.0

  34.1

  Monmouth

  20.4

  21.1

  22.6

  19.8

  19.5

  21.6

  Montgomeryshire

  19.4

  17.4

  23.0

  3—

  3—

  18.4

  Neath

  30.7

  29.8

  24.8

  33.7

  36.2

  32.8

  Newport East

  29.6

  28.0

  26.6

  18.8

  15.9

  22.9

  Newport West

  20.1

  23.7

  22.4

  25.3

  20.1

  23.6

  Ogmore

  22.2

  26.1

  31.3

  37.3

  27.8

  26.8

  Pontypridd

  26.9

  23.5

  26.6

  28.4

  24.8

  25.5

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  23.5

  21.9

  32.3

  30.1

  22.6

  26.2

  Rhondda

  35.3

  34.0

  33.2

  34.0

  37.9

  37.7

  Swansea East

  30.5

  21.8

  27.8

  34.0

  21.1

  27.8

  Swansea West

  32.3

  30.9

  27.3

  33.6

  26.7

  26.2

  Torfaen

  19.1

  24.2

  25.6

  30.2

  26.5

  25.3

  Vale of Clwyd

  27.4

  28.4

  31.1

  27.4

  26.0

  24.1

  Vale of Glamorgan

  26.0

  19.6

  18.2

  25.1

  24.4

  21.0

  Wrexham

  21.8

  27.6

  29.0

  25.0

  21.7

  23.3

  Ynys-Mon

  30.6

  28.5

  25.8

  27.3

  30.9

  27.4

  1Economically inactive as a percentage of the working age population.

  2 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  3 Sample size too small for reliable estimates.

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates have not yet been adjusted to take account of recent Census 2001 results.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey
  1018W
  £8,460,999,000. The provisional outturn figure will be shown in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper, due to be published shortly.

  Welsh Economy
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of economic inactivity was in each constituency in Wales in each of the past 20 years. [124557]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 11 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about economic inactivity in Wales. (124557)
  The attached table gives estimates of the working age economic inactivity rates for each constituency in Wales for the twelve month period ending February of each year from 1997 to 2002. This information is not available for earlier years.

  Royal Palaces
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax treatment applies to private apartments within royal palaces. [125328]

  Mr. Boateng
  The normal tax rules would apply.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for redeployment of members of his Department out of London and the south-east. [125392]

  John Healey
  The scope for relocating Government activity is being considered by Sir Michael Lyons. His independent review was announced in the Chancellor's Budget statement on the 9 April.

  Details of the review, including the consultation launched on 19 June, can be found on the HM Treasury website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk. Sir Michael will report his findings on the scope for relocating Departments and other public sector bodies before the end of the year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Draft Budget Order
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the increased levels of

  Event

  (a) Purpose

  (b) Cost

  (c) Number of staff attending

  NCIS International Conference and Exhibition for Criminal Intelligence Analysts 2001 2001 attendance at Careers fairs of:

  To highlight awareness of and promote the role of the Organised Crime Task Force Educational

  1,590.00

  2

  (i) Queens University

  (i) 176.25

  (i) 1 or 2

  (ii) University of Ulster (Magee)

  (ii) 75,00

  (ii) 1 or 2

  (iii) University of Ulster (Coleraine)

  (iii) 75.00

  (iii) 1 or 2

  (iv) University of Ulster (Jordanstown)

  (iv) 75,00

  (iv) 1 or 2

  2002 attendance at Careers fairs of:

  Educational

  (i) Queens University

  (i)176.25

  (i) 1 or 2

  (ii) University of Ulster (Magee)

  (ii) 75.00

  (ii) 1 or 2

  (iii) University of Ulster (Coleraine)

  (iii) 75,00

  (iii) 1 or 2

  (iv) University of Ulster (Jordanstown)

  (iv) 75.00

  (iv) 1 or 2

  Queens University Law Fair 2002

  To promote the Department of the Director of Public Prosecution. To begin the process of promoting the new Public Prosecution Service

  3,000.00

  3

  Probation Board AGM Jane 2002

  Educational

  Nil cost

  4

  Organised Crime Task Force Roadshow Armagh

  An awareness evening on the work of the

  5,684,28

  6

  Planetarium 2002

  OCTF

  Organised Crime Task Force Roadshow Galgorm

  An awareness evening on the work of the

  6,487.74

  9

  Manor Ballymena 2002

  OCTF

  Organised Crime Task Force Roadshow Hilton

  An awareness evening on the work of the

  6,570.00

  9

  Hotel Belfast 2002

  OCTF

  Northern Ireland Human Right Commission/Bill of Rights exhibiting at various Party Conferences

  To provide information about the work of the NIHRC to raise awareness among political party members and representatives of progress on consultation on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland and to seek greater consenus among the parties as the rights to be protected

  (i) PUP conference 2002

  (i) Free

  (i) 1

  (ii) UUP conference 2002

  (ii) 250.00

  (ii) 1

  (iii) Workers Party Conference 2002

  (iii) Free

  (iii) 2

  (iv) SDLP conference 2002

  (iv) 250.00

  (iv) 2

  (v) DUP conference 2002

  (v) 250.00

  (v) 1

  (vi) NI Woman's Coalition conference 2002

  (vi) 50

  (vi) I

  (vii) Alliance Party conference 2002

  (vii) 250

  (vii) 2

  (viii) Sinn F in Ard Fh is conference 2002

  (viii) Free

  (viii) 2

  1020W
  spending in Health and Education which were agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive prior to suspension have been provided for in the Draft Budget (NI) Order. [123966]

  Mr. Pearson
  The draft Budget (No.2) (NI) Order 2003 reflects the position for 2003–04 as contained in the Budget 2003–2006 document, published in December 2002. These plans included, and improved upon, the increases for Health and Education contained in the NI Executive's draft Budget, published on 24 September 2002.

  Exhibitions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list events at which his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible have exhibited in each of the last three years, stating for each(a) the purpose of exhibiting, (b) the cost of exhibiting and (c) the number of staff attending for the exhibition. [107620]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office, its Agencies and NDPB's have exhibited at the following events in the last three years:
  1021W

  Event

  (a) Purpose

  (b) Cost

  (c) Number of staff attending

  2003 attendance at Careers fairs of:

  Educational

  (i) Queens University

  (i) 176.25

  (i) 2

  (ii) University of Ulster (Magee)

  (ii) 75.00

  (ii) 2

  (iii) University of Ulster (Coleraine)

  (iii) 75.00

  (iii) 1

  (iv) University of Ulster (Jordanstown)

  (iv) 75.00

  (iv) 2

  Within the Northern Ireland Administration this information can be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Northern Ireland Office (Running Costs)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the running costs of the Northern Ireland Office were in each of the past five years. [123715]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As published in the 2003 Northern Ireland Office Departmental Report, the NIO incurred the following running costs:

  Northern Ireland Office running costs

  £ million

  Amount

  2002–031

  (esitmated outturn)232

  2001–02

  127

  200–01

  135

  1999–2000

  159

  1998–99

  151

  1The reasons for the increase is the inclusion of non-cash costs in administration for the first time.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in his Department. [117450]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office and the 11 departments within the Northern Ireland administration have a history of constructive relationships with Trade Unions, operating through the Whitley system, which has been agreed and supported by both Management and Trade Union Sides. The arrangements are kept under review by both sides, including the most appropriate way to handle the issue of partnership agreements to ensure that they continue to operate effectively.

  Policing Reviews
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of(a) the Criminal Justice Review and (b) the Patten Commission Review on Policing. [124332]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The cost of the Criminal Justice Review from its commencement on 27 June 1998 through to 31 March 2000 inclusive, was £1,151,355.00 and the cost of the Patten Commission Review on Policing from its commencement until 31 March 2000 £2,297,090.00.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what applications were made this financial year for traffic calming schemes; and what schemes are to be implemented in this financial year. [123710]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of Roads Service to write to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Aviation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of(a) the cost to airlines flying to UK airports of the requirement that they present their passengers to the control authorities at the port of arrival in the UK and (b) the charges imposed on such airlines in other countries for the same function. [R] [124752]

  Mr. McNulty
  The requirement on airlines to present their passengers to the control authorities at the port of arrival in the United Kingdom is contained in immigration legislation and is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. No assessment has been made by my Department of the cost to airlines or of any comparable charges in other countries.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will change the period for which foreign nationals may drive on British roads using an international or other foreign driving licence without taking a British driving test. [124889]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: A review of the present arrangements is not considered necessary at this time. The 12-month concessionary period during which new residents with valid non-European Economic Area driving licences may drive in Great Britain is designed to allow sufficient time for them to become familiar with road traffic conditions here and to take British driving tests. To ensure continuous driving entitlement, a British provisional licence must be obtained and driving tests passed before the 12-month period elapses.

  The same 12-month concessionary period exists for visitors with non-EEA licences. This is provided for under the Paris Convention of 1926 and the Geneva Convention of 1949, and protects the interests of tourism and trade. Visitors to this country are prohibited from taking British driving tests.
  1023W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take powers to ensure that privately contracted and owned mini-vans carrying staff to work are driven by individuals holding current UK driving licences. [124891]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: Residents in Great Britain cannot drive vehicles over 3.5 tonnes nor vehicles with more than eight passenger seats if they hold a non-European Economic Area driving licence. Such licence holders are restricted to driving small vehicles such as motorcycles, cars and small vans up to 3.5 tonnes and vehicles with up to 8 passenger seats.

  At present, visitors with valid non-EEA licences may drive British registered vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes and those with up to 16 passenger seats, provided they are not driven for hire or reward. A public consultation exercise proposing that visitors also be restricted to driving small vehicles as for residents ended on 7 July. The outcome will be announced shortly.

  In the interests of trade and tourism, professional drivers visiting Great Britain are permitted to drive minibuses, buses and lorries, providing these vehicles are not British registered and have been brought temporarily into the country. No changes are proposed to these arrangements.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116091]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's membership of EU Committees and Working Parties is not fixed. Depending on the subject matter under consideration, the most appropriate policy officials within the Department attend meetings of EU Committees, Working Parties and Working Groups. Information on the number of policy officials who serve on such Committees is not held.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the flight path for the proposed third runway at Heathrow Airport. [124410]

  Mr. McNulty
  For the purposes of the noise appraisal in the South East and East of England Air Services (SERAS) study, nominal departure and arrival routes were assumed for new runways. However, these are indicative only and much more detailed work would be needed as part of the detailed design of any option supported in the air transport White Paper.

  IT Systems
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Department spent on IT(a) software, (b) hardware, (c) maintenance and (d) licences in 2002–03. [124420]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Information held by the Department and its Agencies differs in detail due to the different vote and trading account practices and 1024W
  different IT service supply arrangements. This means that it is not possible to provide accurate figures without disproportionate cost.

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost was to his Department of media and voice training for ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123126]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was set up in May 2002. Since that time no Ministers have received media or voice training. Information on media and other training received by officials is not readily available and could be given only at disproportionate cost.

  Stansted Airport
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total estimated cost is of the(a) road and (b) rail links to Stansted airport to cater for future capacity; and what provisions towards these costs are made in the 10 year transport plan. [R] [124769]

  Mr. McNulty
  Stansted airport received planning approval in September 2002 to expand to cater for 25 million passengers per annum (mppa) and a section 106 agreement between BAA and the local authority has recently been signed. BAA Stansted and SRA are currently negotiating a parallel legal agreement, which has been agreed in principle, for a package of improvements to meet anticipated increased rail use associated with the airport to 25 mppa, the costs of which are to be borne by BAA. Highway works at junctions 8 and 8A of the Ml 1 have also been agreed and are estimated to cost about £300,000.

  The SERAS study included an estimate of costs for new road and rail infrastructure to support options for expanding Stansted. These were of the order of £800 million—£1.8 billion, for options providing one, two or three new runways. Most of the costs were for rail investment. It is not possible at this stage to estimate what share of the costs might fall to the airport developer or the timing of any schemes since that will depend on decisions in the air transport White Paper, and other decisions associated with the London-Stansted-Cambridge Growth Area.

  Traffic Lights
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research he has commissioned into the use of traffic lights to reduce pedestrian casualties; [124796]

  (2) what guidance he gives to local authorities on the use of traffic lights in preventing pedestrian casualties. [124802]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current advice to local highway authorities on the design of pedestrian facilities at traffic light signals is contained in TA 15/81, "Pedestrian Facilities at Traffic Signal Installations". We are drafting a new version to give further information to practitioners following research which concentrated on the design of traffic signals.
  1025W
  Other research has been concentrated on the detailed operation and design of pedestrian crossings on higher speed roads. There is current research into this specific subject and into Puffin crossings. One element of this latter research will look at accident figures before and after installation of the crossings.

  Additionally we have recently commissioned a 2 year project entitled "The effects of traffic signals strategies on the safety of vulnerable road users". This will explore the linkages between the ways in which the various signal control strategies are operated, the behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists using these facilities, and the effect on casualty rates for pedestrians and cyclists. It is our intention that the findings of this project will form good practice guidance for local highway authorities.

  Other Departmental guidance on the use of traffic signals at pedestrian crossings is contained in Local Transport: Notes 1/95 (the Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings) and 2/95 (The Design of Pedestrian Crossings) and as part of the Traffic Advisory Leaflet series of publications.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are being applied to the availability of financial support to the coal industry. [125233]

  Mr. Timms
  The principal means of financial support to the coal industry is through coal investment aid, which has a budget of up to £60 million over three years. The full criteria that applications under coal investment aid must satisfy are set out in the scheme description document, which can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/enerRv/coal/invest aid/description.dpf

  The funding of any project under coal investment aid will be discretionary and an application satisfying all the criteria will not necessarily receive investment aid. In determining which eligible projects are to be supported and to what level, the Government will assess the relative quality of the projects. The quality of an application will be judged by considering (in order of importance): medium term viability of the applicant and the project; number of jobs created or safeguarded by the project and how long the jobs will last; the commercial efficiency of the investment project; job quality; labour productivity gains and wider benefits offered to the local area.

  The Government have been inviting applications under coal investment aid since 16 June 2003. The deadline for applications relating to the first assessment period is 31 July 2003.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the Department's policies have been screened for their environmental impact since June 2001; how many environmental appraisals have been conducted, and on what policy issues; and what information has been published about these screenings and appraisals. [124717]
  1026W
  Mr. Timms
  In most instances, environmental screening and appraisal are undertaken as an integral part of the policy-making process, and separate records are not currently maintained.

  Since June 2001, DTI has published the following self-standing appraisals:

  (i) An environmental appraisal of the draft Communications Bill was published in May 2002

  (ii) A sustainability appraisal of the Energy White Paper was published in February 2003. This was undertaken using an integrated policy appraisal tool, which aims to draw together existing appraisal requirements (economic, social, environmental and distributional) and is being piloted across Government to assess its usefulness.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116077]

  Ms Hewitt
  Membership of EU committees, working parties and working groups in which the Department of Trade and Industry has an interest, is not fixed. Depending upon the subject matter under consideration, the most appropriate policy official will attend. Further information is not held.

  EU Contracts
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has had from small businesses regarding reform of the system for awarding EU public sector contracts. [125169]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I meet regularly with organisations representing the interest of small businesses, and am aware of the difficulties small firms face when tendering for public sector contracts across the EU.

  We have highlighted these concerns in the UK's response to the Commission's Entrepreneurship Green Paper, written after a public consultation. Our response calls for the Commission to ensure that small firms do not face discrimination in relation to public sector procurement and that access to the EU public sector marketplace is encouraged for all firms, regardless of size.

  This view is, I believe, also taken up by many small firm representative organisations' responses to the Commission, and I look forward to drawing further on their views as the drafting of the Entrepreneurship Action Plan progresses.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with which business leaders she has had discussions regarding the implementation of the EU directive on information and consultation; what conclusions she drew from these regarding business attitudes towards the directive; and if she will make a statement. [125295]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government have consulted extensively on how best to implement the EC Information and Consultation Directive. As a first step we published a discussion document in July last year and held a series of roundtable discussions up and down the country during
  1027W
  the autumn with a wide range of individual businesses and their representatives, unions and employment experts. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and other Government ministers attended the roundtables and heard views directly from those who will be affected by the directive. Building on this initial consultation, the Government then held discussions with the CBI and TUC, and a range of other organisations about implementation. An agreed framework for implementing the directive was published on 7 July 2003 in a consultation document "High Performance Workplaces: Informing and consulting employees", together with draft legislation and a regulatory impact assessment on which we are inviting comments. The Government were aware that business might be concerned about how the directive will be implemented in the UK. This is why we have agreed with the CBI and the TUC a framework for implementation that is flexible, and allows firms to agree with their staff arrangements that are best suited to the individual circumstances of the business.

  Generating Costs
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much energy generation cost the UK in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [125653]

  Mr. Timms
  The value of electricity generated in the UK in 2000, 2001 and 2002 was as follows:

  Year

  £million

  2000

  7,840

  2001

  7,805

  2002

  7,540

  Source:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which UK companies have submitted bids for contracts in Iraq, broken down by sector. [124426]

  Ms Hewitt
  We expect UK companies to play a significant role in the redevelopment of Iraq. In the short-term, US funding is likely to be the main source of opportunities for UK companies.

  While we expect UK companies to bid for and win contracts, companies are not obliged to inform us if and when they have done so we are therefore unable to provide the information requested. If they did, normal procedures surrounding commercial confidentiality would apply.

  Trade Rules
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the benefits to(a)the UK and(b)developing countries from eliminating all barriers to trade in goods. [124376]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A number of studies indicate that the elimination of barriers to trade in goods could bring significant benefits both to European Union and to developing countries. Although these studies do not separately identify the effects on the UK economy, there are good reasons to suggest gains to the UK will be in line with those of the EU as a whole.

  Wood
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate has been made of the numbers of employees in the wood panel and related industries who would lose their jobs if the wood panel industry fails. [125115]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We have made no estimate of the numbers of employees in the wood panel and related industries who might loose their jobs should the sector fail, but a recent study of the timber industry indicates that, of a total of 89,000 people employed in the timber sector, 7,000 are directly employed in wood panel and hoard production.

DEFENCE

  Deepcut Barracks (Drugs)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of drug overdoses have been recorded at Deepcut barracks since 1995; how many arrests have been made relating to the use or supply of illegal drugs since 1995; how many random drug tests have been made, and what results they have shown, in each year since 1995; what investigations the police has conducted into the use of illegal drugs at Deepcut barracks; what conclusions they have drawn; and if he will make a statement. [124175]

  Mr. Caplin
  Since 1995 there have been 24 incidents of self-harm overdose, involving either prescription or non-prescription drugs, recorded at Deepcut barracks. None of these involved illegal drugs. The Army does not make 'arrests' in relation to the use or supply of illegal drugs; instead, cases are investigated and reported to the chain of command for disciplinary action. Since 1995 eight possible cases were recorded at Deepcut as a result of which five military personnel were charged with drug offences under the Army Act.

  Although Compulsory Drug Testing (CDT) was introduced throughout the Army at the end of 1995, it is not possible to break out data for individual units prior to 1999 due to the format in which the data is held. Data from CDT tests conducted at Deepcut since 1999 are as follows:

  CDT tests

  Personnel testing positive

  Percentage rate of personnel testing positive

  1999

  479

  2

  0.42

  2000

  1,003

  13

  1.30

  2001

  475

  6

  1.26

  2002

  985

  5

  0.51

  There have been no specific police investigations, either civil or military, regards the use of illegal drugs at Deepcut Barracks.

  Missile Defence
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), of 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 698W, on missile defence, if he will list the names and qualifications of the relevant scientific and

  1029W
  medical authorities; and if he will place in the Library copies of the documents on which his comments on potential risk from phased-array radar emissions are based. [123819]

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

  Nuclear Weapons
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list Joint Working Groups conducted under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement since 1973. [124742]

  Mr. Caplin
  Joint Working Groups conducted since 1973 under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement have exchanged technical information on the following subjects:

  Neutron Sources

  Radiation Simulation and Kinetic Effects Technology

  Energetic Materials

  Compatibility of Materials

  Test Diagnostics

  Nuclear Materials

  Warhead Electrical Components and Technologies

  Non-nuclear Materials

  Nuclear Counter Terrorism Technology

  Facilities

  Nuclear Weapons Engineering

  Nuclear Warhead Physics

  Computational Technology

  Aircraft, Missile and Space System Hardening

  Laboratory Plasma Physics

  Manufacturing Practices

  Nuclear Warhead Accident Response Technology

  Nuclear Weapon Code Development

  Nuclear Weapon Environment and Damage Effects

  Methodologies for Nuclear Weapon Safety Assurance

  Resettlement Training Centre (Aldershot)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria that must be met by training organisations seeking preferred supplier status to the Resettlement Training Centre at Aldershot; and which independent assessor awards that status. [123861]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Resettlement Training Centre (RTC) at Aldershot lies within Aldershot Garrison, and is wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. The RTC is however being leased to Right Management Consultants Ltd. during the currency (October 1998 to September 2005) of a contract it holds from the Department to provide Career Transition services (CTS) to eligible members of the armed forces during the last two years of their service.

  In accordance with the contract the RTC provides some training direct to Service leavers through courses run at the centre. It also operates the preferred suppliers' list in order to advise Service leavers on different types of external training from providers which have been vetted, and in which the service leavers can be confident of the standard of training provided.
  1030W
  The requirement for the contractor to run a preferred suppliers list has been part of the contract since inception.

  Training organisations seeking preferred supplier status must provide training which, among other things, fits the transferable skills Service leavers have, provides training which will lead to jobs in the civilian market, have the capability to provide training in the longer term (by having the right facilities, financial and staff resources), and have policies in place promoting quality, equal opportunities and health and safety.

  The Contractor is wholly responsible to the Department to run the preferred suppliers list and to vet applications from prospective training providers. Advice is sought as necessary from Lead Bodies, National Training Organisations, Sector Skills Councils and other Government Agencies. Comments are also sought as necessary from such agencies as Regional Resettlement Centres, the Regular Forces Employment Association, and Ministry of Defence's second line Resettlement Advisers to confirm local requirements. The contractor ensures that the process is managed in accordance with ISO 9001:2000 and its Quality Management Operating Procedures, which are externally assessed by Det Norske Veritas, an accredited UKAS accreditation body.

  Service Accommodation (Colchester)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the average price paid by Annington Homes for each dwelling at Colchester Garrison was; [124936]

  (2) how many dwellings at Colchester Garrison were purchased by Annington Homes; [124935]

  (3) how many former Ministry of Defence dwellings at Colchester Garrison have been sold by Annington Homes; how many more are proposed to be disposed of; and if he will make a statement. [124934]

  Mr. Caplin
  The sale, in 1996, of 57,428 properties in England and Wales raised £1.662 million for the Exchequer. The average price per dwelling, nationally, was approximately £29,000, and in the Colchester area, approximately £25,000.

  Some 1,400 properties in the Colchester area were included in the 1996 sale and leaseback agreement with Annington Homes Ltd. Of these, all but 46, which were surplus to requirements at the time, were leased back by the Ministry of Defence to house Service families. 180 properties have subsequently been handed back to Annington Homes Ltd. and it is intended that a further 40 will be handed back during the current financial year. MOD wishes to reduce vacancy levels in Service family accommodation and significant disposals are needed to progress towards the target of reducing the vacancy rate to 10 per cent. of working stock. The Defence Housing Executive (DHE), the MOD agency that manages the properties, decides which properties to return to the owners (Annington Homes Ltd.) in consultation with unit commanders. The subsequent use or disposal of those properties is a matter for Annington Homes.

  Trained Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many trained personnel have gone absent without leave in each of the services in each of the last five years. [115098]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information available is shown in the following tables. Data are captured using different methods for each of the three services, therefore the figures are not directly comparable on a Tri-Service basis. Figures are based only on trained personnel.

  Naval Service1,2

  1 January to 31 December

  Number reported AWOL

  1998

  25

  1999

  35

  2000

  50

  2001

  85

  2002

  90

  1 These figures relate to Royal Navy only.

  2 A warrant is issues on the 7th day of absence unless it is known that an individual will be absent before the 7th, day in which case a warrant is issued sooner. Once a warrant is issued the individual is classed as AWOL

  Army1,2

  Financial Year

  Number reported AWOL

  1998–99

  1,410

  1999–2000

  1,665

  2000–01

  1,845

  2001–02

  1,630

  2002–03

  1,535

  1 Only one officer was found to be AWOL during the period in question, consequently the table only shows other ranks.

  2 A person is classed as AWOL if he/she does not report for duty on a particular day. If the person has still not reported for duty after 21 days, a Board of Inquiry will meet to investigate the absence, it will then decide whether to class the person as AWOL. This will then be backdated to start from the first day of absence.

  Royal Air Force1,2,3

  Financial Year

  Number reported AWOL

  1998–99

  20

  1999–2000

  20

  2000–01

  20

  2001–02

  15

  2002–03

  25

  1 An individual who is reported AWOL on more than one occasion within the same calendar year is counted once in the year they were reported absent.

  2 An individual who reported AWOL in one calendar year and is still absent in the following year is counted in the year they were reported absent.

  3 The table does not address specific categories within AWOL. A person is classified as AWOL if they did not report for duty on a particular day. However after they have failed to report for duty for 23 days, a Board of Inquiry can declare the individual "illegally absent" (there has been only one illegal absentee in each of the financial years and they are included in the figures). Service personnel do not become deserters until either it is known they are not going to return voluntarily and/or are subsequently arrested and found guilty of desertion at court martial.

  Training Areas
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the parts of Wales designated a military tactical training area were so designated. [125237]
  1032W
  Mr. Caplin
  The Tactical Training Area, within which Operational Low Flying is conducted, that exists over mid-Wales was established with the creation of the current United Kingdom Low Flying System in 1979.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting. [117224]

  Alan Johnson
  We are unable to provide statistics on the details of the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers for the period before 1999 as this information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Since January 1999, as far as we have been able to verify, the Department has not abstained from voting in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the legislation by year. [117246]

  Alan Johnson
  We are unable to provide statistics on the details of the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers for the period before 1999 as this information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Since January 1999, as far as we have been able to verify, there have been no occasions where the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers.

  Laptops (Teachers)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what reasons underlay the exclusion of further education college lecturers from the Laptops for Teachers initiative; and what plans he has to extend the scheme. [124325]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The further education sector is covered by its own initiatives, which receive separate funding. A scheme similar to the Laptops for Teachers initiative, Computers for Further Education Teachers, began in 2001–02. A total of 3,952 Further Education teachers benefited from this £3 million scheme. The 2002–03 Laptops for Further Education Staff Scheme is more flexible, easier for colleges to administer and allows more staff to benefit. These benefits are being evaluated as part of the National Learning Network evaluation and decisions about future funding are being discussed with the Learning and Skills Council, who are responsible for administering the scheme.

  Online Centres
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many UK online centres were
  1033W
  opened in (a) deprived and (b) rural wards in the northwest in 2002–03; and how many centres there are in the region. [124383]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In the north-west there are 606 centres. This represents approximately 10 per cent. of all UK online centres. 384 (63 per cent.) of north-west centres are located in deprived wards (90 per cent. coverage of all north-west deprived wards). 48 (8 per cent.) are located in rural wards. UK online centres provide people with access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs).

  School Computers (The Wrekin)
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many computers there were in schools in The Wrekin in each year since 1997. [124613]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The available information on the average number of computers per school is shown in the tables.

  Average number of computers per school used mainly for teaching and learning purpose, England, 1998–2002

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Primary

  13.3

  16.1

  17.8

  20.7

  31.0

  Secondary

  100.9

  101.3

  112.6

  127.7

  155.6

  Special

  18.5

  21.0

  21.3

  24.8

  28.5

  All schools

  27.1

  29.5

  32.6

  37.3

  50.0

  Average number of computer per school used mainly for management and administrative purposes, England, 1999–2002

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Primary

  2.2

  2.3

  2.6

  3.9

  Secondary

  13.1

  15.5

  18.4

  25.3

  Special

  3.7

  3.8

  4.5

  5.1

  All school

  4.0

  4.4

  5.1

  7.2

  Information for England is derived from a sample survey of schools. The sample size is large enough to produce reliable national estimates. It is not large enough to produce reliable sub-national estimates.

  The latest information on ICT in schools was published in Statistical Bulletin 07/02, "Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Schools 2002", which is available on the Department's website: www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics and from the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Payments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 601W, what discussions he has had with (a) banks and (b) other ATM providers on the impact of the increase in fee-charging ATMs on pensioners and benefit recipients who choose to have their pensions and benefits paid directly into bank accounts. [125395]
  1034W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Officials regularly meet with a range of interested groups, including financial organisations and the British Bankers' Association, to discuss the move to direct payment.

  Customers have a number of options as to how they access their money free of charge. In particular, many will take advantage of the new facilities to withdraw cash, free of charge, over post office counters, from a range of basic and other bank accounts.

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what strategies exist for the Child Support Agency to ensure that those who are self-employed can be compelled to pay maintenance for their children; and if he will make a statement. [124025]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Dr. Francis, dated 11 July 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask what strategies exist for the Child Support Agency to ensure that those who are self-employed can be compelled to pay maintenance for their children; and if he will make a statement.
  In these circumstances the non resident parent will be approached by a caseworker who will seek to reach an agreement on payment which is acceptable to all parties. If that does not prove possible, the caseworker will make a decision on the most appropriate payment arrangement, having regard to all relevant facts and will seek the agreement of the non resident parent to that. If that is not agreed the Agency may apply to the Magistrates Court for a Liability Order, which is required before we can take any formal enforcement proceedings.
  If the Court has granted a Liability Order, we may then try to recover the debt by one or more of the following actions:

  (a) Levying of distress involving the use of Bailiffs

  (b) Establishing a third party debt order—allowing money owed to the debtor to be frozen and sent to us to cover the outstanding debt

  (c) Establishing a charging order—registering the debt against certain assets owned by the debtor

  (d) Registering a County Court judgement, which may affect the debtors credit rating

  (e) Applying for a warrant to commit the debtor to prison or for an order preventing then from holding or obtaining a driving licence.

  The position I describe applies to England and Wales with a different but broadly similar approach in Scotland.

  Disabled People's Employment
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the employment rate of disabled people in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [124537]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  1035W

  Employment rate of disabled people as a percentage of disabled people of working age

  Percentage

  Spring

  Number

  1998

  43.5

  1999

  46.3

  2000

  46.8

  2001

  47.4

  2002

  48

  Note:

  People are defined as disabled if they report a current long-standing limiting illness or disability that significantly affects their day-to-day activities and/or the amount or type of work they can do.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Gunwharf Quays
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for relocating part of his Department to Gunwharf Quays, Portsmouth; how many staff are involved; from where they are being relocated; what the time scale is; and if he will make a statement. [119683]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Hancock, dated 11 July 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning any plans to relocate staff to the Gunwharf Quays development in Portsmouth. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Jobcentre Plus will be introduced in Portsmouth during mid 2004. Currently, services are being offered at Portsmouth Central Jobcentre, Portsmouth North Jobcentre, Guildhall Walk Social Security Office. These offices are not large enough to accommodate the integrated services of Jobcentre Plus, nor do they have the capacity for expansion. Suitable premises are being!identified, which will have the capability to deliver the full range of enhanced services to the people of Portsmouth. Partners and stakeholders were consulted about these plans in June and September 2002. Their comments are currently being taken into consideration in reaching final decisions, which have yet to be announced. I can confirm that the Gunwharf Quays development is one of a number of sites being considered, with discussions continuing on this and other sites.
  Until a site has been identified that will meet the needs of Portsmouth customers, it is not possible to indicate a precise point in time at which the new Jobcentre Plus site will open. I can confirm that staff at the three existing offices, Portsmouth North Jobcentre, Portsmouth Central Jobcentre and the Social Security Office in Guildhall Walk, will be relocated to the new site. There are no plans to reduce the numbers of Jobcentre Plus staff in Portsmouth.
  In the meantime, the three offices currently located in Portsmouth will continue to operate. A full service will be provided throughout the roll out planning and implementation process.
  I hope that this reply is useful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the regulations for incapacity benefit allow for the payment of benefit when an individual has been injured in a criminal activity. [122812]
  1036W
  Maria Eagle
  Entitlement to Incapacity Benefit (IB) or IB credits is based on an individual's inability to perform a range of everyday work-related activities. Conditions of entitlement are not dependant upon how a claimant became incapacitated.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon of 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 554W, on Jobcentre Plus, what the definition of unreasonable amount of time for customers to travel as a result of closing an existing Jobcentre Plus office is; what assistance will be provided for travel costs; how clients will be informed of this assistance; and if he will make a statement. [113258]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Paul Holmes, dated 11 July 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, I have been asked to re ply to your question concerning the travelling time for customers following the closure of a local Jobcentre. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Ease of access to our services is one of the many factors taken into consideration during the initial planning stages of service delivery, when the closure or re-location of a site has been considered.
  The introduction of integrated Jobcentre plus offices is enabling customers to make enquiries about both their benefits and employment opportunities in the same place, reducing the amount of travelling needed. Our new telephone contact centres mean that customers can make enquiries about both benefits and jobs without even having to come into one of our offices. The introduction of new technology is also enabling people to find the information they need about jobs and training via the Internet and our new Jobpoints. These are not only being placed in Jobcentre Plus offices, they are also being placed in other public places such as libraries and supermarkets. All of these developments are making it easier for our customers to take advantage of the services we provide.
  No customer is required to travel more than one hour door to door to a Jobcentre or be absent from home for more than four hours without being offered the option of postal signing. This allows them to attend the office every three months to maintain their claim rather than every fortnight.
  All customers who are required to attend an advisory interview are entitled to have any extra travelling expenses reimbursed if their appointment is either not in their normal office or not on their normal day of attendance. In exceptional circumstances Business Managers can approve the use of a taxi or special vehicle, for example for people with a disability or health condition.
  Re-imbursement of these expenses is explained to the customer verbally or by letter when the interview is arranged and offered at the start of the interview.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what programmes have been implemented to train Jobcentre Plus staff for their new responsibilities in respect of working-age benefits; and if he will make a statement. [121502]
  1037W
  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Norman Lamb, dated 11 July 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the programmes that have been implemented to train Jobcentre Plus staff for their new responsibilities in respect of working-age benefits. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The development of Jobcentre Plus is building on the high quality service already provided through social security offices and Jobcentres. We are bringing these two services together to deliver a single, integrated, work focussed service to all people of working age. All staff involved in delivering this new service are receiving extensive training to provide them with the necessary skills for their new role.
  Each individual member of staff within Jobcentre Plus has their training needs identified in conjunction with their line manager. This information then forms a personal training plan for that individual. The training is planned in such a way that when they are required to start their job, they have completed and consolidated all their necessary training.
  Jobcentre Plus has over 200 training programmes available to its staff, 70 of which have been extensively re-designed to reflect the new roles and responsibilities of staff in these offices. These training programmes fit into three different areas: IT and telephony; procedural, including training on benefit entitlement; and the "New Beginnings" programme. The latter introduces the individual to the new Jobcentre Plus culture and expectations.
  The three types of training, delivered to the right people at the right time, have and will ensure that individuals have the skills, knowledge and confidence to deliver the best service possible to the public within Jobcentre Plus.
  I hope this is helpful to you.

  Pensions (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the administrative costs for pensioners for the Benefits Agency in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 on a basis consistent with his estimates in Table 2 on page 126 of his 2003 departmental report. [123034]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not currently available in the format requested. For the years requested, there was no requirement for the Department to breakdown Benefits Agency expenditure by Strategic Objective.

  However, an indication of total departmental expenditure on Pensioner Administration for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 can be found in Table 5 in the departmental report.

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the running costs have been of Ministers' private offices in his Department in each year since 1997. [123116]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is as follows.1038W

  Private office running costs

  Cost (£000)

  Department for Work and pensions (formed June 2001)

  2002–03

  2,900

  2001–02

  2,600

  Department of Social Security

  2000–01

  2,500

  1999–2000

  2,600

  1998–99

  2,300

  1997–98

  1__

  1Information not available

  Social Security Offices/Job Centres
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a)social security offices and (b) job centres there are in the UK. [116921]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Maples, dated 11 July 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the numbers of Jobcentres and Social Security offices. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The ongoing roll out of the new Jobcentre Plus service means that the number of offices is continuously changing. As of 2 June there were 425 Social Security offices, 756 Jobcentres and 261 new integrated Jobcentre Plus offices in Great Britain.
  The administration of Social Security offices and Jobcentres in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff the Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which the Department is responsible had in each year since 1997; and what the cost of those staff was in each of those years. [122254]

  Maria Eagle
  Data on staffing levels in the civil service are collected from departments and agencies twice-yearly, in April and October. Headline figures are published under National Statistics guidelines via a press notice. Those for October 2002 were published on 27 February 2003.

  A copy of the press notice, accompanying media brief and supporting tables is available on the World Wide Web at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics. Copies of these documents are also placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  More detailed information on the civil service is published annually in "Civil Service Statistics", copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The last edition, based on April 2001 data, was published in June 2002. The next edition, based on April 2002 data, is due to be published at the end of July 2003.
  1039W
  Data on staffing levels in non-departmental public bodies are published by the Cabinet Office in its annual publication "Public Bodies". The information contains details of the numbers of staff employed by each NDPB at 31 March each year. Copies of "Public Bodies" published each year since 1997 are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Information on staff costs for the Department and its agencies is published annually in the DWP

  Staffing costs for non-departmental public bodies for which the Department of Work and Pensions is responsible

  £ millions

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Health and Safety Commission/Executive

  118.0

  119.9

  124.7

  130.6

  136.7

  Remploy Ltd.

  130.2

  132.4

  134.6

  138.8

  137.6

  Disability Rights Commission

  —

  —

  —

  2.6

  4.2

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA)

  n/a

  4.0

  4.7

  5.4

  6.1

  Pensions Ombudsman/Occupational Pensions Board

  n/a

  0.8

  0.9

  0.9

  1.0

  Notes:

  Costs are in £ million rounded.

  Disability Rights Commission was formed in April 2000.

  Information on staff costs in respect of OPRA, the Pensions Ombudsman and the Occupational Pensions Board is not available prior to 1998–99.

HEALTH

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent meetings he has had with the natural supplements industry on legislation relating to natural supplements; what action he plans to take as a result of these representations; and if he will make a statement. [123337]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health met with representatives of the Health Food Manufacturer's Association to discuss the Food Supplements Directive on 9 June 2003. Issues covered in discussion fell under four main headings: nutrients and nutrient sources missing from Annexes I and II in the Food Supplements Directive and requirements for safety dossiers; the recently-published report of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals and advice on safe upper levels therein; future setting of maximum permitted levels of vitamins and minerals in food supplements at EU level; and plans for future action on chromium picolinate.

  Following representations from the Food Standards Agency, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and relevant parties will meet to discuss the potential for simplified dossier requirements and the potential for read-across between dossiers for substances which are likely to have similar toxicological profiles. The European Commission supports this move.

  Further, to ensure that the Government's policy objectives for regulation of food supplements in the EU are met, the Government continue to argue for maximum limits for nutrients in food supplements to be based on thorough risk assessment and set at levels which protect public health, but which neither unnecessarily limit consumer choice nor unduly restrict trade. The Government continue to press this view strongly in Brussels at every opportunity.
  1040W
  departmental report and in individual agency annual report and accounts.

  Information on staff costs for each of the non-departmental public bodies for which the Department is responsible who employ staff for each of the years 1997–98 up to 2001–02, where available, is in the following table. Information on staff costs for 2002–03 are not included because costs for this year have not as yet been audited or published.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many substances he has succeeded in adding to the positive list of Annex II to the EU Food Supplements Directive. [123563]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The lists of permitted nutrients and nutrient sources in the annexes to the Food Supplements Directive 2002/46/EC remain open pending safety assessment of additional substances; additional nutrients or nutrient sources can be added to the relevant permitted list following a favourable assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Industry is currently working to compile safety dossiers for a number of the substances currently omitted from the annexes.

  Following representations from the Food Standards Agency, the EFSA and relevant parties will meet to discuss the potential for simplified dossier requirements. The European Commission supports this move.

  Cancer Care
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what direction his Department is giving to the Workforce Development Confederation to integrate a cancer module within the standard nursing training programme. [123257]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is not appropriate for the Department to provide direction on the content of nurse training. The regulatory Council for Nursing and Midwifery sets the standard and outline requirements for pre registration nurse education. It does this in collaboration with higher education, employers and the nursing profession. Students have opportunities to undertake supervised practice in caring for cancer patients. Qualified nurses can undertake more specialised programmes, such as cancer nursing, following registration.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to extend nurse prescribing powers to include the prescription of opiates for cancer and palliative care. [123258]
  1041W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department's proposals for extending independent nurse prescribing, including some opiates for use in palliative care, are set out in a consultation paper, issued jointly by the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on 30 April 2003. Copies are available on the MHRA's website: www.mhra.gov.uk and are available in the Library.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS cancer nurses have(a) retired, (b) left the NHS and (c) been recruited to the NHS in each of the last five years; [123250]

  (2) how many (a) cancer nurses in permanent posts and (b) agency cancer nurses are employed by the NHS. [123252]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of permanent or agency cancer specific nurses are not collected centrally nor is information on the number of leavers or retirees from the national health service.

  The Department of Health Workforce Census shows that, between 1997 and September 2002, there was a net increase in nurses working in the NHS of nearly 50,000. There are now 367,520 nurses employed in the NHS. This increase has enabled the recruitment of additional cancer-site specific nurse specialists, chemotherapy nurses, district nurses, palliative care nurse specialists and additional nurses on wards caring for cancer patients.

  Cataract Treatment
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that the strategic health authorities and local clinicians are developing flexible and imaginative plans with NHS and private providers to make best use of the extra funds for cataract operations.— [124394]

  Mr. Hutton
  £73 million in total has been allocated to the national cataract initiative. The aim of the initiative is to reduce waiting times for cataract operations to three months by December 2004 with many areas achieving this by summer 2004 and, following the reduction in waiting times, to pilot the introduction of choice at the point of general practitioner referral in a major specialty.

  Strategic health authorities have been asked to work with local trusts and primary care trusts and secure the early engagement of local clinicians to develop implementation plans setting out the following:
  Firm dates for delivering six month and three month maximum waiting times for cataracts
  The additional activity planned for 2003–04 and 2004–05 to deliver three months and the estimated split of activity for both years between national health service and independent sector providers
  How this initiative links to local programmes for implementing patient choice particularly piloting choice at the point of referral, and
  Linked improvements in the delivery of other eye care services, for example for chronic eye disease management.
  1042W
  In order to support this initiative further, a standard care pathway for cataracts is being developed by the national Eye Care Services Steering Group. The final pathway should be published later this year. In addition,£4 million has been allocated to fund pilots for improvements in chronic eye disease and low vision services.

  These initiatives have the support of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists who are also encouraging clinicians to use this investment to develop innovative ways of working and deliver benefits for the full range of ophthalmology services.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued to his Department on the criteria to be used by consultants in accepting a child patient for cosmetic surgery. [124898]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: The Department of Health does not issue criteria to surgeons on the selection of patients for any type of surgery. Such decisions are a clinical matter, and need to be made by the patient's consultant.

  Day Hospitals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many day hospitals there are in each London borough; and how many have(a) been merged and (b) closed since 1997. [123764]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected by the Department.

  Drug Treatment
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the National Treatment Agency has made towards its target of recruiting 3,000 practitioners to the drug treatment workforce. [124074]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Work force expansion is proceeding more rapidly than anticipated. Drug action teams report an increase of 1,088 additional posts in 2002–03 and are projecting a further 680 between 2003–04.

  Fertility Clinics
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that fertility clinics protect their patients from the risk of HIV transmission. [124398]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (HFEA) Code of Practice states that licensed fertility clinics helping HIV positive people to have a baby should use the guidelines issued by the Association of Clinical Embryologists (ACE) and other professional bodies.The ACE "Accreditation Standards and Guidelines for IVF Laboratories" include the need for separate storage equipment for infected embryos and for laboratories to be fully
  1043W
  equipped to deal with HIV. The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens gives guidelines on handling blood-borne infections such as HIV and hepatitis.

  As a further protective measure, the chair of the HFEA wrote to all licensed centres in March 2001 asking them to introduce routine screening of patients for HIV as well as hepatitis B and C. This will become mandatory in December 2004. All gamete donors are already routinely screened for HIV and detailed guidance on this is included in the HFEA's Code of Practice. This includes a requirement for donor gametes to be stored for 180 days and re-tested to minimise as far as possible the risk of HIV transmission.

  In addition to patient and donor screening, the current edition of the HFEA's Code of Practice requires laboratories in licensed centres to have procedures in place to ensure that all blood products are pre-screened for HIV.

  Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy, under clause 60 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill to introduce an appeals process to enable an independent person or panel to review the amount charged under subsection (1) of clause 62 in cases where the person or body who has received the charge wishes to appeal. [120304]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Section 57(7) (formerly section 60(7)) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill provides a power that enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow an independent person or a panel to review charges levied in individual cases by Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection on English national health service bodies, cross border Strategic Health Authorities or other persons of a specified nature, and to substitute a lesser charge if they consider it appropriate.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the maximum fine payable is under Clause 63(5) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [121181]

  Hospital Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services ( HCHS): Medical and dental doctors and General Practitioners by country of primary qualification

  Number (headcount)1

  England as at 30 September 2002

  All countries of qualification

  United Kingdom

  Of which: Rest of European Economic Area

  Elsewhere

  All doctors

  104,460

  71,382

  5,157

  27,921

  Of which:

  HCHS Doctors1

  72,168

  45,115

  3,801

  23,252

  All General Medical Practitioners2

  32,292

  26,267

  1,356

  4,669

  1 Excludes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and Hospital Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part-time in hospitals.

  2 Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SPA), PMS Other and GP Retainers.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics
  1044W
  (2) what the maximum fine payable is under Clause 64 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [121183]

  (3) what the maximum fine payable is under Clause 65(3) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121188]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The penalty on summary conviction of an offence under clauses 61, 62 and 63 (formerly clauses 63, 64 and 65) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill is a fine not exceeding level four (£2,500) on the standard scale, as set out in the Explanatory Notes.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in what circumstances he would expect the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to consider an explanation necessary under Clause 65(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [121185]

  (2) whether he will expect the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to lay down the prescription required for such times and places as an explanation may be required under Clause 65(2) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121187]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It will be for the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to decide where an explanation is necessary or expedient but this might include where it finds discrepancies within the data it has received or where information it has obtained provides evidence of potential failure by national health service bodies.

  However, it will be for the Secretary of State to lay down in regulations the times, places and persons that must provide an explanation under clause 63 (formerly clause 65) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.

  Healthcare Staff
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a)doctors and(b)nurses from developing countries are working in the UK, broken down by country. [123163]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect data on numbers of doctors or nurses working in the United Kingdom by country of origin. The Department does collect information by country of qualification, which is shown in the table.
  1045W
  Published figures show doctors categorised by country of qualification grouped into UK, European Economic Area and elsewhere only.

  The Nursing and Midwifery Council publishes an annual statistical analysis of the register, which includes statistics on overseas nurses registering in the UK. This information can be found at www.nmc-uk.org.

  Intensive Care
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds for burns there are in each region; and what the occupancy rates were in the past two years. [123559]

  Mr. Hutton
  In January 2003, the Department of Health carried out a census of open and staffed adult critical care beds in national health service trusts. The results showed that there were 3,097 critical care beds, which represents 735 (31 per cent.) more beds than in January 2000 and exceeds the target set in the NHS for 30 per cent. more adult critical care beds. Of the 3,097 beds, 35 of these were intensive care beds for burns. The Department does not collect the occupancy rates for intensive care beds centrally.

  Inventures
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 153W, on Inventures, how much has been charged by KPMG to date. [124045]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: KPMG's costs to date on Inventures are approximately £500,000.

  Maternity Care
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Health how many security incidents in maternity units
  in the NHS there have been in(a) England and (b) each strategic health authority in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement on each incident. [124226]

  Mr. Hutton
  Historically, information on security incidents has only been collated centrally in terms of overall numbers, not by level or staff groups.

  The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) was launched on 1 April this year with the new policy and operational responsibility for the management of security in the national health service. The CFSMS is currently reviewing NHS security

  Death rates1 per 100,000 population by Government Office Region2, 1997 to 20013

  North East

  North West

  Yorks & Humber

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East of England

  London

  South East

  South West

  England

  Adults

  1997

  829

  815

  761

  731

  754

  674

  734

  676

  665

  731

  1998

  843

  808

  761

  729

  738

  664

  720

  654

  642

  720

  1999

  806

  799

  735

  724

  741

  661

  712

  652

  639

  712

  2000

  775

  759

  708

  688

  712

  638

  690

  631

  628

  686

  2001

  760

  753

  693

  670

  692

  623

  677

  613

  604

  669

  1Directly age-standardised using the European Standard Population.

  2Boundaries as at 1 April 2001.

  3Deaths registered in these years.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics
  1046W
  management, and will be prioritising the establishment of an effective incident reporting system.

  Medical Technologies
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the statement in the Wanless report that new medical technologies can be used to facilitate a dramatic fall in length of stays in hospital. [118053]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Wanless report identifies several possible impacts of new medical technologies. Shorter length of stay in hospital is listed among numerous other potential effects. The Government recognise that it is important to determine the future impacts of technological advances.

  The National Horizon Scanning Centre at the University of Birmingham, has a contract with the Department of Health to examine the impact that new health technologies and drugs may have on health expenditure. This year, for the first time, we have asked the National Horizon Scanning Centre to consider the impact that health0 technologies and drugs may have on average length of stay.

  NHS Pay Beds
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to phase out the practice of private patients using NHS hospitals pay beds and other provision; and if he will make a statement. [120054]

  Mr. Hutton
  This is a matter for local decision. The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill imposes a limit on the amount of private work that national health service foundation trusts may carry out. They will not be able to undertake a higher proportion of private work than they do at present.

  Mortality/Morbidity Rates
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) mortality and (b) morbidity rates for each year since 1997 for (i) England and (ii) each region of England. [122789]

  Mr. Hutton
  The available figures are shown in the tables. Regional figures are by Government Office Region. Mortality rates come from death registration information. Morbidity rates are less easy to define and collect. However, the Health Survey for England gives the proportion of survey respondents who reported having any illness, disability or infirmity that they considered had troubled them or was likely to affect them over a period of time.
  1047W

  Long standing illness by Government Office Region, 1997 to 2001

  Percentage

  North East

  North West

  Yorks & Humber

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East of England

  London

  South East

  South West

  England

  Adults

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  49

  48

  46

  45

  42

  39

  42

  42

  43

  44

  1999

  45

  50

  44

  45

  46

  41

  39

  43

  42

  44

  2000

  47

  46

  44

  50

  46

  39

  40

  44

  41

  44

  2001

  51

  48

  47

  51

  46

  42

  40

  44

  45

  46

  n/a = not available by Government Office Region

  Source:

  Health Survey for England, Department of Health

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what powers of enforcement the National Care Standards Commission has in respect of its reports on boarding schools; [125165]

  (2) what powers (a) the Government, (b) school staff, (c) governors and (d) parents have to refuse to accept the recommendations of the National Care Standards Commission in respect of independent boarding schools. [125173]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) has no such powers of enforcement.

  The objective of the national minimum standards is to ensure that young people who board at any school receive a good basic level of care and that their welfare needs are met. Inspections against the standards are carried out by the NCSC, working in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and local education authorities.

  The power to take action in an independent boarding school failing to ensure adequate care provision falls to DfES as the regulating authority. Where DfES considers that a report shows children's welfare as not sufficiently safeguarded and promoted, it will take action, and require the school to make the necessary improvements.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualifications are required for inspectors of boarding schools from the National Care Standards Commission. [125175]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Those employed as inspectors of children's services by the National Care Standards Commission need—in addition to other requirements concerning relevant experience, skills and specialist knowledge—a qualification from the following list:

  Certificate of Qualification in Social Work

  Diploma in Social Work

  Qualified Teacher Status

  Diploma in Higher Education

  Postgraduate Certificate in Education

  Certificate in Social Services

  Registered General Nurse

  State Registered Nurse

  Certificate in Residential Care of Children and Young People

  National Vocational Qualification—Level 4 in a field working with children or managing children's services.

  National Health Service Act
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend the National Health Service Act 1977; and if he will make a statement. [123455]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: The NHS Act of 1977 has been amended on a number of occasions. The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, currently before the House, proposes to make further amendments. Power was taken under the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 to consolidate national health service legislation since 1977, and it is my intention that we will proceed with consolidation as soon as is feasible.

  NHS Doctors (Retention)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors left the NHS last year. [123602]

  Mr. Hutton
  Work force data are collected through the annual Department of Health medical and general practitioner work force census. The census is a snapshot of data as of 30 September in the appropriate year. The information presented in the table shows the net difference in the number of doctors between September 2001 and September 2002. Data on numbers of leavers and joiners in the national health service is not available.

  Hospital, public health medicine and community health services ( HCHS) medical and dental staff and general medical practitioners, in England, as at 30 September 2001 and 2002

  headcount

  2001

  2002

  All doctors1

  100,319

  104,460

  of which:

  HCHS medical and dental staff1

  68,484

  72,168

  General medical practitioners

  31,835

  32,292

  1 Excludes hospital medical hospital practitioners and hospital medical clinical assistants, most of whom are GPs working part time in hospitals.

  Note:

  All practitioners include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS other and GP retainers.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  NHS Property/Inventures Sale
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the National Audit Office report into the NHS property and inventures sale; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [123635]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: The National Audit Office (NAO) work on the bidding process is nearing completion. A response will then be sent by the NAO to the Pears Group, the complainant

  In addition, the NAO will send an internal management report to the Department of Health summarising their findings and conclusions. No decision has yet been taken as to whether the report will be published.

  Prisoners (Health Care)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors are available to provide health care services to patients in each prison in England and Wales (i) for 24 hours in each day, (ii) for 12 hours in each day, (iii) every other day, (iv) twice a week and (v) once a week; and if he will make a statement. [123308]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information is not available in the form requested. Under the Prison Act 1952 every prison must have a medical officer. The provision of health services in an establishment is organised around its health care centre.

  Health care centres fall into one of four categories according to the level of service provided and are staffed appropriately to fulfil their particular function. There are 23 type one and 45 type two health care centres at which only daytime health care cover is provided, generally by part-time staff in the former and full-time staff in the latter. There are 68 type three health care centres, which have in-patient facilities and 24-hour nurse cover, and four type four facilities, which have the same level of provision but act as national or regional assessment centres.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of medication provided in prisons that would normally be administered in tablet form is given in liquid form to prevent storage of medication by prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [123307]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information is not available in the form requested. Prisons have a risk assessment process that will be undertaken before a prisoner is allowed to have medication in their possession. Not all medication can be made available in liquid form. Prison Health has published, "A Pharmacy Service for Prisoners", available at www.doh.gov.uk/prisonhealth, which will help prisons to develop their pharmacy services.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what documentation will be needed for the export of goods originating in occupied Cyprus, from Famagusta port. [R] [123634]
  1050W
  Mr. MacShane
  Issues relating to the status of Famagusta port are for the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

  However, as mandated by the Copenhagen European Council, the European Commission is consulting the Republic of Cyprus on measures to promote the economic development of the north and bring it closer to the EU.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the Department's policies have been screened for their environmental impact since June 2001; how many environmental appraisals have been conducted, and on what policy issues; and what information has been published about these screenings and appraisals. [124710]

  Mr. Rammell
  As well as working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to deliver international environmental policy objectives, the FCO takes environmental issues into account when formulating policy; and, particularly, potential impact on the FCO's two Public Service Agreements that relate to environment as a pillar of sustainable development (Business Plan 2003-06):

  Public Service Agreement 7:

  Make globalisation work for sustainable development in the UK and internationally (especially in Africa) by promoting democracy and the rule of law, good economic and environmental governance, and security of long-term energy supply, measured by specific underlying targets.

  Public Service Agreement 11:

  Improvement in the governance, environment and security of the overseas territories, and more diversified economic development, as measured by implementation of the commitments in the 1999 White Paper "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity—Britain and the Overseas Territories".

  As detailed in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), Official Report, column 472W, the FCO is also in the process of developing a Sustainable Development Strategy.

  The FCO has committed itself to implementing the terms of "The Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate". Further information on this is available on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk).

  The commitments of the Framework for Sustainable Development will be applied to the whole of the FCO UK estate, although time-scales may vary depending on the location and nature of the site.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the itinerary, with(a) dates and (b) agenda, of the recently announced roadshow of UK cities and towns as part of the EU information campaign; what budget has been assigned; how many staff have been tasked; what measures he will take to ensure that (i) hon. Members

  1051W
  whose constituency it visits are informed and (ii) a full and open exchange of views occurs; and if he will make a statement. [124323]

  Mr. MacShane
  Details of the EU enlargement visits to more than 100 UK cities and towns can be found on the FCO public website (www.fco.gov.uk). This is updated regularly with details of future visits.

  The FCO EU Public Diplomacy Section of seven staff is responsible for implementing efforts to inform the U K public about the EU—including this regional programme, in addition to other duties.

  A budget of £40,000 has been set aside for this programme, and we work closely with local Government Offices and other regional organisations to arrange visits.

  All hon. and right hon. Members and Members of the European Parliament are informed of forthcoming visits, and we aim to engage as wide an audience as possible by informing the media in advance.

  Highly Skilled Migrant Programme
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people were granted entry into the UK in each of the last six years under the highly skilled migrant programme. [123776]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) is administered by Work Permits UK at the Home Office and has only been in operation since 28 January 2002.

  Work Permits UK are responsible for approving applications under the HSMP and for issuing permits to successful applicants. All HSMP permit holders require a visa under the provisions of paragraph 135 A-H of the Immigration Rules. Possession of a HMSP permit is not a guarantee that a visa will be issued. The applicant must still be able to demonstrate that (s)he qualifies for entry to the UK in accordance with the Immigration Rules.

  Work Permits UK have approved 2,700 applications under the HSMP since January 2002. However, they cannot provide statistics on the number of those who were granted entry into the UK. UKvisas do not hold statistics on the number of visas issued to applicants who have been granted HSMP permits. These figures are subsumed within the general category of visas issued to work permit holders.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of British support projects for the reform process in Indonesia; and what action he plans to take to improve their effectiveness. [124167]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Britain is active in a number of areas in assisting Indonesia making a success of its democratic reform, including police, legal and judicial reform, anti-corruption moves, security sector reform, democracy building and the support for an independent and free media. We review our co-operation in these areas regularly, including by external experts. We have a long-term commitment to Indonesia. As one of the main 1052W
  donors supporting the reform process in Indonesia, we continue to strive for greater coherency and cooperation among other donor partners in Indonesia.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss with the Government of Indonesia support projects from the(a) judiciary and (b) the armed services aimed at aiding the process of reform under way in Indonesia. [124169]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has regular discussions with the Indonesian Government about assistance in aiding its process of reform, mostly through our embassy in Jakarta. We aim to continue devoting our resources to assisting in the creation of a stable, democratic, peaceful Indonesia. Assistance with reform of the judiciary and armed services are important parts of our overall strategy. We have active co-operation through a programme of Bar Council and Law Society visits. We provided human rights training for five Supreme Court Judges this March, with further training planned. The Governance Partnership, which is undertaking research to help develop a constituency for governance reform, and which is supporting the rule of law, police reform and anti-corruption initiatives, is working on judicial oversight in the justice system. We have a UK Security Sector reform strategy, aimed at strengthening democratic control over the armed forces and helping the Indonesians rethink their security needs. During the visits of my noble Friend Baroness Kennedy of the British Council in June 2002, and my noble Friend Baroness Scotland, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the FCO, in September 2002, seminars were held with the Indonesian Chief Justice and members of the Indonesian Supreme Court. Through support to the International Committee of the Red Cross we are providing the security services with training in human rights and international humanitarian law. These programmes are ongoing.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ba'ath Party officials have been arrested by allied forces in Iraq; and what assessment has been made of the role of such officials still at large as leaders of Saddam loyalist resistance in Iraq. [124029]

  Mr. Rammell
  Detentions of senior Ba'ath Party officials by the Coalition continue. Where senior Ba'athists pose a security risk, or are suspected of having been involved in criminal activity, they will continue to be detained by Coalition Forces. Assessments of the role of those still at large, whether involved in resistance against Coalition forces or otherwise, are ongoing.

  On 16 May, the Coalition Provisional Authority issued an Order disestablishing the Ba'ath Party. This Order removes and bars all members of the Ba'ath Party at the rank of Senior Member and above from positions of authority in the future. All Ba'ath Party members suspected of criminal conduct will be investigated and, if necessary, detained.

  Islamabad
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the entry clearance operation in Islamabad to review its work. [123856]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit the Visa Section in Islamabad but he is monitoring developments there closely and is committed to restoring a full entry clearance operation as soon as the security situation in Pakistan allows.

  A number of measures are, however, being implemented that will increase the level of service Islamabad is able to offer. In particular, the number of entry clearance officers in post has risen significantly. This will enable the Visa Section to increase the level of service, both in terms of categories of applications they can accept and how quickly they can be processed.

  Israel
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government to restore equality of levels of access and treatment for the BBC to that accorded to other media organisations. [124263]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are concerned by the decision by the Israeli Government not to grant any interviews or access to the BBC. It is for the BBC to take this up with the Israeli Government.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government next plan to host a visit by the Israeli Prime Minister. [124417]

  Mr. Rammell
  Prime Minister Sharon will visit the UK on 13–16 July.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to prevent acts of violence against members of the Serb community in Kosovo. [124421]

  Mr. MacShane
  A key priority for United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Kosovo Force (KFOR), embodied in their mandates from UN Security Council Resolution 1244, is to create a safe and secure environment for all Kosovo's citizens. Overall, statistics for the first five months of 2003 showed a continuous decrease of serious crime in Kosovo. This includes a reduction in ethnically motivated attacks, though any such crime continues to be a cause for concern.

  KFOR continues to use its troop presence to prevent attacks on minorities. For example, in Multinational Brigade East 190 security patrols are mounted every day, 65 checkpoints are manned and 64 facilities, such as Serb patrimonial sites, are guarded. KFOR also conducts air surveillance, response to emergency calls, search operations, border control, escorts for Serbs, and support to UNMIK Police in investigation of criminal activities and arrest or detention of suspected criminals. The Kosovo Police Service (KPS) has also been
  1054W
  established as a genuinely multi-ethnic force working alongside international police to help deter violence and build confidence.

  A key step in Kosovo's progress is to ensure that ethnically motivated violence is considered unacceptable. In building a tolerant society that can provide security for all its minorities, Kosovo Albanian leaders and political parties are publicly condemning acts of violence that appear to be ethnically motivated.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) Serbs and (b) other minorities have returned to Kosovo in the past year. [124422]

  Mr. MacShane
  United Nations Mission in Kosovo figures indicate that in 2002 there were 2,756 returns: 966 Serbs, 390 Roma, 884 Ashkali/Egyptians, 149 Bosniaks, 73 Gorani and 294 Kosovo Albanians returned to areas where they are a minority. During the first five months of 2003, 437 Serbs, 330 Roma/Ashkali/ Egyptians, 133 Bosniaks, 31 Gorani and 61 Kosovo Albanians returned to Kosovo. This is a total of 992 returns, up from 874 during the same period last year.

  Morocco
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Morocco concerning the case of the journalist, Ali Lmrabet, who has recently been imprisoned. [123461]

  Mr. Rammell
  Officials in Rabat raised our concerns about Ali Lmrabet's detention with the Moroccan Government at official and Ministerial level. The EU Presidency in Rabat also spoke formally to the Moroccans concerning Ali Lmrabet's state of health. We will continue to monitor the situation.

  Sierra Leone
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people from Sierra Leone have been admitted to the UK on entry visas for work in(a) 2001–02 and (b) in 2002–03. [124607]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  The latest available information on Sierra Leonean nationals granted leave to enter the United Kingdom as work permit holders or their dependants is given in the table.

  Sierra Leonean nationals granted leave to enter the United Kingdom as work permit holders or their dependants, 20011,2

  2001

  Employment for 12 months or more

  10

  Employment for less than 12 months3

  5

  Dependants of work permit holders

  10

  1 A change in procedures may have resulted in some under-recording in the first quarter of 2001.

  2 Data are rounded to the nearest five.

  3 Includes the majority of work permit trainees.

  Data on those people granted leave to enter the United Kingdom in 2002 are due to be published at the end of August 2003 on the Home Office website: http:// www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/whatsnewl.html

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124804]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have been in discussion with one cell phone operator who wishes to install a mast on the FCO's Old Admiralty Building, and we understand that a planning application is to be submitted shortly. No other applications have been made in respect of the FCO's properties.

  Turkey
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his recent discussions in London with the Turkish Foreign Minister. [124590]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I met his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gul, on 3 July 2003. He reaffirmed the UK's full support for Turkey's EU candidacy, welcomed recent developments and encouraged Turkey to make further progress towards meeting the Copenhagen Political Criteria. He also discussed regional issues. He reported on his recent visit to the Middle East, focusing on the situation in Iraq and Iran. The Foreign Secretary also reiterated the need for a Cyprus solution on the basis on the UN plan.

  Turkish Aircraft Incursions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of recent incursions by Turkish aircraft in the Aegean; and if he will make a statement. [124592]

  Mr. MacShane
  The conduct of international aviation is governed by international law. Any action which has as its objective the increase of tension or the deterioration of bilateral relations between two countries is a matter of regret to the British Government. The British Government welcome the contacts which continue between the Governments of Greece and Turkey at a political and official level with a view to the consolidation of improvements in bilateral relations.

  Visas
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to introduce online visa applications in countries other than the US. [124614]

  Mr. Mullin
  Following the success of online visa applications in the United States, UKvisas is currently developing the necessary software and website required to introduce online visa applications in other countries. It is intended that a pilot scheme will begin by early November 2003 in Malaysia and Singapore, followed by Australia, New Zealand and Canada before the end of 2003.

  It is intended to make online visa applications available in up to 30 countries in 2004.
  1056W
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people were granted visas in(a) 2002 and (b) the first six months of 2003 to enter the UK without restriction on seeking employment. [123774]

  Mr. Mullin
  All visas issued have some form of restriction attached. Categories of entry clearance of which there are no restrictions on seeking work are:Those applicants settling with spouses, partners or other dependant close relatives in the UK;
  Those applicants joining recognised refugees in the UK for family reunion.

  The total number of visas issued to applicants in the above categories and who are therefore free to seek employment in 2002 was 55,297. Entry Clearance statistics are collated annually and figures for the financial year 2002–03 will be available in the Library of the House from the end of August/early September.

  In addition to the above categories of entry clearance, the following applicants are also entitled to work without restriction on their employment:
  Those applicants entering the United Kingdom under UK Ancestry Rules;
  Dependants of students coming to the UK for more that 12 months;
  Dependants of work permit holders.

  While work permit holders, Au Pairs, Agricultural Workers, and domestic workers may work, they are restricted to working for a specific employer and can therefore not "seek" work.

  Working Holidays
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance has been given to entry clearance officers about the funds required for a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a working holidaymaker. [125337]

  Mr. Mullin
  All new Entry Clearance Officers (ECOs) undergo an intensive course of training provided by UKvisas. As part of an ECO's training, specific instruction is given concerning those seeking entry clearance for employment in the United Kingdom, part of which covers working holidaymakers.

  Guidance about applications from working holidaymakers is contained in the Diplomatic Service Procedures, Entry Clearance, Volume 1, Chapter 18.4. The Diplomatic Service Procedures are available to ECOs both during their training and while at post, and are available to the public online through UKvisas website www.ukvisas.gov.uk.

  Applicants are not expected to have a specific amount of money in order to qualify for entry to the United Kingdom as a working holidaymaker. However, working holidaymakers must be able to demonstrate that that they have enough money to pay for their return journey and also to pay for accommodation and living expenses for at least the first two months after arrival without recourse to public funds, or at least one month if they have a job arranged in advance.
  1057W
  Those wishing to visit the United Kingdom as working holidaymakers are advised to establish how much money they will need by researching their trip before they apply. ECOs are not required to make decisions based on a prescribed level of funding that a working holidaymaker must have, but instead are required to consider each application on its own merits against the relevant requirements of the Immigration Rules.

  Changes to the Working Holidaymaker Scheme (WHMS) were announced on 20 June 2003, Official Report, column 21WS, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State (Beverly Hughes). Ukvisas sent entry clearance staff worldwide guidance on the changes to the WHMS on 18 June. Although no changes were made to the Immigration Rules concerning the funding required by working holidaymakers, entry clearance staff were reminded of these requirements in the guidance of 18 June.

PRIME MINISTER

  Foreign Secretary (Committees)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors underlay his decision to appoint(a) the Foreign Secretary to head the Biotechnology subcommittee SCI(BIO), (b) the Deputy Prime Minister to head the Environment Committee (ENN) and (c) himself to head the Thames Gateway Committee (MISC 22). [125329]

  The Prime Minister
  I act in accordance with the way previous Prime Ministers have chosen their chairmen of Cabinet committees.

  Iraq
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was first informed by British Intelligence that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Africa. [125003]

  The Prime Minister
  The issue of how intelligence information was used in the production of the UK Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction published in September 2002 is currently being addressed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House. Their report on their findings will be published in due course.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister when and by whom he was first informed that the dossier which he presented to the House on 3 February(a) had been released to journalists and (b) was not predominantly intelligence material. [125083]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on 24 June 2003,Official Report, columns 652–53.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government(a) official and (b) Minister took the decision to insert the assertion that such weapons could be deployed in 45 minutes in (i) the foreword to, (ii) the executive summary of, and (iii) the draft of his speech
  1058W
  to the House, 24 September 2002, Official Report, column 3, on the September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. [125189]

  The Prime Minister
  The dossier, including the executive summary, was drafted by the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and his staff, and they were responsible for including the 45 minutes intelligence. The foreword was prepared by my staff in Downing street in the normal way. It was signed off by me, but members of the JIC had the opportunity to comment on it. My speech to the House of Commons was written in the normal way and reflected what was in the September 2002 dossier which was being debated in the House on 24 September 2002.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the situation of the uranium derivatives looted from the Tuwaitha nuclear complex in Iraq. [125236]

  The Prime Minister
  A team of investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards division carried out an examination of the al-Tuwaitha site last month. The report of their findings has not yet been published.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had on the state of Iraqi schools. [125244]

  The Prime Minister
  Rehabilitating Iraq's education system is a Coalition priority. The Coalition Provisional Authority has been working with the Iraqi Ministry of Education, UNICEF and UNESCO to get schools back up and running as quickly as possible. Funding is also being made available through US Agency for International Development contractors to rehabilitate 6,000 schools and provide school equipment. Plans are being made to provide teaching materials to all primary schools by the start of the school year in mid-September. UNICEF is assisting the organisation of national terminal exams for primary, intermediate and secondary students.

  By the end of June, 98 per cent. of all schools in Iraq had reopened and around 4.5 million children had taken end of year exams. A further 1 million children will take exams in July.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the Liaison Committee on 8 July, if he will make a further statement on intelligence received relating to Iraq seeking to obtain uranium from Niger since the end of the first Gulf war in 1991 which is deemed valid. [125711]

  The Prime Minister
  The assessment that Iraq sought uranium from Niger drew on intelligence from more than one source, including non-documentary intelligence. We agree with the IAEA that some of the documents they hold are forgeries. However, others may be genuine. The Government are keeping the situation under review.

  Official Report
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral statement of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 678, if he will make a statement on whether his purported quotation of the right hon.

  1059W
  Member for Wells was not accurate and should be withdrawn, with the necessary correction of the Official Report. [122733]

  The Prime Minister
  I am happy to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he does not believe that the very nature of the European Union is incompatible with democracy and accountability.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Immigration Appeals Tribunal
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time adjudicators and how many members of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal are not British Citizens; and what their nationalities are. [125336]

  Mr. Lammy
  Immigration adjudicators; there are currently 170 salaried adjudicators and 429 fee-paid adjudicators. The total of salaried adjudicators includes the Chief Adjudicator, the Deputy Chief Adjudicator, nine Regional Adjudicators and seven Deputy Regional Adjudicators. Of the 170 salaried adjudicators, two are not British Citizens; they are from Zimbabwe. Of the 429 fee-paid adjudicators, four are not British Citizens; one is from Eire, one from Canada, one from Zimbabwe and one from Malaysia.

  Immigration Appeal Tribunal members; there are currently 81 members working for the Immigration Appeals Tribunals, which includes the President, the Deputy President, full-time Vice Presidents, fee-paid lay members and fee-paid legal members. Of these, 15 were appointed at a time when nationality was not recorded. The remaining 66 are British nationals.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  5 St. Phillip's Place, Birmingham
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to take a lease of 5 St. Phillip's Place, Birmingham; and for what purpose his Department proposes to use the building. [124181]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering re-locating the Government Office for the West Midlands. As part of that process, a number of options are being evaluated. As yet no decision has been taken.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his intentions are with regard to amendment of the specified maximum amount under section 9(3) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. [118958]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to consult on the statutory regime for local government employees' political activities, and in the light of that we will wish to consider the appropriate statutory framework for the remuneration of political assistants.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 3 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Pam Whittle. [124329]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) replied to my right hon. Friend's letter on 7 July.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116082]

  Phil Hope
  11 officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister serve on European Union (EU) Committees and working parties, as well as ad hoc working groups and sub-groups. Officials attend five EU Committees (the National EIA and SEA Experts Committee, the Committee for the Development and Conversion of the Regions, the Raw Materials Supply Group, Standing Committee on Construction and the Working Group on the draft Directive on waste for the extractive industries). Membership of these Committees is not fixed, and depending on the subject matter under consideration, the most appropriate policy officials attend. Officials also attend a number of related ad hoc working groups and sub-groups.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121393]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey) to the right hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 459W.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of changing signs on each fire station from fire service to fire and rescue service. [124758]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made no estimate of the cost of changing signs from fire service to fire and rescue service. The fire and rescue service is a local authority service provided by individual fire authorities through their local brigade. Half of the authorities in England and Wales already refer to their brigade as a fire and rescue service, including Devon.

  Housing (Black Minority Ethnic Communities)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to commission research into the housing needs of the Somali community in response to the conclusion in paragraph 3.4 of Housing and BME communities: A review of the evidence base on the availability of housing related data about particular small or new migrant groups; [124706]
  1061W
  (2) what plans he has to commission research in response to the conclusion in paragraph 3.4 of Housing and BME communities: A review of the evidence base on the availability of systematic, empirical material on the housing and neighbourhood experiences of black minority ethnic children. [124707]

  Keith Hill
  To date, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no specific plans in place to commission further work on the housing needs of Somali Communities or to collect further data on the housing and neighbourhood experiences of black and minority ethnic children.

  The report makes a number of recommendations about how the evidence base can be strengthened in relation to the available data on housing, "race" and ethnicity. The report was published in May 2003 and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister now needs to consider the priorities and practicalities of taking forward the various recommendations.

  Hull City Council
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the meetings that he has had with Hull city council since May 2002. [121810]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had no meetings with Hull city council since May 2002. He has had meetings with individual councillors.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many of his staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111964]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on the 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 662W.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff in the Department have been on long-term sick leave in each of the last two years. [115856]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established following machinery of Government changes on 29 May 2002. The most recent "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" (2001) was published in December 2002. This publication includes figures for sick absences in agencies that became part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 29 May 2002. The analysis for 2002 is due to be published soon.

  Since 29 May 2002 the figures available show that 158 staff had sick absences lasting 21 days or more. This does not include the Rent Service and Government Offices where this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The office is committed to managing sick absence effectively and to meeting Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) target reductions in sick absence by the end of 2003.

  Staff Deployments
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the geographical locations are of the place of work of civil servants within his Department; and how many civil servants worked at each location in(a) May 2002 and (b) May 2003. [121813]

  Yvette Cooper
  Tabled are the number and location of staff in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the major offices, the Executive Agencies and the Government Offices.

  Headcount

  ODPM (C) Office locations

  31 May 2002

  31 May 2003

  Bristol

  21

  18

  Hastings

  33

  35

  Hemel Hempstead

  98

  106

  London

  1,800

  1,956

  Manchester

  12

  14

  Uttoxeter

  28

  28

  Watford

  12

  12

  Other smaller offices outside London

  30

  30

  Total

  2,034

  2,199

  QEII Conference Centre

  London.

  49

  50

  Planning Inspectorate

  Bristol

  732

  779

  Fire Service College

  Moreton in Marsh, Gloucestershire

  193

  221

  The Rent Service

  London 31 locations outside London

  279

  231

  Government Offices

  557

  529

  GOE-Cambridge

  189

  234

  GONE-Newcastle

  275

  304

  GONW-Manchester and Liverpool

  338

  337

  GOSE-Guildford

  275

  283

  GOSW-Bristol and Plymouth

  289

  307

  GOWM-Birmingham

  277

  311

  GOEM-Nottingham

  239

  277

  GOY H-Leeds

  264

  286

  GOL-London

  258

  282

  RCU-London

  61

  67

  Total

  2,471

  2,688

  The number of staff in the centre of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in London at May 2002 and May 2003 are not directly comparable as there has been on-going re-organisation arising from the machinery of Government changes.

  Warden Schemes
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in what locations neighbourhood warden schemes are in operation; how many wardens have been appointed in each location; and if he will make a statement on the future funding of neighbourhood warden schemes. [118427]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Neighbourhood Warden Team (NWT) funds 245 warden schemes, which operate in England and Wales comprising nearly 1,500 wardens. Numbers of wardens in each region breaks down as follows:

  England

  North-east—131

  North-west—301

  South-west—107

  Eastern—69

  East midlands—58

  1063W

  West midlands—172

  South-east—92

  Yorkshire and the Humber—174

  London—321

  Wales—21

  Total—1,446

  Future funding—the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is keen that all funded schemes continue. However, Government funding for warden schemes was awarded on a short-term basis, and it was clear from the start that this financial support would only be for a limited period. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister already has examples of local authorities and housing Associations that are mainstreaming schemes.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with all schemes in the development of their future sustainability plans. Events are being held and guidance has been produced for scheme managers. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is promoting the Wardens approach, particularly as a key element of neighbourhood management.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it became his Department's policy not to enforce removals of people refused asylum to( a) Iraq, (b) Zimbabwe and (c) Somalia; and what the reasons are for this policy in each case. [124239]

  Beverley Hughes
  Returns of failed Iraqi asylum seekers have not been enforced since the outbreak of the Gulf War in 1990 due to the nature of the Saddam regime and subsequently due to the recent conflict. It is important that Iraqis start returning to their country now the conflict is over. At present only voluntary returns are appropriate but we will start enforced removal once conditions allows.

  Returns of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers have not been enforced since 15 January 2002. On that date my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that removals had been suspended. This decision was initially made in the light of the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe in the run up to elections due in March 2002. Since that date we have not considered that it would be right to recommence enforcing removals to Zimbabwe.

  Returns of failed Somali asylum seekers have not been enforced since 1988 to the north of Somalia and since 1991 to the country as a whole. The original reason for this was the civil war and the overthrow of Siad Barre's administration in 1991. Somalia has since remained without a functioning central government and the security situation in much of the south of the country remains poor. Nevertheless, there are regions of the country, most notably Somaliland, where a functioning administration is in place and to which the Home Office believes enforced returns to be sustainable subject to agreement with the regional authorities. Home Office officials have been undertaking negotiations with the authorities in Somaliland on such an agreement.
  1064W
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his most recent estimate is of the average time it takes to process asylum applications for(a) initial decisions and (b) final decisions. [123567]

  Beverley Hughes
  The average time between application and initial decision was six months for initial decisions made in the financial year 2002–03, compared with 20 months for April 1997. This has been calculated using all cases for which data are available, including older cases decided as part of the reduction of the number of outstanding cases, as well as new cases decided as part of normal work in progress.

  Information on the proportion of cases decided, up to and including final appeal, within six months, will be published in the Home Office's Annual Report in order to report on the Public Service Agreement (PSA) target seven, published in July 2002. Due to the nature of the target, performance data will not be available until more than six months following the relevant financial year. For example (subject to data quality), it is planned that performance against financial year 2003–04 will be reported at the end of November 2004, although provisional figures for applications made between April 2003 and September 2003 will be available earlier.

  Provisional data show that 73 per cent. of applications received in the period April to December 2002 had initial decisions reached and served within two months. 42 per cent. of asylum appeals received by the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) in the period April to December 2002 were determined within 17 weeks (including those appeals also dealt with by the second tier of the IAA).

  Information on the proportion of new substantive applications with initial decisions made and served within two months, and information on the proportion of appeals received by the IAA which are dealt with within four months, is published in the quarterly asylum statistics, copies of which are available in the Library, published at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rd s/immigration1.html

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why failed asylum seekers' National Asylum Support Service support is terminated before their removal to country of origin; [124052]

  (2) if he will grant failed asylum seekers a temporary status in the UK to enable them to receive support before they are removed. [124065]

  Beverley Hughes
  For single asylum seekers and childless couples the legislation allows for support to be provided to asylum seekers until a final decision is made on their claim and, in the case of unsuccessful applicants, for 21 days after the receipt of the final decision on the claim. In the case of families including children under the age of 18, support is provided unless and until the family fails to comply with removal directions or until the youngest child reaches 18.

  In the majority of cases there is nothing to prevent the failed asylum seeker from leaving the country once their asylum claim has been finally determined. Letters sent at this stage to failed asylum seekers provide details of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), who

  1065W
  will assist the person to make a voluntary return, and also the Immigration Service who will arrange for them to return to their home country.

  Failed asylum seekers may be provided with accommodation if they are in a position where they cannot leave immediately through no fault of their own e.g. because they are suffering from a temporary physical incapacity or need a travel document to enable them to go. It would be inappropriate to extend this to all failed asylum seekers. We are determined to increase the number of failed asylum seekers who are removed or who leave of their own accord and providing support until they are removed would thwart this policy.

  All asylum claims are carefully and fully considered. In some cases where asylum is refused there will be humanitarian or discretionary reasons which make it appropriate to grant leave. Once an asylum claim has been refused and all appeal rights are exhausted it is not our practice to grant temporary status until the failed asylum seeker is removed. We have no plans to amend this procedure.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be responsible for affording protection in the proposed regional protection areas for asylum seekers; what the basis of contributions to the cost of running the zones will be; what the estimated per capita cost is of doing so; who will undertake the initial decisions; what provision will be made for asylum seekers to obtain disinterested legal advice and representation; what appeal mechanism will apply for those who are refused refugee status; what provision will be made for humanitarian and secondary protection outside the provisions of the 1951 Convention and according to which country's criteria; and what the basis will be of allocating to EU countries those who have been granted refugee status and humanitarian and secondary protection. [124114]

  Beverley Hughes
  Under international law the Host State is legally responsible for affording protection in refugee areas. However, one of the aims of our proposals is to strengthen their capacity to provide such protection so that they meet the core standards of 'effective protection'.

  We are looking to identify the precise needs of prospective host states and aim to provide appropriate resources in collaboration with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), our coalition partners and the European Commission. We cannot at this stage provide per capita costs as this will depend on the needs of the host country and the scale of the refugee caseload we are seeking to help. However, it is our intention to start on a small scale.

  The primary objective is to provide effective protection closer to the source country, not to process asylum applications in large numbers overseas. Asylum processing will be considered only as part of finding durable solutions. Any decision on who to admit to the United Kingdom as a refugee will be taken by British immigration officials.
  1066W
  We are working closely with UNHCR to develop appropriate logistical, staffing and legal arrangements. Where it is appropriate, decision-making processes will be overseen by UNHCR to ensure refugee interests are taken fully into account.

  Our commitment to improving refugee protection goes beyond the 1951 Convention and we will be looking to develop appropriate solutions within the limits of our resources. This may include repatriation and local integration, but we may also resettle some refugees on a burden-sharing basis with our partner countries. The precise working arrangements will need to be agreed with host countries.

  Immigration
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used by immigration officers, who release a person from immigration detention, to determine whether an address is suitable as one where the person will be required to live under the terms of the temporary admission; and what checks immigration officers are expected to carry out before releasing a person from detention to ensure an address meets these criteria. [124238]

  Beverley Hughes
  Immigration officers have the power under the Immigration Act 1971 to admit temporarily to the United Kingdom any person who is liable to be detained or is detained already.

  Temporary admission is granted to any person where the immigration officer considers likely they will comply with its terms. There are no specific directions to immigration officers on what checks should be made when temporary admission is granted. Each case is treated on its individual merits. There are a number of checks that can be made including:
  The proposed address and any sponsor's details against the Immigration Service's computerised Warnings Index.
  Police national computer records. The address and sponsor's details can be checked to see if there is any adverse criminal activity connected to the sponsor or address.
  The electoral register.
  The Casework Information Database (CID), which allows immigration officers to enter postcode details and shows whether an address at that postcode exists.

  Where temporary admission is granted, the immigration officer may decide to also enforce further restrictions, such as the requirement to report regularly to a reporting centre or police station, thus allowing closer monitoring of the temporary admission.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 204W, on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, when the Birmingham Public Enquiry Office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will reopen. [124608]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Birmingham Public Enquiry Office is closed for essential refurbishment purposes. The target date for re-opening the Public Enquiry Office is 1 August 2003.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records Bureau
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  The Government, in their response on 27 February 2003 to the Independent Review Team's recommendations for changes to the way in which the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is managed and operates,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, agreed that the CRB should be reconstituted as a free-standing Executive Agency within the Home Office as soon as practicable.

  Vince Gaskell has been appointed to lead the new Agency which will be launched on 1 September. I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of its Framework document which sets out its role and functions and makes provision for its governance. A copy of its corporate and business plan including the targets set for the current financial year was placed in the Library of the House on 5 June.

  Much has been done to strengthen and improve the CRB's performance and significant improvements in output volume and turnaround times have already been achieved. Since October the CRB has been issuing an average of 40,000 Disclosures a week compared with 24,500 a week last August and the Bureau is now meeting its service standards for turnaround times. Once the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill to implement a number of the Independent Review Team's recommendations are in force, further improvements can be made to the efficiency and effectiveness of the CRB's services. We will consult further with registered bodies and others on the terms of the regulations to be made under the legislation before they are brought into force.

  The establishment of the CRB as a separate Agency will enable its senior management team under the leadership of Vince Gaskell to focus exclusively on the delivery of the CRB's changing and increasingly demanding functions and ensure that its customers receive the quality of service they have the right to expect.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  A Progress Report on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in Great Britain was placed in the Library of the House yesterday.
  64WS
  The Report explains primarily how we have managed BSE during the period 1 July-31 December 2002. The encouraging reduction in BSE in cattle continues. This shows that the controls, which have been put in place, are continuing to have an important effect.

  The Report explains the background to the lifting of the French ban on imports of Date Based Export Scheme beef; it also outlines the progress of the TSE surveillance programme and the review of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). It covers issues bearing on European matters and the TSE research programme. It also sets out progress on the National Scrapie Plan and the results of enforcement visits to ensure compliance with the rules on specified risk material and animal feed. The report is being published on DEFRA's website at: http://www.defra.gov. uk/animalh/bse/index.html

  GM Crops
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  The Strategy Unit's report, "Field Work: Weighing up the Costs and Benefits of GM crops", is being published today as a report to Government. The report sets out the Strategy Unit's analysis of the overall costs and benefits of commercial cultivation—or non-cultivation—of GM crops in the UK. It looks at crops that are currently available and at possible developments over the next 10–15 years.

  I commissioned the Strategy Unit project as one of three strands of work on GM, along with the Science Review and the public debate "GM Nation?" The report does not contain specific recommendations for Government. But, along with any responses to it and the outcomes of the other two strands, it will inform Government decision-making and policy on GM crops and foods—on which my Department leads.

  The Strategy Unit's central conclusions are that:
  existing GM crops could offer some cost and convenience advantages to UK farmers;
  however, any economic benefit to the UK is likely to be limited, at least in the short-term—only a narrow range of existing GM crops are currently suited to UK conditions, and weak consumer demand is likely to limit take-up;
  looking to the longer term, future developments in GM crops have the potential to offer more wide-ranging benefits, to farmers and to consumers—possibilities include GM crops with agronomic benefits more suited to the UK; GM crops delivering direct health benefits (e.g. delivering foods with reduced allergenicity or added nutrients); or non-food GM crops used as a source of pharmaceutical and vaccines;
  however, the overall balance of future costs and benefits will depend on public attitudes, and on the ability of the regulatory system to manage uncertainties.

  The Strategy Unit has invited comments on the report by 17 October 2003. Comments will be published on the Strategy Unit website and passed to my Department.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teenage Pregnancy
  The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge)
  The Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy has published its second annual report today, 11 July 2003.

  This is a very thorough report which builds on the Group's first annual report. We commend the Independent Advisory Group for the valuable contribution it has made since it was formed. We welcome the Advisory Group's acknowledgement of the significant progress made to date across Government on implementing our Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. We recognise that the Strategy's goals can only be achieved by sustaining the commitment and energy we have demonstrated so far. The report contains eight recommendations on potential areas for further action. Each recommendation will receive our full and careful consideration and a detailed Government response will be published by December 2003.

  A copy of the Independent Advisory Group's second annual report has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Home Loss Payments
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  Following the consultation exercise which concluded on 6 January, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will today lay Regulations to update the Home Loss Payment thresholds in section 30 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (as amended). Home loss payments are paid at a rate of 10 per cent. of the market value to owner-occupiers who are displaced from their homes as a result of compulsory purchase or certain housing orders. These are subject to maximum and minimum payments. Tenants receive a flat rate equal to the minimum payment to owner-occupiers.

  With effect from 1 September 2003, the maximum payment to owner-occupiers displaced from their home will be increased from £15,000 to £31,000 and the minimum payment will be increased from £1,500 to £3,100. The flat rate will be increased from £1,500 to £3,100.

  The period of about two months between laying the Regulations and commencement will give acquiring authorities reasonable notice to revise their budgets for compensation. This is similar to the two months notice that was given the last time home loss payments were amended in 1991. The existing provisions were commenced two months after Royal Assent was given to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which amended the Land Compensation Act 1973.

TREASURY

  Tax Benefit Reference Manual
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  The 2003–04 edition of the Tax Benefit Reference Manual has been published today.

  Copies are available in the Library of the House.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Draft Gender Recognition Bill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  The Government are today publishing, as Cm 5875, a draft Gender Recognition Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights which will be introduced to Parliament as soon as parliamentary time allows. The draft Bill follows the ministerial statement on 13 December 2002, announcing the Government's commitment to legislate to allow transsexual people who have taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in the acquired gender to gain legal recognition in that gender.

  The legislation demonstrates that this Government are committed to understanding and recognising the needs and aspirations of those members of society who are in a minority; committed to securing their rights and committed to their social and legal inclusion. I hope that transsexual people can now look forward with optimism to the enjoyment of those rights, responsibilities and protections previously unavailable to them in their acquired gender.

  Transsexual people, some of whom may have lived in their acquired gender for many years, are not treated as being of that gender in law. They do not have access to any of the rights or responsibilities confined to people of that gender. They are not able to change their birth certificates. They live in a state of limbo, between the gender in which they are living and the gender in which they were born; because that is how the law defines them. The Bill will mean that transsexual people will for the first time be afforded all the rights and responsibilities appropriate to that gender. It is fundamental to an inclusive society that individuals and groups be given the rights to which they are legitimately entitled and wherever possible be allowed to live their lives as they determine. The Bill will give transsexual people the right, from the date of recognition, to marry in their acquired gender and be given birth certificates that recognise the acquired gender. Transsexual people will be able to obtain benefits and State Pension just like anyone else of that gender.

  The Gender Recognition Bill will establish a Gender Recognition Panel with the power to decide applications from transsexual people seeking legal recognition in their acquired gender. Transsexual people who seek legal recognition will have to provide evidence supporting their applications in accordance with prescribed legal and medical criteria. Legal recognition will follow from the issue of a gender recognition certificate by the Gender Recognition Panel. Before issuing a certificate, the Panel must be satisfied that the

  67WS
  applicant has been diagnosed as having the medical condition gender dysphoria; has lived in the acquired gender throughout the preceding two years and intends to continue to live in the acquired gender.

  It is fitting that it is the anniversary of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin v UK and I v UK. The European Court found the UK to be in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect a person's privacy and family life and a person's right to marry. Under this Bill, the UK will meet its commitment to implement those rulings and to deliver its obligation to give transsexual people their Convention rights.

  Provision will need to be made across the United Kingdom to comply with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. The Bill as drafted covers England and Wales. Agreement has been gained with the Northern Ireland Office for provisions covering Northern Ireland to be added before the Bill begins its passage through Parliament, in the absence of restoration of the devolved institutions. The Scottish Executive wishes to comply at the earliest opportunity with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and to achieve an integrated solution that avoids cross-border anomalies. Accordingly, the Executive intends to invite the Scottish Parliament to approve a
  68WS
  Sewel motion which will enable devolved as well as reserved aspects to be dealt with in the one Westminster Bill.

  The Government look forward to receiving the report of the Joint Committee and I encourage people to submit evidence to the Committee as it conducts pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft Bill, together with Explanatory Notes, has been published as a command paper. It is available via the website of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HEALTH

  Annual Report
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  The Department of Health's annual report for 2003, Cm 5904, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights Commission
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  I have today laid before Parliament the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's fourth Annual Report.

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

Civil Contingencies
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered, and that a committee of eleven Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons, to consider and report on any draft civil contingencies Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Archer of Sandwell,

L. Bradshaw,

L. Brooke of Alverthorpe,

L. Condon,

L. Jordan,

L. King of Bridgwater,

L. Lucas,

L. Maginnis of Drumglass,

L. Marlesford,

B. Ramsay of Cartvale,

L. Roper;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the committee do report on the draft Bill by the end of November 2003;
And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 15th July at half-past three o'clock in Committee Room G.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am to serve on the committee and want to draw attention to the fact that the time proposed in the Motion is not agreed. This is an interesting example of how the other place has not got its act together. The Members of your Lordships' House who have been nominated to the committee were nominated quite a long time ago and the other
574
place did not nominate its members until extremely late. There was then a huge rush to try to fix a time and we have had four changes to the time. Frankly, if pre-legislative scrutiny is to mean something, it must be conducted efficiently and we must not be rushed by the inability of the other place to get its act together.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot comment on what happens in the other place. I am aware that there was a very long period between noble Lords being appointed to the committee and House of Commons' Members being appointed. Fortunately, I have no control over what goes on in the other place.
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Mental Incapacity
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered, and that a committee of eight Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons, to consider and report on any draft mental incapacity Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

B. Barker,

L. Carter,

B. Fookes,

B. Knight of Collingtree,

B. McIntosh of Hudnall,

L. Pearson of Rannoch,

L. Rix,

B. Wilkins;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman:
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the committee do report on the draft Bill by the end of November 2003;
And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 15th July at half-past three o'clock in Committee Room 5.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Electricity and Gas (Modification of Standard Conditions of Licences) Order 2003
11.8 a.m.
Lord Davies of Oldhamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Utilities Act 2000 modified the Electricity Act 1989 and the Gas Act 1986 to provide a matching process for the modification of standard conditions of gas and electricity licences in each Act. In order to commence the procedure for a licence modification using that process, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority must first issue a notification stating what modification it proposes; its reasons for the proposal; and the effects. A period of not less than 28 days must be allowed for relevant licensees to register objections to the proposal. Any objections registered within the period must be considered by the authority.
If objections are registered, the authority may proceed to make the modification only under Section 11A(6)(b) of the Electricity Act 1989 or Section 23(7)(b) of the Gas Act 1986 if the proportion of relevant licensees who object to the modification and the proportion of relevant licensees weighted according to market share are less than the percentages prescribed by the order.
The purpose of the draft order that we are considering today is to prescribe those percentages and to determine how objections are to be weighted according to market share for each licence type. The percentages prescribed by this draft order for gas and electricity licensees are 20 per cent for the proportion of relevant licensees and 20 per cent for the proportion of relevant licensees weighted according to market share. That will permit sensible evolution of the standard licence conditions, but safeguard the position of licensees who may object to any particular proposal. The draft order also proposes measures to weight market share for each type of licence.
For electricity suppliers, it is proposed that market share should be defined by the number of metering points registered to each supplier; for electricity distributors, it is the number of metering points registered to all suppliers on the licensee's network. The measure for generators takes the average weekly registered capacity for each licensee in each four-week period for the preceding 12 months.
In the gas market, the market share for a supplier should be taken as the total number of consumers contracted to the supplier at the relevant time; for each gas shipper, it is the aggregated daily average of input and off-take on the national transmission system; and for gas transporters, it is the total volume of gas conveyed to the premises of consumers during the preceding 12-month period.
The key reference date for the measures is the day on which the authority issues the notification of a proposal to make a modification of a licence condition. The periods for calculation of the market
576
shares have been proposed on the basis of the availability of data to the authority. We have taken care to use data that are reasonably available wherever possible, to avoid imposing any additional burdens on licensees to produce extra information for the exercise.
I am pleased to note that Ofgem issued a consultation paper on 3rd July that seeks views on its proposed guidance on the procedure. The consultation invites views on the procedures to be followed by Ofgem; the way in which relevant licensees may register their objection; how Ofgem proposes to calculate the market share; and proposals on how Ofgem should verify and publish the results of any voting process.
An important objective is to ensure that there is no undue delay in announcing the result of the process following the end of the period allowed for objections to be registered. Delay would mean uncertainty for licensees, which they would not welcome. That means that the data for market share determination must be collected for a period earlier than the notification period, otherwise there could he a delay of many weeks before the results of the process could be made known.
I hope that noble Lords will appreciate and support the balance that has been struck here. Of course, the process is not entirely new. A similar procedure has been in existence for gas licences, but the Utilities Act 2000 extended it to electricity as well as to gas licences. The procedure will provide a simpler approach to the modification of licences in the particular circumstances where there is widespread support for a measure. It will also ensure that changes that command widespread support are reflected in all licences, maintaining a level playing field for licensees. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. It is a highly technical one, dealing with a highly technical subject. My honourable friend the Member for Blaby, told the 4th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the other place that both he and his Oxford graduate researcher,
"didn't really understand the bureaucratic jargon and gobbledegook",
which is why I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining it so well. I cannot tell your Lordships with what relief I read those words in the Commons Hansard, and realised that it was not just me being obtuse.
However, thanks to both the Explanatory Notes provided by the department and the explanation given by the Minister in the committee of the other place, and indeed by the noble Lord today, I am able to echo the words of my honourable friend who said that,
"the order seems non-controversial".—[Official Report, Commons, 4th Standing Cttee on Delegated Legislation, 1/7/03; col. 5.]

577
The purpose of this order is to ensure that the regulator can modify standard conditions in all licences without the need to deal with the individual licences one at a time. Following a consultation process, the Government decided that objections to any proposed conditions would have to constitute 20 per cent of the industries involved, following a very complex formula including weighting according to market share as well as by the number of objectors.
It is right to point out that British Gas, Transco and Powergen each have more than 20 per cent of the market. Does the Minister agree that this gives each of those concerns a veto over any proposed changes in the standard licences?
Subject to that one anxiety, we propose to follow the example of our colleagues in the other place and not oppose the making of this order.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained so clearly this rather technical and complex proposition. I have two questions to ask him. First, are the calculations for the blocking minority generally acceptable to licence holders based on the responses to the consultation document? Was there not pressure to set the blocking minority at a lower figure than 20 per cent? Indeed, figures of 15 per cent or 10 per cent were mentioned. Why did the Government decide on the 20 per cent figure?
Secondly, what kind of modifications under the collective licence modifications procedure are likely to be proposed by Ofgem? Are these of a major nature? Are they likely to be frequent? If so, would that not introduce a disturbing element of uncertainty into the trade for gas and electricity? I would be obliged to the noble Lord if he could answer those questions.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the response to the order, which has its technical aspects as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, indicated. I have some sympathy with the views she expressed in terms of mastering the intricacies of the order. Let me see whether I can deal with the points that have been raised.
As the noble Baroness indicated, it would appear that licensees with a market share of more than 20 per cent have a veto on the issue, but the essence of the modification process is to permit necessary modifications only when there is a high degree of consensus. So, if a significant market player holding above 20 per cent objects, the authority would have to look at that matter again and choose another route. The whole concept behind the operation of the threshold is to guarantee that the major players are part of the consensus which gives effect to these provisions. I think, therefore, that the threshold is not too low. It raises the issue of veto but, on the other hand, the task is not manageable unless all major players are suitably on board with regard to the matter.
I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the blocking measure. As he knows only too well, so far as concerns gas it would have been
578
lower. This common 20 per cent figure reflects both industries. Looking across the markets and seeing the degree of consolidation over recent years, it appears that we have the figure about right in terms of being fair should a number of licensees wish to object. If a significant share of licensees wish to object to the proposal, their objections must be taken into account. It is not necessary for a majority of licensees to object—whether by number or by market share—but a significant number or a significant player must object in order to frustrate any particular route chosen before there would be the necessity to adopt a different strategy altogether.
The noble Lord also asked me about the cut-off dates for consultation. As he will recognise, that is an issue of judgment again. He is right: the later the cut-off point, the more accurate the information will be and, therefore, the more accurately it will reflect the market. But, as I said in my introduction, we also need to give the industry the opportunity to respond in good time. We have specified in the order the necessary material that must be taken into account; we have a date for that somewhat in advance of the latest date to allow proper digestion of the implications by the industry for it adequately to respond. That is why that date has been chosen.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I also asked what modifications Ofgem was likely to have in mind and how major and frequent they may be, because that could have a destabilising effect on trade.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that question would require a substantial response to detail all possible objections; if I may, I shall attempt to syncopate and identify the main ones.
For gas suppliers, Ofgem will propose to remove the right to object for non-termination of contract, and to create a right to object on consumer response. For industrial and commercial suppliers, Ofgem will propose to remove the right to object for non-termination of contract and to create a right to object where that is in the contract with the customer.
Ofgem will propose that suppliers be obliged to participate in a new supply-point administration agreement to ensure that information about a meter is transferred efficiently between suppliers and their agents, thereby improving the customer transfer process. Ofgem envisages applying that to domestic suppliers, but would consider extending it to industrial and commercial suppliers in the light of consultation responses. Ofgem also proposes to limit the right of gas suppliers to block the right to object to a transfer for certain prepayment meter customers with an outstanding debt. The parallel change for electricity has just been agreed in the MRA process.
Those are the broad areas in which Ofgem may make modifications.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) (Administrative Receivership and Urban Regeneration etc.) Order 2003
11.22 a.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved. It introduces changes to the corporate insolvency provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 as inserted by the Enterprise Act 2002.
The corporate insolvency provisions of the Act are intended to facilitate the rescue of viable companies where practicable, or to achieve a better result for creditors as a whole than in an immediate winding-up. In order to achieve that objective, the Act streamlines the process of administration to make it fast, fair and focused on rescue and places a great, general prohibition on the appointment of an administrative receiver.
By generally prohibiting the appointment of an administrative receiver, the Government seek to shift the balance in favour of the new streamlined administration procedure, thereby ensuring that account is taken of the interests of all creditors—including small firms and other trade creditors whose claims are unsecured; whereas an administrative receiver has a duty principally to the holder of the charge appointing him.
However, the Government recognise that there are instances where the appointment of an administrative receiver is fundamental to the effective operation of a specific market or sector and not simply a device to facilitate the realisation of assets to satisfy the claim of a floating charge holder. Section 250 of the Act makes a number of exceptions to the prohibition of the right to appoint an administrative receiver to deal with such circumstances. The exceptions are in respect of capital markets, public private partnerships, utilities, project finance, financial markets and registered social landlords. The Act also provides for the insertion of additional exceptions through an order approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
The draft order before us introduces two further exceptions to the prohibition; namely, an exception in respect of urban regeneration projects; and one in sectors where special administration regimes are in operation. I will deal with each new exception in turn.
On urban regeneration, government policy is to deliver an urban renaissance through a programme of change and development in towns and cities. That will be achieved only through engaging the private sector. In many locations, such as disadvantaged communities, the necessary development may be marginal or require public sector support. In those cases, funders place a high value on the right to step in to appoint administrative receivers in the event of failure. Without that right, the cost of finance is likely to rise, impacting on marginal projects and, therefore, undermining regeneration policy.
The Enterprise Act 2002 already includes exceptions from the prohibition on the appointment of an administrative receiver for very large projects where the expected level of debt is at least £50 million; and for private-public partnership projects involving step-in rights. However, the current exceptions do not cover smaller, purely private projects in disadvantaged areas, which the Government are keen to encourage. The draft order provides an exception for such projects, without which they are likely to be susceptible to increases in the cost of finance which, in turn, could undermine their viability.
For special administration regimes, the draft order introduces a further exception to the prohibition of the right to appoint an administrative receiver in respect of the water and transport sectors, where special administration regimes operate that draw on and amend the current administration provisions. Section 249 of the Enterprise Act saves the current administration provisions for such regimes and disapplies Section 248 of the Act, which inserts the new streamlined administration procedure contained in Schedule 16 into the Insolvency Act 1986.
Without creating that further exception. the holders of qualifying floating charges over companies for whom there are special administration regimes would no longer be able to enforce their security by appointing an administrative receiver. In addition, because of the disapplication of Section 248 to such schemes, they would be unable to take advantage of the new administration procedures. The exception will correct that lacuna and allow the holders of qualifying floating charges to continue to be able to enforce their security through the appointment of an administrative receiver, within the limitations set out in the special administration regimes for the sector concerned.
I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
11.28 a.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I shall be brief in supporting the confirmation of the order. I want to focus on its main objective, which is to prevent the holder of a floating charge from appointing an administrative receiver of a company. The fact is that the majority of such floating charges arc in favour of banks, and are often supplementary to a fixed charge over a specific property asset.
It is more difficult to enforce a mortgage than it is to appoint an administrative receiver, because such an appointment can be made at the stroke of a pen. Once appointed, an administrative receiver answers to those who appointed him and his primary duty is to realise assets to clear the debt secured by the floating charge, irrespective of any adverse—possibly fata—effects on the company. Perhaps the greatest number of complaints made to the Department of Trade and Industry relate to the activities of administrative receivers. Despite recent legislation, we still lack the full-blooded protective

581
regime that exists under the United States' Chapter 11, but we are certainly getting closer, and this order amending the 1986 Act is a welcome step closer.
I do not often find myself quoting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with unqualified approval, but on the day that the Enterprise Bill was published, she wrote:
"The corporate insolvency law reform will restrict the use of Administrative Receivership, which tends to serve one creditor above all others. And fit the balance in favour of administration. This takes into account the interests of all creditors—secured and unsecured".
The regulatory impact assessment said that the new legislation will help,
"to rescue viable companies and if this is not possible, to produce a better return to creditors".
That means all creditors, not just the debenture holders. We applaud those objectives.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may take the opportunity, while I have the Minister's attention, to ask him if there is any hope in the not-too-distant future of there being a consolidating Act to bring the Insolvency Act into tidier form. At the moment, with all the amendments that have been made to it in the almost 20 years since it was first passed, it is difficult to check what the law is without access to a specialised law library, because the Act itself now resembles a patchwork quilt.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I, too, hope to be very quick—I shall try to avoid using the word "brief" and the many pitfalls that accompany it. Everyone seems to be in agreement on the issue. My noble friend Lord Sharman said that the administration is to proceed with speed, which is what we sought to do in the Bill when it was first brought before us. I think, therefore, that we can say that we are in favour of the order. The two exemptions, and the idea of protecting brownfield site development and public utilities, seem sensible.
I am afraid that there is not much detail on the second exemption. I would appreciate it if the noble Lord could tell us when we will get more technical information.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the generally favourable reception of the order. I am somewhat overwhelmed by the fulsome commendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I am sure that the wires will be humming to the DTI on that commendation; if not, I shall make them hum. I would have hoped that the quote could have been in a wider context across the swathe of government policy for which the Secretary of State is responsible, but that is probably asking a bit much.
The noble Baroness asked whether company rescue would effectively be achieved. In the areas covered by the exceptions, the purpose of appointing an administrative receiver is to ensure that the company will continue to trade so that the provision of the public service is not interrupted and, in other cases, that the income stream from the company is maintained. That outcome is entirely in line with the
582
aims of the Enterprise Act, which seeks to ensure that viable companies that face financial difficulty can be rescued and do not go to the wall. We are at one on the broad objectives. I recognise the noble Baroness's reservation on that point.
I also recognise the noble Baroness's rather fetching analogy of a patchwork quilt of legislation. Some of us regard such legislation as impenetrable thickets rather than patchwork quilts. However, we will do our best to try to make the picture more attractive and more meaningful, if only for the sake of Ministers defending orders at the Dispatch Box.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2003
11.33 a.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th June be approved [23rd Report .from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am proud to talk about the national minimum wage. Without doubt, it is one of this Government's finest achievements. As we all know, the Government faced some opposition when we introduced the national minimum wage in 1999. However, we were determined that the minimum wage should he a success and that it should not, as so many predicted, damage the economy or lead to increased unemployment for the very people we were trying to help.
We believe with justification that we have succeeded in that goal. The national minimum wage has made an enormous difference for more than a million low-paid workers in the United Kingdom and helped us to tackle the very low rates of pay that were so prevalent under the previous administration. There has been little or no evidence so far of any impact on the employment prospects of low-paid workers. That is why we are now in such a strong position, with the minimum wage widely recognised as an outstanding success and accepted on all sides as a permanent fixture of the British labour market.
In June of last year, the Government asked the independent Low Pay Commission to produce its fourth report on the minimum wage by the end of February 2003. The commission reported earlier this year, and the Government announced in March that we had accepted almost all the commission's recommendations.
The regulations that we are debating today do two things: they implement the increases to the adult and youth rates recommended by the commission in March, and they implement adjustments to the accommodation offset that have been agreed with the commission. I shall discuss each aspect in turn.
The first aspect is increases to the minimum wage rates. The commission was able to reflect on the first four years of operation of the minimum wage. It found little or no evidence so far of any impact on the employment

583
prospects of the low paid and believed that all the signs were that the minimum wage could now be increased as a percentage of average earnings—benefiting more workers—without producing damaging economic effects.
The commission therefore recommended increasing the adult rate of the minimum wage from the present £4.20 to £4.50 in October 2003, and increasing the youth rate—paid to workers aged 18 to 21—from the present £3.60 to £3.80 in October 2003. Those increases are substantial. The increase proposed to the adult rate, for example, is around 7 per cent—around double the present rate of growth in average earnings and three times the rate of inflation. They would extend the coverage of the minimum wage substantially so that 1.3 million to 1.6 million low-paid workers should benefit from those increases.
The Government agree with the broad approach followed by the commission; namely, that the minimum wage should be increased to help the low paid while taking care not to damage their employment prospects. The commission has made clear that it believes the recommendations are affordable for business and will not have any significant effect on levels of employment. The Government therefore accept the rate increases proposed by the commission. Sections 2 and 3 of the regulations will introduce those increases with effect from 1st October.
The commission has also proposed further substantial increases in the rates, to take place in October 2004, to £4.85 for adult workers and £4.10 for workers on the youth rate. That would mean substantial increases in the minimum wage for a second successive year—around 8 per cent in the adult rate—and a further extension of the coverage of the minimum wage, so that around 1.7 million to 2.4 million workers should benefit from the 2004 increase.
However, the commission has also recommended that it should be invited to fine-tune the recommended 2004 upratings of the rates in early 2004, in the light of economic circumstances. We believe that that is eminently sensible and therefore the 2004 increases are not contained in these regulations. But I want to make it clear that the Government share the fundamental view of the commission; namely, that we are now in a position to make substantial increases to the minimum wage in successive years without producing damaging economic effects.
It may be helpful briefly to explain this complex aspect of the regulations relating to the accommodation offset. When an employer provides accommodation for a worker, it is the only benefit in kind that can be counted towards the minimum wage. However, an employer cannot charge whatever he likes for accommodation in order to reduce the worker's net pay because the regulations set limits on the value of accommodation that can be counted towards the minimum wage. That limit is known as the accommodation offset and it is presently set at 57p per hour worked or £3.25 for each
584
day that accommodation is provided, whichever is the lower. The maximum possible accommodation offset is therefore £22.75 per week.
The commission recommended in its report that that two-tier system was unnecessarily complex and that the hourly and daily rates should be abolished and replaced by a weekly offset. It also recommended that the offset should be increased, in line with the increase in the adult minimum wage rate, to £24.40 per week.
The Government agreed to those recommendations in March. However, on further reflection, we have agreed with the commission that some slight adjustments in the area would be helpful. First, we have agreed that it would be more straightforward to have a daily rate rather than a weekly one, because that would make it more straightforward to calculate the offset where a worker is paid monthly rather than weekly or every four weeks. Secondly, we have agreed to increase the amount by a further lop per week to £24.50, because that figure is divisible by seven and gives a neat daily offset of £3.50. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendments—agreed with the commission—are sensible and entirely in line with the spirit of the commission's original recommendations. Section 4 of the regulations introduces those changes to the rules on the accommodation offset.
Finally, it may be helpful if I briefly explain the remaining provisions of the regulations. Regulation 6 contains a transitional provision, so that the changes to the rules on the accommodation offset will apply only to pay reference periods beginning on or after 1st October. Regulation 5 is a technical provision which will remove the need for further transitional provisions if the accommodation offset is increased in future years. Regulation 7 revokes previous provisions relating to the rates of the minimum wage and level of the accommodation offset. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I should like to repeat, in your Lordships' House, the warning given by my honourable friend the shadow Minister for Trade and Industry prior to the Budget:
"Rises above the rate of inflation inevitably add to the costs of many businesses at a time when the outlook for both jobs and investment in the private sector look increasingly poor".
The increase in the national minimum wage created by these regulations, and what I may describe as the staged increase planned for October 2004, are an additional burden on business on top of the increases in employers' national insurance contributions, the leap in the cost of employers' liability insurance and the ever increasing burden of regulatory compliance. In this context, when I talk about business, I mean small businesses, because larger businesses can absorb the increase in their overhead because of their size, and because they have a smaller proportion of lower-paid workers than the corner shop, for example. That is why we find the CBI describing the increase as,
"a sensible balance between prudence and boldness",

585
while the Federation of Small Businesses—and it should know—complains that the increases,
"will be detrimental to a whole range of small businesses".
The British Chamber of Commerce says that,
"the Government is showing business where we stand on its priority list … to survive under this increase employers will slash costs wherever they can, including possibly a reduction in their workforce".
The Government justify their decision on the basis of the Fourth Report of the Low Pay Commission. Not only do the Government have business viability low on their priority list—as the British Chambers of Commerce complained in the passage I have just quoted—but the Low Pay Commission in its Fourth Report made the claim that:
"All the signs are that the National Minimum Wage can be increased without producing damaging economic effects".
Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? That is one of those pontifical statements that is impossible to prove. The fact is that the economy is in a dire declining state. The fact is that there are still large numbers of young people in some areas unable to get a job or get their feet on the first rung of the employment ladder.
The national minimum wage is, of course, here to stay, but there is a problem. The effect of the recommendations does not necessarily give rise to any confidence to small and medium-sized businesses that their essential interests are fully taken into account. Of course, the increase is welcomed by the TUC, albeit grudgingly, because although the increase is above the rate of inflation it still wants even more. By the way, think that there was a slip of the tongue at the beginning of the debate when the Minister introduced the regulations. I think he meant to say what I said about the increase being above the rate of inflation, but I think he said, "the wages are above the rate".
The TUC would like £5 an hour. The Government, conscious of their deteriorating relationship with the unions, and of the loss and threatened loss of financial support from some of them, will, no doubt, step by step, help them to realise that ambition, regardless of the consequences. The unions mostly deal with large businesses, such as those that are members of the CBI. Neither of those organisations seems to have grasped what is happening to the golden goose in the form of small and medium-sized businesses.
We on these Benches are not able to oppose the making of these regulations, nor do we wish to, but we do want to urge the Government, the Low Pay Commission and, indeed, the TUC and the CBI to take into account the back-breaking effect of the ever escalating costs on SMEs. That is still a problem. They are, after all, the main source of employment in Britain after the continuing disappearance of our manufacturing industry over which the present Government are presiding—I wrote "blithely presiding" in my speech, but I am sure that the Government do not mean to be blithely presiding. However, the truth is that manufacturing industry has a real problem and we definitely have to look after small and medium-sized businesses.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, told us that the TUC said that the increase was too little, small business employers said that it was too much and the CBI said that it was about right. One wonders whether the figures were more or less what the CBI had been expecting.
The main comments that noble Lords would expect from this party are ones that form our party policy. We feel that all those over the age of 16 should be brought into the scheme. I do not understand the idea that somebody younger doing the same job should receive a lower rate—but a little bit of politics is excusable, even on a Friday. Neither do we understand why the rate change is not made annually. An annual upgrade would probably remove some of the shock and the idea that people are not sure what is going to happen even if they have a reasonable idea. There should be an annual increase.
Do the Government have any figures on what they are doing about the illegal workers who come over to the UK and are paid incredibly small amounts, on East Anglian farms, for example, where great gangs are paid extremely low rates? If we need these workers, are we doing enough to inform them about their rights? What steps are the Government taking to make sure that people who are not paying proper rates are caught and punished for that activity?
We should bear in mind that, if this policy is supposed to ensure that we get decent work done at a decent level of pay, enforcement is a major consideration. Such behaviour also places an unfair burden on those employers who do play by the rules. I hope that the Government can give us some reassurance on those issues.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful that neither Front Bench spokesman indicated that they intend to oppose the regulations. However, I can scarcely be grateful for the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, who treated us to an extraordinary perspective on the state the British economy. If she is going to say that the problems of the British economy that she identified are related to these regulations, the one critical fact that should be established is the impact upon employment. After all, what are the regulations about, if it is not that workers should be paid a proper rate?
The Opposition's dire forecasts have always been that this policy would lead to a significant rise in unemployment levels. Of course, although the noble Baroness indicated that the Opposition in the other place produced their normal doom and gloom perspective on the economy, she was not able to treat us to any such description of the current state of employment, because levels are very high. Levels of unemployment remain low despite the forecasts made by the Opposition that the introduction of the minimum wage would lead to substantial increases in unemployment.
I understand the Opposition's problems. They are also increasingly emphasising the problems of manufacturing industry against the downturn that we

587
all recognise in the global economy and world trade. For an administration that presided over the collapse of our manufacturing industry in the 1980s and early 1990s, to talk about the present problem in similar terms is a trifle forward on their part. However, it is Friday, and we do not normally engage a great deal in politics, particularly when we have such a mild order before us. I shall confine myself predominantly to the specific points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
I apologise if there was a slip of the tongue in my introduction. I meant to say that the forecast increase to be introduced in October is three times the present rate of inflation. That is the figure that I hoped to convey, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make that clear.
Are the increases too high? We are, as the noble Baroness said that we should be, concerned about the burdens on business. We have deliberately followed a partnership approach and been careful to consult business at all stages, to avoid unnecessary burdens. There are members of the Low Pay Commission who represent the interests of the small firms sector. The only burden on business that arises from the minimum wage is the cost of paying workers at a decent rate. The commission has found evidence that some companies are able to offset it through savings from reduced staff turnover and from improvements in productivity.
I hear what the noble Baroness says. She will also recognise that others have spoken differently about the effect of low pay. The Low Pay Commission is chaired by Adair Turner, a former director-general of the CBI, someone who is not unaware of the interests of business.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a point about young workers. I hear what he says about the desirability of extending the provision. We are mindful of the fact that the group that falls outside the provisions can be subject to exploitation. That is an ever-present consideration, as is the noble Lord's other point about the degree of enforcement. It is difficult for the Government to take direct responsibility for the enforcement of minimum pay levels, given the substantial number of employers in the country and their relationship to the workforce.
Employers who are identified as having broken the law will be prosecuted accordingly, but the noble Lord will recognise that the only way in which employers can break the law is if the workers are complicit. As he said, some workers are so vulnerable that they are complicit in such a situation, and the abuse continues for some time because the workers have little leverage and may themselves be in a vulnerable position in relation to the laws of the land.
We are, of course, concerned to ensure that the minimum wage is enforced, but the noble Lord will recognise that there are bound to be sections of the economy in which it is more difficult than others. He identified a particular sector in which we know there has been abuse. I remember that, when that came to light a few years ago—prior to the introduction of the
588
minimum wage—the increased publicity made sure that employers who were paying grossly exploitative rates changed their pattern of behaviour. Part of the work that we must do is expose grievous exploitation of workers.
The regulations advance substantially the interests of a large section of the low-paid workforce. That is why I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Bill
11.54 a.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I shall give a little background to the Bill and explain why it is here today.
A Private Member's Bill with similar objectives to the present Bill was introduced in the other place by Dr Ian Gibson and supported by several Norfolk MPs, including, at that time, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, who was a Member of that House during the previous Parliament. However, after the Committee stage, it fell, due to the general election.
Last year, I introduced the same Bill into your Lordships' House. After First Reading, I was asked by the Government to withdraw it and told that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport would re-draft it for us in a form that the Government could support. That has now been done, and those of us who were involved with the original Bill are grateful to the DCMS and are pleased with the result.
The Bill was taken through the other place by the honourable Member for Mid Norfolk, Mr Keith Simpson, who was lucky in the draw for Private Members' Bills. It went through all its stages in the other place unscathed and is here for its Second Reading.
Why is it the Norfolk Bill, and why does it have all-party support? What happened was that the Norfolk Millennium Trust for Carers, commonly known as We Care 2000, was set up in the millennium year to raise £1 million. From the interest on that capital, it could help many people in the area. It was advised that the community fund could not provide grant aid for a capital endowment fund, and thus it did not submit a formal application.
The appeal in Norfolk has so far raised £656,000, which has been invested. My notes were written yesterday, and they say—I am not sure what the effect of the decrease in the bank rate will be—that it was attracting 4.5 per cent. That is a creditable amount for an endowment. It has so far benefited some 250 people, and over £60,000 has been paid out in grants, without touching the capital. Grants were received from the National Lottery Community Fund at the time of the millennium for start-up costs. Recently, another £100,000, mainly for white goods, has been offered. That has not been taken up yet, but We Care is incredibly grateful for it. It has also received generous support from the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, but it is important to

589
emphasise that by far the largest proportion of the funds has been raised by appeals to and events run by local firms, individuals and organisations. The trust, we hope, will benefit, on average, some 200 people a year for many years to come.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, as amended by the National Lottery Act 1998, expressly to provide that all distributors have the power to make grants to endowment funds. Current statute gives lottery distribution bodies the power to distribute money for meeting expenditure of the type specified in Section 22 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. It does not, however, define what is meant by meeting expenditure or contain any explicit reference to funding endowments.
The Bill would amend the sections of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 that refer to meeting expenditure, to clarify that, in each case, it includes funds for endowments DCMS advises that distributors other than the Community Fund were able to fund endowments and that such grants have been made by some of the distributing bodies. Clause 1(9), therefore, would ensure that the Bill had retrospective effect.
The Bill would clarify the legal position of distributing bodies giving money to endowment funds, put the community fund on the same legal footing as other distributors in the area and assist charities such as We Care to manage their funds more effectively. Endowment funds can be a useful way of providing long-term revenue funding, particularly for voluntary sector bodies. They can enable bodies to plan strategically, with some certainty about the security of future funding and enable them to operate more effectively on behalf of their client groups. They can also provide credibility with potential third-party funders and partners because of the knowledge that core funding is guaranteed. Nevertheless, we must recognise that endowments require large sums to provide reasonable returns.
Of course, future income levels will vary with interest rates, as has happened in the past.
This is a permissive rather than a mandatory power for distributors which, ultimately, could determine how to treat applications for grants for endowment funds against other calls for lottery funding. Should the Bill be successful, the Minister's department intends to assist distributors in this matter by issuing guidance. A draft of the guide was placed in the Library. I hope that your Lordships have had an opportunity to read it.
A further issue is the regulatory cost of the Bill. As a permissive power, there would be no resulting regulatory cost to government, businesses or the voluntary sector. The measure is intended to assist charities within the sector, and other good causes, by enabling them to apply for lottery funds to help set up or augment their endowment funds and to manage their operations more effectively. While the power may result in additional calls on distributors' resources, ultimately it would be a policy decision for distributors on how to prioritise such applications against others for non-endowment grants. It would be
590
a permissive and not a mandatory power. The Bill would act on all national lottery distributors' powers and therefore would be UK-wide. The policy for the lottery is a reserved issue, but I understand that earlier provisions of the Bill attracted support from the devolved administrations.
In conclusion, the benefits of the Bill will be to those charities which operate or are considering operating endowment funds. Indeed, it would be helpful to them as the Government will be issuing guidelines to indicate the advantages or otherwise of this method of funding. The powers are not mandatory but are permissive. I commend the Bill to the House where I hope that it will find support.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Walpole.)
12.2 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, for introducing the Bill. Your Lordships will not he surprised to know that I support anything which will benefit carers. I declare an interest as a former chief executive of Carers UK. But the Bill has a much wider implication than that. I therefore declare a further and perhaps more significant interest as chair of the largest of the good cause distributors from the lottery, the New Opportunities Fund. The NOF was set up in 1998 to distribute lottery money to disadvantaged individuals in communities in the areas of health, education and the environment. I support the Bill and welcome the proposal to extend to all distributors the powers which are currently enjoyed only by some.
As the New Opportunities Fund is to be merged in the near future with the community fund to create a new distributor which will have control over one-half of all the funding for good causes from the lottery, it is particularly appropriate that we are considering the proposal now so as to clarify the position regarding the new distributor. I emphasise that this small change is unlikely to skew the delivery of funds in disadvantageous ways for charities. I know that there have been some fears about that. Commitments to endowments are likely to apply to a small proportion only of lottery funding.
In order that we can understand some of the potential effects of the Bill, I think that the most helpful thing that I can do for your Lordships today is to give an example of how the New Opportunities Fund recently employed its power to use endowment funding. This is through our part of the fair shares programme, which is a joint programme with the community fund and is a pioneering scheme to invest £50 million for the benefit of disadvantaged communities. In particular, it is aimed at areas which have not so far received their fair share of lottery funding.
The fair share trust is an important step in lottery distribution. It will start to address the imbalance in areas which have a poor track record in accessing lottery funds and will help to build community capacity, enabling them to work up projects and prepare future—we hope successful—lottery bids. The

591
programme represents a new concept in lottery distribution making money available over a much longer period. Endowments can run for up to 10 years. We must remember that the short-term nature of lottery funding and the difficulties of sustaining programmes are some of the most frequent criticisms. It can therefore have a much more sustained impact on disadvantage by boosting the capacity of communities to obtain and manage funding that meets the needs and priorities of that particular area.
It puts long-term funding into the hands of local communities so that they can make their own decisions about investment which will be of benefit to them. It links with the desire of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, as recently expressed by the Secretary of State, to see decisions about lottery funding made as close to communities as possible. I hope that the legislation will enable many more such schemes to be set up. The New Opportunities Fund programme seeks to build capacity within communities, including support for community assets, planning and local regeneration. It also encourages local social and skills development to facilitate community engagement in local organisations and to promote job creation.
There is an emphasis in this endowment scheme on "liveability", enabling communities to improve their living environments, to make them healthier, greener, better designed, more welcoming and accessible to everyone. We believe that the programme will make a sustained impact on the ability of these communities to secure funding in the future from the lottery and other sources.
The allocations for each fair share area will be managed by local delivery agents which will, for the most part, be drawn from community foundations. I am very grateful for the support of the Community Foundation Network in this programme. The priorities for areas in England will be identified by local panels drawn together and facilitated by local delivery agents based on the information supplied by local strategic partnerships. Alternative delivery models are currently being negotiated for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, importantly, will ensure again that decisions are made locally by the communities which will benefit.
This is the first time that lottery money has been ring fenced for local communities over a 10-year period. The aim is that the approach of making a sustained investment over time will set a precedent for future lottery programmes. I hope that your Lordships will consider this Bill as a means of enabling other such schemes to develop for the benefit of local communities and individuals.
12.7 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I, too, warmly support the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, I have lived in Norfolk for nearly 30 years, having spent 27 years as Member of Parliament for South Norfolk. Your Lordships may have noticed that in the other place it was mainly
592
Norfolk MPs who spoke in favour of this Bill. So I want to make it absolutely clear that this Bill is not just for Norfolk but, if it passes through this House, charities throughout the country will benefit. That has been emphasised by the fact that the Bill has not had all-party support only in Norfolk but all-party support nationally.
Why has there been such an emphasis on Norfolk? The reason is that the genesis of the Bill arose there. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, described the splendid We Care appeal, with which I have been strongly linked since its outset, set up in advance of the millennium. Indeed, I have taken part in fund-raising activities, of which I remember one in particular. One of my hobbies is performing magic. By that I mean magic as a magician and magic of the mind. On one occasion, towards the end of my time in the other place, we had a fund-raising activity at which I performed the cabaret with a colleague from the other place. In one evening, we raised £11,500, which is the most that I have ever—if I can put it this way—"earned" in one night.
I have been a warm supporter of the appeal, but early on we discovered a problem. The appeal was designed to raise long-term funds, but on applying to the community fund—the appropriate fund for the appeal—for some reason that we have never been able to establish exactly—perhaps an oversight—the original legislation prevented the community fund from providing funds for endowment. Indeed, it was the only distributor unable to award grants to endowment funds. It was always assumed that the other lottery funds could and, indeed, in practice, they did. That was the anomaly which had to be addressed. Fortunately, Dr Ian Gibson, a Norfolk MP, won a place in the Private Member's Ballot, and he used the Bill to fulfil that place. Unfortunately, it was just before the general election, so the Bill ran out of time in the other place. Indeed, I had thought that my speech in the Budget debate was to be my last in the other place, but this Bill came forward very late and so it was to this measure that I made my last speech in support of it. Therefore I think that I have the unique distinction and pleasure of having been able to speak on it in both Houses of Parliament.
So the Bill ran out of time. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, explained the rather niggling legal point which led to the Government being unable to support the Bill when it came forward last year. I am glad that the matter has been sorted out. Fortunately, the honourable Member for Mid Norfolk, Keith Simpson, won a place in the Private Member's Ballot this year and it is a tribute to the attachment we have in Norfolk to this Bill that the two Norfolk MPs who have won Private Member's Ballots have chosen this Bill.
I understand that at a party in Norfolk last night—in the counties we hold splendid summer parties attended by all the distinguished local leaders—while it would not be quite true to say that there was talk of nothing other than your Lordships' debate today, I understand that that was almost the case. That indicates the depth of local support for it.

593
I wish to make three particular points. First, it goes without saying that this is a very worthy cause. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, has pointed out how much has been raised already and I pay particular tribute to Mrs Paddy Seligman, who has been the magnificent leader of this appeal throughout, and to our local newspaper, the Eastern Daily Press, and to its editor, Peter Franzen, and deputy editor, James Ruddy, all of whom have strongly supported not only the cause but this Bill throughout.
I know that the Government now contribute through public funds towards helping carers, and of course the community fund has already assisted the We Care 2000 appeal in Norfolk, but not through an endowment fund. So although the charity has received support, the fact that 250 carers have also benefited through voluntary action in aid of a cause such as this demonstrates the important place for such appeals in the community at large.
My second point is brief. Apparently there is a brief retrospective element in the Bill. I have always opposed retrospective elements in any measure and as a Minister strongly fought against introducing them whenever they arose in Bills in the other place. However, I think I can take comfort here by saying that I do not think that it is really retrospective. It was always assumed that all the other lottery funds were able, through the legislation, to make contributions to endowment funds and indeed were doing so. I hope, therefore, that all that is being done here is an exercise in clarification rather than the application of the legislation retrospectively.
Thirdly, I turn to the concerns raised by a number of people about the difficulties that might arise on the ability to contribute to endowment funds because those funds will have to be up-front, which would mean that rather a bigger contribution would have to he made up-front than would be the case if it was just an annual contribution. While I recognise the point, it is important to recognise what has been said on this by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole: the powers in this Bill with regard to lottery funds are permissive rather than obligatory. Therefore it will be for the successor of the community fund to weigh up individually the pros and cons of each application, and I am glad that guidance has been given.
There is a real place for lottery funds to contribute to endowment funds because they guarantee continuity of the support system over a number of years. Indeed, that is precisely what the We Care 2000 fund is; it has been raising money for endowments, the income from which is now being applied annually. So in asking the community fund for endowment support, the trustees were acting entirely in accordance with the nature of their own charity. Therefore, as I have said, there is a place for lottery funds to contribute to endowment funds.
The final point I wish to make is that one of the important criteria is the integrity and good stewardship of the trustees of the funds to which endowment money might he given. I have to say that I think that so far the We Care 2000 trustees have demonstrated both in how
594
they have used the funds and how they have invested the funds so very successfully and prudently that they are able to meet that guarantee of integrity and good stewardship.
I hope that this Bill will not run out of time, as did its predecessor. I hope also that it will not be subject to any more technical and legal difficulties, and accordingly that noble Lords will enable it to pass through swiftly.
12.14 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome this Bill. I congratulate my noble friend on introducing it and on the helpful way in which he has explained it to us. I hope that I may conclude from what he said that it will find favour with the Government. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not find it quite as demanding as the Communications Bill.
I am an enthusiast of endowment funding and I should like to see the relevant lottery distributors do rather more of it. I entirely accept that it raises difficult issues and I have, for example, no quarrel with the points made in the various papers provided by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
My interest in this subject stems from over 25 years of involvement with the National Trust as well as on-going involvements with numerous other organisations which have charitable status. The trust has always had the policy that it had to be satisfied that there would be sufficient endowment income to cover any operating deficit on properties that it was acquiring. This policy was sometimes observed more in the breach, especially during the 1950s and 1960s. This is not the time to go into the details, but coping with those on-going property deficits, including endless and sterile arguments with the Treasury over its so-called "Treasury" properties, was during my time a very major headache.
In the 1980s and 1990s, however, life was rather better thanks in large measure to the enlightened attitude of the then new NHMF and its redoubtable chairman, Lord Charteris. But for that, it would not have been possible for the trust to have taken on any large historic houses in the 1980s or the early 1990s. However, at that time they were NHMF endowments because the Heritage Lottery Fund had not yet been established. What will happen vis-à-vis the endowment with regard to the last major recent acquisition by the National Trust at Tyntesfield, which has been heavily supported by the NHMF and, I assume, the HLF, I do not know; I am not up to date on it.
Our sister body, the National Trust for Scotland, was similarly helped. I think that I am right in saying that it benefited from one of the first major grants made by the HLF and that some of that grant went towards endowing the Mar Lodge Estate, which was what it was for.
I believe that the reasons given to justify why the NHMF/HLF—the HLF is administered by the NHMF—gave endowment grants to the two trusts was because they were to be declared inalienable. That is, of course, an important consideration, but although the right of inalienability is unique to them, in the

595
wider sense it is not a unique situation. Many other organisations acquire property of heritage quality for the long term. They, too, have operating deficits and thus could benefit from more endowment funding.
We all know of museums and galleries that get into major difficulties because of inadequate income, for whatever reasons, to cover running costs. So repairs and maintenance are skimped until surprise, surprise, some years later there is a major problem. Very often the HLF will step in with a major first-aid grant. Thank goodness it does so, but the crisis might have been avoided had there been some endowment income to ensure that an adequate annual maintenance programme was followed in the first place.
The concentration of grant-giving on capital projects—that is, one-off aiding—often means that those organisations bidding for a grant tend to underestimate the running costs consequences. After all, that is only human nature. So operating a splendid new facility, if that is what it is, may later bring an organisation to its knees, or at least cause it to wobble. A little support with running costs could make all the difference.
I am sure that the lottery fund distributors are aware of these dangers. For example, they have an excellent policy on large capital schemes involving grant-aid for professional support, thus ensuring that the project is soundly planned and budgeted and that any management weaknesses are identified. My experience suggests that this kind of preliminary support is hugely important in securing good projects. But I would also suggest that on occasion the appropriate way forward may be a judicious mix of capital and running costs support. I suspect that we tend to over-concentrate on capital projects and under-emphasise getting existing operations onto a well-founded footing.
However, we do not want—I certainly do not want—to be too prescriptive in this area. That would be quite wrong. It is therefore right that the Bill merely draws attention to endowment funding. It strikes the right balances and I hope that it will have a swift passage to the statute book.
I conclude by expressing my enormous enthusiasm and respect for the work of both the HLF and the Arts Council, the only two lottery distributors of which I have any experience. Their contribution to the quality of cultural life in this country is quite incalculable.
12.20 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the Bill, which we on these Benches wholeheartedly support, arrives against a background in this country of a culture of voluntary work; we have a considerable voluntary sector of long standing. Bearing that in mind, there is always a need for the long-term funding of projects and, in the light of that, a need for matching strategies, particularly for charities. In addition to capital grants there is a need for endowments to fulfil the projects they support.
The background to the Bill has been admirably stated by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, who, as he explained, has inherited it from two Members of another place. As
596
he said, in its present form it has had universal support. Its purpose is to enable prolonged and sustained funding for worthwhile projects. It will enable all lottery distributors—including the community fund—to give to charities in the voluntary sector to fund new endowments or to supplement those which already exist.
As has been mentioned, Section 23 of the 1993 Act specifies powers given to distributing bodies to meet expenditure, but there has been an inadequate definition of "expenditure"—or, indeed, any direct reference to the machinery of endowments. The Bill clarifies this area—in particular the term "meeting expenditure"—and how "meeting expenditure" inevitably involves the funding of endowments.
As the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, among others, said, its genesis is East Anglian. The Eastern Daily Press campaign deserves a great deal of credit for the impetus to get the Bill on to the statute book. As I understand it from reading some of the remarks that have been made already—this perhaps reflects what I said about the voluntary sector—one in seven people in Norfolk are unpaid carers. The impact of the Bill on them will be considerable.
Long-term revenue funding, which allows strategic forward planning, will benefit from the Bill. In addition, the Bill will give security to third parties who give further funding and reassure them about the existence of core funding.
There are problems with endowments—we have debated in the House the problems relating to NESTA—which, to a large extent, rely on the fluctuation of interest rates. Tying-up capital up front necessarily means that there is less money for other projects. However, bearing in mind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor—I like the phrase that this is "permissive and not obligatory"—it is in the hands of those who distribute to make the right assessment.
As to the lottery in general, there will be quite a lot said about it in this House and in another place in the coming months. There has been a foreseeable levelling off—which always happens to lotteries—after an extremely successful start in this country. However, there has been a marked dropping-off in its popularity among those who play the lottery. In my view, that is entirely due to the questionable marketing strategies of the operator rather than anything to do with well-publicised disagreements with various causes; whether they are popular or unpopular does not make a great deal of difference. It may with the public generally, but not with those who play the lottery.
This is important to the Government when they wish to introduce new causes. One of their arguments is that members of the public—especially those who play the lottery—expect that the part of the money they put into the lottery which goes to good causes should go to the ones that they like. I am not sure that I agree with that but we shall have an opportunity to discuss it in future.
The changes in the Bill are for the better. They support long-term and worthwhile funding and I am sure that the public will share that view.
12.26 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I declare a significant interest: I have been a member of the Millennium Commission for about nine years since its inception. In that time I have chaired its internal audit committee, which I still do, and I co-chair its finance committee with Lord Dalkeith.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, for introducing this Private Member's Bill, which I support. It was useful to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who is in her place, about her experience in the use of endowments, particularly in regard to those who have so far had difficulty in accessing lottery funds. The commission has identified that Afro-Caribbean communities are particularly unable to access it because of a lack of leadership and cohesion. I am sure that many other areas could be identified but perhaps this is not the day to do so.
The Millennium Commission has set up a significant endowment policy of £100 million which will, it is to be hoped, continue ad infinitum the Millennium Bursary Fund. It may be of interest to your Lordships—I think I am right in saying this; I did not look it up before entering the Chamber—that the endowment fund which was set up at the time of "Albertropolis" in the Victorian era is still running and still funding adequately. However, that does not prove that endowment funds are a panacea to all kinds of difficulties.
I have spoken to the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Walpole, about the fact that my concern lies in the detail. I have no argument with the Bill; I think it is excellent. I am delighted that it has been introduced and I am delighted to support it. However, with all due respect to my friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—I call them friends, having worked with them for a long time—there are a number of failures in the guidelines to the Bill.
There are no policy directions at all. There is room for at least one policy direction in relation to efficiency. I could name a number of other areas but it is quite clear that, so far as concerns efficiency in the use of money, there are a number of significant traps that one can fall into with lottery funds. We fell into one when setting up the millennium bursary fund with an organisation called Un Ltd. What happens is that the endowment is set up and then grant-aided by the commission. As soon as that grant has been made, everybody expects the trustees to be paying out. Setting up an endowment and organisation on that scale requires a lot of cash upfront. We decided that we should fund them, on top of the endowment, a significant sum for the first year. That at least gives them the balance. They can draw down their income from the first year of operation without committing it, so it gives them a bit of a cushion. That is a little detail, but it is the sort of issue that could usefully be covered.
There is another comment in here which I believe to be incorrect. It says under the heading "Controls over endowment funds":
"Once the recipient has the funds they are theirs forever"
598
I do not believe that to be true. It is my information that grants to endowments can be clawed back if there is a failure of contract. They can also be clawed back to enable the removal of trustees. I believe there are a number of areas in the small print which need attention.
Rather than talk about the detail, I ask the Minister if he will agree to ask his officials to have another look and spend a bit more time on the guidelines and possibly consider some policy directions on one or two key issues. I sincerely hope that the various millennium bodies are working together within the DCMS. I have spoken to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, on this matter before. I would like to feel that Mr Ian Brack could be accessed. He is the brains behind the considerable amount of work over quite a few years that the commission put into getting this endowment up and running. It is not easily done; it takes a lot of care and one needs seriously competent professional people to be involved.
The other area which needs attention is that most endowments are part of charitable trusts. They then come under the Charity Commissioners, who have their own rules and regulations as to what can be done. There is a whole area of detail and small print—quite a lot of which should be in ordinary, everyday English—which should be put in the guidelines so that bodies which wish to use lottery funds or set up endowments with lottery funds are at least aware of the hazards and the dangers.
Having said that—and noble Lords may wonder why I am standing at this Dispatch Box. having worked so long at the DCMS under the present Government—I support the Bill.
12.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I join all other speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, on bringing forward this Bill. I know it is not the first time he has brought it forward: appreciate that there were problems of legality and timing which caused difficulties before. However, I agree with those who have said they wish this Bill a speedy passage through Parliament.
The noble Lord has done very well to get such a well informed speakers' list today. We have had contributions from the New Opportunities Fund, the National Trust and the Millennium Commission, and have heard about caring and magic in Norfolk. This has been an excellent short debate. I pay tribute to those in Norfolk, particularly to the We Care 2000 appeal, which has set us out on this path.
It may be worth saying before I leave the subject of Norfolk that lottery distributing bodies have awarded grants of over £147 million to nearly 1,500 good causes in the region, including over £23 million from the community fund to charitable and voluntary sector bodies. The Millennium Trust has done marvellous work with unpaid carers who are unsung heroes and deserve our admiration and support. The Millennium

599
Trust has now awarded two grants from the community fund—the most recent for an impressive £100,000. Since 1995, the community fund has given nearly 3,000 grants worth more than £200 million for carers to enable them to provide sustained health and social care to more than 16 million disabled, frail, long-term ill and socially isolated children and adults.
The need for this Bill is the unfortunate wording of existing lottery legislation which does not refer to the power of distributors to award grants to endowment funds. I do not think that was the intention at the time, but it was drafted wrongly and the Bill will be helpful not only in clarifying the legal position of all distributing bodies to fund endowments but also in helping charities to manage their funds in a more effective way.
The Bill also fits in well with our lottery funding review. Its decision document was published last week, saying that distributors should strive to be more responsive to the needs and priorities of local communities and other users by making it easier for charities to apply for grants.
I should confirm what was said by a number of speakers—this is a permissive and not a mandatory power. It is up to lottery distributors to determine whether to choose to award grants to endowment funds. Indeed, it is up to good causes to decide whether it is the appropriate funding for which to apply. Although some distributors have, acting on our advice, awarded grants to endowment funds in the past, they have not used that power frequently. There is no evidence that they will enormously expand endowment funding in the future. We do not think they will be flooded with applications for grants, but the power should clearly be available for those occasions.
We have given an undertaking to issue guidance to distributors on the factors that need to be taken into account in awarding grants to endowment funds. Before I leave the issue of guidance, I refer to the very helpful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who has problems with some of the content of the existing draft guidance. It is only draft guidance; it is there for amendment. I hear what he says about having at least one policy direction. I certainly hear what he says about the possibilities of clawback. He kindly offered the support of Ian Brack from the Millennium Commission, who has been working in this area. I can reassure the noble Lord that my officials have already spoken to Ian Brack on this subject and will continue to do so.
One of the existing controls over these funds is that grants to permanent endowments can be made only to registered charities. So the funds fall under charity law and the Charity Commission and the Attorney-General are ultimately responsible. If there is any misappropriation or mishandling, it will be a breach of the terms and conditions set by the distributors, but there could be a criminal offence which would involve the Charity Commission. If a charity ceases to exist, charity law requires that the remaining assets are
600
applied for a similar charitable purpose and the distributors would then be involved with the Charity Commission.
There are other controls through the general principles of government accounting. lottery statute and my department's policy and financial directions to distributors. As public money, the general principles of government accounting must apply Section 26(3) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue financial directions to lottery distributors to secure the proper management and control of money paid to them, and they must comply with these. Those directions typically include giving a standard set of terms and conditions which must apply to any grant. They also cover what would happen in the event of a material change of purpose, ownership or recipient.
I hope I have reassured the House that we are not complacent about the need for controls or about our willingness to listen to further representations about the content of the guidance. It is the view of my department that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. We have also, in collaboration with the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, prepared a regulatory impact assessment, which is available in the Library.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord on bringing it forward. I believe that it will clarify the powers of all distributors to fund endowments and give them a more secure funding base for their work. I am happy to offer the support of the Government for the Bill.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, it has been a pleasure and a privilege to have been working with the Bill and its predecessors. I thank everyone who has spoken. I have been very impressed by their speeches. As the Minister said, the debate has attracted a wide range of people. I am grateful. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003
12.41 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June he approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it is a matter of regret that this legislation is not being considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The main purpose of the draft order is to authorise the balance of the 2003–04 main estimates, which is in addition to the vote on account that was approved by Parliament in February. That vote amounted to approximately 45 per cent of the total voted provision for the 2002–03 financial year, enabling funds to continue to flow to public services until the main estimates could be presented.
The main estimates reflect the allocations announced on 11th December last year in the budget for the Northern Ireland departments, and follow closely the priorities and approach adopted by the Northern Ireland Executive in developing its draft budget in September 2002. The order also authorises excess amounts amounting to £6.3 million in respect of the 2001–02 financial year. This matter has been the subject of consideration by the Public Accounts Committee and its subsequent report concluded on 19th March this year that it saw no objection to the sums being provided by excess votes.
The balance of the 2003–04 main estimates amounts to £8 billion resources and £5 billion cash. When added to the vote on account, it will take the total amount authorised for 2003–04 to £13.2 billion resources and £9.2 billion cash. Considerable detail regarding the sums sought is set out in the documents supporting the 2003–04 main estimates and the statement of excess for 2001–02. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library of the House. I shall of course be happy to respond in writing to any noble Lord who would wish to raise matters of detail. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing this order before us. It would be remiss of me not to say that it is sad that it has to be debated here. We would all have preferred that it had been debated and dealt with in Stormont. The order has been well debated by the Northern Ireland Grand Committee in the other place. I am comforted by the fact that the distribution of the budget is based on the priorities and objectives of the Northern Ireland Executive that was in being in December. Indeed, we debated some of that in this House at that time. I have little to add, except to restate the fact that it would have been a considerably happier occasion were this order not before us today, having been passed in another place. Let us hope that by this time next year everything is up and running. We can he comforted by the fact that the distribution as laid out in the order has been agreed at least in draft and in principle by the members of the Assembly Executive. I support the order.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the order. I should like to make a few comments and ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House a few questions.
The significant amounts of money being sought must lead to clear improvements in services for the people of Northern Ireland. Like the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I am also disappointed that we are having to deal with the order here, because we would all have preferred it to have been dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly, where it would have received proper scrutiny by people on the spot, who know the needs of the communities there better than we do.
602
The proposals to run services were put together by the former Northern Ireland Executive, so we welcome the continuing commitment of the Government to those proposals. There is a need to reform how priorities are set and money is spent, and I have had some small experience, as a former county councillor in a huge rural area, around reform of services to communities. I was also a former member of a health trust board. I was struck by a quotation by Mr Trimble that I picked up from the debate on the draft budget in another place in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. He said that,
"it is vital for Departments to operate more effectively and with greater efficiency, as we will have increasing difficulty in financial terms in Northern Ireland unless we change how things are done.
The Administration could look forward to the future. but without major reform there will soon be huge problems. The expansion in public expenditure in the past two to three years allowed the Northern Ireland Executive to avoid having to make any awkward choices, but that expansion will not continue into the future. There is no alternative but to find more efficient ways of using the available resources and more efficient ways of doing things".—[Official Report, Commons Northern Ireland Grand Committee, 3/7/03; col. 28.]
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House what departments are doing to demonstrate better efficiency and more effective use of significant amounts of extra money. Are proper outcomes for delivery of service established? How are day to day decisions affecting the lives of the people of Northern Ireland being made? How do departments determine their needs—is it a return to rule by civil servants?
The sooner that we can return to having an Assembly run by the people of Northern Ireland, who can determine their own future, the better it will be. In the meantime, we on these Benches support the budget order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may, from the Back Benches, take one minute of your Lordships' time and thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord President for presenting this budget. I have mixed feelings. It used to be a pleasure many years ago when I would try to present these figures to your Lordships. Can the noble and learned Lord or the department confirm a matter relating to pages 4 and 10 of the order—schedule 2 and 3? Your Lordships will see that the first department listed in the sums granted in those schedules is the Department of Agriculture and Rural 'Development. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to ensure, with all of his power and that of the Government, support for all of the measures set out in the Explanatory Memorandum. The noble and learned Lord, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, are aware of the enormous importance of agricultural support, and all the activities that are listed in the schedules, to rural life in Northern Ireland. On a matter of detail, can the noble and learned Lord ensure that the take-up of all of the development grants is at a relevant level, since the value of the grants to the rural community is especially appreciated in Northern Ireland—particularly in County Fermanagh, County Tyrone and County Londonderry. It is enormously appreciated. From my experience many years ago, I certainly know

603
the department's efficiency in spending that money and above all in ensuring that the value for money achieved is of the highest order.
Perhaps on another day and outside your Lordships' House one might be able to have a word or two with Mr Trimble. However, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord President and to your Lordships for allowing me one minute.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who have spoken. If I may, I will deal first with the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on agriculture. He is quite right in stressing the critical, central importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy, which I think is very often overlooked by those of us—I am not looking at the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—who do not live in Northern Ireland.
I can, I think, give some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. A very significant part of the DARD estimate will in fact directly benefit farmers. Some £173 million is for subsidy payments direct to farmers under the CAP, a very substantial sum in the context that we are discussing. There is also, to take up his other point, £13 million for agri-environmental schemes. In the "Resources Other Current" section, there is an allocation of £22 million for animal disease compensation and £18 million for agri-environmental schemes. So I think that I am able to please even a chartered accountant, which is a first for me.
As regards the general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I could not agree more. I do hope that I shall not be in this position next year. I think that that is the very firm view of all sections of this House.
On the noble Baroness's specific questions, she quite rightly deals with the question of reform of spending plans. I am happy to be able to assure her that every Northern Ireland department has produced and published a reform plan for service improvement; she is quite right. So it is not in fact rule by civil servants. Of course more Ministers from the House of Commons have been active and engaged on Northern Ireland affairs since the Assembly was unfortunately suspended. The noble Baroness also specifically mentioned outcomes. There will be performance targets in the form of public service agreements. So it is another significant advance.
Obviously we would prefer that the day-to-day decisions were made by the Executive and the Assembly, but I think that we are moving forward in the direction which the noble Baroness indicated. I am grateful for her questions because they have given me the opportunity to give that public reassurance. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2003
12.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, every year an annual canvass is conducted to ascertain those entitled to vote in Northern Ireland. These regulations, if your Lordships agree, will prescribe a new form of words to the annual canvass form which allows for the addition of prospective electors as a result of the Treaty of Athens introducing the 10 new states into the EU which comes into force on 1st May 2004. That means that citizens of those states who are resident and qualified to vote in Northern Ireland may be registered as voters in local government elections.
The regulations introduce a new form of words relating to the two forms of register—the full and the edited—including the possibility of applying to be excluded from the edited register. The opportunity has been taken to improve the layout of the canvass form: we hope to make it clearer and easier to understand. There had been some criticism of the previous layout. Your Lordships will have seen that, later in today's proceedings, separate regulations are being introduced for England and Wales and Scotland. Also being introduced separately, as a UK-wide measure, are franchise regulations which allow citizens of acceding states to register prior to 1st May when those states, as I said, formally join the EU. They will then be on the register and able to vote in the European elections in 2004. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord President for bringing this order forward. I took a moment or two to read some of the Hansard reports of the consideration of the draft regulations in another place, in the Eighth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. I am going to be a little naughty, my Lords. I picked up in the report that Lady Hermon, in col. 005, was taking quite a lot of kudos for another place for having improved the legislation as regards electoral fraud. I feel that the noble and learned Lord the Minister and Leader of this House, along with your Lordships, played an equally if not greater part in improving that legislation. I am not very often competitive with another place, but I feel on this occasion that it is perhaps worth while putting a marker down. I hope that your Lordships will agree.
As for Lady Hermon's complaints and suggestions that the electoral registration form was hard to read and so on, I have a copy in front of me—I thank

605
officials for giving it to me this morning—and it does seem to me to be a pretty clear document. I have little or no hesitation at all in supporting the order.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, the order is obviously necessary and therefore welcome. We understand the need to make provision for citizens of the European Union accession states to be on the register in anticipation of their membership of the European Union. They will then be entitled to vote in local and European elections. Like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I find the form rather simple. I think that it is rather a better form than the one that we used to have and rather better than those which for many years confronted those of us who work in the electoral process. I think that this issue is of considerable importance. The form must be simple if the register is to be accurate.
I also welcome some of the innovations on the form, in particular that there is now to be an opportunity to register to vote without having one's address so widely published. This extra element of discretion is very important in a small number of cases, perhaps where there has been an issue of domestic violence or someone is seeking to avoid an abusive partner. People in such cases will not wish to lose their right to vote but wish to preserve some discretion in the number of those who know where they live. However, I also believe that the form is effective in not encouraging the wholesale withdrawal of names and addresses. I believe that it is phrased just right. It shows that the option exists for those who do not wish to be in the main published register. However, it is still legitimate for many organisations other than political parties to approach people after obtaining their name and address, which they often find in the voting register. From our side, this order is wholly welcome.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful. In particular, I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Northern Ireland is a small community and one needs to have the appropriate balance between a safeguard of the individual in some of the circumstances the noble Lord identified and the wider public interest in knowing in a transparent way about how elections are conducted. As for the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that he was going to be a bit naughty, he and I are, I think, content to look for our reward hereafter if not necessarily in this world. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003
12.58 p.m.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th June be approved [22nd Report from, the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall speak both to this order and to the Scottish order. Such economy may be of assistance to the House.
The purpose of the regulations, as I expect has already been well covered under the Northern Ireland regulations by my noble and learned friend the Lord President, is essentially to prescribe the form which electoral registration officers should use for the annual canvass of electors which takes place each autumn. The regulations are necessary to ensure that we fulfil our obligations in relation to the voting rights of citizens of member states of the EU who are resident here. These directives give nationals of member states of the European Union the right to vote and stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in local elections. As the House knows. 10 new states are expected to join the European Union on 1st May 2004. We need therefore to ensure that citizens of those states who live here are able to benefit from these voting rights provisions.
The regulations we are considering prescribe a new form of canvass for the annual canvass which allows nationals of accession states who live here to be added to the electoral register. Because the accession states do not formally join the EU until 1st May 2004. there would be no time under the current law to enable nationals of those states to be registered as electors between then and the date of the election, on 10th June 2004. Of course, had the timing been different—for instance, if the states had acceded on 1st September this year—then these regulations would not have been needed.
Citizens of accession states would have been entitled, as full EU members, to register in the same way as French and German citizens can do now. As it is, however, given the timing, special provision is needed to permit their names to he included on the register in advance of membership. So should—as we expect—the member states accede by 1st May, those people would then be in a position, if they were resident here and had registered, to vote in the local elections. We have already provided a legal framework to allow for this in regulations that came into force for the whole of the United Kingdom on 9th July 2003, and those regulations modified the current legislation for this purpose.
We believe that the regulations are fully compatible with the ECHR and the canvass form itself is largely based on the existing form and is, I hope, self-explanatory. The regulations ensure that we are fulfilling our obligations to citizens of accession states who live here by allowing them to register so that they can vote after their countries accede on 1st May 2004. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as with the previous regulations relating to Northern Ireland, which fall within the same scope, we fully support these proposals.

607
A couple of questions arise. Based on previous experience of the registration of European nationals, is there any idea of the percentage of people who sign up for registration? The general experience of those who go round canvassing at elections is that, on the whole, ignorance is sublime for anyone from another state within the European Union. More often than not, such people are not signed up and do not know that they can vote, particularly as regards local elections; and they are dubious as to whether they can vote in European elections.
While the registration form is fine, the promotional material to encourage people to enter their names on the register is very poor. That follows on from the general feeling that the canvass for registration does not always scoop all the problems. I know that most local authorities make big efforts to ensure that people are on the electoral register, but sometimes an even greater effort is required. Does the Minister have an idea of the level of turnout or representation for those from other EU states; and what extra efforts can be made, particularly in regard to some of the accession countries, where people will be new to the European Union and to democracy in the way that we understand it? What efforts will be made to encourage them to put their names on the voting register? Those remarks apply to the regulations for England and Wales and for Scotland. I shall not speak to the Scottish order.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, again, the regulations are obviously necessary, and therefore welcome. I, too, think that the registration forms are relatively simple; and that helps the process. Comparing the form with that for Northern Ireland leads me to look forward to a time when, having moved to individual registration in England, Scotland and Wales, which already exists in Northern Ireland, perhaps before too long we shall move to a point where the registration process can be completed entirely over the Internet as opposed to having paper-based systems. But that is for the future.
I have one technical question on the process. I am wondering how those with access to the voting register would know from the register whether people are from EU accession states. Will that be marked in some way? We should be wrong to treat them as being on a list of voters perhaps even before their country's accession is complete. Their names will appear on the electoral register as though they are entitled to vote, but perhaps the member state will not yet have joined the Union. Will the entries on the register be coded in some way; and, if so, could that be on a national basis, so that for each register the basis on which such people were included could be readily understood?
I should not, for example, like to see nationalities coded on the register. That could be quite dangerous. But the situation will be different for each of the accession states. I wonder how that might be indicated if, for example, a Hungarian citizen was on the register in anticipation of entitlement to vote in local and European elections and a local election occurred before Hungary joined the European Union. How
608
should we then know whether the person was entitled to vote? I should be grateful if the Minister would address that issue.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the Front Benches opposite for their support for the regulations. It is appreciated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked whether we knew the percentage of people who sign up. The short answer is no. One clearly has some understanding of the number who do sign up; the problem is knowing exactly who is on the base. I suppose that the census may start to give us some indication of that in that it asks people to declare their country of origin, which might be a pointer. Let me reflect on whether there is anything further that we can add to that.
The thrust of the noble Baroness's question was important; namely, how we try to ensure that people who are eligible to vote actually register, and actually vote. Every household will receive a form explaining what EU citizens should do. We must make sure, in addition, that it is explicit as regards potential future citizens of member states of the EU, not merely the current ones. In addition, the Electoral Commission will be publicising the new right for citizens of accession states as part of its publicity processes.
On the wider level, that is part of the responsibilities that one would expect electoral registration officers to have particularly in mind this year in terms of how they seek to obtain a full register, and to promote the importance of registering and voting. I agree with the noble Baroness on that point.
The question of electronic registration raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is an important one for the future. It is part of our general thrust that we should move towards allowing electronic access to government functions as far as possible. I shall reflect as to what extent that is the current plan and write to the noble Lord if that is of interest to him.
As regards the issue of the full register, as the noble Lord well knows, the full register is available only to political parties and only within the confines of their work for canvassing and not for divulging wider than that. Clearly, the full register has in some way to carry an indication that the person is from an accession state; otherwise, the electoral registration officer will not be in a position to identify who is not, should he need to act on that. I should expect that the entry would not divulge a person's full nationality, but I do not know. I shall see whether we can be specific on that point and shall write to the noble Lord. I take his point. I am certain that it would not be possible to identify on the public register that someone was, for example, a Pole. Without being too prone to fears about xenophobia, one would have some worries about that.
With regard to the noble Lord's final question, if country X did not join the European Union and complete all the processes by 1st May, there is a facility in place for the Government to inform electoral registration officers formally of that fact and for them

609
to be able to delete names from the register of those eligible to vote in the June local government elections so that they are not eligible voters. That has been planned for, as the House would expect. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland) Regulations 2003
1.7 p.m.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have covered what I wish to say on these regulations in my previous remarks. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the Management of Crown Lands) Order 2003
1.8 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to correct an error made in an order in 1998. I am satisfied that the draft order is compatible with convention rights.
The draft order is made under Section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which allows a Minister to authorise another person to exercise the Minister's statutory responsibilities. The responsibilities are those of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for the management of the historic Royal Palaces and Royal Parks.
The draft order extends authorisation approved by your Lordships' House in the Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the Management of Crown Lands) Order 1998. The 1998 order allowed the Secretary of State to contract with the Historic Royal Palaces Trust to manage the Historic Royal Palaces. I can assure the House that this draft order does not allow the contracting out of additional responsibilities. It puts right an error, made at the time of the 1998 order, which only recently came to light.
The draft order allows the Secretary of State to contract out the responsibilities for the management of Hampton Court gardens, green and road and Hampton Court park and Kensington Gardens. The 1998 order authorised the contracting out of responsibilities under Section 21 of the Crown Lands Act 1851. Unfortunately, powers to manage the gardens, green and park at Hampton Court and Kensington Gardens are contained in Section 22 of the
610
1851 Act. The 1998 order should have made reference to Sections 21 and 22 of the 1851 Act, and the draft order will put right that error.
The Secretary of State entered into a contract with the Historic Royal Palaces Trust on 1st April 1998 whereby the charity would manage all the unoccupied Royal Palaces, including the gardens, green and park at Hampton Court. I can confirm to the House that the 1998 arrangements work very well. The right decision was made in 1998 to pass day-to-day management of the unoccupied palace to a body of expert and experienced trustees. The unoccupied Royal Palaces have been maintained and presented to the highest standards, consistent with their status and architectural and historic importance.
The visitor experience has been further enhanced by several improvements and innovations with absolutely no compromise on standards and no over-commercialisation. Since 1998, HRP has invested £41 million in the conservation of the palaces and their contents. The state of conservation is better than at any time in the past. This success is due to the commitment of the trustees and a very dedicated staff.
Therefore, the draft order does no more than put right an administrative error made in 1998. It confirms Parliament's authorisation for the Secretary of State to contract with HRP to manage the gardens, green and park at Hampton Court and parts of Kensington Gardens which are currently looked after by HRP. HRP will continue to manage and present those areas to the highest standards. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the (louse on 11th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. It seems just a little careless to have ignored places such as Hampton Court and Kensington Gardens—I declare an interest as living very close to Kensington Gardens—when the original order was made. However, the order begs one or two questions, and I should be grateful if the Minister could answer them for me.
I am not certain what is the base of the contracting arrangements. Presumably, there are financial implications in these contracts and arrangements. Therefore, was the extra work involved in including Hampton Court and Kensington Gardens taken into account in the original contract or is it additional? And, consequently, does recompense need to be made to the trust for the years when it carried out that work, apparently without either contractual or, indeed, monetary liabilities?
Secondly, was the contract ultra vires in terms of the properties that we have mentioned? If the work was carried out without a contract, what is the legal position?

611
Thirdly, what is the length of the contract? Is it now a perpetual contract, devolved by the Minister to the trust, or will these properties fall within a certain time period for the duration of the contract? I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to those points.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall not take up too much of the House's time on this issue. It is rather reassuring to hear that the Government can make this degree of mistake. I feel rather more relaxed about all the drafting errors that I have made when tabling amendments. However, does the order mean that, not only has the work been done, which I took to be the situation, but that it will now be done on a proper legal basis? And has it been assured for the future? Those are the only questions that I believe are relevant following the very good introductory set of questions put forward by the noble Baroness. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance because, if the answer to my questions is "yes", I do not believe that there will be anything else to worry about.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the answer to the first question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is that there is no recompense to the trust and HRP is not asking for any recompense. The question whether the arrangement was ultra vires was raised when the order was spoken to in another place. The answer was that it is not and there is absolutely no problem in that respect. Finally, this matter has now been devolved by the Minister to the trust and there is no time limit.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the assurance that he seeks. If this is the only mistake that the Government have made in the past two years, that is absolutely brilliant.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have a further question to ask out of pure ignorance. Is it correct that the historic buildings trust was set up in order to take on these properties? Otherwise, "contracting out" would be rather an odd term to use if the matter were devolved. Possibly the body is now legitimately responsible for all those properties. The second question arising from that is whether there is then never any need to re-contract or re-tender.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, with regard to her first question, the noble Baroness is right. The body was set up for this specific purpose. There is a maximum 10-year limit to contract under a contracting-out order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority Elections (Election Addresses) Order 2003
1.18 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker. The purpose of the order is to provide London's voters with information which will help them to make an informed choice at future GLA elections. It entitles candidates at future London mayoral elections to have an election address included in a booklet, which will be delivered to every elector in London. The order seeks to achieve that in a way that is fair to candidates and cost-effective for taxpayers.
Noble Lords will remember that the issue of a free mailshot was a topic of some controversy in the run-up to the first GLA elections. At that time, the Government listened to the arguments of noble Lords and amended the Greater London Authority Act to provide, at the first GLA elections, for the publication and free delivery of a booklet containing election addresses prepared by the mayoral candidates. Parliament also provided an order-making power for the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the publication and delivery of candidates' election addresses at future GLA elections. This new order exercises that power.
As noble Lords will have seen from the draft order, the proposed arrangements for future ordinary GLA elections are largely a repeat of those that were made for the first elections. I shall begin by running through those parts of the proposals that are the same as for the 2000 elections.
As before, each mayoral candidate will be entitled to have an election address included in a booklet that will be produced by the Greater London returning officer and delivered to every elector in Greater London. If there are 15 or fewer mayoral candidates, each will be entitled to an election address covering up to two A5 sides, but if there are 16 or more candidates that drops to one A5 side each. As at the first election, a candidate's election address can contain only information relating to the election. Candidates may not include advertising, material included with a view to commercial gain, or any indecent, offensive or obscene material. Nor will they be able to include material which, if published, would be contrary to the criminal law. Finally, the election addresses must comply with the necessary printing requirements. But within those basic requirements candidates have a good deal of freedom to design their election addresses as they wish.
As before, the Greater London returning officer must exclude from the booklet any election addresses that do not comply with the rules on content or form and any addresses that come from candidates who have not made their contribution towards printing costs. That brings me on to costs.
The funding arrangements are also the same as in 2000. Each mayoral candidate wishing to have an address included will have to contribute £10,000 towards the costs of printing the booklet. It is very unlikely that those contributions will exceed the total printing costs of the booklet, but if there is a surplus the Greater London returning officer has to divide the

613
excess equally between the candidates and return it to them. Delivery of the booklet will be free to candidates; it will be at the GLA's expense.
It is too early yet for the Greater London returning officer to be able to make firm estimates of the costs to the GLA of printing and delivering the booklet for the 2004 GLA elections. But his current estimate is that the total cost will be about £1.3 million, which is the same amount as the Government spent on the booklet in 2000. The estimate breaks down as a GLA spend of around £600,000 on publication and £700,000 on delivery. As I have said, those arrangements are largely the same as the ones that were made for the 2000 election. However, there are a few updates and changes to the arrangements, and it may help if I explain those in turn.
The first update will give consistency between the provisions and the arrangements that have been made for election addresses at local mayoral elections. The draft order says that mayoral candidates must not include in their election addresses material referring to other candidates. That prohibition is intended to ensure that candidates use the election address for its proper purpose—to promote themselves as candidates. It should not stop candidates from referring in their election addresses to political parties or to particular policies or issues.
There are also two changes that arise from recommendations made by the Electoral Commission. In the 2000 booklet, candidates' election addresses appeared in alphabetical order by surname. The commission has expressed a concern that candidates with surnames at the beginning of the alphabet may benefit unfairly from that and so the order provides that, in future, election addresses should appear in an order determined by lot.
Secondly, we considered carefully whether future election booklets should include election addresses from Assembly as well as mayoral candidates. There are so many Assembly candidates—there were 222 in the 2000 election—that including them all would make the booklet very lengthy and rather impractical for voters to read. It would also be more complicated and expensive for the Greater London returning officer to produce.
However, we accept that voters may find it useful to receive some information about Assembly candidates. For that reason we are taking forward an alternative approach, which was suggested by the Electoral Commission. Unlike the first booklet, future election address booklets will have to include lists of the names, constituency and candidate descriptions for all of the candidates for the Greater London Assembly. It will also include a list of all the mayoral candidates, including anyone who does not have an election address in the booklet.
The final update reflects changes to the postal market that were brought about in the Postal Services Act 2000. At the 2000 elections the booklet had to be delivered by the Post Office, and so had to comply with the Post Office regulations governing indecent, obscene and offensive material. However, the new
614
order allows for delivery of the booklet by organisations other than the Post Office and the responsibility for vetting the booklet is transferred to the Greater London returning officer.
Finally, I can confirm that, in my view, the provisions of the order are compatible with convention rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. As I have explained, the order simply repeats and, where necessary, updates the arrangements that were made for the election addresses at the first GLA elections. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I had thought that I would simply thank the Minister and sit down because, as the Minister says, the order covers exactly what Parliament, in this House, decreed for the Greater London Assembly last time. However, what had escaped me was the nonsense—if I may so suggest—about listing the candidates according to some kind of lottery. I cannot understand the Electoral Commission's reasoning for that. If it is thought that people will read only the names beginning with the letter A and that they will not read through to the Ws, they will not fiddle around through a booklet trying to find the one candidate about whom they want to read who is buried somewhere in the middle with no direction as to where. I find that extraordinarily curious.
Arising from that, will the Assembly members, who will appear at the back, be listed in alphabetical order or will names be taken out of a bran tub to decide in which order they should appear? I really believe that the Minister should employ some common sense and suggest to the Electoral Commission that it rethinks that point.
My second question arises from whose imprint is on this publication. Does each candidate have to have an imprint or is it presumed that it is printed and published by the Greater London returning officer? The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, will probably be able to answer that in a flash. It must concern election expenses and how they are allocated. Half of this is paid for by the candidates, but a great deal of it is paid for by the council taxpayers in London. It is an academic question, but I would be interested in the answer.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, I could not let this occasion pass without referring to the great battle in this Chamber four years ago on the issue of Greater London mayoral candidates and their election addresses. It was interesting to hear the Minister advocating the case for the booklet and the importance of the communication, against which, four years ago, some of his predecessors fought long and hard. I was particularly interested in his observation that four years ago the cost of the operation was approximately £1.3 million, against the estimate for this time around.

615
His predecessors suggested to me then that it would cost about £28 million. I feel somewhat vindicated by what he has said.
I note that the Minister in another place spoke of how the Government had listened to the arguments of your Lordships. I recall that they listened rather more to the assertion made by myself and the late Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish that, if the Government would not allow the candidates to use Freepost, we would hold up the elections. We felt that it was an important issue for democracy that the communication was made by the candidates directly to the voters. So I very much welcome this order and that we are again pursuing the agreement that we made four years ago. In particular, I welcome the fact that we are retaining the feature that it will be delivered to each individual elector in London—some of us felt that that was very necessary four years ago—rather than it being delivered one per household. We know of so many houses in London with multi-occupation that it would be quite inadequate simply to address one to each household.
The method of delivery is important and requires a little more scrutiny. I assume that the GLRO—the Greater London Returning Officer—will be required to ensure that delivery by any organisation other than the Post Office would at least be to a standard that we would expect from the Post Office. Those with experience of delivery by commercial organisations will know that those organisations often fall far short of the standards expected of the Post Office and, very regrettably for our democracy, the Post Office itself has often fallen far short of what we would expect as regards its responsibilities in delivering election addresses.
On the issue of accessibility of election addresses, I particularly welcome the provision that the GLRO "may" make these available in Braille, large type or audio versions. Others have argued that this "must" be the case rather than "may". I see, however, some practical difficulties in relation just to the booklet and suggest that there are other ways that this might be done to the same effect rather better. There could be one or two A5 pages within the booklet with a number of photographs. Perhaps the candidate may prefer to have five photographs and few words, but translated into Braille that would look as though they had little to say. Other candidates may prefer to have many words and few photographs. Similar issues arise in relation to large type and audio versions.
All political parties by way of good practice for all elections should make versions of their election addresses and manifestos available in Braille, large type and audio. My suggestion is—and I hope the order may allow this—that the GLRO should say that, rather than simply being confined to making the A5 versions available in Braille, large type or audio, perhaps a prescribed form of words—say 200 words—which might fill the average A5 sheet, should be made available by each candidate which could then be made available in Braille and large type. Each candidate would be invited to make perhaps a 30 seconds or a one-minute contribution on audio tape that could be
616
made generally available. That would be a more effective way of making the messages more accessible than simply saying that the election addresses may be provided by the GLRO in this way.
I sound a small note of regret on the booklet. Four years ago we reached a compromise to say that this would be available for the mayoral candidates but not for the candidates for the Greater London Assembly. That is regrettable when we consider that in the Scottish Parliament and in the Welsh Assembly each of the candidates for the list and for the individual constituencies is entitled to rather more than this booklet—indeed to equivalent election entitlements as were afforded to candidates to the Westminster Parliament. Therefore, I think that in future we should think of doing that.
I note that the Government have said in response to consultation, that there may be 200 candidates for the GLA and that the addresses could not be covered in one booklet. However, it seems to me that in this day and age 14 editions of a booklet could be produced allowing candidates for an individual assembly area to have their say. Perhaps the candidates at the top of the list should be featured with rather more prominence than simply being listed with their parties.
We are all concerned with diminishing turnouts in elections. Making more information available of this nature would be good in partially addressing the problem of lack of voter information, leading to such poor turnouts. It is a particularly welcome and excellent idea that the booklet may be on the Internet. I hope that that will become the form for many more of these things in the future. If we were to extend the facility to the candidates for the Greater London Assembly it may also be a cheap way for them to gain a little more publicity. They will not have as much as an A5 sheet themselves, but a small number of words and a reference to a website which they themselves establish would at least enable some voters to gain more information about them.
I raise an issue as perhaps a suggestion for the GLRO, who no doubt will read the debate in due course. It seems to me that this is a matter for his discretion. A way to save costs on this operation would be for delivery of the booklets to be combined with the delivery of the poll card for the election. I have made that suggestion a number of times. I think it would be a considerable saving to the public purse and a more efficient way of ensuring the distribution of these booklets. Perhaps the poll card could be printed in such a size that the voter's name and address appears in the window of an envelope and the booklet is enclosed in that envelope. Such a facility would produce a net saving.
On the issue of references to other candidates, it seems to me that not just in London—where perhaps we might say that the incumbent mayoral candidate may be a person of some controversy—but in almost any election, a candidate may seek to try and make his case by drawing a contrast with incumbents or with other candidates. It unduly restricts a political process to deny a candidate the opportunity to refer to any other candidate.

617
The Minister said that of course candidates could refer to particular policies and issues. But some of these policies and issues are known to be those of particular candidates. It seems to be very difficult to say that a candidate could not, for example say, "I think the Mayor is wrong on his policy on a particular issue", or perhaps Simon Hughes, for example, might say, "I think the choice is between myself, Simon Hughes, and Ken Livingstone, the incumbent mayor". I cannot see why we should be so restrictive in this booklet when we are not in other candidate election addresses. It would be healthy for the debate if candidates were able to do that.
On a very technical issue, of course someone may be a candidate for the assembly and a candidate for the mayor. As I read the current regulations, a mayoral candidate producing the booklet could not refer to himself if he was also standing for the assembly, as a number of candidates did on the previous occasion. So I think that perhaps there is a case for looking again at this over-prescriptive rule about the election addresses.
Finally—and without wishing to pre-empt the role of the Minister—the noble Baroness asked questions about the imprint and the cost. As with the last time around, the £10,000 costs would have to appear in the individual's electoral expense returns. Imprint legislation has changed in the past four years. But, as in 1999, each candidate's agent would have to have a statement on his own individual item, accepting responsibility for that in order to protect the GLRO in case perhaps there was something defamatory contained within it. It may be perfectly acceptable for the GLRO to act as the publisher for the entire booklet, but he or she would be wise to insist that each candidate had his own publisher for each part of the publication. I am grateful to the Minister for his contribution and I look forward to his responses on a number of these issues.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, does not like the fact that the candidates will not be listed in alphabetic order, but will be taken by lot. It reminds me of when I was a publisher. We would sometimes leave out the index of a hook in the hope that people would read the entire book rather than looking themselves or their friends up in the index. I am afraid that it did not really work.
It may be of help if I read out what the Electoral Commission said on this matter. It said:
618
"Our concern about alphabetical ordering of the election addresses is that there may be some benefit that accrues to those candidates happening to appear earlier in the booklet by virtue of their surname. This could arise for example where an undecided elector is not motivated to read through all the election addresses and merely reads through the first few. Accordingly, we would recommend that the amendment of draft article 8.1 to provide for the order of the election addresses be determined by lot, drawn by the returning officer as soon as reasonably practicable after the close of nominations".
I can see from the expression on the face of the noble Baroness that she is not convinced by the argument, but that is the reason why it is being done.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, is that going to be the same with the ballot paper?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, no, it is not.
I move to a number of issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. First, many of his points were of great interest, but they were directed, as he said, to the Greater London Returning Officer. We will make sure that he quickly has a copy of Hansard to read, because he may wish to consider these points.
The noble Lord made an important point about postal delivery. We absolutely agree with him about the importance of entirely reliable, brilliant delivery systems. I assure him that we would not go to anyone who could not guarantee a service as reliable and effective as the Post Office.
He also raised the question of Braille and large print. It will be for candidates to choose the content of their addresses and how that may be rendered in Braille and large print, if they wish. The GLRO does not determine content but facilitates its reproduction and distribution. The noble Lord did not ask what happens if the candidate wants to write in a language other than English, as he may in one or two boroughs. Again, that is entirely up to the candidate, who may have English and another language.
He made a point about references to other candidates. There is an argument on his side and one on the other side. Perhaps the candidate should determine himself or herself to the public by what he or she stands for, rather than by saying that he or she does not like what another candidate stands for. That is how it will be.
The noble Lord raised a number of interesting points that we shall draw to the attention of the GLRO. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before two o'clock.

  The Lord Chancellor: Car Park Spaces
  The Lord Chancellor: Car Park Spaces
  Customs and Excise: Review of Current Practices
  Customs and Excise: Review of Current Practices
  Gender Recognition: Draft Bill
  Gender Recognition: Draft Bill
  St George's Hospital Medical School: Funding
  St George's Hospital Medical School: Funding
  Department of Health: Annual Report 2003
  Department of Health: Annual Report 2003
  Population Projections
  Population Projections
  World War Debts to US
  World War Debts to US
  Hyde Park: Closure of Albert Gate
  Hyde Park: Closure of Albert Gate
  Railways: Bi-directional Working
  Railways: Bi-directional Working